By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
IamAwsome on 10 November 2014
Edit Thread
BraLoD said:

And LOL at people talking about PS2.
The XBOX and GameCube together barely even had half the games that came to the PS2.
Parity isn't an issue when everyone only want to develop to one system.
And I don't remember 360 games looking worse than they should because it was harder to develop to the PS3, most multiplats didn't cared for parity at all as we can see 360 getting better looking games almost all gen by third party. And when parity happened was to PS3 games worked more to look as they were on the 360, not the 360 held down to PS3 don't look bad.

The PS3 did have a complicated architechure, but that didn't stop some developers. Pretty much everything EA developed that isn't a sports sim, everything Rockstar developed, all Assassin's Creed games, and many other examples were developed on the PS3 first. The PS3's lead platform multiplats didn't look better on PS3, but exclusives did. Multiplats that looked better on the 360 probably did so because it's harder to port to PS3 than 360.  AC Unity and EA Sports sims on the PS4 don't look leagues and bounds better than the XB1 versions for a similar reason. 

I would say developers DID care about parity last gen. Like I said, most multiplats developed on PS3 first looked the exact same on both consoles. Games developed on 360 first looked better on 360. GAMERS are the ones who didn't care about parity, and they do now. The PS3 was more powerful than the 360, and Uncharted shows this, so if games last gen didn't "push the PS3" to its limits (according to logic used during the AC Unity debacle, and again now), why is it such a big deal now??