Scott Steinberg, Vice President of Product Marketing for Sony Computer Entertainment America, has stated that the PlayStation 3 is starting to show its graphical superiority over rival consoles, and that soon the graphics on other platforms will look quite dated. I'd never have expected Sony's marketing department to say such a thing.
"I think that we're seeing, graphically, PS3 games starting to create some distance and some of the other competitors are going to feel that they're getting long in the tooth, looking quite dated, because they haven't created that ten-year vision from a horsepower standpoint," Steinberg told GI.biz.
So, the PS3 has the best graphics. That's brilliant. Perfect, in fact, and as soon as we get lots of games to go with these graphics, then all will be grand. Tootling one's trumpet over graphics is all well and good, but it's a practice I find rather shallow and uninteresting when it's in lieu of talking about actual games. Graphics are important, yes, but the market has proven time and again that graphics are not the dealbreaker. The death of the technically superior Dreamcast in comparison to the PlayStation, for example, or the Wii's continued success indicates that Sony can create as much graphical distance as it likes, it won't matter while other platforms are delivering the gaming experiences that most customers want.
"Wikkid Awesum" graphics shouldn't be Sony's prime focus, and I'm sick of hearing about them. Stop saying how great Killzone 2 looks and set about assuring me that it won't be as mediocre as the first one.
Contest:
5:40 AM on 08.04.2008
| 
Wait wut?
And I just want a PS3/360 for a Rawkband machine still, fok the graphics =<.
The orig version had "Awesome" graphics too if I remember correctly. I also remember it sucking donkey balls. Shiny shit still tastes a bit shitty. Show me some great physics or unique interaction, graphics will only go so far. Killer Instinct springs to mind (showing my age). This title was founded on giant lies, I doubt it will ever be able to shake the negativity.
My point stands, sirs.
The PS3 is so badly made, designed and executed it's pinfull. But the brain of that frankanstinnian freak is, honestly, very powerfull.
Besides, I've heard from a couple gaming podcasts who attended E3 that Killzone 2 is actually pretty fun. I know it sounds crazy, a game on the Playstation 3 being fun, but it's possible if you imagineer it. Imagineer it, Jim.
Graphics are just one ingredient in the stew that is a video game. You put the wrong thing in, or not enough of something, and it probably wont taste good; but sometimes putting a ton of one ingredient in can save it.
Shame on you guys!!! Give Sony time and let's see if they can put their money where their mouth is.
Yes, there may not be as many great games on PS3 as we would like, but I'm prepared to wait if it means titles like LittleBigPlanet fulfill their (huge) potential.
Its a decent Gfx chip for a console but its not as good as the XBox360.
Higher polycounts (maybe) and better sheer number-crunching on ps3, but with lower res textures and less post-processing. So 'better', no.
And before you say anything, I have a PS3 Devkit under my desk.
Wtf? PS3 badly made? That's the most rediculous thing i've heard for a while...
Thank you! I'm glad I didn't have to type that out. For number crunching, the PS3 wins; but the 360 has a superior graphics chip (even if it does constantly overheat). If Sony was really focused on a 10 year plan, they should have picked a graphics chip that bested the competitor's box.
Overall, I don't really care which has better graphics at all. Sure, Wardrox is right about going back to PS1 games, but I remember thinking they looked bad at the time. By the PS2/Xbox/GC generation, 3D finally hit its stride in the console space and I could go back and play any one of those games today. Give me a game that plays well with a pleasing aesthetic and I'm fine.
You did fail at failing on Killzone though, so feel good about that. The game will probably be shit, just like the first one, regardless of how nice it looks.
At the end of the day we've seen little to no difference between the consoles thus far, and until that happens all this debate is worthless.
Granted, the later PS2 games DID trump the better Dreamcast games visually, but if Soul Calibur, Dead or Alive 2 or Shenmue are any indication, there was quite a bit of untapped power that might've been put to good use if Sega wasn't so quick to kill it.
At this point, I know it's not happening, but I STILL yearn for Sega to get back into the hardware game. Problem is, if they do, they'll likely fail again to do their terrible marketting. Which leads back to the DC/PS2 vs 360/PS3 comparison. The reason the 360 didn't die under PS3 WILL BE SO MUCH BETTERS hype is because 1) after hearing the PS3's initial price, people deciding they weren't going to pay $600 no matter how powerful/feature intensive it is, and 2) Microsoft has the money to market its system properly AND pay just about every game developer to create games for it.
I really hope thats the case. I have trouble shelling out $60 for a game thats only a 6 hour experienceand many lately have been. Metal Gears Solid and a few other titles exploit the storage capacity afforded by Bluray but many don't. If Rockstar was able to fit GTA IV on DVD-9, developers can aim for the sky with Bluray. This might apply less to 3rd party titles but there sin't an excuse for Sony eclusive titles to fully use the benefits of Bluray. And even 3rd party developers take advantage of it aswell. Maybe when the 360 starts to receive inferior versions, Microsoft will be forced to find a solution for the limitations of DVD-9. Installing to the HD is a start but they also have to nit limit developers out there because some folks purchased an Arcade console. This is coming from a person that owns both consoles but primarily buys 360 multi-platform titles. I hope both consles succeed. I think competition is to the benefit of gamers; I don't understand the rampant "fanboyism" on game boaerds.
keep playing with you xbot because you don't know what your talking about for the PS3
Riiiiiidggge Raaaaaccccerrr!!!!
On a side note, I like my PS3...to watch movies on :/
Console makers shouldn't be bragging about graphics, they should be bragging about games.
All console graphics look like ass compared to PC graphics.
Sony talking about their "10 year vision" is meaningless to everyone who wants "graphics". I mean look at PS2 graphics and then look at Far Cry which came out just 3 years later. The same exact thing is going to happen again.
Seriously Sony, focus on the games; because touting graphics is a losing battle. They've already pissed off tons of early adopters who shelled out $600 for a virtual paperweight for the first year, because of promises of "1080p" & "HD doesn't start until we say it does!"... They should stop crying wolf while they still have their brand credibility.
because..
The problem w/ selling to all those "sucker{s) born every second" is that when they find out they've been had; they tend to remember. the ones who can get through the first stage of consumer grief at least (denial AKA fanboys).
The Dreamcast marked the start of Generation 6 (Dreamcast, PS2, Xbox, Gamecube).
It was not competing with the Generation 5 machines (Saturn, Playstation, Nintendo 64).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_console
Regardless, I agree with the main body. Great graphics aren't shit, unless you have a game to stand behind it.