| MikeB said: @ RAZurrection When was Crysis 2 released? |
This generation. I mean if you're trying to say Cell and PS3 were worthwhile, then you need to look long term, since Crysis 2 blows every ps3 exclusive out of the water graphically and technically and runs better on Xbox 360 and PC, then that just seems to confirm that DVD was adaquate for this generation and Cell development was discontinued for a good reason.
| CGI-Quality said: A. Crysis 2 isn't out on anything yet, and the devs have already said their engine is better suited on the PS3. |
If by better suited you mean "maxed out".
Personally I think it's pretty poor that a 3rd party game is maxing out the newest system on the market and it looks better then the exclusives that were supposed to set the system apart...but it doesn't look like the PS3 was futureproofed for this contingency.
| CGI-Quality said: B. What do their financials have to do with a tech thread? |
Surely you need to look at the negatives too? Crippling 99% of its library compared to an older system is one thing, but to potentially bring the SCE division to its knees? For what, higher resolution clips? Silly.
| CGI-Quality said: C. Many games do ruin worse on PS3, yep, but 99%? Something that you pulled from no where it seems. Beyond that, many of these multiplats aren't even taking advantage of the console, and are generally ports from the 360. |
99% or an overwhelming vast majority, lets not quibble over specifics.
Yet... they are multi-platform they don't take advantage of 360 either...and yet again we still have games like MW2 and Crysis 2 nuking Resistance and Killzone/Uncharted 2 visually and technically.
TBH i'm pretty sure Sony has to make games like that though, when you know your version of the best looking games of 20xx+ look and run better on the older system, how do you convince gamers otherwise.
I guess it all boils down to how much you enjoy the exclusives, but MS & Nintendo seem to be having a lot more success on that front.
| slowmo said: If you want a vote of it was the right call for one percent of games released on the system so far then I'm afraid I cannot agree. |
Precisely...but even then that 1% looks to be redundant with stuff like Crysis 2.
| HappySqurriel said: The PS3 was released a year after the XBox 360, cost $100/$200 more than the XBox 360 to buy, and Sony was still losing hundreds of dollars to manufacture the system, and after developers have spent over 4 years working on the system the benefits over the XBox 360 are minimal; and the XBox 360 still regularly receives the better version of games because how unsuited the Cell processor is to game development. |
Something that doesn't get brought up enough, especially when you consider Microsoft didn't even have Xenons when they had Cells at 2.4GHZ.
| HappySqurriel said: Now, if you want to see how much of a mistake the Cell processor was and how pointless Blu-Ray was compare the advantage a year gave the PS3 to the advantage a year gave the Gamecube and XBox over the PS2; and neither of those systems cost nearly as much to manufacture as the PS3 cost Sony. |
Exactly, now I hated the Gamecube with a passion (i own one, but found it pretty redundant last gen) but at least you were assured that 99% of your cross platform were better then PS2 and the exclusives were a breed apart.
With the PS3 you only get a better cross platform experience next to the PS2/PSP/Wii version and a couple of titles that look nice...until Crysis 2 and all for a premium price.
