Keyword there is ratio. That completely dodges the fact that the PS3 has less games made for it.OuroborosChoked said:
Valve Says PS3 Complexity Hinders Game Development
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Wait didn't we just have a 'Valve whines' thread?
It might be time for the guys to crawl back in their hole and kindly stfu (still pissed about L4D2 and proud!11!!).
It might be time for the guys to crawl back in their hole and kindly stfu (still pissed about L4D2 and proud!11!!).
I didn't make an arguement, I stated my opinion - the base level game, default top settings, looks the same to me on the 360 as it does on the PC.bue519 said:
And I won't be making anymore backwards threads until my browser acts up again, actually typing in a message backwards would be a silly waste of time. Reporting you, maybe not so silly. So please don't tempt me. Let's all get along.
It does *sort* of make sense (but only when I make my logic do a triple backflip to 180 turn to follow it).Internet Kraken said:
1) Company makes a game with basic understanding of PS3 architecture, it's an OK game
2) Company learns more of the architecture, gets better at programming. Company is able to release a more complex sequel
3) Company (and everyone else) spends 5 years getting to be experts, and puts of Game #3 which fully stretches the PS3.
4) NOW Sony need to make a new console, so better games can be made.
in opposition to
1) Company knows the full extent of the architecture, builds a game which stretches the PS3 as far as it can go.
2) Company releases a sequel as technically advanced as Game #1, it is criticised for not providing new and exciting material.
3)Sony have to make a new console before Company can do better.
Yeah, I gotta say, like 300lb Samoan, I'm a little surprised at some people's comments regarding Valve games and the 360. I have a PC for pretty much all the Valve games I own, and I don't have the best or most expensive PC in the world, so I can say pretty firmly that the games don't look like absolute crap on the 360. They look fine, in fact. But then, I'm not a graphics junkie like the people who argue over the 360/PS3. *hugs his 2-D consoles*
But more to the point, Valve and them are just saying what a lot of people have been saying since day one. It doesn't surprise me, but it's nice to hear it.
But more to the point, Valve and them are just saying what a lot of people have been saying since day one. It doesn't surprise me, but it's nice to hear it.
I'd trade HDR for frame rate any day of the week!300lb. Samoan said:
I think you're coming at TF2 (and the argument about 360TF2 'looking' awful) from the wrong angle there.
The graphical performance is irrelevant to probably 90% of players and TF2 scales all the way down to 640x480 dx9 whilst still running perfectly. The same applies to most of Valve's shooters (even L4d seems to run on hardware way below the minimum requirements). So you don't need bleeding edge hardware to run them.
What makes them better on PC is the extra content.
I've got 100+ maps (including customs), weapon unlocks, extra game modes, fun mods and admin options, not to mention a couple of hundred bug/exploit fixes.
Compare that to a game that's still in it's original state 20months after release, bugs'n'all.
From that stand point Valve's 360 ports look awful.
If you look at the charts, PS3 share a very similar 'curve' to the 360. The sales it has today, Is exactly what the 360 had 1 year ago. Not exactly suprising imo considering 360 came out 1 year prior... The only console that has a higher 'curve' then 360/ps3, is the Wii.bue519 said:
360/Ps3 is like a straight line going at about say, 20 degrees. (Next few years that angle will start to curve off to about 10 or less degrees)
The Wii, is damn near 50 degree angle. Basically 4x the sales as any other console.
If the Wii can keep that momentum, they are going to win this war.
Then the next generation, they will bring out there 'zomfg monster' system.
Playstation 1. Or did you forget that it had a library rivaling that of the SNES/Genesis/NES libraries? Not to mention that the PS2 had many great games and a large library itself. I realize people have gotten lazy and aren't pushing consoles to their limits anymore (like the aforementioned SNES/Genesis/NES/PS1 did) but still, in the long run, both PS1 and PS2 were far better to design for than the PS3.SinisterDeath said:
In fact, if you look back, complexity was one of the reasons that the Saturn and Dreamcast went belly up. Or at least it was one of the common reasons cited at the time.
Also, Indigo, really put a sock in it already about those games. They were all "capable" on the 360 or even the PC. Why didn't they go to it? Probably something to do with the whole "Exclusive" crap and the fact that people jack off to graphics more than they do gameplay. Not that MGS4 had much gameplay, and LBP is admittedly only as fun as you can make it, which for people without a lot of creativity isn't saying much.
XBox 360 Games [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Xbox_360_games] = 679SinisterDeath said:
Playstation 3 games [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PlayStation_3_games] = 457
Diffence = 222 titles
XBox 360 -> 679 games / 3.5 years = 194 games per year
Playstation 3 -> 457 games / 2.5 years = 182 games per year
Wow, you're right. Only 12 less titles per year, not bad. I suppose that would be
::Edited for poor math skills::
Well rebuked, I was 'looking' at it the wrong way. Yea, those are the major reasons I'll never retire my PC. I never play 2fort anymore, and I lost every single match in the tournament because my whole team hadn't played well or granary in over six months to a year - there are so many great custom maps that the original content is irrelevant now.fix-the-spade said:
