Borys is right about UE3. Don't blame the engine because your budget hardware can't run it well.
On the PC, UE3 games have no problems running on both Ati and Nvidia cards from the last 3 yrs. UE3 runs like ass on the PS3 because it has a low end RSX and complicated CPU that delivers mundane performance.
3 years is a bit of a stretch. Newest $200 cards have no problems running UE3 games in 1920x1080p with AA enabled. Now that's some power.
Actually, UE3 games don't necessarily run as well with AA enabled. UE3 games only support AA when a DX10 path is available. Bioshock and Gears both have this for certain (probably UT3 as well), but a lot of games do not. Stranglehold, for instance, will NOT support AA of any kind no matter what you may try. It just doesn't work. This holds true for quite a few UE3 games as well (I believe Mass Effect does not support AA).
If you actually DO use the DX10 path with AA, performance takes a hit. At 1920x1080, benchmarks will show that performance does take a hit when AA is enabled even on a very high-end machine. It's not as cut and dry as you make it seem. It should also be noted that some UE3 games run significantly worse than others. All of this involves fairly good hardware, rather than older, cheaper cards. I'm running a mid-range rig, though, and I know that all of the UE3 games I've tested have no problems running at 60 fps in 1080p but performance dips in DX10 mode with AA enabled. From what I've read, this is the case for most cards up until you get into really high-end SLI territory.
As you say, 3 years is also a stretch. Cheaper, older cards will run UE3 games, but they will not do it well. You can achieve playable framerates, but it won't be 60 fps and AA is right out (especially considering that the DX10 rendering path is required for it).
Also, it should be noted that UE3 does not "run like ass" on PS3 hardware. The hardware IS low-end next to modern PC hardware (thanks to the shitty ass RSX), but the version of UE3 Epic created for UT3 is very nicely optimized. UT3 was capable of running at 60 fps on PS3, you know, and was shown doing so many times. It was only locked down at 30 fps in order to allow for the most complex games with the highest number of enemies to run at a smooth framerate. Games based on this build of UE3 will all run well on PS3. It's the stuff based on code ported from 360 by 3rd parties that suck. Epic knew what they were doing, but most others did not. Many of the games released around that time framerate were based on older code.
Regarding the AA issue again, I'm disappointed by the number of PC titles that no longer support it properly. Crysis does not, UE3 games tend not to, even Bionic Commando Rearmed doesn't. It's becoming far too common and it's a damn shame considering that was always a nice advantage the PC had.
Epic shouldn't have been marketing UE3 as an engine that was going to give equal performance across Xbox 360 and PS3. It obviously didn't.
It DOES, though. The issue is, PS3 was released a year later and UE3 was a year behind on PS3. XBOX360 was launched in 2005 and UE3 was fully optimized for it through Gears of War in 2006. PS3 was a 2006 machine while Epic optimized UE3 for PS3 through UT3. Due to the fact that games were already well underway before UT3 was complete, many companies attempted their own shitty ports of UE3 for PS3. The results speak for themselves. Games that are based upon Epic's UT3 work will benefit GREATLY, however. I thought this was common sense.
The PS3 has issues, we all know that, but it is certainly capable of handling UE3 smoothly. Your throwing logic out the window with your blanket statement.
Many of the upcoming UE3 games are running great on PS3. Mirror's Edge, for instance, was demonstrated live on PS3 at E3 and it ran great! Bioshock also looks just fine. Of course, Epic's own UT3 was no better on 360 despite more development time. There haven't even been that many UE3 games on PS3. Of the ones released, only Turok and Area 51 were actually AWFUL ports.
