Originally posted by General KalieroI died a little reading this.
This is precisely what I'm saying. Sure, it technically has all of this incredible processing power potential, but no one has ever actually shown off any real games that turn the potential into fact. In nearly four years exactly, not one game has been produced that authentically displays the Cell processor's vaunted power. There is a point when potential becomes simply wishful thinking. We are long past it.
Originally posted by General Kalierowell...honestly, halo is far to popular to compare with anything else imo. which i don't really see why, other than the observation that shooters and sports games seem to be more popular with the casual to the near hard core gamers than anything else.
Interestingly, God of War 3 racked up 2,993,713 sales over 20 weeks. Halo: Reach sold 4,867,876 units in 2 weeks.Hm.
Edit: oh, forgot to say my original point. gow is also incredibly violent, halo isn't exactly a care bear game, but it isn't so.... horrendous? can't think of a good word, so that will have to do
Originally posted by General KalieroIt's an inconvenience for one. Who in their right mind would choose two discs as opposed to one ?
Well the main reason for that, I think, is that multiplatform games are pretty much always developed for 360 first and then ported to the PS3, and comparisons have shown time and time again that graphical differences between the systems on those games are negligible to the point of being almost nonexistent. So for someone who thinks that graphics are the only determinant of game quality, they have to rely on their consoles exclusives to show apparent "superiority."Why is having multiple discs a bad thing? It doesn't increase the cost of the game for the buyer, it makes players feel like they received more game for their buck, and if the game is done well switching the disc happens right after a dramatic story event. Tales of Symphonia on the Gamecube, Lost Odyssey, and sometimes even the PS1 era FFs used dramatic disc swaps to great effect.
Not saying you can't pull them off but when one system does a game on one disc another rival company does with two well let's just say it shows why the ps3 is more powerful.
Originally posted by quanchi112
It's an inconvenience for one. Who in their right mind would choose two discs as opposed to one ?Not saying you can't pull them off but when one system does a game on one disc another rival company does with two well let's just say it shows why the ps3 is more powerful.
That doesn't show that it's more powerful at all; it simply means they have more disc space available on their chosen medium. Nothing more.
Originally posted by PeachGow3 and unchartered 2 shows it's more powerful while we can add more space to what it does better than the xbox. The purtiest games are on the ps3. Xbox can't touch them graphically.
That doesn't show that it's more powerful at all; it simply means they have more disc space available on their chosen medium. Nothing more.
Originally posted by quanchi112
It's an inconvenience for one. Who in their right mind would choose two discs as opposed to one ?Not saying you can't pull them off but when one system does a game on one disc another rival company does with two well let's just say it shows why the ps3 is more powerful.
For Blu-Ray, putting that content on one disc is the only reason for its existence. But if taking a few seconds to swap out a disc is enough for you to consider an "inconvenience," I'd consider that personality ridiculously high-maintenance. It's a pretty petty, silly argument in either case.
Originally posted by quanchi112
Gow3 and unchartered 2 shows it's more powerful while we can add more space to what it does better than the xbox. The purtiest games are on the ps3. Xbox can't touch them graphically.
GK's already covered why having more space available on the discs is not necessarily a good thing, and is in fact a bad thing when they utilize this poorly; do please try to keep up.
GoW3 and Uncharted 2 look nice, but honestly? I wasn't hugely impressed by either. Uncharted 2 was especially a let down, after having heard how gorgeous it was and then seeing nothing that was more special than I have on my 360.
Originally posted by quanchi112
Gow3 and unchartered 2 shows it's more powerful while we can add more space to what it does better than the xbox. The purtiest games are on the ps3. Xbox can't touch them graphically.
yeah, but aside from those very few exceptions like, Metal Gear Solid or God of War 3, the graphics between the two system are rarely identifiable. There are even some instances where the lighting effects or colors come through slightly better on the 360. It took Ps3 four yeas but they finally have a few games that are worth playing, however, it still remains that the power the PS3 claimed and still claims to have has never been utilized in a manner that makes it stand apart from the 360. Other than GOW 3 and unchartered 2 i really havent played my PS3. I have all but given up on them to utilize their blu ray or any of their other hardware specs that was suppose to make it cutting edge and innovative game console. PS3 is an expensive paper weight
Originally posted by General KalieroIt's still an inconvenience one doesn't need to go through if you have the ps3 version. You can say it's no big deal and downplay it but I've already made my points.
Let's not say that, because that would be a stupid thing to say. It shows literally nothing about the PS3's power. It's all about the disc format. With today's tech, having multiple discs shows that you're putting more focus on content, dedicating extra space to more worldspace, higher texture maps and models, etc. A DVD disc costs less than a penny to manufacture nowadays.For Blu-Ray, putting that content on one disc is the only reason for its existence. But if taking a few seconds to swap out a disc is enough for you to consider an "inconvenience," I'd consider that personality ridiculously high-maintenance. It's a pretty petty, silly argument in either case.
Originally posted by PeachI don't care whether you were impressed with the game or not the point we are debating is the graphical superiority of these two games. Please try and keep up. Your opinion on the games themselves is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You agree they look better than anything the xbox can bring to the table so my point stands. More powerful.
GK's already covered why having more space available on the discs is not necessarily a good thing, and is in fact a bad thing when they utilize this poorly; do please try to keep up.GoW3 and Uncharted 2 look nice, but honestly? I wasn't hugely impressed by either. Uncharted 2 was especially a let down, after having heard how gorgeous it was and then seeing nothing that was more special than I have on my 360.
Name a game that compares to either of these two graphically as an xbox exclusive.
Originally posted by jinXed by JaNxBecause most games are ports which are rarely that different as they are ports.
yeah, but aside from those very few exceptions like, Metal Gear Solid or God of War 3, the graphics between the two system are rarely identifiable. There are even some instances where the lighting effects or colors come through slightly better on the 360. It took Ps3 four yeas but they finally have a few games that are worth playing, however, it still remains that the power the PS3 claimed and still claims to have has never been utilized in a manner that makes it stand apart from the 360. Other than GOW 3 and unchartered 2 i really havent played my PS3. I have all but given up on them to utilize their blu ray or any of their other hardware specs that was suppose to make it cutting edge and innovative game console. PS3 is an expensive paper weight
Ultimately it's up to each and everyone of us but I recently bought my xbox for the fable series and while I did enjoy those games I use mine as a paperweight until fable 3 comes out anyways.
My ps3 plays my blu ray and I usually get most of my games that aren't exclusive for the ps3.
To each his own but ps3 can do and look prettier than the xbox and also serves as a blu ray player. I will take that any day over a less powerful system that isn't a blu ray player.
Originally posted by quanchi112
It's still an inconvenience one doesn't need to go through if you have the ps3 version. You can say it's no big deal and downplay it but I've already made my points. I don't care whether you were impressed with the game or not the point we are debating is the graphical superiority of these two games. Please try and keep up. Your opinion on the games themselves is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You agree they look better than anything the xbox can bring to the table so my point stands. More powerful.Name a game that compares to either of these two graphically as an xbox exclusive.
Wow, you don't even know what you're arguing anymore. Hint - it's not the graphical superiority of one system or the other, it's which system is more powerful overall and, more importantly, which one better utilizes that power.
And no, I did not say that I agree that they look better than anything on the 360. In fact, what I said was the opposite - that they didn't look any better than games available on the 360.
Originally posted by PeachI'm arguing both and my point was that the ps3 is more powerful and I gave my two examples of proof. You then told me your opinion on the games themselves which wasn't the issue at all.
Wow, you don't even know what you're arguing anymore. Hint - it's not the graphical superiority of one system or the other, it's which system is more powerful overall and, more importantly, which one better utilizes that power.And no, I did not say that I agree that they look better than anything on the 360. In fact, what I said was the opposite - that they didn't look any better than games available on the 360.
Name a game that rivals either of these games in terms of graphics. You still keep avoiding my question.
Originally posted by quanchi112
I'm arguing both and my point was that the ps3 is more powerful and I gave my two examples of proof. You then told me your opinion on the games themselves which wasn't the issue at all.Name a game that rivals either of these games in terms of graphics. You still keep avoiding my question.
The argument was never solely about graphics, you've just been trying to twist it that direction the last few posts because you think you have a point. Graphics are not the sole thing that judge how powerful something is or isn't, though.
You didn't give examples of proof, you gave your opinion. The two are not the same.
Off the top of my head I'd go with Lost Odyssey and Modern Warfare 2. I know there's more, but having not really played any games in the past year, I can't name off a ton. I've been told the graphics in Reach are pretty amazing and superior, including by someone who hates Halo and adores GoW and Uncharted.
Originally posted by NemeBro
Graphically Reach is really good, yeah.
I mean, I can't stand Halo. I find the games as boring and bland as it's possible to be, and I don't understand their popularity.
But from an art and design perspective? They are, and always have been, absolutely stunning. If there's one thing that Bungie has always managed to do right, it's make an amazing-looking game.
Originally posted by PeachI never said it was solely based on graphics not once. I hear a lot of excuses and complaining about the ps3 from xbox fans. It can do all that and more than an xbox. We've seen third party developers already back up the ps3 in terms of I doubt you could do this game on the xbox. I mean I put this stuff up pages ago.
The argument was never solely about graphics, you've just been trying to twist it that direction the last few posts because you think you have a point. Graphics are not the sole thing that judge how powerful something is or isn't, though.You didn't give examples of proof, you gave your opinion. The two are not the same.
Off the top of my head I'd go with Lost Odyssey and Modern Warfare 2. I know there's more, but having not really played any games in the past year, I can't name off a ton. I've been told the graphics in Reach are pretty amazing and superior, including by someone who hates Halo and adores GoW and Uncharted.
I hear more excuses from xbox supporters. That's all I hear and then I hear about sales which has nothing to do with which system is more powerful by any means.
Should I repost my earlier posts of proof which you either didn't read or forgot. I didn't post links of my opinion either.
So these games rival the graphics of unchartered 2 and gow3 or surpass them iyo ? I originally said rival but I am curious if you believe they surpass them.
Originally posted by quanchi112
I never said it was solely based on graphics not once. I hear a lot of excuses and complaining about the ps3 from xbox fans. It can do all that and more than an xbox. We've seen third party developers already back up the ps3 in terms of I doubt you could do this game on the xbox. I mean I put this stuff up pages ago.I hear more excuses from xbox supporters. That's all I hear and then I hear about sales which has nothing to do with which system is more powerful by any means.
Should I repost my earlier posts of proof which you either didn't read or forgot. I didn't post links of my opinion either.
So these games rival the graphics of unchartered 2 and gow3 or surpass them iyo ? I originally said rival but I am curious if you believe they surpass them.
What third party developers? Name names.
Sales has more to do with success than power. Power alone does not make a profit.