 |
Re: Blade (Unregistered) - 2007-05-16
|
|
 
|
» loltoyoutooidiot
If that wear the case. But the fact remains that the 360 is holding the PS3 back because of cross platform development. First party games already show this.
|
Re: Yawn (Unregistered) - 2007-05-16
|
|
|
» NO Blade
That's completely wrong.
As we saw last gen, the strongest format usually got the best version of multiformat games. Usually that format was the XBox, or if available, the PC.
The weaker formats HELD THEMSELVES BACK! In otherwords, it was the PS2 and GC which tended to have worse looking textures, worse framerate, less polygons, worse lighting etc, compared to the XBox version.
Was the XBox held back because of the PS2 and GC? NO! Was the PC version held back because of the weaker consoles? No! Yes they *may* have pushed the game further was an exclusive, but for multiformat games, the XBox and PC showed they were was more powerful.
The only time you see a bad example of one format effecting another is with quick ports. But a port is not the same a game being simultaneously developed for multiple formats.
So this idea that the 360 is holding the PS3 back is complete nonsense. The PS3 should be getting the best looking and best performing versions of multiformat games if it were as powerful as some gamers believe. However, if you believe the multiformat devs who say the two consoles are similar in terms of power, then the simularities between games on 360 and PS3 actually makes sense (unless you're in denial that is).
|
Re: Yawn (Unregistered) - 2007-05-16
|
|
|
» I forgot to add...
If you're saying the PS3 is being held back on the basis that the games are not exclusive to the PS3, then the same can be argued in favour of the 360, i.e. the PS3 is holding the 360 back because of cross platform developement.
Hence that's nothing new, that's just the way it is with multformat games. However, it's not always the case that exclusives are better than their multiformat counterparts. Exclusivity only offers the potential for devs to do more with the hardware. A challenge which not all devs can rise to.
|
Re: SummerGamer (Unregistered) - 2007-05-17
|
|
|
» Exactly 'Yawn'
"The weaker formats HELD THEMSELVES BACK! In otherwords, it was the PS2 and GC which tended to have worse looking textures, worse framerate, less polygons, worse lighting etc"
That's right.
PS3 games are not being held back because of the 360, that's just one of a long line of excuses coming from those who refuse to admit that the 360 and PS3 are roughly equal in power. To put it another way, the PS3 is being held back by the 360 as much as the 360 is being held back by the PS3 for cross platform games!
If the PS3 version of a game is not as good as some hope, that's due mostly to game design, the talent and experience of the devs and the limitations of the hardware. It not because of the 360.
For example, before launch, SO many gamers here assumed that Blu-ray's capacity automatically meant higher resolution textures in PS3 games compared to the 360, when it didn't, because storage is only ONE part of a long process of getting graphics onto the screen. So when they see identical textures in
a 360/PS3 game today, they blame it on the 360, despite the fact that last gen the GC and PS2 usually had the worse textures whilst the XBox and PC usually had the best in cross platform games (of course, lazy ports are a different matter!).
It's true that cross platform development means some compromises have to be made, but that effects ALL the platforms involved, not just one.
So to summarise, compromises are going to effect the weakest console much more than they effect the strongest, resulting in a poorer version of the game on THAT machine. So it's no point blaming the 360 console for PS3 cross platform games that fall short of overly high expectations.
Ok, I said enough now.... :)
