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

Forums - Sony Discussion - Final Fantasy versus XIII still PS3 exclusive

Kynes on 19 January 2011
pizzahut451 said:
Kynes said:
pizzahut451 said:
PearlJam said:

PS2 had a DVD drive, while the GameCube used mini-disks that only held 1.5 GB of data. But only an insane person would argue that the PS2 had better graphics.

Let's not forget that the PS3 has a very limited memory architecture, and only 512 MB of Ram. If it had maybe twice the memory of the 360, people making these claims would have a point. You could have GBs worth of data, but you still have to work with the limited RAM.

And with billion times better CPU
"Repeat a lie a thousand times and it becomes the truth."

Im not repeating anything, im just looking at results buddy

Then learn history.



Around the Network
Kynes on 19 January 2011
CGI-Quality said:
Pristine20 said:
A Bad Clown said:
Pristine20 said:

There's an FFXIII-2? O.o. Guess S-E really wants redemption. I dont mind though. Light need to be the most powerful character this time.

 

As for vsXIII, lol @ it's exclusivity. It's not only stupid at this point, it just won't happen.


When you change "Only on PS3" to "For PS3", that's when shit goes down in Sony headquaters...

They really changed it to "for ps3" and people still think the game is exclusive? That makes it even funnier because that's a huge hint right there that a lot are simply ignoring

It's not just the words there that some have harped on, but Nomura himself. He stands by his statement that his game is only fo PS3, but SE can (and probably will) see to it that it ends up on the 360.

You also can't blame those for having doubts, how long did some 360 fans hang on to MGS4 going multi? I'd say this to both sides: just-wait-and-see.


AFAIK what Nomura said is that it's being developed for PS3, not that it's only for PS3. He said that trying to explain the difference of a multiplatform development and a late port.



Kynes on 19 January 2011
CGI-Quality said:
Kynes said:


AFAIK what Nomura said is that it's being developed for PS3, not that it's only for PS3. He said it trying to explain the difference of a multiplatform development and a late port.

Read what I said carefully, HE is only developing it for PS3, not that it won't end up elsewhere. Pretty self explanatory, he isn't developing a multiplatform game, but he must not have much choice in where else it ends up (which is slightly different from Kojima).


Ok, I misunderstood you.



Runa216 on 19 January 2011
huaxiong90 said:
Runa216 said:

why is everyone arguing over specs from last gen?  if you're going to whine about what system has the best features, at least do so regarding to THIS generation, since the game in question is coming out in THIS console generation.   

I want this game to be developed EXCLUSIVELY for the PS3 because I find games that are made FOR the PS3 run better than multiplatform games on PS3.  a lot of games that are multiplatform (oblivion, Dragon Age, Bioshock) run better on the 360 becuase they were made for the 360 and adapted to the PS3 hardware.  Since Xboxes are prone to breaking, and I use my PS3 for everything, entertainment wise, I prefer playing games on the PS3 to the Xbox...and that works well for me when it's not just a port of a 360 game.  

And since I'd be buying the game for PS3 no matter if it's multiplatform or not, I'm sure it'd play better if it was exclusive.  you know, like LittleBigPlanet, Uncharted, and even Resistance...apparently on a technical scale, Resistance: Fall of Man is better than Halo: Reach.  on a purely technical scale, not anything else.  

Based on what? Seriously, just stop. I'm not gonna bother pointing out the fallacies in the rest of your post if you're gonna blurt such nonsense.

There can be no fallacy with opinion and personal preference, so I don't even know why I'm arguing since you can't differentiate between Fact and Opinion, but whatever. 

As for Resistance, I saw a video posted on here comparing the technical specs (framerate, draw distance, and general performance) of Resistance and Halo Reach.  while they were close, Resistance maintained a higher performance output than Halo:Reach.  Frankly I was surprised at this, so it stuck in my brain since I never saw Resistance as a AAA title, and Halo is widely considered one of the best game series of all time. 

Fanboys can be so blind sometime.

EDIT: This post has been moderated. -d1



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

huaxiong90 on 19 January 2011
Runa216 said:
huaxiong90 said:
Runa216 said:

why is everyone arguing over specs from last gen?  if you're going to whine about what system has the best features, at least do so regarding to THIS generation, since the game in question is coming out in THIS console generation.   

I want this game to be developed EXCLUSIVELY for the PS3 because I find games that are made FOR the PS3 run better than multiplatform games on PS3.  a lot of games that are multiplatform (oblivion, Dragon Age, Bioshock) run better on the 360 becuase they were made for the 360 and adapted to the PS3 hardware.  Since Xboxes are prone to breaking, and I use my PS3 for everything, entertainment wise, I prefer playing games on the PS3 to the Xbox...and that works well for me when it's not just a port of a 360 game.  

And since I'd be buying the game for PS3 no matter if it's multiplatform or not, I'm sure it'd play better if it was exclusive.  you know, like LittleBigPlanet, Uncharted, and even Resistance...apparently on a technical scale, Resistance: Fall of Man is better than Halo: Reach.  on a purely technical scale, not anything else.  

Based on what? Seriously, just stop. I'm not gonna bother pointing out the fallacies in the rest of your post if you're gonna blurt such nonsense.


There can be no fallacy with opinion and personal preference, so I don't even know why I'm arguing since you can't differentiate between Fact and Opinion, but whatever. 

As for Resistance, I saw a video posted on here comparing the technical specs (framerate, draw distance, and general performance) of Resistance and Halo Reach.  while they were close, Resistance maintained a higher performance output than Halo:Reach.  Frankly I was surprised at this, so it stuck in my brain since I never saw Resistance as a AAA title, and Halo is widely considered one of the best game series of all time. 

Fanboys can be so blind sometime. 

FYI, that was Resistance 2, not Fall of Man, and the difference between FoM and 2 is noticeable. I don't think you even played either game or even pay attention to where the performance differences lay, you just read that the PS3 game won, and used that as a reference.

And just lol at calling me a fanboy for calling out a fallacy. First of all, I prefer PsWii over Xbox 360. Second of all, calling someone a fanboy is a bannable offense on this forum.

I just don't suck up to either console manufacturer is all.



Rockstar: Announce Bully 2 already and make gamers proud!

Kojima: Come out with Project S already!

Around the Network
Pristine20 on 19 January 2011
CGI-Quality said:
Kynes said:
CGI-Quality said:

Read what I said carefully, HE is only developing it for PS3, not that it won't end up elsewhere. Pretty self explanatory, he isn't developing a multiplatform game, but he must not have much choice in where else it ends up (which is slightly different from Kojima).


Ok, I misunderstood you.

No worries, it happens.

Really though, we all should just wait, but chances are it's going multiplatform.

Yup, that's the highest likelihood. There's no denying it. It's like the people who claim COD will drop the ps3....just won't happen. When there are millions of possible sales to be had, it will appear. Hell FFXIII eventually showed up on 360 in Japan for those few thousand sales.

Note that I do not necessarily want the game on 360 or care if the game shows up there or not. I just predict based on facts and trends and eitherway, I get to play the game on my ps3 anyway.

 



"Dr. Tenma, according to you, lives are equal. That's why I live today. But you must have realised it by now...the only thing people are equal in is death"---Johann Liebert (MONSTER)

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives"---Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler

Runa216 on 19 January 2011
huaxiong90 said:
Runa216 said:
huaxiong90 said:
Runa216 said:

why is everyone arguing over specs from last gen?  if you're going to whine about what system has the best features, at least do so regarding to THIS generation, since the game in question is coming out in THIS console generation.   

I want this game to be developed EXCLUSIVELY for the PS3 because I find games that are made FOR the PS3 run better than multiplatform games on PS3.  a lot of games that are multiplatform (oblivion, Dragon Age, Bioshock) run better on the 360 becuase they were made for the 360 and adapted to the PS3 hardware.  Since Xboxes are prone to breaking, and I use my PS3 for everything, entertainment wise, I prefer playing games on the PS3 to the Xbox...and that works well for me when it's not just a port of a 360 game.  

And since I'd be buying the game for PS3 no matter if it's multiplatform or not, I'm sure it'd play better if it was exclusive.  you know, like LittleBigPlanet, Uncharted, and even Resistance...apparently on a technical scale, Resistance: Fall of Man is better than Halo: Reach.  on a purely technical scale, not anything else.  

Based on what? Seriously, just stop. I'm not gonna bother pointing out the fallacies in the rest of your post if you're gonna blurt such nonsense.


There can be no fallacy with opinion and personal preference, so I don't even know why I'm arguing since you can't differentiate between Fact and Opinion, but whatever. 

As for Resistance, I saw a video posted on here comparing the technical specs (framerate, draw distance, and general performance) of Resistance and Halo Reach.  while they were close, Resistance maintained a higher performance output than Halo:Reach.  Frankly I was surprised at this, so it stuck in my brain since I never saw Resistance as a AAA title, and Halo is widely considered one of the best game series of all time. 

Fanboys can be so blind sometime. 

FYI, that was Resistance 2, not Fall of Man, and the difference between FoM and 2 is noticeable. I don't think you even played either game or even pay attention to where the performance differences lay, you just read that the PS3 game won, and used that as a reference.

And just lol at calling me a fanboy for calling out a fallacy. First of all, I prefer PsWii over Xbox 360. Second of all, calling someone a fanboy is a bannable offense on this forum.

I just don't suck up to either console manufacturer is all.


Okay, so it was resistance 2, I wasn't sure it was but it was still that series so I wasn't far off. and yes, I played the first one and thought it was...okay.  I don't pick favorites, I call it like I see it, and the PS3 has more potential, and the games made exclusively for PS3 tend to perform much better than the games developed multiplatform or for Xbox.  Not saying they're better games (though I do have data to support that), but on a technical level the PS3 is objectively better.  argue all you want, the numbers are there.  

Then again, my favorite games this gen are on Wii (Donkey Kong and Smash Brothers), so it's not like I actually care about performance on its own,, but if I had a choice between a great game and a great game that performs spectacularly, I'll pick the one that performs well.  



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

huaxiong90 on 19 January 2011
Runa216 said:

Okay, so it was resistance 2, I wasn't sure it was but it was still that series so I wasn't far off. and yes, I played the first one and thought it was...okay.  I don't pick favorites, I call it like I see it, and the PS3 has more potential, and the games made exclusively for PS3 tend to perform much better than the games developed multiplatform or for Xbox.  Not saying they're better games (though I do have data to support that), but on a technical level the PS3 is objectively better.  argue all you want, the numbers are there.  

Then again, my favorite games this gen are on Wii (Donkey Kong and Smash Brothers), so it's not like I actually care about performance on its own,, but if I had a choice between a great game and a great game that performs spectacularly, I'll pick the one that performs well.  

I always did think the PS3 is the more capable machine, I never argued otherwise.

This whole debate started when people assumed it's the Xbox 360 that caused FFXIII to be linear. There's no substantial evidence to support that.

Now it's been derailed bad, so it's better we just drop the argument here, as we both got off to a bad start. Fair enough?



Rockstar: Announce Bully 2 already and make gamers proud!

Kojima: Come out with Project S already!

PearlJam on 19 January 2011
pizzahut451 said:
PearlJam said:
pizzahut451 said:
PearlJam said:

PS2 had a DVD drive, while the GameCube used mini-disks that only held 1.5 GB of data. But only an insane person would argue that the PS2 had better graphics.

Let's not forget that the PS3 has a very limited memory architecture, and only 512 MB of Ram. If it had maybe twice the memory of the 360, people making these claims would have a point. You could have GBs worth of data, but you still have to work with the limited RAM.

And with billion times better CPU


Yeah, and the 360 has billion times better GPU and WAY more RAM. A whole 10MB.

Hence why Xbox 360 is playing catch up with PS3 since 2008


It's the other way around.



Wagram on 19 January 2011
PearlJam said:
pizzahut451 said:
PearlJam said:
pizzahut451 said:
PearlJam said:

PS2 had a DVD drive, while the GameCube used mini-disks that only held 1.5 GB of data. But only an insane person would argue that the PS2 had better graphics.

Let's not forget that the PS3 has a very limited memory architecture, and only 512 MB of Ram. If it had maybe twice the memory of the 360, people making these claims would have a point. You could have GBs worth of data, but you still have to work with the limited RAM.

And with billion times better CPU


Yeah, and the 360 has billion times better GPU and WAY more RAM. A whole 10MB.

Hence why Xbox 360 is playing catch up with PS3 since 2008


It's the other way around.


Well technically yes the PS3 is playing catch up to catch the 360s sales, but the 360 launched 1 year earlier.

In terms of time though the PS3 is outselling the 360 since launch.