ZenfoldorVGI said:
Well, I don't think the numbers would back you up on that. Not sure though. I know that there are a lot less exclusives, than multiplats, so I'm sure that at first glance, the multiplats would appear to be worse, but the top 10 games of this generation...are they exclusive? I don't think they are. Sure, exclusives have more money and hype poured into them, but the best multiplats this gen have also achieved the level of graphics and quality the top tier exclusives have, and in most cases surpassed them. RE5, Modern Warfare, Fallout 3, GTAIV, The Orange Box, Braid, Bioshock. Those games are vastly better than most of our overhyped exclusives. That said, do you really think Gears 2 couldn't be done on the PS3, or that MGS4 couldn't be done on the 360? That's just silly, imo. MGS4 has no large open areas without loading, and the "extra content" we got due to BR, was the ability for Kojima to dumb extra languages and 1080p unrelated video in our laps, because he could, not because he needed to(opening gameshow scene anyone?). Also, with secondary installs, DLC, and mulitple discs, space isn't a issue for the 360, anymore than disc speed is an issue for the PS3. Now, with KZ2, we've seen what's possible on a console. However, the next game in line to surpass that mark, is on the 360. It's Forza 3. I'm not saying the 360 is as powerful as the PS3. I'm saying that it's close enough, that it's not going to make a difference in the case of a high budget multiplat. It's almost childish to me, to assume that "It's on the 360, that means the game will be worse because of the hardware." I mean, it's that a huge generalization? Isn't it wrong? The small amount of stuff that they would have to cut out of the game, or reduce, wouldn't make or break the game, and in fact, it very likely wouldn't diminish the experience whatsoever. There is no PS3 game I've played that has impressed me to the level of Crysis. The difference there is vast. However, if Crysis was ported to the PS3, it wouldn't be any worse. Not really. There would be some small differences graphically, but it would still be the same game, a port. I think the mindset is this: They are going to have to spend a lot of time working on the differences between versions, so the game will suffer from a development perspective.......or......they are going to halfass the game because they don't put as much importance into it as they would a multiplat.....or......the game would have been so much better as an exclusive. It wouldn't have been. It would be the same great, or sorry, piece of shit, just in a slightly different, shinier or duller package. The consoles are so similar, that it's just not feasable. This isn't just any multiplat. It's Final Fantasy. Square screws it up on their own, or wins on their own, imho. I direct this last paragraph at the original article: The article in the OP is obviously built up angst and frusteration over losing FFXIII as a PS3 exclusive, and there is so much paranoia and ignorance being built up around that anger, it's like a wall. It's hard to break through that wall, and the article in the OP is reinforcing it with concrete, and trying to bring every nar-do-well's fears to the forefront of discussion, and it is absolutely frusterating. |
Looky here. I'm not saying any game may or may not be done on another platform. I'm saying that I think an exclusive has a higher chance of being a better and more polished title in the same time frame. I wouldn't use Fallout 3, The Orange Box as examples as the PS3 versions sucked because Valve didn't have the manpower/time to do the PS3 version by the deadline. Story is the same with Bethesda.
But I think it's silly to deny that some things that they could include (like more languages on disc) are being cut due to the 360.
