We all know how much Sony hyped it's PS3, saying how it was the most powerful console on the market. And we all believed it, myself included. Then, once the games started coming out, and there was no difference at all in them (and the PS3 usually having much inferior multi-plat versions), we started chaulking it up to the fact that the PS3 was hard to develop for, and that eventually the 'true power of the cell' would shine. Well, ONE YEAR into the PS3's life, and there is absolutely ZERO evidence that the PS3 is more powerful than the 360. The 360 is still getting superior multi-plats, the true measure between the power of consoles. Cows are rejoicing that the PS3 version of COD4 is EQUAL to the 360. And people are still blaming devs for the poor quality of PS3 games, without acknowledging that these same devs are the best in the world at making games and still try their best to make good PS3 games- it is simply impossible to make a good PS3 game without 100s of developers and multi-million dollar budgets. Dev after dev has also trashed the PS3, saying that it's architecture is not well suited to powerful gaming, or that at least it has several MAJOR bottlenecks. There still has not been a PS3 game that could not be done on the 360. A lot of people talk about how the PS3 still has so much 'potential.' Well, it's almost 2008, the current gen started in late 2006 when the 360 launched, and the next gen will probably start in 2011 or so, so the PS3 has only a limited time to start showing this 'potential,' which so far is far from being proved. So someone PLEASE explain to me why people still think that the PS3 is so much more powerful than the 360?
Log in to comment