rocketpig said:
twesterm said:
dbot said:
mrstickball said:
As a X360 owner, I think it's hard to argue that the X360 will always have the 'better looking' games, or 'equivalent looking' games. When you look at the specs, the fact is, the Playstation 3 is better on paper - Blu-Ray, 8 SPEs. Things like that make it impossible to say that "in 4 years, games will still look the same on both systems".
Ultimately, the Playstation 3 will have the better graphics. But I agree with your statement: At what costs?
The problem with the PS3 is that it IS a nightmare to develop for. Games are constantly being delayed due to developmental woes, projects are becoming costly, and in general, it's just a bad system to develop for (not to mention the actual return on your investment vs. the Wii and X360).
Because of that, we're going to see a split in the future of what gets greenlit for the Playstation 3. There may be better 'blockbuster' MGS4-esque uber-exclusives, but they will suffer in cost, development, and rarity.
Food for thought: Gears of War 1 + 2 were made for less money than Metal Gear Solid 4 or Killzone 2. Which games, do you think, earned a better return, and will have a higher probability of seeing sequels? (Of course, KZ2 hasn't come out, but the deck is stacked against it in some ways). |
Link it please.
|
You should probably be able to figure that one out by common sense.
I don't know the development cycle for Gears, but Gears 2 was two years. How long was MGS4? Five at least?
|
Shit, Gears 2 didn't even have a two year cycle. I doubt work started on the second game the moment they finished the first (a month or two before release). They probably gave the team some time off before starting work on the second game.
|
I like keeping things general, I would rather say two years than 21 months. Two years is an estimate, 21 months is exact. 
