It's Official: PS3 Sux0r!!!
Sorry Joe, I can't help it. It's too easy.
GameSpot has a big feature today with side-by-side comparisons of the same games being played on the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3. How did the two machines stack up? If you've been following this saga you already know:
The 360 wiped its ass with the PS3, then flushed it down the crapper.
Okay, that might be overstating things a bit, but let's look at GameSpot's final verdict:
It is possible that programmers will gradually unlock more of the PS3's power and that the console will eventually surpass the Xbox 360 in terms of graphical prowess. Yet I still find it surprising that Sony had a full year to develop superior hardware and yet it still can't match the 360's. When the original Xbox launched, it came out a year after the PS2 and yet it was unquestionably technologically superior in every way. "Halo" looked better than any equivalent title on the PS2.
Of course, the Xbox didn't come close to overtaking the PS2. This might demonstrate that a technological edge is ultimately irrelevant, or that things like a head start, a bigger installed fan base, and a deeper library of games are more important to a console's success. I suspect it's a combination of those factors. The 360 leads now, but things will change if Sony can banish the gremlins from its PS3 division.
GameSpot has a big feature today with side-by-side comparisons of the same games being played on the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3. How did the two machines stack up? If you've been following this saga you already know:
The 360 wiped its ass with the PS3, then flushed it down the crapper.
Okay, that might be overstating things a bit, but let's look at GameSpot's final verdict:
"The Xbox 360 had better graphics in almost all the games we examined... We couldn't capture this in the screenshots, but the Xbox 360 games generally offered better framerates too."They do note that the battle could be different next year:
"We're going to give the PS3 the benefit of the doubt in this initial round since developers might need more time to figure out how to maximize performance from the Cell and the RSX... The PS3 didn't beat the 360 in this first comparison, but the games do look fine for first-generation titles. The real graphics battle will likely come next year."The only problem for Sony is, if you're buying a console this holiday or in the next year, which one do you go for: the one that costs $400 and has better graphics, or the one that costs $600 and has worse graphics?
It is possible that programmers will gradually unlock more of the PS3's power and that the console will eventually surpass the Xbox 360 in terms of graphical prowess. Yet I still find it surprising that Sony had a full year to develop superior hardware and yet it still can't match the 360's. When the original Xbox launched, it came out a year after the PS2 and yet it was unquestionably technologically superior in every way. "Halo" looked better than any equivalent title on the PS2.
Of course, the Xbox didn't come close to overtaking the PS2. This might demonstrate that a technological edge is ultimately irrelevant, or that things like a head start, a bigger installed fan base, and a deeper library of games are more important to a console's success. I suspect it's a combination of those factors. The 360 leads now, but things will change if Sony can banish the gremlins from its PS3 division.
<< Home