Gamespot's Pointless 360 vs PS3 Comparisons

Gamespot's latest pointless comparison is Armored Core 4. I've never been a fan of these comparisons. In the end it usually boils down to "teh PS3 is brighter zan zee 36teh".

There is never going to be a massive difference in quality because developers are lazy and publishers are scary.

It may shock some of you that most developers build a game for one console, then port everything over to other platforms, all the while keeping their fingers crossed that it'll work without a hitch. They rarely spend time upping the quality of every asset just because one console can handle more. Developers have nothing to gain from doing that.

If a texture seems blurry or is missing a normal map after porting they're not going to go out of their way to fix it. You can't really blame them. Their publisher's breathing down their neck the whole time to get these games finished so they can make as much money as possible.

None of this means the PS3 sucks, or the 360 sucks. All it means is that the developers got lazy; they had to rush for a deadline, and simply pushed the games out the door as fast as they could, at the expense of a few blurry textures here and there. No big deal.

It doesn't help that Gamespot mostly choose games published by EA. They generally have the worst porting standards along with Ubisoft.


Anonymous , 18 June, 2007


Add your comment