Mifely said:
I have to disagree with the cross-platform comparisons -- the GC was considerably easier to develop for than the PS2, and thus most cross-platform games were shorted on the PS2, because the developer iterated faster by developing on the GC/XBox primarily. If you want to compare two consoles via software, the best way to do it, is to compare exclusives -- where the developer had to focus on the console at hand. Cross-platform games *always* have a console bias, due to the fact that its just plain easier for a dev studio to support one platform of development (from every standpoint, but especially IT, meaning having every engineer/artist/designer have the same kind of devkit, dev software, and working build) as a primary, and assign a small team to ensure that their engine ports to the other platforms throughout development. RE4 was built primarily on the GC, by a Japanese development studio that favored Nintendo development over Microsoft development. You can compare it to an exclusive, like God of War, but comparing it to its PS2 counterpart is actually a bit unfair. As I said, the PS2 and GC exclusives are actually quite similar, graphically, in my opinion. You could argue that, despite "real" hardware performance being similar, that the PS2s much greater learning curve effectively lowered its games' performance over the console's lifetime. I would definately say that's true... and frankly, that's what matters in the end to the user. In that sense, the only sense that matters, the PS2 was the slowest of its generation. In the current generation, the same is true of the PS3 vs X360 -- except that the PS3 appears to actually be a bit superior when handled by a talented team, as opposed to "near equal". At this time though, the PS3 and X360 are only just getting to be "on par", from the user's perspective... the PS3 has suffered a bit from its learning curve thusfar (I would say very similar to PS2/GC comparisons, actually), although that trend does appear to be on the downward slope. The Wii... is unique. It is, effectively, the very first "casual console" -- it almost deserves another comparison catagory, all to itself. Claiming it competes with the PS3 and 360 is actually somewhat of a stretch, in my opinion. |
I disagree, firstly the ps2 was a very casual console. You see this by how many people owned the ps2. There is no way that all of them are hardcore gamers, and if they are that would mean more people would jump to next gen than they have. Then there are many casual games that sold extremely well. I'm not saying it is as casual as the wii, but it is a very casual system and should be classified as one. Secondly the wii isn't only casual at all either. You see this by many games such as The Legend of Zelda, Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3, Resident Evil 4 and Umbrella chronicles, etc selling very well. Also it seems that many ps360 owners also own a wii. Thirdly if the wii didn't compete with the other consoles then they are sellin poorly compared to previous generations and the market is shrinking. Also you see the wii taking many exclusives from these consoles such as Monster Hunter 3, and many potential exclusives such as Fatal Frame IV. The only reason the ps360 have more games for them is that there is less of a risk, and 3rd party developers didn't prove yet that their high budget games sell good on the wii.
Edit: Also you never replied to my other post.
