By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Zones on 08 December 2008
Edit Thread
Comrade Tovya said:
Zones said:
The real answer is, because PS3 is way over it's time, the system is more future proof than the other ones. Now, just because it didn't sell as much as PS2 doesn't mean the system can't be out for as long if Sony supports the system.

Another thing that you should know, is that PS3 is in it's infancy as of now, outside few first party studios games, no company took advantages of the system, we really don't know what it's capable of until now. But I am sure whatever you saw on 2005 E3 press conference is completely possible on PS3, so two years form now, the system, might be something you have never thought of.

 

You see, that's what I keep hearing, but in tests of the two systems, I think it's been shown that the PS3 is no more advanced than the 360, and if it is, it isn't by very much.  So I think the whole notion that the PS3 is "future proof" is just Sony PR digging real hard to look for a win somewhere.

The games that I have that are on both consoles look exactly the same, and the gameplay is exactly the same on both consoles.  The only difference to me is the controllers are different, and hence I choose to play each game depending upon which controller (sixaxis or 360) works better for that game.

I think that either the 360 or PS3 can last as long as MS & Sony want to make it last, but the technology in each console is virtually equivalent.  I used to be of the camp that said the PS3 was more advanced, but there have just been too many tests out there that show that that is just not the case... if anything, the PS3 has a more stable hardware platform.

I agree with most of the points you have made. I, too, was one of the people who thought PS3 is way more powerful than Xbox 360, but now, if you ask me, I'll tell you that till this day, every PS3 game is possible on Xbox 360, I think even Killzone 2/MGS4 is completely possible on Xbox 360, without any lose of quality.

But the fact of the matter is, I believe Sony's software developer are more capable to optimize their platform than Microsoft to their platform. So far, Sony is the highest quality develeper of this gen, and also, remember that 90 percent of other devs games are using Unreal Engine III, while SCE Studios need to create all these engines from ground up to the most complex platform. Now, that aside, I think from what we have seen so far, PS3's power is vague, but like I said, it's up to game developers to take advantage of the platform. and Sony has this covered.

Whatever, when I said it's way over it's time, I didn't mean just for games, if you look at the platform, it was built specifically to be future proof, like how each PS3 contains a hard drive, Blu-ray disc, and even stuff like Life With PlayStation helps for that matter. And as for multplatform games, well, they should look the same, regardless of the power or any other thing, becasue it's not the best thing to do this to those who only owns that other console. Though, I think stuffs like 'Making of' is good to be on the PS3 version due to Blu-ray.

One other thing that I'd like to point out is how different games were on the first few years of PS2 compared to 6 or 7 years after it's launch. The first few years, almost every game released was on CD, that includes ICO, Tsugunai, GT3...etc, but 7 years later, the role totally reversed. And compare the games of that to time to the later ones and you see how Sony delivered, I mean, God of War II definitely looks better than any other game on any other console last gen, so I don't know why people like JerryEastwood thinks it's hard to believe Sony since PS2, even though it was inferior, still had better looking games than it's competitor. So, again, what I am saying is, imagine 5 years from now, PS3 might be a system no one even thought of, and if that happens, then the 10 year life cycle will become reality.