Best Current Gen. Console?

[Kayos]

Photorealistic does not have to look like something real. It has to look like it could be made real and not be noticeably off.

You just don't understand that it looks like a computer generated image rendering in real time.

The first part of that completely ignores my statement. And I did find the N64 and the Xbox the best consoles of their generation (though the Xbox kind of tied with the Gamecube for me).

I thought the Xbox was leaps and bounds better than the PS2 in terms of the games I liked, but the PS2 was the better system with the most support.

The difference between last generation and this generation in terms of hardware is that the PS2 was clearly not as powerful as the Xbox or GameCube. The differences in terms of graphics in the current generation of consoles are very minimal.

For example, PS2's version of Splinter Cell had whole graphical effects removed, as well as whole parts of levels just to work right on the console.

You won't see that this generation because that hardware difference is just so minimal. The people who claim the PS3 has better graphics in there games are just misinformed thinking that since the 360 is older it can't even contend, which is clearly untrue.

That is completely wrong. The 'lowest common denominator' method is exactly how a large number of developers work. A developer that thinks that the 360 is the most powerful system is a fool.

What planet do you live on? Most developers do make games on the better system and then port down.

How is it foolish for developers, who work with both consoles every day and knows the ins and outs of each, to think the 360 is more powerful? You obviously know more than they being that you can read spec sheets, right?

You can't blame the architecture. The architecture is fantastic, or the PS3 wouldn't be so much more powerful than the 360. By your logic, things shouldn't change. Just because an idea doesn't fly, doesn't mean it isn't a good idea. And just because everyone across the board agrees, doesn't mean they're right.

Why can't you blame it's architecture? To develop for it not only takes longer, it's harder and Sony is known for there bad documentation.

General speaking, when most of the developers in the industry agree on something, it's true. They aren't a bunch of uneducated red necks (not many at least).

Would you like to go into the flaws of console-only gaming?

Save that for it's own thread. I personally like them both equally.

This is probably the most trustworthy reviewer I've ever heard of: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/vide...ro-punctuation
And even he thinks Halo 3 is loaded with mediocrity.

If you follow the industry just a little you'd know of Yahtzee and I do like his reviews, but being a hardcore gamer myself I think he can be a bit to critical in most of them.

I still prefer the methods I've mentioned before.

If you let the reviewers make up your mind for you, what is the point of playing?

I don't let reviewers make up my mind about anything, in fact I play even the bad games. I only use reviews to help guide my purchases and educate me on what I'd be getting in a game and why it's worth or not worth a purchase.

I'm not even saying that I use it to make all of my purchase, I just don't blindly buy a game based on the opinion of some guy at a store who gets paid minimum wage to sell Pokemon for the DS to little kids.

But you're going off topic of the original reasoning reviews are were brought up. It's wonderful you love a bad game like Haze, but what makes me think you just don't know what you're talking is that you rank it up with games that are actually critically good titles and someone may purchase a PS3 for.

Finally, reviews are really the only way to compare the quality of each system's game library. Personal preference aside, the 360 has more games that have scored higher in reviews than the PS3.

[imaran]

(1.) I'm not even saying that I use it to make all of my purchase, I just don't blindly buy a game based on the opinion of some guy at a store who gets paid minimum wage to sell Pokemon for the DS to little kids.

(2.) But you're going off topic of the original reasoning reviews are were brought up. It's wonderful you love a bad game like Haze, but what makes me think you just don't know what you're talking is that you rank it up with games that are actually critically good titles and someone may purchase a PS3 for.

(3.) Finally, reviews are really the only way to compare the quality of each system's game library. Personal preference aside, the 360 has more games that have scored higher in reviews than the PS3.

I put (#.) for easier replying

1. I was never saying to let the people at the stores be your sole reason for buying something. I actually discuss games with them after I've played them. Sometimes they have good insight and other times not so much. It is worth spending the time if I'm already there looking at games as it is.

2. Have you played the game? If not, despite what popular view is, that dosn't give you the right to say it is bad. I honestly loved the game after expecting it to be the worst FPS ever given the ratings/reviews. Despite that, I still traded it in for store credit after a few months as I had no one to play it with. It is a 2 person+ game to me, much like Halo. I'd have done the same with Halo unless I had the money to play online (as Halo's community is far better than Haze's). Anyways...COD4 is better than both :P. Sidenote...Haze would be last on the list of games I listed, just like Halo 3 would be last on it's list that I listed.

3. I disagree once more, the better console is determined by the individual who owns it. To me the ps3 is better, to you the 360 is better. Either way though, to me great games are of more importance than good games. To others, a lot of good games can beat a few great games. I prefer quality over quantity. It's a personal choice. Furthermore, each person can view the ratings of games differently. While some games might be a 9.5 to some reviewers, other people who don't play the genre or just don't like the style of game could consider it a 6.0 sort game. Really it does just depend on the person.

[Kayos]

3. I disagree once more, the better console is determined by the individual who owns it. To me the ps3 is better, to you the 360 is better. Either way though, to me great games are of more importance than good games. To others, a lot of good games can beat a few great games. I prefer quality over quantity. It's a personal choice. Furthermore, each person can view the ratings of games differently. While some games might be a 9.5 to some reviewers, other people who don't play the genre or just don't like the style of game could consider it a 6.0 sort game. Really it does just depend on the person.

I'm not going to reply to the other points but I think we can agree to disagree on those ones. I am however going to reply to number 3.

When I refer to good games I'm referring to games that score in the 80-100s. You can say you prefer games that are great, but the 360 still has more of these "great" titles.

And you're totally right that each person has different tastes. I am not a fan of sports games, I'm okay with other people loving them, and I don't care if all they play are sports games. If a sports game has been reviewed and given high scores, I know that I still probably won't like it because I just don't like those games. Anyone with common sense does the same thing.

[imaran]

I'm not going to reply to the other points but I think we can agree to disagree on those ones. I am however going to reply to number 3.

When I refer to good games I'm referring to games that score in the 80-100s. You can say you prefer games that are great, but the 360 still has more of these "great" titles.

And you're totally right that each person has different tastes. I am not a fan of sports games, I'm okay with other people loving them, and I don't care if all they play are sports games. If a sports game has been reviewed and given high scores, I know that I still probably won't like it because I just don't like those games. Anyone with common sense does the same thing.

If going by ratings, I don't consider it great unless it's 90/100 or 9.0/10 or higher. To be honest, going through game site after game site, I couldn't find a real edge for either console. One site gives a slight edge to one and another gives a slight edge to the other. In the end it balances out (unfortunately lol). They both end up with 3-5 9.0/90 games each with a good few cross console games in there as well. My personal ratings though are as I said above with the 3 games for the 360 up there and the 6 games for the ps3. However, upon further consideration, I'd rather make it 2 and 5 and remove Haze and Halo 3 from the great games discussion (more than anything it's COD4's dominance over them). That's just me though.

[GG-Xtreme]

You just don't understand that it looks like a computer generated image rendering in real time.

This looks like CGI as well (not realtime of course): http://genart-graphics.com/portfolio...udi_a6_02.html
And I think that looks photorealistic. Obviously, the PS3 realtime render doesn't look that good, but for a realtime render, it looks more photorealistic than anything I've seen on the 360.

I thought the Xbox was leaps and bounds better than the PS2 in terms of the games I liked, but the PS2 was the better system with the most support.

The difference between last generation and this generation in terms of hardware is that the PS2 was clearly not as powerful as the Xbox or GameCube. The differences in terms of graphics in the current generation of consoles are very minimal.

For example, PS2's version of Splinter Cell had whole graphical effects removed, as well as whole parts of levels just to work right on the console.

You won't see that this generation because that hardware difference is just so minimal. The people who claim the PS3 has better graphics in there games are just misinformed thinking that since the 360 is older it can't even contend, which is clearly untrue.

The hardware difference may not be as big as the last generation, but its noticeability is suppressed by the fact that the PS3 hasn't reached its limit and the 360 almost has already.

What planet do you live on? Most developers do make games on the better system and then port down.

How is it foolish for developers, who work with both consoles every day and knows the ins and outs of each, to think the 360 is more powerful? You obviously know more than they being that you can read spec sheets, right?

If you've heard of Gears of War, chances are you've heard of Unreal Tournament 3. If you've played it on any system, you'd notice that it appears that Epic Games designed it for the PS3 first, and then ported it to the PC. That may not support my argument entirely, since the PS3 is more powerful than the 360, but it was a noticeably bad design method.

Why can't you blame it's architecture? To develop for it not only takes longer, it's harder and Sony is known for there bad documentation.

General speaking, when most of the developers in the industry agree on something, it's true. They aren't a bunch of uneducated red necks (not many at least).

That still can't be held against the architecture. This may not be a well-known example, but two major 3d modeling programs--3ds Max and Maya--have very different workflow methods. However some people are faster and do better with one and some are faster and better with the other. I'm sure if developers had time to get the hang of the architecture, they could develop as fast as they want.

Save that for it's own thread. I personally like them both equally.

Agreed (although I personally find adjusting to console gaming a difficult step down for me).

If you follow the industry just a little you'd know of Yahtzee and I do like his reviews, but being a hardcore gamer myself I think he can be a bit to critical in most of them.

I still prefer the methods I've mentioned before.

Of course he's critical. But maybe I shouldn't use reviews of console games done by someone who exhibits the standards of high-end PC gamers. Probably due to what I said above as finding console gaming a step down from what I'm used to on the PC.

Finally, reviews are really the only way to compare the quality of each system's game library. Personal preference aside, the 360 has more games that have scored higher in reviews than the PS3.

That is a slightly close-minded approach. Maybe the reason the game got a low score is something you don't really care about (ie. let's just say, only the mulitplayer or singleplayer aspect). What happens when you've played all of the 'top-rated' games and there don't seem to be many more coming? A little variety can help you see that no matter what reviewers say, game quality is ultimately subjective unless there are technical problems that prevent you from enjoying the game the way it was intended.

[toygamer]

Yeah I think who has a HD Screen should buy the PS3. But I think I will buy a Wii for christmas, because I have no HD Screen.:dunno: