CGI-Quality said:
The PS3's hardware is superior, but not by the amount it was once made out to be. PS3 exclusives have looked the best for most of the gen based much on the talent of individual studios, not so much the PS3's hardware. It can do things the 360 cannot (and vice versa), and can offer moderately better graphics if it and the 360 are pushed to their cores, but their relative power isn't much different. |
Let me ask you something. If a few 1st party games look good and a few 3rd party games look bad what do you think people will say?
My entire point is that they are so similar there is no need to argue. 1st party games will always look better for the reason i have already mentioned above.
We use Uncharted, Gears, Forza, God of War, Killzone, Halo, and soon the last of us all as examples of great looking titles on consoles, but I can point out flaws or workarounds inevery onve of those games. For one all of those games that ive mentioned uses a different art style and different color palettes. What please the eye becomes the main focus at that point but ill ignore that for a moment.
Then you have great looking third party games like Crysis 2, skyrim, battlefield etc. Many games like these have problems on PS3 because the complexity of the PS3. If we are going to argue about the power of each console then play PC.
You say PS3 is more powerful and it is to a small degree but it is irrelevant when it is A: unnoticeable and B: When developers cant use that extra power. Let me say this. A $1000 graphics card is obviously more powerful but if it cant run games at a noticeable difference than a $300 graphics card then why does that matter? Which right now is actually what is happening. A $300 graphics card can run games at the highest settings. The $1000 card will run at a higher FPS but almost unnoticeable to the eye.