Why do PS always blow in the graphics category?

Sony has always made their consoles difficult to program for so to save time and money you just build the game on an easy system and port it over the best you can. Also until this gen Sony consoles have always been considerabley weaker compared to their competition.

Crap in the graphics department? Uh... I thought someone bumped a post from the PS2 era, honestly. Many multiplats aren't given as big a dev team for PS3 to reflect the size of the userbase. That isn't even a real question at this point, everyone knows that. Still, there are games as new as Dead Space and as old as Burnout Paradise that show that the PS3 CAN put out equal or superior multiplats. The tools are obviously there.

Then you have MGS4, Uncharted, and Killzone 2. The only thing on 360 that comes close is Gears and more Gears, and I don't think that's even up for debate now that KZ2 is actually out.

[QUOTE="Great_Ragnarok"]does anyone else think they did this to get an advantage to the first party software? you know so they can compete with 3rd party developers more effectively. since 3rd parties aren't as familiar with the PS3 hardware...jjenkins78x

Greetings. Why do PS consoles in general always managed to suck in the graphics category compared to other consoles in games, such as X-Box 360.garland51

Crap in the graphics department? Uh... I thought someone bumped a post from the PS2 era, honestly. Many multiplats aren't given as big a dev team for PS3 to reflect the size of the userbase. Umm, you got that completely wrong. The PS3 has the smallest userbase, and has the largest development team on an almost universal basis. That isn't even a real question at this point, everyone knows that. Obviously not, because you are wrong. Still, there are games as new as Dead Space and as old as Burnout Paradise that show that the PS3 CAN put out equal or superior multiplats. The tools are obviously there. Are they equal because of the tools, or are they simply deving it to the point where the PS3 runs the game well and porting it to the 360 where it runs it equally as well(ie the PS3 essentially holding back the 360)?

Then you have MGS4, Uncharted, and Killzone 2. The only thing on 360 that comes close is Gears and more Gears, and I don't think that's even up for debate now that KZ2 is actually out.MGS4 graphics are tremendously overhyped by cows, while good it isn't close to the best graphics of this gen from either system. The other 4 games you listed are the games that have swapped the graphics crown over the past few years. You could just as easily say that the only thing on the PS3 that comes close to gears and more gears is KZ2 and Uncharted. I like how in the span of a paragraph you downplay the difference in multiplats as insignificant, and portray the difference between the exclusives to be huge, when all in all the disparity is about the same. Cows are great at this.

jjenkins78x

[QUOTE="jjenkins78x"][QUOTE="Great_Ragnarok"]does anyone else think they did this to get an advantage to the first party software? you know so they can compete with 3rd party developers more effectively. since 3rd parties aren't as familiar with the PS3 hardware...mattbbpl

Everybody who has mentioned Killzone = literacy fail.

He's asking about multi plats.

you know... Halo 3 wasnt bad graphics. It was just halo art style so why does everybody exclude it from the 360 graphics arguement? in all seriousness KZ and Gears have great graphics but they have really monotonous colors. I dunno just thought i would throw that out there. V_Zarnold_N

KZ and Gears have great graphics but they have really monotonous colors.

you obviously have not played Killzone !!! it has some amazing colourful sets