Jordahn said:
Wrong again. He said... "Last gen the PS was the dominant platform..." with "dominant platform" being the key phrase, and he also said "this is the advantage you get for having a bigger user base." The PS2 was dominant because "of it's relatively large userbase and extensive lead" which is what I fleshed out. That's without guessing what he meant by using the his own words in context so it wasn't about graphics. NOWHERE in his paragraph did he say that. You failed again because of your biased fanboyism against the PS3 and reasoning. Your faulty reasoning really invalidated your point that "Now guest which console is not more graphicaly powerfull then 360?" because in a previous post in this thread in regards to GTA IV, I have proven you wrong. |
All of his statement is to explain why 360 version is a bit better! How all of us understand this and only you is still digging?
Hes explanation is that games are developed for the PC+360 and then are ported to the PS - "Its pretty simple the 360 and PC hold the same architecture since the biggest platform for this game is the PC and 360, they developed the game for the PC+360 and are porting it over to the PS3. The issue with ports is you are taking the weakness of the 360+pc version and adding the PS3 which inherently makes it worse."
Then he explain why developers are doing it - "This is going to be a common theme with most muti plat games because the PC/360 market is going to be bigger than the PS3 for the next couple of years."
My statement is - even that original xbox use a lot of PS2 ports - later port or same day ports, games still looks better on it. Then I explain why! Cos XBOX was much more powerfull machine. Then why PS3 ports are worst, even after most of PS3 owners clame that PS3 is more powerfull then 360? Cos it is just not! In graphical deparment it is equal at max. Of course this is mine opinion.
What here is not clear ?!