Sucker Punch explain their exclusivity

[Crazymann]

whatever said:

Kynes said:
Ok, please, explain this to me.


According to Fleming, while going cross-platform puts a game in front of more potential eyeballs, "it also introduces a whole bunch of problems and compromises and difficulty that doesn't make making games a lot more fun. In fact, I think it subtracts from that."

Sucker punch + PS3 -> Great!

"The PC and the 360 are just more straightforward. We can focus on what we want to do, which is make game experiences, instead of sweating bullets over obscure architectural decisions they make with their platform."

Valve + X360 -> Lazy devs!

I just don't get the difference (apart of console preference of the forumers)

Are you for real?

Where did Sucker Punch anywhere say anything negative about the 360.  They just stated that working on more than one platform will make things more difficult in general.

Meanwhile Valve has continually trashed the PS3 with statments like "it's too difficult" or that Sony's made an "obscure architectural decision".

So where Sucker Punch is saying that it is simply there choice to make exclusives and there is no fault with M$ or Nintendo, Valve continually blames Sony.

See the difference now!

I think we can all agree that Newell is tactless with his anti-PS3 comments.  Apart from that, however, the statements are the same - only more eloquently worded in one case.  One cannot applaud Sucker Punch and demonize Valve for doing the SAME thing for what amounts to the same reason* without being a hypocrite.  Or a total fanboy - which ends up being the same in a startling amount of cases.

By implying that Valves anti PS3 stance invalidates the overall message, you are commiting a logical fallacy know as a non sequiter.

For the record, I think that if a multiplat can be made without artisitic compromise it should - if the company feels it is in their OVERALL best interest.

*  Reason = specialization = better game, more fun to program, less compromise.