Alphadrop
A right proper chap.
Ausdoerrt said:
Yea I know this quote is a few posts back but...
DMC4 is on the 360, FFXIII is being released on the 360 as well and BlazBlue is an arcade game so how do any of them define the PS3?
[Advice/feedback please] Buying an EXBAOX
- Thread starter Spoonfeed
- Start date
Yea I know this quote is a few posts back but...
DMC4 is on the 360, FFXIII is being released on the 360 as well and BlazBlue is an arcade game so how do any of them define the PS3?
BloodyPuppy
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
Well the arcade scene is unfortunately dying, so I wouldn't say that that's a good reason for it not defining the PS3. And I'd say Killzone defines the PS3 too, much as I think it'll turn out to be a mediocre FPS.
I'm not saying it isn't possible to reach or even exceed the classics of the golden era of first-person shooters, I'm saying that such achievements cannot be reasonably expected on consoles, for various reasons. One are inherent limitations of the platforms, while others include lack of creativity and competence on part of video game developers. Shooters are the domain of the PC, plain and simple. They look the finest on the PC, they run the smoothest on the PC, they control the best on the PC. All FPS designers of any relevance develop first and foremost for the PC. Compile a list of all noteworthy shooters released in this decade and you'll see that they are almost universally PC games. OFP? PC. Battlefield series? PC. UT2004? PC. Wolfenstein: ET? PC. Far Cry? PC. Half-Life 2? PC. STALKER? PC. Serious Sam? PC. Crysis? PC. For all the money that's been thrown into development of various shooters for the Xbox, consoles are still as irrelevant to the shooter genre as they were in the days of Wolfenstein and Doom, and I don't see that changing in the future.M-26-7 said:
maximaz
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
On topic of Halo, I said all there is to say. Of course, I won't prove to anyone that it's a good game and arguing over that is silly because to each his own. I will never understand the appeal of GOW, for example, so I'm not going to demand anyone likes Halo either. I was just implying that there is more than the hype to the series and that Halo fans, including myself, have actual good reasons to like it. I don't see any similarity with UT, Quake, or HL in its gameplay or setting but maybe some do and consider them the top of the FPS genre that nothing can touch.
Well, if it's not good enough for you then, of course, you shouldn't get one. For me, it is good enough and a lot better than the infamous PS2's Disc Read Errors. Many, including myself, consider the PS2 the best 3D console ever yet this was a very big and common problem. After a couple of years, PS2's lasers got too weak to read most discs. My PS2 got it after about a year and a half and there was no warranty to have it exchanged or fixed. The only solution is a temporary fix where you need to take the console apart every few months and move the laser up. There are countless sites on how to do that but there are also sites on 360 temporary fixes. None of it really matters if Microsoft policy is not good enough for you. If it's not then it's not.
I didn't say those are all great games, I don't like Gears of War or Ninja Gaiden and I've never played Fable 2, Blue Dragon, or Crackdown. My point was that it's simply not true that there is nothing but shooters on 360. Those games are 360 exclusive and they're all very different. It's not like PS3 or Wii have something better, they just have less to choose from. Yes, they probably will but so might 360, we don't know what's going to happen. So far PS3 line up for 2009 looks great, 360 looks bad, Wii looks like crap. We don't know if something great is announced tomorrow for either of these consoles though. We can only talk with certainty about what's now and what has been.
There are chances that tomorrow Microsoft will announce some killer games. There is also a chance that all the future PS3 games will suck. We can't really say right now can we. I do agree that 2009 looks a lot better for PS3 right now.
We really turned this into system wars thread, didn't we.
Ratty said:
Well, if it's not good enough for you then, of course, you shouldn't get one. For me, it is good enough and a lot better than the infamous PS2's Disc Read Errors. Many, including myself, consider the PS2 the best 3D console ever yet this was a very big and common problem. After a couple of years, PS2's lasers got too weak to read most discs. My PS2 got it after about a year and a half and there was no warranty to have it exchanged or fixed. The only solution is a temporary fix where you need to take the console apart every few months and move the laser up. There are countless sites on how to do that but there are also sites on 360 temporary fixes. None of it really matters if Microsoft policy is not good enough for you. If it's not then it's not.
I didn't say those are all great games, I don't like Gears of War or Ninja Gaiden and I've never played Fable 2, Blue Dragon, or Crackdown. My point was that it's simply not true that there is nothing but shooters on 360. Those games are 360 exclusive and they're all very different. It's not like PS3 or Wii have something better, they just have less to choose from. Yes, they probably will but so might 360, we don't know what's going to happen. So far PS3 line up for 2009 looks great, 360 looks bad, Wii looks like crap. We don't know if something great is announced tomorrow for either of these consoles though. We can only talk with certainty about what's now and what has been.
There are chances that tomorrow Microsoft will announce some killer games. There is also a chance that all the future PS3 games will suck. We can't really say right now can we. I do agree that 2009 looks a lot better for PS3 right now.
We really turned this into system wars thread, didn't we.
Alphadrop said:
Just because the game is multi-platform, doesn't mean it can't be defining. Not to mention that ASW has always been making its games for both arcade and PS; DMC4 was developed for PS3 and then ported to XBOX and PC, and FF is historically a series that defines PS. Saying that they can't define PS3 is like saying FFVII is not a defining game for PSx because there was a PC version.
Besides, FFXIII will FAIL for XBOX. Look what happened to the latest Square title for XBOX =))) XBOX as a console can't handle what's planned for PS3.
Shooters are not the domain of the PC any more. The cold hard fact is that the money for them is on the Xbox not the PC.
Eh, system wars threads are one of those good NMA traditions, much like gun control threads and piracy threads. They're kind of predictable, though, as PC always wins decisively.maximaz said:
Tell that to Valve, who still rule the sales charts with their PC-only shooters. Also tell that to console-only shooter developers, who just can't stop sucking ass despite all the money they supposedly make.Kilus said:
BloodyPuppy
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
Kilus said:
The money may be there, but console FPS games are always going to be inferior. Just because devs focus more on the xbox for FPS games, doesn't mean that PC isn't the domain of the FPS. PC FPS games are just better, even the multiplatform ones.
Ratty said:
Please tell me of these great Valve PC only shooters?
Also quality is subjective. For every person that liked Operation Flashpoint another hated it so much they wrote a letter to the editor decrying it.
The Battlefield series in PC exclusive, and it's the best team shooter game up to date.
STALKER may be one of the best tactical shooters of late, and is PC-exclusive as well.
Besides, it's not all about being exclusive or not - many companies go multi-platform for more profit, but it's kind of obvious which games were developed on PC for PC, and which weren't.
STALKER may be one of the best tactical shooters of late, and is PC-exclusive as well.
Besides, it's not all about being exclusive or not - many companies go multi-platform for more profit, but it's kind of obvious which games were developed on PC for PC, and which weren't.
Battlefield has console games, and 'best team shooter game' is pretty much the definition of a subjective statement.
The whole PC lead development thing is becoming increasingly rare. Fallout 3 was made with xbox being the lead development. Rainbow Six was released a month early on consoles. Call of Duty 4 had it's beta on Xbox.
The whole PC lead development thing is becoming increasingly rare. Fallout 3 was made with xbox being the lead development. Rainbow Six was released a month early on consoles. Call of Duty 4 had it's beta on Xbox.
Sorry, my brain hit a bad sector. There are no Valve PC-only shooters (of the recent ones, that is). What I meant to say was that Valve dominates the charts *due* to its PC sales. Last year Valve's digital (read: PC) sales surpassed those in retail, and when you add them together with PC retail sales, it becomes obvious that Valve makes substantially more revenue from PC than from consoles. Also, I know that STALKER: Clear Sky and Crysis Warhead both sold great, despite being PC-only. The latter case is especially interesting, since it has been said by Crysis developers that neither Xbox 360 nor PS3 have enough processing power to handle CryENGINE 2. Thus it is once more proven that PC is still indisputably on the leading edge of shooter development and there is no chance whatsoever of that changing, at least not until the next generation of consoles comes along.Kilus said:
It doesn't matter what some random person thought of OF
. What matters is that OF and its successor ArmA are objectively among the most advanced and complex first-person shooters ever and have yet to be matched (let alone surpassed) by anything on consoles.The common denominator of those three games is that all three are overrated and fail to deliver anything innovative to the FPS table. See a pattern there?
Alphadrop
A right proper chap.
Interestingly you can lean in the PC version of CoD 4 but not on the 360, clearly showing the superiority of the PC.
Kilus said:
If you just look at my statement, yes. If you look at its sales, fandom and popularity, it doesn't seem so subjective anymore. Not to mention its immense contribution to the genre.
Also, you're talking about FO3 and CoD like they are the very definition of the FPS genre these days
I can only point back to whoever mentioned STALKER and Crysis. OK, CoD is pretty decent, but just like Halo or GoW is only really popular in the US. It's just that the rest of the world plays on the PC, and sometimes on PS, not XBOX.
Multidirectional
Mildly Dipped
Ausdoerrt said:
I've just came here after another shooting session in Crysis, and yeah, that game is something that no current console could handle and is one of the reasons that make me happy for having a good PC. This game can be used as example how consoles slow down gaming industry even in terms of graphics.. It was released in 2007, now it is 2009 and still there's yet to come out a single game that matches it in visual department. That's because most developers don't want to make PC only games anymore.
As for CoD.. It's very popular in my country too. But I personally don't know anyone who plays it on console, cause.. I don't know a single console gamer. And I just realised it now, it's funny. I do know there are people who own consoles in my country too, but I've yet to meet anyone who does. And I am a fairly social type. Every single gamer I know is a PC gamer, so most likely most people in Lithuania play on PC.
^ Exactly my point. Europe, particularly central and Eastern, plays PC, and East Asia plays PC and PS. CoD is known in my country too, but largely the PC version, of course. Not like XBOX isn't there, it's just not many people really care for it.
As for consoles slowing down development, I have to agree, PS3 is more or less the only one up-to-date, Wii and XBOX being pretty horrible, comparatively, in the GFX department. I mean, look at the Last Remnant for XBOX - the game LAGGED on the console!
As for consoles slowing down development, I have to agree, PS3 is more or less the only one up-to-date, Wii and XBOX being pretty horrible, comparatively, in the GFX department. I mean, look at the Last Remnant for XBOX - the game LAGGED on the console!
I played the pc version (DX 10) and it looked much better then the console versions.Ausdoerrt said:
1: Looks in no way define games.
2: I've had a 360 since release and so have quite a few of my friends, we have never had one single problem with our consoles.
3: After using a controller I honestly have no idea how anyone uses a keyboard and mouse.
4: Oh yes, a 360 is soooo much more expensive than a top of the line PC.
2: I've had a 360 since release and so have quite a few of my friends, we have never had one single problem with our consoles.
3: After using a controller I honestly have no idea how anyone uses a keyboard and mouse.
4: Oh yes, a 360 is soooo much more expensive than a top of the line PC.