Lens of Truth - Head2Head: EA Sports MMA - PS3 Version Sucks!

Alan1994 wrote:

Jamin wrote:

Alan1994 wrote:

ZaFtxX wrote:

its common knowledge that 360 gets the best multiplats 95% of the time..
nothing new here.

PS3 is a limited console.. it can only do corridor shooters. it CHOKES BADLY at open world games. RDR, GTA, MAFIA 2, ECT

Yea...

It has to do with the PS3 RAM.

But it's kind of ironic since the PS3 was hyped up in the beginning to allow "bigger" games because of Blu-ray. Though people fail to see the difference between more content and bigger scope/longivity.

Hmmm, Sucker Punch seems to have done fine with Infamous. Maybe other devs should try harder?

Never said it was impossible to work around the PS3's RAM issues.

I just think the PS3 would have been better off with a PC type architecture like the X360 since those are all-around better.

And no, I'm soooo tired of the "lazy devs" excuses. You can't honestly be telling me that after 4 years most 3rd party multiplatform developers are not "trying" to get the PS3 version of their games to relatively the same standards as the X360. I mean some PS3 multiplats are just straight up lazy ports (bayonetta, Mafia 2, Lost planet 2, etc) but most of the multiplats that use separate development kits for each version usually show that the X360 has crisper texture detail and better Anti-aliasing...Both of which require more RAM to enable.

Well, if you're aware that the PS3 is capable of achieving the same performance through different techniques, and the developers don't work at making the different versions relatively similar, then what would you call them? I'd say cheap and lazy. Especially PC games ported to the Xbox360. You say the XBox360 has a PC type architecture and that it's all-around better, but the Xbox360 has the worst ports this generation. Shouldn't an architecture similar to the PC be easier to port and achieve good performance? What would you call those developers that made horrific Xbox360 ports? Surely cheap and lazy.

Jamin wrote:

Alan1994 wrote:

Jamin wrote:

Alan1994 wrote:

ZaFtxX wrote:

its common knowledge that 360 gets the best multiplats 95% of the time..
nothing new here.

PS3 is a limited console.. it can only do corridor shooters. it CHOKES BADLY at open world games. RDR, GTA, MAFIA 2, ECT

Yea...

It has to do with the PS3 RAM.

But it's kind of ironic since the PS3 was hyped up in the beginning to allow "bigger" games because of Blu-ray. Though people fail to see the difference between more content and bigger scope/longivity.

Hmmm, Sucker Punch seems to have done fine with Infamous. Maybe other devs should try harder?

Never said it was impossible to work around the PS3's RAM issues.

I just think the PS3 would have been better off with a PC type architecture like the X360 since those are all-around better.

And no, I'm soooo tired of the "lazy devs" excuses. You can't honestly be telling me that after 4 years most 3rd party multiplatform developers are not "trying" to get the PS3 version of their games to relatively the same standards as the X360. I mean some PS3 multiplats are just straight up lazy ports (bayonetta, Mafia 2, Lost planet 2, etc) but most of the multiplats that use separate development kits for each version usually show that the X360 has crisper texture detail and better Anti-aliasing...Both of which require more RAM to enable.

Well, if you're aware that the PS3 is capable of achieving the same performance through different techniques, and the developers don't work at making the different versions relatively similar, then what would you call them? I'd say cheap and lazy. Especially PC games ported to the Xbox360. You say the XBox360 has a PC type architecture and that it's all-around better, but the Xbox360 has the worst ports this generation. Shouldn't an architecture similar to the PC be easier to port and achieve good performance? What would you call those developers that made horrific Xbox360 ports? Surely cheap and lazy.

Quote :

Xbox360 has the worst ports this generation.

Yeah, it also has the lowest rated game this generation. But that's the consequence of having more games.
And of course some devs are lazy but really, that's really close minded to just call them that. I wouldn't want to spend extra time getting a game to run just as smooth on one system just because it's harder to develop for than the other. And if they have a release date why should they hold back just to get one running just as smooth. It's not laziness as such, in a lot of cases it's just convenience for the devs, convenience for the gamers and also due to their experience with a certain system. I'm sure a lot of them actually try hard to make the games good.