By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Do you agree or disagree that the PS3 as a lead platform as oppose to 360

 

Do you agree or disagree that the PS3 as a lead platform as oppose to 360

Agreed 95 65.52%
 
Disagreed 27 18.62%
 
maybe depends on the game and developer 23 15.86%
 
Total:145
disolitude on 30 September 2010

Making the PS3 as the lead platform is the second dumbest idea developer could have. Almost as dumb as making 360 as the lead platform.

The lead platform should be PC, and here is why...

PC supports things like Physx, 3D Vision, eyefinity (monitor surround gaming) and many other features nowhere to be found on consoles.

Here are examples of games which were done PC first:

Mafia 2 - supports 3D vision flawlessly, physx, monitor surround

Battlefield Bad Company 2 - supports 3D vision flawlessly, physx, monitor surround

Batman Arkham Asylum - supports 3D vision flawlessly, physx, monitor surround

Was there anything wrong with these games getting ported on to consoles and their inferior glory? I don't think so...

 

Now here is a list of games which were console first and then ported to PC:

Darksiders - Doesn't support anything PC has to offer

Dead Rising 2 - doesn't support shit higher than 1920x1200 resolution on single monitor

Transformers: War for Cybetron - Same game as console version, not a single enhancement.

 

So anyways, my point is...console developed games blow chunks when the go to PC. PC developed games are fine when tey go to consoles.



Around the Network
jarrod on 01 October 2010

disolitude's right, PC lead then console downports tends to work out best for all.  That's what Capcom started doing with their MT Framework games with DMC4, and they've turned out pretty damn even between consoles (DMC4, RE5, LP2, MVC3), especially compared to other JP devs.



darkknightkryta on 01 October 2010
jarrod said:

disolitude's right, PC lead then console downports tends to work out best for all.  That's what Capcom started doing with their MT Framework games with DMC4, and they've turned out pretty damn even between consoles (DMC4, RE5, LP2, MVC3), especially compared to other JP devs.


It's not as black and white as you think.  Capcom's MT Framework is a cross compiler, from what I can gather, and the engine is  constantly optimized for 360 and PS3.  Though the side effect of it being a PC engine first gets you quick ports to PC.  Though I agree, Capcom's approach is a lot better than most developers (i.e. all developers).  It gives you great graphics accross the board with minimal efforts.



disolitude on 01 October 2010
darkknightkryta said:
jarrod said:

disolitude's right, PC lead then console downports tends to work out best for all.  That's what Capcom started doing with their MT Framework games with DMC4, and they've turned out pretty damn even between consoles (DMC4, RE5, LP2, MVC3), especially compared to other JP devs.


It's not as black and white as you think.  Capcom's MT Framework is a cross compiler, from what I can gather, and the engine is  constantly optimized for 360 and PS3.  Though the side effect of it being a PC engine first gets you quick ports to PC.  Though I agree, Capcom's approach is a lot better than most developers (i.e. all developers).  It gives you great graphics accross the board with minimal efforts.

Which is why Dead Rising 2 is such a dissapointment. Doesn't support res higher than 2100x1200.

People with 3 monitor surround are left to fend for their own field of vision hacks...and people with high end/high resolution monitors are not getting the best res they could.



huaxiong90 on 01 October 2010
disolitude said:

Now here is a list of games which were console first and then ported to PC:

Darksiders - Doesn't support anything PC has to offer

Dead Rising 2 - doesn't support shit higher than 1920x1200 resolution on single monitor

Transformers: War for Cybetron - Same game as console version, not a single enhancement.

 

So anyways, my point is...console developed games blow chunks when the go to PC. PC developed games are fine when tey go to consoles.

I heard the PC version of Bully was also pretty half-assed.



Rockstar: Announce Bully 2 already and make gamers proud!

Kojima: Come out with Project S already!

Around the Network
Doobie_wop on 01 October 2010
huaxiong90 said:
disolitude said:

Now here is a list of games which were console first and then ported to PC:

Darksiders - Doesn't support anything PC has to offer

Dead Rising 2 - doesn't support shit higher than 1920x1200 resolution on single monitor

Transformers: War for Cybetron - Same game as console version, not a single enhancement.

 

So anyways, my point is...console developed games blow chunks when the go to PC. PC developed games are fine when tey go to consoles.

I heard the PC version of Bully was also pretty half-assed.

Bully is probably the worst port I've ever seen. Every time I enter certain rooms, everything disappears and it's just my character walking into oblivion. Resident Evil 4 is also pretty bad.

OT: PS3/360 games should be PS3 lead, the results have all been great so far (besides Final Fantasy which is a exception).



Bet with Conegamer and AussieGecko that the PS3 will have more exclusives in 2011 than the Wii or 360... or something.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3879752

NJ5 on 01 October 2010

I really hope Sony stops making stupid architectures which are more expensive and give worse results with the same development effort.

Then developers can just make the game on whatever and port it to whatever and it will work well. Hopefully in the next gen.



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

darkknightkryta on 01 October 2010
disolitude said:
darkknightkryta said:
jarrod said:

disolitude's right, PC lead then console downports tends to work out best for all.  That's what Capcom started doing with their MT Framework games with DMC4, and they've turned out pretty damn even between consoles (DMC4, RE5, LP2, MVC3), especially compared to other JP devs.


It's not as black and white as you think.  Capcom's MT Framework is a cross compiler, from what I can gather, and the engine is  constantly optimized for 360 and PS3.  Though the side effect of it being a PC engine first gets you quick ports to PC.  Though I agree, Capcom's approach is a lot better than most developers (i.e. all developers).  It gives you great graphics accross the board with minimal efforts.

Which is why Dead Rising 2 is such a dissapointment. Doesn't support res higher than 2100x1200.

People with 3 monitor surround are left to fend for their own field of vision hacks...and people with high end/high resolution monitors are not getting the best res they could.

Does Dead Rising 2 use MT Framework?  I mean wasn't Dead Rising 2 outsourced?



Badassbab on 02 October 2010

It's up to the developer. Nuff said.






Bladeforce on 03 October 2010

Shouldn't this be renamed to "Which is the best console to be in 2nd place" After they are getting their butts kicked by a little white box



"...the best way to prepare [to be a programmer] is to write programs, and to study great programs that other people have written. In my case, I went to the garbage cans at the Computer Science Center and fished out listings of their operating system." - Bill Gates (Microsoft Corporation)

"Hey, Steve, just because you broke into Xerox's house before I did and took the TV doesn't mean I can't go in later and take the stereo." - Bill Gates (Microsoft Corporation)

Bill Gates had Mac prototypes to work from, and he was known to be obsessed with trying to make Windows as good as SAND (Steve's Amazing New Device), as a Microsoft exec named it. It was the Mac that Microsoft took for its blueprint on how to make a GUI.

 

""Windows [n.] - A thirty-two bit extension and GUI shell to a sixteen bit patch to an eight bit operating system originally coded for a four bit microprocessor and sold by a two-bit company that can't stand one bit of competition.""