| huaxiong90 said: "Other than Halo Reach and Fable 3 the 360 doesn't have many exclusives whatsoever. With DX11 out and so many PS3 exclusives this year, I can't see it being the year of the 360 at all. Dated tech is really showing it's limitations and this is being reflected in gameplay. Plus, Arc's due in Fall, whereas Natal just seems to be the eyetoy. With the week on week sales of PS3 beating the 360, I can't see 2010 being a good year for 360 - I'd actually be willing to bet it's going to be it's worst."
Ok, so this was a response to someone saying Mass Effect 2 is the best looking game out on consoles now. All right, as painful as this'll be, I'm going to go through all of the comments to see about this. As for games not being able to be completely graphically demanding on Xbox 360: Aren't the GPU's of Xbox 360's and PC's similar? So where is the difference that sets them apart? Please explain. I don't understand platform specs in depth.
As for the Xbox 360 and PC: Not everybody can afford a gaming rig. Of course sales aren't going to reach their max potential by being console exclusives, but they can certainly cause sales spikes, as well as contribute to the overall value (i.e. games) of a console when deciding which console to buy. They have more bigger budget exclusives this year than 2009. Will they help to outsell the PS3? I don't know, as the PS3 has AAA games of its own, but we'll see. As for Natal and Arc: I've said what you said to people who think it's a fact that they will turn the tides. Can they turn the tides? Yes, with the right price and software. Natal has more media attention than arc, so IF Microsoft pull it off right, it can be a success. It's speculation, in other words. Nobody's putting it off as a fact.
Last but not least, this is where I disagree with Lord Flash and selnor: It has nothing to do with PS3 favoritism. Neither me nor CGI can see what sets this above Uncharted 2 or even Killzone 2 (char. models are where ME2 is ahead of KZ2, though the lighting and environment detail is better in KZ2). |
Didn't realise it was that post, so let me clarify:
Yeah, the 360 has few true exclusives and natal is essentially an eyetoy, as in a device which captures motion via a camera. As for the 360's limits, EA clamimed to have reached it in June, & Bungie also claim that Reach is as far as the 360 will go. Plus more and more multiple DVDs are being seen which devs do not like as it hikes up production cost.
Yes the GPU's are very similar, with the 360's having the leading edge, BUT the Cell is able to also act as a GPU, so the PS3 comes out on top, something with many devs have said time & time again. Because of this I'd be dubious about anyone claiming that the game with the best graphics would appear on the 360.
True that 360/PC titles will cause a spike, but I'd expect it to not be enough considering the difference, though I'll have to wait and see. Plus with 360/PC games able to run on now cheap components, the spike I'd presume would be getting lower & lower as games are cheaper on PC than 360. Therefore I'd expect people who had the option between 360 & PC to choose PC for the possible titles.
Arc and Natal essentialy are mysteries in terms of sales so hard to say anything about them, but the likes of Natal has been seen before in the not so succesful Eyetoy.
As for ME2 graphics, yeah the character models are really good, especially for Shepard - high textures, high poly count and the works, but the killer seems to be little or no AA and little enviroment detail, and a heavy realiance on textures. Still it looks a hell of a game, just not the "bezt grfix ev0r" which was my point to whoever borught it up and that quickly degraded into my point about not expecting the 360 to have the best console graphics due to its hardware.
