Those are good points, but personally I don't think we should neglect the hardware side of things either.
The years of downplaying the PS3's hardware with pseudo technical arguments was probably effective to the extent that, even now, it is difficult to acknowledge the graphical superiority without being apologetic in some way.
I think it is time to recognise those hardware differences for what they are, not what the perpetual negative campaign says.
Indeed, those PS3 games do speak for themselves, each one quite obviously surpassing its xbox counterpart (if it exists, lol). It is simply ridiculous in this day and age to suggest otherwise.
Can that xbox play uncharted 2?
Considering how square has treated Sony so far, I thought Sony Japan would have known better :)
@callahan - That does look like insurmountable evidence, comparing edge against the collective average. From now on, it would be difficult to say that edge is unbiased, with a straight face.
@soda - i guess that's the best you can do.
"or when the next generation starts, and this one ends, in 2011/2012"
Or when it doesn't.
The trouble is, dubbies, that NGS2 is new for PS3-only gamers, while ODST will feel oddly familiar (for four hours) to the kind of person who will buy it.
Nervous laughter
All valid examples of the atrocious behavior of certain gaming "journalists".
Giving IGN the benefit of doubt, if they do indeed rate the game against what is available on the same platform only (to justify a lower score for the PS3 version of NG), then giving ODST a 9 must suggest slim pickings on that side of the fence indeed.
On a serious note, that wasn't a good excuse. They have compared games *across* platforms (for example, giving the PS3 version of ...
It is all about "expectations" isn't it, and it seems to be low around here at the moment.
Comparisons between similar products are inevitable. Perhaps you should just learn to deal with it.
Not surprised that the usual suspects (edge and kotaku) will pick on this.
No, I have not ignored it, and I have addressed it in my previous post.
To put it another way (in case you still don't understand it after a second read)...
You disagreed with using PS1's marketshare as comparison, simply because it started earlier than the current generation consoles (the very reason why the PS1 is not "7th generation", to point out the obvious).
So then, why is it valid to place significance into 360's current marketshare, si...
Dearest Kushan,
I've been ignoring it for your own sake. All this time you've been telling everyone that it doesn't matter when the 360 started "running", but for your last several posts, you've been trying very hard to argue that it DOES matter that the PS1 started running a long time ago.
P.S. in fact, people do compare PS3 to PS2 a lot, strangely enough. Shall I list all those articles, or are you more comfortable googling it yourself?
That is simply your logic, not mine - but it is good to see you questioning it. It doesn't matter when a console started (whether it is the 60s, or 2005), as long as it is winning in marketshare, right?
The PS1 and its games are still selling in some regions, and moreso the case with the PS2. They are relevant, so who are you to say that the gun only went off with the current generation consoles? I could go back to the 1960s - even compared with that period where the gun really w...
It is when the gun went off, afterall. The other consoles merely started running later, so they have all lost.
That is just using your own logic.
So you're saying all the current gen consoles have lost to even the PS1? It's when the gun went off, isn't it?
"He got yards of papers with all kinds of numbers..."
That is what you ASSUME, and that is not easy to defend.
I've said it before and I'll say it again...
Love you Pope, LOL
Nothing there to disagree about :)