Sony claims PS3 was made deliberately difficult to program for.

bad rider

The prodigal son of a goat boy
Dec 23, 2007
2,252
0
0
EzraPound said:
Credit where credit is due, he has a point. If you make things difficult to program for your options get larger and more varied, whereas simple programming = simple options. That said I think Sony tends toward the extreme instead of going for the middle ground. But hey, they wanted to build a big powerful behemoth and thats what they are built.


Pretty much sums it up.
Uh, not at all. Because the PS3 hasn't sold much and is difficult to program for it's got a larger proportion of big-budget titles that critics wet their pants over.

Aside from which, a chart like that doesn't mean anything. I wouldn't buy a Wii if Super Mario Galaxy was the only game on it, but if it was it would pwn the PS3 with a meta average of 97!

Anyway, this whole argument is frickin' noobish. Sure, PS3 may have all this wonderful untapped potential, but if its hardware deters developers Sony's market share is marginalized and less good games get put out for it. And no: Sony obviously didn't set out to create their worst-selling console intentionally.
Yes you are on the money throughout this, but with harder programming means that developers who want to make a cheap game to flog can't do it as easily. Thus you only get titles where they are optimised around the ps3 thus creating better quality. Whereas simple programming with the wii has created a load of shovelware. Now as for Sony detering the developers, I think that was a unwanted side effect. I would think domeone high up the chain said "lets make it so all the products look so good no-one wants to buy the competitors products." which lead to a developers saying "well we'll take our shovelware else were" and thus created more title's on opposite platforms.
 

Jumplion

New member
Mar 10, 2008
7,873
0
0
D_987 said:
So hes saying the PS3 is difficult to programme for so they only get quality games...?

What has he been playing?
LittleBigPlanet, MGS4, Resistance 2, Killzone 2, Uncharted, Warhawk, Ratchet and Clank, various PSN titles, and inFamous?

Aawwwwwwhaaaaaaaaaaattt?
 

GloatingSwine

New member
Nov 10, 2007
4,544
0
0
bad rider said:

Pretty much sums it up.
I wouldn't place too much faith in Metacritic, to be honest. First of all, if they include a review that didn't give a score, they make their own up, and second they have some odd selectiveness when choosing what to include where.

Take, for instance, the Metacritic scores for Fear 2. On the PC and PS3, the average is 80, but on the Xbox it's 78. Why is that, do you think? Looking at the actual reviews included for each one, of the bottom three reviews included for the Xbox version, only one is included for the PS3 version, and none at all for the PC version. Despite the fact that all three of those reviews were not from platform specific publications, and from publications which did not produce seperate reviews for seperate versions.

So be wary, not all metacritic scores are born equal.
 

D_987

New member
Jun 15, 2008
4,839
0
0
Jumplion said:
D_987 said:
So hes saying the PS3 is difficult to programme for so they only get quality games...?

What has he been playing?
LittleBigPlanet, MGS4, Resistance 2, Killzone 2, Uncharted, Warhawk, Ratchet and Clank, various PSN titles, and inFamous?

Aawwwwwwhaaaaaaaaaaattt?
Yep, so 8 games make a console don't they - what I meant (and you obviously interpreted this wrongly) that hes trying to claim EVERY game on the PS3 is top-quality. There is still shovel ware on the PS3. Besides which, personally I might have bought one of the games you listed - the rest don't appeal to me in the slightest.
 

D_987

New member
Jun 15, 2008
4,839
0
0
GloatingSwine said:
bad rider said:

Pretty much sums it up.
I wouldn't place too much faith in Metacritic, to be honest. First of all, if they include a review that didn't give a score, they make their own up, and second they have some odd selectiveness when choosing what to include where.

Take, for instance, the Metacritic scores for Fear 2. On the PC and PS3, the average is 80, but on the Xbox it's 78. Why is that, do you think? Looking at the actual reviews included for each one, of the bottom three reviews included for the Xbox version, only one is included for the PS3 version, and none at all for the PC version. Despite the fact that all three of those reviews were not from platform specific publications, and from publications which did not produce seperate reviews for seperate versions.

So be wary, not all metacritic scores are born equal.
Right on the money.
 

Jumplion

New member
Mar 10, 2008
7,873
0
0
D_987 said:
Jumplion said:
D_987 said:
So hes saying the PS3 is difficult to programme for so they only get quality games...?

What has he been playing?
LittleBigPlanet, MGS4, Resistance 2, Killzone 2, Uncharted, Warhawk, Ratchet and Clank, various PSN titles, and inFamous?

Aawwwwwwhaaaaaaaaaaattt?
Yep, so 8 games make a console don't they - what I meant (and you obviously interpreted this wrongly) that hes trying to claim EVERY game on the PS3 is top-quality. There is still shovel ware on the PS3. Besides which, personally I might have bought one of the games you listed - the rest don't appeal to me in the slightest.
Oh pish-posh-spaghetti-wash, the "Yep, so 8 games make a console don't they" was really just some subtle trolling by you, admit it ;)

Besides, I can only name 3 or 4 360 games that aren't on PC (AKA: exclusive) which would be Halo 3, Fable 2, and Gears of War 2. Of course, that's personally what I recall by memory and/or really care about, but off the bat those are the only ones I can recal. Though if you want to include LIVE titles, then you'd get Castle Crashers off the top of my head. If you want to get into what I "personally" think are quality titles of the 360, then there's no argument here because that's subjective.

Personal opinion may debate quality of a game, but overall opinion does not. The general opinion of everyone for "LittleBigPlanet, MGS4, Resistance 2, Killzone 2, Uncharted, Warhawk, Ratchet and Clank, various PSN titles (not inFamous, it's not out yet)" is that they're quality titles. I may not personally enjoy, let's say, Gears of War 2, but I can understand how the majority like it and that it's a title with good quality.

Another example, if you don't like, say, LittleBigPlanet (you bastard!), you may not personally like the game, but generally people love the game and it got high scores. You can say it's not a quality game for you but you can't say that it isn't a good game overall.

But of course I'm not saying that the PS3 doesn't have shovelware, but you have to admit it has a lot less than the Wii at least.

And with the Metacritic thing, it's not the "BE END OF ALL ARGUMENTS" but it's a good general consensus of people's opinions. Not to be taken as pin-point accurate however.
 

D_987

New member
Jun 15, 2008
4,839
0
0
Jumplion said:
Oh pish-posh-spaghetti-wash, the "Yep, so 8 games make a console don't they" was really just some subtle trolling by you, admit it ;)
Actually it wasn't...

Besides, I can only name 3 or 4 360 games that aren't on PC (AKA: exclusive) which would be Halo 3, Fable 2, and Gears of War 2. Of course, that's personally what I recall by memory and/or really care about, but off the bat those are the only ones I can recal. Though if you want to include LIVE titles, then you'd get Castle Crashers off the top of my head. If you want to get into what I "personally" think are quality titles of the 360, then there's no argument here because that's subjective.
Well, as I have stated time and time again - I don't count the PC in any console debate - if a game is exclusive to a single console then to me its exclusive. Your right about the subjective critique.

Personal opinion may debate quality of a game, but overall opinion does not. The general opinion of everyone for "LittleBigPlanet, MGS4, Resistance 2, Killzone 2, Uncharted, Warhawk, Ratchet and Clank, various PSN titles (not inFamous, it's not out yet)" is that they're quality titles. I may not personally enjoy, let's say, Gears of War 2, but I can understand how the majority like it and that it's a title with good quality.
See your losing track of the initial argument - I never said "PS3 does not have quality games" I said " The PS3 was NOT DELIBERATELY made difficult to develop for so only quality games are on it - as quite frankly the overall quality of said games is similar to that of rival systems.

Another example, if you don't like, say, LittleBigPlanet (you bastard!), you may not personally like the game, but generally people love the game and it got high scores. You can say it's not a quality game for you but you can't say that it isn't a good game overall.
See above.

But of course I'm not saying that the PS3 doesn't have shovelware, but you have to admit it has a lot less than the Wii at least.
Of course it doesn't, but the Sony spokesperson seems to think it has none.

And with the Metacritic thing, it's not the "BE END OF ALL ARGUMENTS" but it's a good general consensus of people's opinions. Not to be taken as pin-point accurate however.
As posted I agree with an above posters view on Metacritic.
 

Jumplion

New member
Mar 10, 2008
7,873
0
0
D_987 said:
Personal opinion may debate quality of a game, but overall opinion does not. The general opinion of everyone for "LittleBigPlanet, MGS4, Resistance 2, Killzone 2, Uncharted, Warhawk, Ratchet and Clank, various PSN titles (not inFamous, it's not out yet)" is that they're quality titles. I may not personally enjoy, let's say, Gears of War 2, but I can understand how the majority like it and that it's a title with good quality.
See your losing track of the initial argument - I never said "PS3 does not have quality games" I said " The PS3 was NOT DELIBERATELY made difficult to develop for so only quality games are on it - as quite frankly the overall quality of said games is similar to that of rival systems.
I'll admit, I strayed from the actual argument around here.

But of course I'm not saying that the PS3 doesn't have shovelware, but you have to admit it has a lot less than the Wii at least.
Of course it doesn't, but the Sony spokesperson seems to think it has none.
Where did he ever say that? He said that it would make it have less or fewer shovelware. You're thinking into his comment a bit too deeply.

And with the Metacritic thing, it's not the "BE END OF ALL ARGUMENTS" but it's a good general consensus of people's opinions. Not to be taken as pin-point accurate however.
As posted I agree with an above posters view on Metacritic.
That was what I was referring to. Metacritic may not be completely accurate, but it's a good general consensus of what people think on a game/system. Apparently, the PS3 has a game average of 70, though how accurate that is is debatable, and it's probably a bit along the lines of everything else.