By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
GOWTLOZ on 05 April 2018
Edit Thread
Xen said:
xl-klaudkil said:
Also i do wanne say last genn whas one if not the worst ever, waay to many shooters and to phew new ips.
This genn is well at least for ps4 back to the ps2 days.

Too many shooters sure,, but even the PS4 is not quite on the combined level of PS3 and 360 that gen, still a ways to go IMO: so so many great PS4 games are remakes of PS360 titles!

PS2 though is such an amazingly high level of console that nothing will touch it ever. It is not only the zenith of Sony, but the zenith of home consoles as well IMO.

PS2 doesn't have the quality of games available on PS3. Most PS2 games would now be considered average JRPG's, while PS3 had evergreen games like Infamous 1&2, Killzone 2&3, Resistance 1 to 3, GOW 3, Uncharted 1 to 3, Gran Turismo 6, Demon's Souls and that's just the exclusives. It also was the best gen for multiplatform games like Batman Arkham Asylum and City, Devil May Cry 4 and DmC, Dark Souls, NFS Hot Pursuit and Most Wanted, Red Dead Redemption, Assassin's Creed 2 and Brotherhood, Burnout: Paradise. PS2 has only a few games that still hold up today, the God of Wars, the Devil May Crys and the GT and NFS Undergrounds and Most Wanted. Its not close.

curl-6 said:
S.Peelman said:
So what are your #1 and #2?

SNES and Wii.

GOWTLOZ said:

Personal preference is subjective, what is not subjective is that PS3 had highly rated exclusives in a variety of genres and hence the best library of games. I wouldn't say Halo 4 and Gears look anywhere near as good as GOW 3, Ascension, Killzone 3 and TLOU but then you might prefer their artstyle and I can't argue that as it is subjective.

Ratings are subjective too, it all comes down to which games one prefers. I enjoyed some PS3 exclusives like Uncharted 1-3 and Killzone 3, but not quite as much as I loved Gears 1-3 or Halo 4/Reach.

Personally, I think a lot of people graphically underrate the 360 simply because it didn't have as many graphical showpieces as PS3. Sony made a strong push for them in order try to justify all the "c3ll" hype, while MS didn't prioritize them as much. So while PS3 definitely has the majority of the best looking games last gen, I personally reckon the best of both consoles were pretty much equal. PS3 was generally better at post-processing, while 360's eDRAM meant it was better at doing lots of high res alpha transparencies. The games that doubled down on these strengths exceeded what was possible on the other console; you couldn't do Killzone 3 on 360, but by the same token you couldn't do Gears of War 3 on PS3.

The cell didn't need justification, it was brilliant from a hardware perspective just difficult to code for but it had the most potential of the 3 consoles and could have revolutionised gaming hardware if they had ironed out the processor to make it easier to code for. It was also held back by the lack of ram and made more difficult due to the split ram.

I don't agree that Halo 4 and Gears 3 look close to the PS3's best. Yes they might not be possible on PS3 but visually PS3's top line exclusives blow them away. That's because PS3's strengths outweighed the 360's strengths yet the 360 did have a few ups over the PS3. Unified ram and more powerful GPU for instance surely helped in a lot of games.