Hynad said:
Rainbird said:
Now that's a much better argument, and a much more sensible point that I can agree with parts of at least. However, as you say yourself, the goal here is to find the "better" console, yet nobody is doing that. The PS3 does graphics excellently for very linear and scripted games as illustrated by games like God of War III and Uncharted 3, but what about open world games? Or 60 FPS games? The 360 is better than the PS3 at those, but the "call" is being made from a single category of games.
They each have their strengths, with the PS3 being "stronger" in linear games and the 360 being "stronger" in open world games, yet everyone is looking at the prettiest screenshots and the prettiest gifs they can find and basing their judgement solely on that.
|
I'd argue that inFamous 2, an open world game, is one of the best looking game of its genre on console.
To find better you have to go for multiplatform games. Like Red Dead Redemption and Skyrim. Which fared better on the 360, the PS3 getting the port versions.
I wonder how those 2 examples would have fared if they had been tailored for the PS3's architecture first and foremost, or if they had been developed by a first party studio.
|
No doubt that inFamous 2 is very good looking, I'm by no means trying to say that the PS3 isn't good at open world games. That would be like saying that the 360 isn't good for doing highly linear and scripted games on, which is of course not true.
And indeed both RDR and Skyrim could have been improved if the developers hadn't had to accomodate other systems than the PS3, but the same goes if they had been 360 exclusives too, so it's hard to tell just what the impact might have been.
