11th January 2006, 12:11 AM
When multiple sources claim the same thing, it's time to start worrying. That article also echoes some the things from the one I posted.
Paco/ I wouldn't call the differences between RE4 on PS2 and GC 'slight', nor would I say the XBox version of the latest Burnout game is 'slightly better'. There are major differences but thankfully everyone knows how to work around them in the PS2 hardware, there isn't a single third party that doesn't know the PS2 inside and out and how to get the most out of the system. However, the best PS2 graphically cant compare with the best GC or XBox game graphically, you wont see anyone comparing Zelda: TP to anything on PS2, or XBox for that matter.
two things to consider in the how and why for the PS2's ease-of-porting and ability to immitate or 'fake' higher end graphics is the popularity and will to develop for it, two things that the PS3 doesnt have right now. At 30M and four years for an AAA game no one's willing to sit back and take the R&D to figure out its full or work-around's potential anytime soon. It will be a slow uphill battle for PS3 to gain market, people seemed to have wise-up as far as immeadiately buying it for brand recognition, Sony will have to prove itself, which again, will be hard to do with so much negative attention currently.
I expect a big showing at E3 from Sony, but it's going to surprise people when they see that Killzone doesn't look anything like the trailer. Warhawk was a movie of the game running in real time off of dev kits, so expect the games atleast at first, to have that level of graphical detail. Definitely comparible to 360, but that's not saying much. A side from a few neat effects, the 360 has yet to redeem itself from the pit of 'marginally better', and when people see a repeat of that with PS3 (and possibly with Revolution as well) alot of things in this industry are going to change.
Tens of millions and 4 years to make a great game? That's totally unrealistic and it would only mean less great games for us to play. I'm thinking Nintendo has the right stance this generation.
Paco/ I wouldn't call the differences between RE4 on PS2 and GC 'slight', nor would I say the XBox version of the latest Burnout game is 'slightly better'. There are major differences but thankfully everyone knows how to work around them in the PS2 hardware, there isn't a single third party that doesn't know the PS2 inside and out and how to get the most out of the system. However, the best PS2 graphically cant compare with the best GC or XBox game graphically, you wont see anyone comparing Zelda: TP to anything on PS2, or XBox for that matter.
two things to consider in the how and why for the PS2's ease-of-porting and ability to immitate or 'fake' higher end graphics is the popularity and will to develop for it, two things that the PS3 doesnt have right now. At 30M and four years for an AAA game no one's willing to sit back and take the R&D to figure out its full or work-around's potential anytime soon. It will be a slow uphill battle for PS3 to gain market, people seemed to have wise-up as far as immeadiately buying it for brand recognition, Sony will have to prove itself, which again, will be hard to do with so much negative attention currently.
I expect a big showing at E3 from Sony, but it's going to surprise people when they see that Killzone doesn't look anything like the trailer. Warhawk was a movie of the game running in real time off of dev kits, so expect the games atleast at first, to have that level of graphical detail. Definitely comparible to 360, but that's not saying much. A side from a few neat effects, the 360 has yet to redeem itself from the pit of 'marginally better', and when people see a repeat of that with PS3 (and possibly with Revolution as well) alot of things in this industry are going to change.
Tens of millions and 4 years to make a great game? That's totally unrealistic and it would only mean less great games for us to play. I'm thinking Nintendo has the right stance this generation.