Forum - View topicNEWS: Microsoft France Marketing Suggests No XBox 360 Successor in 2012
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2 Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Mune
Posts: 376 Location: Minnesota |
|
|||
|
The real complaint I hear is that another console is slowing down the quality of the other releases on other consoles/PCs. I've heard it over and over.
"Game A was made for PC, PS3, and X360. PS3 and X360 are reducing the quality for the PC." Likewise, if a game was made for PS3, X360, and Wii. The same story would be told that the Wii was dragging the other two releases down. Even when it is just PC and X360 or PS3 and X360. When it comes down to it in hardware performance: PC > PS3 > X360 > Wii There are other key factors that draw consumers aside hardware performance such as brand name loyalty, price of system and services, games on said system, intimidation, online community, and extra features. I personally like the PS3 because of the features and price of services. I tend to watch Blu-rays and DVDs, and even use the system to do my homework. Plus, it has the games I like on it. I like to play JRPGs, not the recycled FPS crap. And above all, I want good products that will last with good customer support if needed. |
||||
|
||||
TarsTarkas
 Posts: 5824 Location: Virginia, United States |
|
|||
|
Not sure of "dragging down" infighting amongst Console systems, but when you look at Skyrim on the Xbox 360 and on the PC, the graphics win hands down on the PC, at least for gaming PC machines.
Don't think there is dragging down in actual game play, and at least for Skyrim it looks like the game's creator allowed for better graphics when the game is played on the PC. I not able to judge other cross-platform games, like Mass Effect 2 and StarCraft 2, since I haven't seen them played on Consoles. |
||||
|
||||
|
Mesonoxian Eve
Posts: 1858 |
|
|||
I have as well, and I believe it to be a a specious argument. One of the reasons I left PC gaming was for its inability to remain consistent with what gamers had in terms of hardware. For years, we've had to battle the never-ending quest to provide pretty pictures in exchange for upgrading our hardware. It was to the point of ridiculousness. It wouldn't surprise me the least bit if the PC gaming industry catered to those who did upgrade/buy new machines every two years. Once the Xbox hit the market, things drastically changed. Games I see in the stores would often crawl their way to the Xbox because of the compatibility. Sure, some changes were required, but the cross-over did a pretty good job at expanding games which were originally designed for the PC. Now, we've got two new powerful consoles on the market, yet neither are very compatible. In watching an interview with the developers at 2K (forgive me if this isn't the company, it's been a while), they said porting a game to the PS3 is difficult, but worth it because the console's power allows for developers to do things a PC wouldn't allow. This has been backed up over the past two years. The PS3 is too powerful for today's games, which means much of its hardware is truly wasted unless those games are purposely created for the PS3. If this is the case, what we get is a "downgrade" for those games to be ported from the PS3. I can't speak for the validity, but people swear up and down Final Fantasy XIII looks and renders far better on the PS3 than the 360. Yet, people don't seem to mind the differences. There are many sites which show screen shots of the differences and, quite frankly, I don't see that much of an improvement which warrants the processing power of the PS3. Then again, rendering is the key here. The PS3 was built from the ground up to deliver stunning video quality because of the bluray features. It's not surprising, then, to see "quality degrade" when seen on other platforms without the same, raw power dedicating to pushing 1080p without even breaking a sweat. Something, frankly, many PCs can't do "out of the box" without enhancement (unless they're also bluray capable) and we all know the 360 didn't even consider 1080p when introduced. Not sure if I see a resolution to this in the future, even with a new console. By the time the "720" comes out, it'll already be two years behind the technology current at the time. It's virtually impossible to plan, develop, and release a console "ahead" of the curve while keeping costs down. This is why we do cycle our hardware every "x" years. Could be worse. We could all be playing on Apple devices requiring an upgrade every 6 months with games requiring DLC to play. *jab |
||||
|
||||
TitanXL
 Posts: 4036 |
|
|||
Skyrim's UI is horrible and clearly made for consoles/controllers given the lack of mouse support. Mass Effect also suffered from this problem. Also it's also about mechanics in general. Mass Effect is nowhere near as complex as other FPS RPGs on PCs. It's pretty dumbed down. |
||||
|
||||
|
TarsTarkas
Posts: 5824 Location: Virginia, United States |
|
|||
Perhaps that is true about Skyrim (PC), but I never had any problem with the mouse and keyboard. |
||||
|
||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group