Quote:
Originally Posted by MooglePorn
Exactly.
Newell even said the PS3 was powerful, it's just much different to program for than a PC/360 and it doesn't have the install-base to make all the extra programming worthwhile, so games come out with worse graphics and/or slowdown.
It's not rocket science.
|
No, its not. The PS3 has an overcomplicated, unnecessarily complex design that results in inefficiency and underutilization of the tech on board. That does make it a poor design because the components you put in a machine should be oriented towards what the machine is going to be used for. Put simply, the Cell makes no sense for games and the RSX is specwise not as good as Xenos. That does not mean PS3 is a piece of crap, but it does mean that it was not a smart design compared to what the competition came up with - especially when it ends up costing more money for both developers and the end user!
Quote:
|
Jumping in and saying "see the PS3 sucks" is not the way to go though Ruined.
|
Please link to where I stated this.
Quote:
|
Personally I would rather bitch at the publishers for releasing an inferior product... if the PS3 base isn't worth a good port, then don't port the fucking thing. If you're going to deliver a product, deliver it with quality, or I will call you out on it. It's not the PS3's fault these guys want to save money and not develop for its strenghts and weaknesses.
|
If developers used your mentality, PS3 would have less than 10 games currently. I doubt Sony would have liked that as they would have no games to sell the console with
Quote:
|
Honestly Ratchet and Clanks Future and Heavenly Sword are two of the best looking games this generation, if not THE BEST LOOKING GAMES THIS GENERATION. They certainly look a lot better than Halo 3... The PS3 has power, a lot of power, and it can be unlocked by those willing to put the effort in to do so.
|
Opinion on your part, but yes PS3 does have the power to look good if devs spend the time programming for it. The problem is that time is money and there are 3 consoles to program for it. If XBOX 360 games make 40% of revenue, Wii games 40% of revenue, and PS3 games 20% of revenue, why should devs spend 5x longer programming for PS3 games when their code is worthless aside from PS3? Makes no sense.
First party games look good because Sony paid the developers to make them look good and spend the time to fully utilize the architecture. Third party developers/publishers do not make money in the same way, they make it by selling games - so they have to budget their dev time for each platform.
Quote:
|
As posted elsewhere the PS3 sold more this year than the 360... it's Japanese support is gaining and the big games are finally coming out along with a solid price drop. It's on its way to success and more and more developers will thus unlock more and more of its potential. It will in no way surprise me when PS3 games become some of the very best graphical showcases... shit, they already are.
|
Let's be honest here Moog. The PS3 is getting slaughtered in the US and the 360 is getting slaughtered in Japan. In the US October numbers, there was not a system still in production that sold worse than PS3. But even in Japan, PS3 is losing bigtime to Wii. So in the end, developers are not going to be happy with a console that is a 2nd and 3rd place performer and yet takes far longer to get good results out of than the competing consoles. 360 may not be doing great in Japan, but its kicking butt pretty much everywhere else. Wii is cleaning up around the globe.