Originally posted by DXR88:

---

PS3 still has more power, the only reason carmack doesn't like it is because HE cant simply carry over the tools from the PC to the PS3 where as the Xbox doesn't have that issue.

---

QFT

Originally posted by Interestx:

---

DXR88

The PS3 might have some theoretical extra power but the net effect is that there is little or no difference.....

There is no vast difference, people can make all the claims about optimising they want but the fact is Sony have a large number of 1st part game studios doing nothing but optimising for PS3.
The end result?
Still little or no differences of any serious note.

---

"Little or no difference"...Um yeah oookay suuure ~ Let me know when the 360 has something on the level of Uncharted 1/2/3, MAG, Resistence 1/2/3, Killzone 2/3, God of War 3 & etc in terms of scale, player amounts & graphical capability. Because those games sure as hell ain't "theoretical". They are constant proof that the 360 has not yet shown it can match them.

Originally posted by Interestx:

---

The most PS3 guys have got is a handful of 1st party games that look a tiny little bit better.
Make a massive great big deal of it if you must.

---

It seems most 360 guys considerably on a whole try to play down the graphical capabilities of the PS3 and make a bigger deal of that than what the truth actually is. Where are the games that can match the titles I posted. Nowhere, because there aren't any. Thus my point is proven and why I asked it in the first place (of which was totally ignored as usual).

Originally posted by Interestx:

---

Last I saw metacritic had the best Xbox & PS3 games scoring around the same.
Sometimes one is a tiny bit better at 'x' than the other and in another instance sometimes the other is a little bit better at 'y'.
Nothing of any real consequence.

---

So now we disregard the original comment and bring up something else. Although I do agree with what is said as it's actually factual.

Originally posted by Interestx:

---

......and Xbox is far and away the console that looks best when it comes to the majority of 3rd party games.

---

Grand opinion, but what you fail to remember is that this is not 2007 anymore. While part of what you say may have some substance the tide has turned since about 2009 or so when it comes to 3rd party multiplatform titles. Yes there are still a small amount of titles that fall into that generality, but it is nowhere NEAR the way it was in 2007. Thus today it does not exactly or correctly apply. Your comment is mere personal opinion more than fact.

Originally posted by Interestx:

---

No suprises there as it is much better for porting PC games so multi-platformers are always going to suit 2 sections of the market (especially when 1 of them is the bigger) than the PS3.

---

And that is exactly what DXR88 had pointed out in that "the only reason carmack doesn't like it is because HE cant simply carry over the tools from the PC to the PS3 where as the Xbox doesn't have that issue." And I wouldn't exactly call the 360 the "bigger" market when active installed base says otherwise ~ Link 1 Link 2 or when attachments rates have been neck and neck lately ~ Link 1 Link 2 plus how recent sales amount shows the PS3 selling more software in totality (PS3 115 million 360 103 million despite a "lower hardware installed base" for the PS3 at that time) ~ Link 1 and there is no doubt that with the current price drop that the PS3 should have no problem putting to bed the last notion of "overall sold" more (between the 2) by end of 2011 just as I have said previously (and just as every year before it has and every time the PS3 has gotten a price cut). Just for fun here is a Link that talks about just that.

Originally posted by Interestx:

---

If you really have to pretend that is some sort of 'superiority' then knock yourself out.

---

Sorry but the only one pretending things are not as they seem is certainly not me here. I give facts with my comments to back what I say up. Not just empty opinions.

Originally posted by Interestx:

---

Right on cue the Sony defence goes to work.

---

And right on que comes the expected "SDF" BS when opinions/comments are shown as non factual and are straightened out with proper facts. Plus last time I checked isn't this is an article about the SONY PlayStation.

Originally posted by Interestx:

---

Oner you're the one trying to pretend there there's a massive gulf between the consoles...

There's next to nothing in it.....and what little there is is so marginal as to make those pretending it is a big deal just more than slightly silly.

---

So your opinion claims, yet I still don't see you posting ANY titles that compete with the ones I talked about. It's quite simple actually ~ If the difference was so minor (as you constantly claim it is) then why can't you prove me wrong with even 1 game? I dare you to show me just 1 game on the 360 that is on the scale and visuals of God Of War 3.

Just 1 will do...

Originally posted by Interestx:

---

I already said - repeatedly - that PS3 has a handful of 1st party games which have a small advantage (and the metacritic scores show it is just a small advantage).

---

And you can keep on repeating it as much as you want...that doesn't make it FACTUALLY correct or accurate in any way. If you believe a "Metacritic Score" in ANY way is a valid explanation then my point is proven. A score from a known biased review site does not equal what any one can see with their own eyes. Let alone when you can't even give me 1 example of a title that is at least equal (or better of which there is not).

Originally posted by Interestx:

---

It's the nature of these things, just as Gears 2 was once the leader (by a small amount) so now we have had a year of some 1st party PS3 games which have led (by a small amount).

Gears 3 is likely to give the see-saw another tilt, but nevertheless it'll all be small amounts of difference as it has been between the 2 all the way through.

---

Gears does not prove anything positive...if anything it is a negative ~ Link 1 Link 2 and before you say "bu, buh, but that's Gears 1" Gears 2 was the same thing but with a bit of color and minimal optimization to make it seem like things were changed drastically. As for Gears 3 I will wait until it is out before I comment on it.

Originally posted by Interestx:

---

.....and as I showed with the link regarding the developement info Microsoft had right from the start that should come as no surprise to anyone.

---

What that proves is ~

1) MS was scared and as usual copied/stole what they could in a desperate attempt to get ahead at others cost instead of doing for themselves which leads me to #2
2) They STILL couldn't get it right and consumers got the $#@! end stick of it
3) And there is STILL not 1 title that can match Uncharted 1/2/3, MAG, GT5, Resistence 1/2/3, Killzone 2/3, God of War 3 in terms of scale, player amounts & visuals (of which you have not provided a single one to dispute my question).

Originally posted by Interestx:

---

Not sure what you are getting so uptight about tho.....is it that I don't show quite not enough 'PS love' for your liking or what?

---

You came in here misspoke and said misinformation of which I corrected with valid information & links. All you did was skate around what I said and never really answered any of my comments let alone my 1 basic question that would prove me wrong...

I'm not uptight at all. You are just wrong is all, and I wanted to point that out for those to understand the correct info. Plus who's really the one that's "uptight" when you throw out insults at me when I did not towards you?

Originally posted by Morreale:

---

Throughout the few years that I have been browsing the News articles (first under 'vinny13'), not once have I seen Oner make a statement without backing it with legit proof. Yaay for proper arguments :)

Back to the article though, I do think it's wrong to rank a console over another just because of it's portability with other systems. I think the real point to this article is to show how lazy/cheap some developers are...

---

Thank You, it's greatly appreciated. I answer questions with proof to make my point valid. It's funny how I never seem to get an answer though when I ask certain questions...I wonder why?

Anyway, on topic ~ your lasts sentence is exactly the issue at hand (with certain devs). They care about their money first, not the consumer, nor the final quality of their title. Just how little effort they can put in to maximize their money. Obviously it is a business but just as with anything else but if you make something that people like, enjoy & want, then the money will come easily.

Originally posted by cyprusrom:

---

Thank you for the entertainment! Xbox vs. PS3, this has been my favorite "News" subject to follow! The ardor with which some "funboys" defend their toy, trying to prove they like and own "the best" of toys and didn't get the short stick by choosing one over the other, is mostly inspiring...Inspires a great amount of smile!

---

If it makes you smile...I guess...But what happens to your point of "own the best of toys and didn't get the short stick by choosing one over the other" when someone has all of them (and then some)? How would that person be getting the "short stick" if they have actual experience with them all to have a proper understanding of price/performance/value/capabilities and such? Plus this topic is about console gaming (PS3 & Xbox specifically)...so to be quite honest if you can't add to it, you shouldn't be posting.