Battle of the Next-Generation Consoles

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
I noticed that too.

In each generation, it seems the most graphically inferior console comes out on top of the others.

Case in point, consoles like SNES, PS1, DS, Wii.

Maybe people just like to side with the underdog..
Or they buy the cheapest one and/or the easiest to hack 😖hifty:

Indeed, the SNES had Mode 7, and Genesis' "Blast processing" was pure marketing lingo. The Genesis marketing campaign was largely making it seem cooler to teenage boys than the SNES.

Would also add PS2 to the "graphicly inferior sells best" list.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
I think the one thing that the history of video game consoles has taught us is that power means nothing. Yeah, the potential of the PS3s hardware specs sounds impressive but when we only see this supposed potential being utilized once or twice a year one loses faith and interest in that company. It's been five years and the best thing the PS3 is known for still remains to be it's Blu ray player. I don't say this as a fanboy of any particular console but rather as a disappointed gamer. My loyalty lies with games and not consoles. I will follow the games and before this last year with the PS3s price drop there were simply no games that warranted the horrendous and insulting price and even now, with the price drop there are very few reasons why i see anyone choosing a PS3.

I'm glad to see them getting on the ball and finally deciding to join the online gaming world. I'm just sorry it took them this long to realize that their online network was all but obsolete. I'm certainly going to give their new online pay service a try this winter but i still struggle to find any reason to pay since i've already become so established with the 360. I guess i'm just still waiting to see all of these awesome graphics and innovations in gameplay that they have been promising since pre-launch. My fear is that by the time designers are able to start utilizing the PS3s full potential, it will be time for a PS4 or another 360 and it is going to take the PS3's full potential to convince me that it's a better console than the 360 because hardware specs aside, the 360 produces better titles or at least is able to produce the same content that the PS3 has been

We've seen games like gow3 and what not show us it's potential.

I'm not a shooter fan so there's not really anything xbox wise I need to own save the fables.

The xbox 360 needed two discs for lord of shadow as opposed to one for the ps3.

What is it about God of War that makes people cream their pants, from a graphics point of view? Yeah it looks nice, but I've seen as good graphics on other games, including 360 games. Is it the giant boss fights? I've seen those too.

Just... not getting it.

Kratos' goatee of course.

Graphics was probabbly one reasons why GOW3 was a commercial flop. They spent so much money on improving the graphics when they could of settled for less and just improve gameplay. Just show you that graphics aren't going to make the game a success.

LOL. Oh man you're right; didn't even know about the sales for it.

Well the game didn't sell that badly, it topped March. It sold pretty lame for a game of it's caliber though.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
What is it about God of War that makes people cream their pants, from a graphics point of view? Yeah it looks nice, but I've seen as good graphics on other games, including 360 games. Is it the giant boss fights? I've seen those too.

Just... not getting it.

Blax does have a point, GoW3, though graphically very good, is still comparable to some 360 games such as the Halo series, like Reach, teh newest one.

....Reach is very average looking, its not even that good looking for simply the 360 front.

Killzone 2, let alone 3, is far above it.

God of War 3? It has better character models than Mass Effect 2, better textures than Gears 2, and far grander set pieces and bosses than either in scale.

Originally posted by CosmicComet
....Reach is very average looking

Originally posted by CosmicComet
....Reach is very average looking, its not even that good looking for simply the 360 front.

Killzone 2, let alone 3, is far above it.

God of War 3? It has better character models than Mass Effect 2, better textures than Gears 2, and far grander set pieces and bosses than either in scale.

Ok I can see having more detailed/better textures and much greater scale, but how are the character models better than in ME2? What makes a character model good?

Originally posted by NemeBro
Blax does have a point, GoW3, though graphically very good, is still comparable to some 360 games such as the Halo series, like Reach, teh newest one.

Maybe another factor for hardware sales is 'hackability'.
The easier the console is to hack, the greater the sales.

PS1 and PS2 sold millions because hacking those things are just a breeze.

The DS was selling more than the PSP because you don't even need to hack it.
Just use a R4DS adapter card and copy the roms to the microSD... and voila, games galore.
Unlike the PSP, where you have to do a step-by-step process to make the ISOs run. One mistake, and its bricked.

The 360 is also easier to hack than the PS3.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Maybe another factor for hardware sales is 'hackability'.
The easier the console is to hack, the greater the sales.

PS1 and PS2 sold millions because hacking those things are just a breeze.

The DS was selling more than the PSP because you don't even need to hack it.
Just use a R4DS adapter card and copy the roms to the microSD... and voila, games galore.
Unlike the PSP, where you have to do a step-by-step process to make the ISOs run. One mistake, and its bricked.

The 360 is also easier to hack than the PS3.

I could imagine this to be a case of correlation is not causation. In that it may be an interesting indicator but not the reason. For example perhaps a console being easily hackable could mean that it is easy or cheap to develop for it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I could imagine this to be a case of correlation is not causation. In that it may be an interesting indicator but not the reason. For example perhaps a console being easily hackable could mean that it is easy or cheap to develop for it.

After all, it is a well-known fact that it is easier to port PC games for the 360 than to the PS3.

So that assumption is not far-fetched.

And perhaps, the hardware and software configurations are similar (or have similarities) between a 360 and a PC.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Yes, that can be taken into consideration, as well.

After all, it is a well-known fact that it is easier to port PC games for the 360 than to the PS3.

So that assumption is not far-fetched.

And perhaps, the hardware and software configurations are similar (or have similarities) between a 360 and a PC.

That's true. 360 and PC architectures have much more in common than PC and PS3.

Microsoft specifically designed the 360 to be extremely easy to develop for on PCs. The architecture is analogous to a high-mid level PC, with an optimized graphics processor to carry it through its 5-10 year life.

This makes programming it a snap, because if it works on your PC when you're designing it, it almost always works identically on the console.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
Microsoft specifically designed the 360 to be extremely easy to develop for on PCs. The architecture is analogous to a high-mid level PC, with an optimized graphics processor to carry it through its 5-10 year life.

This makes programming it a snap, because if it works on your PC when you're designing it, it almost always works identically on the console.

The 360 was analogous to a high-mid level PC at the time of its release almost 5 years ago. Now it's way lower than that.

It's true what you said though, MS wanted 360 to be dev-friendly and they succeeded in that.