Is the graphics war over?! My PS3 says YES!

[quote name='whoknows']My Wii says different.

It's not about graphics, it's about INNOVATION and FUN!

The PS3 is neither of those.[/QUOTE]

Funny. I tell people that exact same thing about the wii. The wii is like that inlaw everyone likes at first but starts to hate more and more as time goes on. After a while you're thinking "MOTHER fuckER. GET THAT fuckER AWAY FROM ME. LORD STRIKE IT DOWN. MAKE IT DISAPPEAR. GET THE fuck AWAY FROM ME." That's the wii right there.
 
[quote name='Aleman']
And all you people talking about x% of power being used do not understand software development. You can write one line of code that takes 100% CPU usage. That's why getting the most out of a given console requires clever developers.[/QUOTE]

this?
while(0x1);

That maybe true on a single core system, but not on a multi-core, you would need to encapsulate the above LOC to be spun off in a thread. And to be honest the either the compiler or branch predictor would just optimize that LOC right out.

On a ps3 it is even harder, as multi-core != multi-SPU. I am not going to go into details here, but launching something on an SPU is a much more involved process than spinning a thread. Even at compile and launch time there are extra steps.

So far your point is still valid though, theoretically you could write trivial code to max out all cores or spu's.

In reality, why it is hard to max out he cell is not because it is so fast it is hard find shit for it to do, but because of how it does it. It is pretty restrictive in how it access/shares data amongst the CPU and SPU's. You have to very carefully organize your flow to take advantage of the SPU's.

With the 360's multi-core processor (just like a pc), organization is as simple as saying Hey "task a, b are different thus task a could run at the same time as a, lets do it". A much better CPU for a game machine.

It is for this reason that when people say only 50% of ps3's power has been used, they are talking about this. I guarantee that any of the top end games out on PS3 have used 90~100% of the GPU. The exceptional looking games like KZ2 have utilized an SPU to help the GPU, but there are issues with this as data has to go from sim->spu processing->gpu, while normally it would be sim->gpu. This is the reason for the minute input lag on KZ2.

Sorry for the rant, I love my PS3, but I am an objective fanboy I guess. I see this FUD spread all the time, but this is the the only forum I really care enough to clear the air.
 
Was there ever a graphics war to begin with...:roll: But anyways who even cares about graphics... if a game plays well and is enjoyable, everyone would still play it even it looks like an old Atari/NES game. I am actually looking forward to the new Sonic game because it has an old school look. And yes, my tvs are high def.
 
I think Nintendo proved the graphic war was nothing but a skirmish. Seems to me that the PS3 and 360 are pretty close. I have the PS3 and 360, and if a game is on both, I'll pick the 360 because of the better on-line experience even if the graphics are better than the 360.
 
Some of the posts in this thread are mind bottling. =P

Why do I feel that while the SDF is now placing importance on graphics, thats only becuase the PS3 is the 'winner' in that catagory?

While I feel that the PS3 does have the best graphics (when comparing AAA titles), I also believe that if Xbox 360 graphics were clearly superior, then the Sony fanboys would completely switch their argument and take the 'Graphics are not that important' side.

So I postulate that it isn't graphics that are important to the SDF, it's areas in which the PS3 excels that are important. It is the nature of fanboys to overemphasize the positive aspects of their console of choice and to dismiss the negative aspects as unimportant.

Graphics are largely subjective anyway. Does GoWIII or Uncharted 2 look significantly better than Gears of War II? Depends on who you ask.

I love beautiful HD graphics, but I also keep an old school CRT television to play my older consoles on. And my favortite PS3 game is Disgaea 3, which may have the WORST graphics of any PS3 game.
 
The PS3 is more powerful than the 360 and thus PS3 games will have better graphics than 360 games, ONLY if the games are developed solely for the PS3.

Most games that are available on 360/PS3/PC are developed on the 360/PC platform, and then ported to the PS3. This explains why a lot of games look/run better on the 360 (Bayonetta, The Orange Box). However, develop a game solely on the PS3 and they look/run amazing (Uncharted 2, God of War III) or solely for the 360 (Gears of War 2).

Development on multi-platforms hinders the optimization of a game as the 2 versions cannot deviate much from each other, for fear of alienating 1 platform from the other. Also, if a game is being ported to the PS3, it's most likely going to be inferior to the 360 version as developing for the PS3 is much more difficult and unfriendly than developing for the 360.

I wonder what God of War 3 or Uncharted 2 would look like if ported to the 360. Wouldn't surprise me if they didn't look as good.
 
Graphics war for me ended with the bit wars during the nes/snes and genesis days.

I never cared for graphics. Id always preferred a game with good gameplay, good story, good characters, good plot and was fun to play. The graphics were my least concern about a game.

Anyone who is a real gamer knows good graphics do not equal good game.

Like look at crysis, far cry, doom3, and dozens of other games looked pretty good but were complete shit.
 
[quote name='gargus']Graphics war for me ended with the bit wars during the nes/snes and genesis days.

I never cared for graphics.[/QUOTE]

So you cared during the Atari/Colecovision age?
 
[quote name='rapsodist']I wish you'd stop acting like you're so much older and wiser than the rest of us. How old are you, really? I'm sure there are plenty of CAGs who are older than you. Age is no indication of maturity or wisdom anyway.

Yes, I know, video gaming is not a purely visual medium. Gameplay is king. Creativity is important. But you're a fool if you think that more powerful hardware has absolutely nothing to add to a gaming experience.[/QUOTE]

It didn't in the last console war.

[quote name='Thomas96']No one really "buys" a game just because its pretty... gameplay will always come first, because you're really paying for the gameplay; once you having fun with a game, then you can enjoy the graphics. If you look at the games that were mentioned in the thread, they were all games that had good gameplay. Going from Atari 2600 to PS2... all I ever saw was a push for better graphics.[/QUOTE]

Why the reference to the PS2? Its success wasn't determined by graphical output.
 
When the Xbox came out in 2001, it ticked me off that multiplatform titles (e.g. Need For Speed II) looked better on the PS2 even though I knew my Xbox had a better GPU. I have both a 360 and PS3 so I have no allegiance to manufacturer. That said, I have more 360 titles so I tend to buy 360 versions of multiplatform so I'm not console jumping as much during a gaming session. This is also for my Gamerscore. For multiplatform titles, which ones look noticably better on PS3?
 
[quote name='paddlefoot']It didn't in the last console war.[/QUOTE]

You are completely misrepresenting what I wrote with your wry little comment there. I have no desire to engage in a 360 vs. PS3 vs. Wii debate, nor a GCN vs. PS2 vs. Xbox debate. My post was a response to an opinion that implied that new technology has no need to be utilized and that successive generations of hardware are completely unnecessary.
 
[quote name='rapsodist']You are completely misrepresenting what I wrote with your wry little comment there. I have no desire to engage in a 360 vs. PS3 vs. Wii debate, nor a GCN vs. PS2 vs. Xbox debate. My post was a response to an opinion that implied that new technology has no need to be utilized and that successive generations of hardware are completely unnecessary.[/QUOTE]

True, after rereading your post I apoligize for the comment.
 
As much as I love cutting edge graphics, and I really do, I do wish game developers in general would use the processing power to create more killer gameplay experiences. It seems like game developers are focusing to much on making everything look "real" and the gameplay is getting left behind. I would like to see games innovate on more than just graphics. If all the power of a console is being used to make the best graphics ever, how much is left for the game? I just hope developers start thinking a bit outside the box, a game can be great looking (style) without simply trying to make computer animated characters look like real people. And bring back the gameplay and take it to new levels (no pun intended).
 
[quote name='paddlefoot']True, after rereading your post I apoligize for the comment.[/QUOTE]

Apology accepted. :) I didn't take any real offense to your comment, but I just didn't want to see yet another wrinkle added to this thread in digging up any old wounds from the last console generation.
 
[quote name='gameboy280']fanboys are just idiots[/QUOTE]


Anyone who gives unconditional love and loyalty to a large corporation, or even a nation or religion, is an idiot.

I have all three consoles, and I have issues with every one of them and the companies that make them.

I'm a fan of games, not game consoles.
 
[quote name='Puffa469']Some of the posts in this thread are mind bottling. =P

Why do I feel that while the SDF is now placing importance on graphics, thats only becuase the PS3 is the 'winner' in that catagory?

While I feel that the PS3 does have the best graphics (when comparing AAA titles), I also believe that if Xbox 360 graphics were clearly superior, then the Sony fanboys would completely switch their argument and take the 'Graphics are not that important' side.

So I postulate that it isn't graphics that are important to the SDF, it's areas in which the PS3 excels that are important. It is the nature of fanboys to overemphasize the positive aspects of their console of choice and to dismiss the negative aspects as unimportant.

Graphics are largely subjective anyway. Does GoWIII or Uncharted 2 look significantly better than Gears of War II? Depends on who you ask.

I love beautiful HD graphics, but I also keep an old school CRT television to play my older consoles on. And my favortite PS3 game is Disgaea 3, which may have the WORST graphics of any PS3 game.[/QUOTE]

Yes they do look significantly better then Gears of War 2. Even the original Uncharted looks better then the outdated Unreal engine.

And you're keeping a CRT for the not all the right reasons. You need fighting games too.

And Disgaea 3 only proves that Nippon Ichi can get away with their PS1 level sprites for over a decade.
 
[quote name='anubis20']Graphics war was over when my eyes became crappy and I started seeing things blurry at at a distance. I can see fine, dont need glasses 100% of the time but my eyesight looses detail. I have my glasses but I hate wearing them and just to see what the fuss was about I put my glasses on to play FF13 and fuck does that game look good!!![/QUOTE]

Made me laugh, because I also have terrible eyes. I have yet to see GoWIII played on my own TV but I personally only care about graphics so far as that it's "easy on the eyes" and I can't count the polygons. FF7 on the PSX and Legend of Legaia are pretty hard for me to go back and play now due to how outdated they look. I don't mind going back and replaying sprite based games if the sprites are well done though.

To add to the thread though, FF13 on the PS3 suffers from framerate issues from time to time, but it's also the one that generally looks better. I bought it on the PS3 but I am one of those people who hate framerate drops. Part of looking good in my opinion is also looking smooth. I wouldn't call the war over quite yet.
 
[quote name='Paco']Yes they do look significantly better then Gears of War 2. Even the original Uncharted looks better then the outdated Unreal engine.

And you're keeping a CRT for the not all the right reasons. You need fighting games too.

And Disgaea 3 only proves that Nippon Ichi can get away with their PS1 level sprites for over a decade.[/QUOTE]


I keep a CRT primarily for my PS2, and that includes all of the awesome fighters I have for it. =)

Not to mention the hundreds of dollars worth of Hori sticks I have for the PS2.

And for Firepro Wrestling returns!

I tried hooking my PS2 up to my HDTV. The input lag was unbearable,and the graphics were a pixellated mess.

I wish they made flatscreen SDtv's with no input lag. I'd buy one in a heartbeat.
 
I have to disagree with the OP. Ps3 is far from being the 'best' graphically. Tons of games suffer from image tearing, extremely pixelated environments/characters (I know this can be primarily a developer avoided issue), image rendering lag and other various graphic imperfections. Pay attention to those hard edges and pointed edges where smooth rounded edges should have taken place. Pay attention to certain view angles and how they can make objects and environments from a distance disappear.

Also, the color saturation on many of the voted "beautiful" games are over the top and I believe that keeps a lot of the inexperienced eyes from seeing the lackluster in graphic quality.

Although many gamers might not care or even pay much attention to visual quality as the examples I stated above, which barely scraped the surface, I, for instance, love to dwell in a visually appealing game and will sometimes hold that for a higher standard over gameplay if the developers are that intricate.

The Ps3 is far from winning any superficial graphics war.
 
[quote name='anubis20']Graphics war was over when my eyes became crappy and I started seeing things blurry at at a distance. I can see fine, dont need glasses 100% of the time but my eyesight looses detail. I have my glasses but I hate wearing them and just to see what the fuss was about I put my glasses on to play FF13 and fuck does that game look good!!!

As far as god of war goes, i'll be playing that with the glasses on!! It arrives today :mrgreen:[/QUOTE]

Thats funny. Its exactly the same reason why I scheduled an eye exam and getting better glasses to coincide with my new HDtv.
 
Yes, gameplay is the most important aspect of a good game. That said, how can anyone argue that playing a game with great graphics and sound on a large HDTV and good surround sound system isn't better than playing the same game in SD with the sound coming out of the TV? Presentation DOES matter and we're at a point where everything other than the Wii is capable of handling both gameplay and graphics. (That's not meant as a shot against the Wii; clearly Nintendo's focus was elsewhere.)

Endaar
 
[quote name='Aleman']It's not necessarily that the PS3 is more powerful than 360--it's probably more that Sony's graphics developers are the most talented among console developers.

And all you people talking about x% of power being used do not understand software development. You can write one line of code that takes 100% CPU usage. That's why getting the most out of a given console requires clever developers.[/QUOTE]

the cell chip is way more powerful than whats in the 360.... sony just keeps shooting themselves in the foot by limiting ram on their consoles, there would not even be a debate if they had more ram.
 
Again though, Wii proves you don't NEED gimmicky graphics to find excellent games. If dev's weren't wasting so much money and time on HD, games would probably cost milliions less and release months earlier. Don't believe me? Wii games still cost $50 while PS3 costs $60 (over last gen's $50 cap not including special editions).

New hardware should be introduced with new innovations not just spec upgrades. Meaning we don't need new hardware every 5 or 6 years just to look different. I know upgrades are necessary eventually since we couldn't have 8-button or motion controllers on earlier platforms. It allows more complicated gaming and unique experiences.

I'm a fan of games too, which is why I can pick up a game from any gen and enjoy it the same. But I'm not wasteful so I won't buy redundant consoles with nothing new to offer. I have a DS so there's not much need for the DSi or Lite. I never buy the 'slim' versions of consoles if they play the same games as the originals. I have a PS3 so a 360 is pointless. There are a number of older consoles I don't have yet because the library isn't what I want.
 
[quote name='DPsx7']Again though, Wii proves you don't NEED gimmicky graphics to find excellent games..[/QUOTE]

Yes, because the NES, SNES, PS1, Atari, etc... didn't already prove that.
 
I have a MAME cabinet, which I wouldn't have spent so much money building if I was all about graphics. But again, why wouldn't anyone prefer a better looking game, all other things being equal?

As for pricing, the cost of games has remained remarkably consistent over a very long period of time. I remember Sega Master System games costing $50, and in some cases (like Phastasy Star) $70. Genesis games - $50. PS1 - $50. Dreamcast - $50. It's only when we got to the XBox (not sure about PS2, I never owned one) that prices went up to $60. How many other type of entertainment have gone up so little over the past 20 years?

Also, for the most part, new hardware HAS been introduced with new innovations. The Genesis added stereo sound. The PS1 and Saturn added CD-based media. The N64 added analog control and force feedback. The Dreamcast added those (admittedly stupid) plugin LCD things with minigames. The XBox added real-time Dolby Digital. The PS3 added BlueRay playback, and the Wii is obvious. Sure, some of those improvements were focused on presentation, but they are improvements in ways beyond just better graphics.

Endaar
 
[quote name='ItzTitoYo']I have to disagree with the OP. Ps3 is far from being the 'best' graphically. Tons of games suffer from image tearing, extremely pixelated environments/characters (I know this can be primarily a developer avoided issue), image rendering lag and other various graphic imperfections. Pay attention to those hard edges and pointed edges where smooth rounded edges should have taken place. Pay attention to certain view angles and how they can make objects and environments from a distance disappear.

Also, the color saturation on many of the voted "beautiful" games are over the top and I believe that keeps a lot of the inexperienced eyes from seeing the lackluster in graphic quality.

Although many gamers might not care or even pay much attention to visual quality as the examples I stated above, which barely scraped the surface, I, for instance, love to dwell in a visually appealing game and will sometimes hold that for a higher standard over gameplay if the developers are that intricate.

The Ps3 is far from winning any superficial graphics war.[/QUOTE]

You didn't name not one game in your comment... I'm sure that even with the set of games I've given as examples, there are improvements that can be made. So my question to you is.. whose (consoles) is doing it better than PS3 (graphically)?
 
I don't understand why people act like they are scared to appreciate graphics. Just because you take some time to admire graphics doesn't mean that you don't care about gameplay and innovation. What would the 360 be if it still used the Atari's controller? The PS3 brought blu ray to gaming just like the PS1 brought the CD to gaming (for additional space) but in addition to just a bigger space disc, the PS3 is bringing some outstanding HD graphics to the table. I just think that it should be appreciated just as much as good gameplay and good innovation as imo its equally important. Our opinion of what looks good may change overtime, but great gameplay will always be there. Perfect exmaple to me is F-Zero... beautiful game, great gameplay, still good today.
 
^ I have no idea why people are afraid to admit that good graphics really do add to a game. I love seeing my favorite games upgraded to the latest and greatest; been enjoying it since before 1982. Now, don't get me wrong, graphics alone are not going to make a shitty game good, but they can make a great game even better.

Games have never looked better; I'm truly having a blast with this generation.
 
Just ignore the "GAMEPLAY IS ALL THAT MATTERS" idiots. Graphics are a major part of gaming. Simple as that. Also, add morons like that DSPX guy or whatever his name is to your ignore list, makes life easier to not see his 12-year old rants all the time.
 
[quote name='blitz6speed']Just ignore the "GAMEPLAY IS ALL THAT MATTERS" idiots. Graphics are a major part of gaming. Simple as that. Also, add morons like that DSPX guy or whatever his name is to your ignore list, makes life easier to not see his 12-year old rants all the time.[/QUOTE]

You ever notice how the SDF seems to put off those of us who care about fun gameplay over pretty pictures as 'idiots'? It's quite hilarious. While I will admit there IS a difference visually between SD and HD, as long as a game is not a glitchy pos I'll play it over a 'jaw dropping' 1080p game that is the same repetitive shit over and over but 'pretty'.
 
People who assume developers are sacrificing gameplay for HD graphics are the idiots. There's clear examples of games that have both amazing graphics and gameplay. If people prefer gameplay over visuals that's fne, as long as they accept that visuals do improve the experience.
 
They're probably just trying to make themselves feel better about having shitty ass televisions by saying that games with good graphics must have inferior gameplay.
 
To me, graphics add as much enjoyment to a game as the actual gameplay. I cant tell you how many times I have stared in awe at recent games because of the environment/graphics.
(example: God of War 3, I am looking at you.)
 
As long as the game was made with the PS3 architecture in mind, then yea, I'll agree the PS3 looks the best. However multiplatform games will suffer because of the PS3's architecture.
 
[quote name='lmz00']They're probably just trying to make themselves feel better about having shitty ass televisions by saying that games with good graphics must have inferior gameplay.[/QUOTE]

Actually, I have an HD display for my PS3 now and it has improved the visuals for some of the games, but when a game is a glitchfest it doesn't matter how frickin' pretty it is. Developers can patch the shit out of it and apologize profusely for it, but if they actually kept the game out of the market until it was at least playable, it might make me wanna pick up some games for more than clearance price anymore.

Since I've experienced so many glitchfests in these past two gens, my current 'must buy'(even if it's a shitty, glitchy mess)price for games is $5 with $10 being MAX.

But yes, the better display does add something to the game, though it should be fun to play and the better visuals only add to it. If it's just a pretty game with not alot of real substance to it, then fuck that.
 
You're making it seem like the graphics are directly responsible for the glitches. Ugly games have glitches, too.

And I'm curious as to what kind of HD display someone who calls himself the "cheapest gamer" would buy. I sure hope it's not some 22" monitor from Dell or wherever.
 
[quote name='Thomas96']You didn't name not one game in your comment... I'm sure that even with the set of games I've given as examples, there are improvements that can be made. So my question to you is.. whose (consoles) is doing it better than PS3 (graphically)?[/QUOTE]


How about I list a few games I own and have experienced first hand.

FallOut 3
Both Resistances
Killzone2
Heavy Rain
Battlefield Bad Company 2

I can go on and on, but with newer titles as Heavy Rain and Bad Company 2 I can safely tell you to examine those games in particular if you have them. Those two titles are full of rendering issues and heavily pixelated environments. Check out Heavenly Sword and both Uncharteds and then you'll understand what I mean about color saturation.

None of the consoles are doing graphics on a PC level yet, but once they do the PC will be on a different spectrum already.
 
[quote name='lmz00']You're making it seem like the graphics are directly responsible for the glitches. Ugly games have glitches, too.

And I'm curious as to what kind of HD display someone who calls himself the "cheapest gamer" would buy. I sure hope it's not some 22" monitor from Dell or wherever.[/QUOTE]

Why not? I guess it has to be some 'big ass HDtv that costs $1000+' to be a 'true HD' display, right? It's a 21.5" Acer LCD monitor, full HD with HDMI port right on it. The speakers are a bit tinny, but it serves it's purpose for me.

As for the graphics being responsible for the glitches in the games, I never said that and personally I still don't care about graphics as long as a game is FUN. But most of the 'pretty' games are repetitive bullshit with some frustrating moments in them, but oooooo look at the purty pictures.:roll:
 
[quote name='Thomas96']I went ahead and picked up God of War 3 last night and yes it was impressive, but now I'm mad. Because if GOW3 is going to set the bar high like that, it makes me want other games to try and get on GOW3's level. I want my Bayonetta to be up there with GOW3, I want my Dante's inferno to be up there with GOW3.
Every game doesn't need to look as good as GOW3 I can respect different graphical styles, but I think that they should at least play well and run smoothly.

Based on the games that we've seen from PS3, can we at least say that at this time, its the best system graphically?[/QUOTE]

u are comparing a first party title to third party titles. Theres no way ever that something like Dante's Inferno is going to be as impressive graphically as something like GOW 3 unless they decide to launch it exclusively for the PS3
 
[quote name='bringerofdeath']u are comparing a first party title to third party titles. Theres no way ever that something like Dante's Inferno is going to be as impressive graphically as something like GOW 3 unless they decide to launch it exclusively for the PS3[/QUOTE]

So wait....because something is 'exclusive to PS3' it's suddenly graphically superior? Really? :roll: That's a new line I don't think I've heard before.:booty:
 
Not sure about his logic there, but so far the PS3 has put out the top best looking games this generation. There's no argument there, or at least shouldn't be. Killzone 2, Uncharted 2, God of War III, and even MSS4 are all superior to anything you'll find on the other consoles.

Now, does that mean the 360 isn't capable of getting games as nice as those? I wouldn't say that. Many of those games, especially Killzone 2 needed an engine built from the ground up and tailored to the PS3 to look that great. They worked on it for years. Often 360 games use a third party engine like the Unreal Engine 3, which might be showing it's age, but also has the advantage of being easier to develop with.

Basically most 360 developers don't have enough incentive to make an engine tailored to max out the 360's capabilities because it's simply easier and cheaper to use an engine like the UE3. Why go through any extra hurdles when it doesn't result in more money? The PS3 can't really benefit the same way because of how hard it is to develop for. First and second party devs are better off creating their own engine than leasing one that would result in an inferior game. Of course third party devs who put out multiplatform games can't create an engine specifically for the PS3, so the PS3 port often ends up being inferior to the 360 one. The best way around that is to make the PS3 the lead and port the game to the 360, but still that would cost more money that way and more time as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']Why not? I guess it has to be some 'big ass HDtv that costs $1000+' to be a 'true HD' display, right? It's a 21.5" Acer LCD monitor, full HD with HDMI port right on it. The speakers are a bit tinny, but it serves it's purpose for me.

As for the graphics being responsible for the glitches in the games, I never said that and personally I still don't care about graphics as long as a game is FUN. But most of the 'pretty' games are repetitive bullshit with some frustrating moments in them, but oooooo look at the purty pictures.:roll:[/QUOTE]
Forget $1,000 and up. I'd start at $3,000.

Anywho, I don't buy games for graphics. I mainly stick to the same franchises, as opposed to the people that buy every single game advertised on television or that has a lot of hype. The only game I've played in recent memory that I'd consider buggy (until they patched it) is NBA 2K10, and the only time I even think about graphics is when I'm playing PS2 games.
 
Thanks for offering a refreshing and calm perspective on things, ssjmichael. Too many of these 'PS3 is best' threads just end up degenerating into flame wars where everyone feels they're right and that's that.

Each console has games that look good for each. That's been my perspective for a while now, but if you try to say it on a Sony board, well....you've seen the results in here.
[quote name='lmz00']Forget $1,000 and up. I'd start at $3,000.[/QUOTE]
Considering that I sit about 3-4 feet from my PS3 and the LCD screen is about a foot or two from there, I don't need the giant sized tv that everyone claims you need to 'appreciate HD'. I see the difference now on my $160 Target bought LCD screen as opposed to my SDtv I was playing on prior.

They don't call me 'thecheapestgamer' for nothing. If it costs me over $200 for a screen to play my games on, I'll go back to reading books for my main source of entertainment. Nothing is really 'required' to play games on the newer consoles besides 1)a tv, 2)a console to play the game on and 3) a copy of the game to play on said console and tv.

People always harp about 'online is required' and 'big tv is required'. Maybe for you, but for some of us we're content with what fits within OUR budget.

As for the same games over and over, that gets a bit tedious at times for me. Then again, I shouldn't comment on that since I've picked up every GTA games pretty much at launch almost since the original came to the PS1. But I'm willing to give other games/series a chance and not just stick to the familiar and the same.
 
[quote name='bringerofdeath']u are comparing a first party title to third party titles. Theres no way ever that something like Dante's Inferno is going to be as impressive graphically as something like GOW 3 unless they decide to launch it exclusively for the PS3[/QUOTE]

3rd party developers need to get off their ass and stop making 360 level graphics games for PS3. If you're going to put a game on PS3 I think it needs to look like a true PS3 game and not like a 360 game. I can't help but feel that the majority of these games that have been released on PS3 have been gimped because they aren't taking very much advantage of the consoles power.
 
[quote name='Thomas96']3rd party developers need to get off their ass and stop making 360 level graphics games for PS3. If you're going to put a game on PS3 I think it needs to look like a true PS3 game and not like a 360 game. I can't help but feel that the majority of these games that have been released on PS3 have been gimped because they aren't taking very much advantage of the consoles power.[/QUOTE]

The main problem with that argument comes down to the pricetag for making custom versions for each console though. Why should a developer have to develop either primarily for one console over another when they want their product across both consoles to be the exact same and they can do so via porting from one to the other?

Are we as gamers paying for console specific versions of games? Not if you're a true CAG you're not. You're paying for whichever one is cheapest if you're a multi console owner and then coming here to bitch about how its 'not maximized for the PS3'.

You want a maximized for the PS3's specs version, go out and hire programmers and everybody else and spend millions of dollars and make one. Otherwise, I'm just content to get some games for the console that I currently own. If they're glitchy messes, then I really wait until it's super cheap(like almost always) and I have a real reason to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top