fillet said:
The Cell was a dog, it's the same as the 2 CPU setup in the Sega Saturn, sure there were one or two games that astounded visually but the majority looked like crap and ran at a lower res than the PS1, when they shouldn't have. Why would you applaud such silly decisions that works against consumers at the end of the day, now with both consoles being based on x86 instruction sets and using off the shelf GPUs (basically), we can finally do away with fanboy arguments on "which console is more powerful" for years on end, like with the Wii-U, it's basically established how powerful it is thanks to analysis that's been done and using a PC based GPU tech. All this in terms of the PS4/NextBox means lower development costs, better games per dollar investment and better value for gamers... I'd certainly chose that over 1 first party exclusive every 9 months or so that looks slightly better than other games. I'm more interested in the fanboy side of things though, the way things are set out now, we will know exactly which one's more powerful and be spared the fanboy wars because the specs will speak for themselves... Cell = 99% smoke and mirrors and it's destroyed gaming forums thanks to the smoke and mirrors being combined with cretinous internet fanboys and children. Viva Common Sense! |
I wouldn't applaud any decisions which are against consumers, neither bring up sheer fanboyism to project my personal interests in a thread. While replying to the concerned posts it's fair to justify Sony's Cell architecture to some extent and mention how 1st party studios have had more time than multiplat devs to work with it and bring out those great exclusives.
And relating PS3's Cell to Sega's 2-CPU... Seriously? Well Sega Saturn was a whole different story, Sega sucked at marketing, one of the major things attributed to their failure was their early surprise launch pissing 3rd party Genesis devs off as well as the prominent retail chain outlets. Sony is simply poles apart when it comes to such matters and they have proved it since PS1 era. PS3 has brought visually astounding games(not just one or two) and the console has had a fair marketshare which has been increasing over the years.
The Cell riddance "common sense" and downplay of yours simply aims at ignoring the success PS3 has had in this generation already like its competitors, if not dominate them. This doesn't imply by any means that I'm against Sony's decisions to replace Cell in their next gen console. It's rather a wise move and a potential next gen WIN-WIN situation conerning devs interests and the corporation's marketing strategy.
