NightAntilli said:
Where exactly did I preach for the X360? Did you miss the links and numbers and the logic? Of course I'm worse, because I tell it like it is, and people hate the freaking truth. Saying you don't know if the PS3 really is stronger than the X360 is the same as telling a Christian you don't know if God exists, or telling a biologist that you're not sure evolution is true. They'll go apesh*t on you. You people all accept these fking stealth trolls in this section, and that's the whole problem. The whole site is PS3 oriented, and if you say anything slightly positive towards the X360, there's always someone there to tell you how wrong you are, how they laughed at you and the comment you made, how you're blah blah blah. It's fking ridiculous. I actually respect Selnor of having the courage to stand up to that, even if he turns out to be wrong, he's only trying to make a point, but all you people are too busy bashing that you completely miss what it is. I'm not holier than anyone. I'm just not afraid to tell anyone when they are being unfairly biased and I actually provide arguments AND data to back it up. Unlike you, who are now only bashing me as a person for not agreeing with this retarded sheep mentality going on about the PS3.. Afraid to tackle on the subject itself? And guess what, after all those arguments I gave, no one can actually refute them logically. All they can do is say how I'm bad or that I should just accept it blah blah. Unless you actually have real arguments and data to dismiss my claims, I politely ask you to don't react to me at all, and certainly not as a person or my behavior, because me being pissed off right now is nothing compared to the years of bashing people in here have been going through. Keep that to yourself or just leave if you don't like it. @Skeeuk: You sound like "You're gonna have to accept that Jesus is your only savior, move along". |
Nowhere did I take a stance when it comes to which console is better than the other.
But that's gonna change in this here post.
The fact that you act like you're all butthurt because the PS3 is on a roll right now clearly gives away that you have your own bias.
Sure, you're not willing to directly call a winner, but you do have a hard time agreeing to the obvious. That although all multiplatform titles that use either the UE3 (incidentally, Cry Engine 3, arguably a better and more up-to-date engine, runs better on the PS3 according to Crytek themselves) or are ported codes from the 360 to the PS3 will run better on the 360, no games come close to the technical feats offered by the 3 "kings" you already mentioned (Killzone 2, Uncharted 2 and God of War 3).
That you deny what the developers themselves aknowledged about how multiplatform games would take longer and thus cost more to develop and make them perform as well on the PS3 as on the 360 (which just isn't worth it from a business standpoint, you'll agree) surely speaks for itself.
That you put a blindfold when it comes to the many claims by third party developers who acknoledged the [although most likely slight, but definite] superior potential of the PS3 also speaks for itself.
If the 360 is such a powerful beast or is as capable as the PS3, then, using you logic, we should see games that are as technically impressive and "boundaries pushing" as those 3 PS3 exclusives. Those are nowhere to be seen. The closest we've got are the 2 Gears of War games. And those 2 are filled with technical issues (like heavy frame rate drops for example) and they're developed by the Engine creators, no less!
In any case, although you made some nice reflexions on the matter, the truth is that the PS3 has offered more technically impressive stuff than the 360 ever did so far. Even Alan wake, lighting aside, didn't offer anything to beat the PS3 exclusives we all talk about so much. If the games designed specifically for the 360 cannot touch the technical quality of the PS3's exclusives, don't you think it's more than enough to call a winner?
