Debunking the myth that the PS3 > Xbox360, The real work proves Xbox > PS3

[Squilliam]

ChronotriggerJM said:

Oyvoyvoyv said:

SamuelRSmith said:

NFGBlinkAC said:
Topic fails at an epic level

 

 Please direct me to the level at which it fails at.

 

 It uses statistics to prove a point. Lately, every thread the OP does this in is either ignored or attacked like hell.

 

The point he's trying to prove, and the fact's he's pulling from don't support the claim though -_-; The fact's he's using prove that it's easier to program for, and cheaper to program for... We already knew this. The only way you'll get to see what a system is really capable of is via exclusives. And it's almost universally accepted that PS3 exclusives push the "cutting" edge. I don't wait for the next 360 game to showcase what consoles of this gen can do graphically, I don't wait for the 360 to see how rediculous the player counts can get up to for a multi-player game, I don't wait for the 360 to do anything as far as technology is concerned >_> In my opinion it's not the console holding the deck of cards.

Because the 360 is easier to work with, it will be 100% utilized long before the PS3 is, and in my opinion it's still playing catch up.

 

Huxley was announced wayyy before MAG <-- Similar player numbers, did you ignore it? Oh... Its only special when its announced for the PS3.

Also could you disprove this " Epic - If given the motivation and budget/time of Gearbox could produce a game thats the equall or better technically as Killzone 2" Which is precisely why using exclusives can be a bad idea for comparison. (Remember they did Gears 2 in less than 2 years, where Gearbox could have been working on Killzone 2 for almost 5 years by the time its released.)