By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
GOWTLOZ on 08 April 2018
Edit Thread
Xen said:
GOWTLOZ said:

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.

It's no wonder you cannot appreciate the PS2: after all, you were about 7 y/o in 2005, which is perhaps its peak year.

That aside, our tastes are a bit too different for me to even present a lengthy argument. In my opinion for example, Assassin's Creed is a terrible and vapid franchise throughout, while Metal Gear Solid 3 handily beats absolutely any 7th gen game... and 8th gen for that matter.

I wasn't 7, I was 8. Still PS2 was relevant in my country till 2009, and I was old enough to understand mostly everything by that age. I still reckon that most PS2 games don't do it for me. As a kid I did enjoy The Godfather and Mafia on PS2, but now God of War 1 & 2, Devil May Cry 3, GT 3 & 4, NFS Underground 1 & 2 and Most Wanted and GTA games are the only ones I enjoy. That's not because of muh maturity or any such bullshit, its because most PS2 games have aged terribly or were crappy to begin with, while PS3 games standardised certain aspects of game design and controls that made them much better to play and were vastly bigger in scope.

Yes our tastes differ, but by that token no platform is the best objectively. Something that is objective, is that PS2 games had lesser scope, less details, worse controls, less variety of genres than the PS3.

curl-6 said:
GOWTLOZ said:

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.

The Cell really wasn't all it was cracked up to be; the internet hyped it up as this magical miracle chip that made the PS3 a supercomputer, and it really wasn't. It did deliver more FLOPS than the 360's CPU, but as you've pointed out, 360 had a better RAM setup and GPU, plus the addition of eDRAM gave it a big bandwidth advantage. Even high end PS3 exclusives tended to use half or even quarter res alpha transparencies to compensate for this;  for example:

Of course, PS3 did have advantages of its own. Having played pretty much all the best looking games of both, I still reckon there's little to give either a definitive visual edge over the other.

Your second comparison seems selectively biased against PS3, showing Kratos from afar when his character model would be less detailed while comparing it to a screenshot from right behind Fenix. Not an accurate comparison.

I did say 360 had some advantages, not sure why you needed to post these screenshots. Never did I say Cell was a miracle chip, but it was a very powerful and impressive CPU and that is undeniable.