EuroGamer: "The gap between the two console versions closes a touch during gameplay and PS3 performance appears to show a marked improvement over the last Black Ops title."
The PS3 really shines in its exclusives. The problem is most games on any system are from 3rd party sources and multiplat titles. I don't know of too many systems that come out later and cost more to build (and also more to the consumer) that ended up having inferior versions, or at least this many. No matter how small and insignificant those differences may be. Blame Sony's insistence on creating proprietary hardware that makes it more difficult for developers to grasp (rumor has it Sony is finally learning, or has had to learn, with the PS4 and will be much easier for developers). Or blame those developers for taking the easy way out. It doesn't matter who you blame, it is the PS3 owners like myself who got shafted into thinking the PS3 would be the best console for all games, not just 1st party. The people at Sony have learned a hard lesson this generation and that is they need to work more closely to outside parties as to what the hardware should be. Especially since Sony's consoles, much like Microsofts, rely heavily on 3rd party publishers.
You do know it's 2012 not 2007 right? The whole, "blame Sony" argument doesn't fly anymore. If developers are still unfamiliar with the PS3's architecture, they shouldn't have jobs!
Irrelevant. The fact is the end product is not meeting the needs of PS3 owners or the potential the PS3 was marketed as way back in 2006. Even to this day. Not when it comes to 3rd party games. Call of Duty is the biggest franchise this generation, so who's fault is it that the PS3 version is not the premium edition on consoles, Microsofts? What the PS3 needed was what the PS2 had, influence among 3rd party publishers. That way they could force those developers to work harder. That wasn't the case with the PS3 since the PS3 did not take charge this generation. Sony needs to listen to the market, they need to adapt to the needs of the actual programmers. They cannot go it alone like they have in the past and not take into consideration what the actual people making the games want. Not when competition is much more fierce. So disagree all you want, the fact is Sony paid more attention to getting bluray into homes rather than working with the people who were going to create the games. How do I know this, the fact Vita and the upcoming PS4 will be much easier for them to work on compared to the PS2 and the PS3. Sony's focus will not be on creating another new format, but rather getting a product out there for a reasonable cost and making the creation process as easy as possible.
@MikeMyers StanLee is right. The Vita is right now proving that " the needs of the actual programmers" is a BS cop out for the 'sudden' lack of capability for developing on PlayStation hardware in general. Despite it's much easier architecture, the Vita still gets Black Ops: Declassified. Blaiming Sony for blah blah blah is irrelevant when less quality still comes from easier-to-work-on hardware.
@yewles1 Two totally different scenarios. Declassified by all accounts was a rushed product to be ready in time for the launch of Vita. Black Ops 2 was developed alongside the PC and Xbox 360 and they still struggle to show why the PS3 is newer and better technology. Is it due to laziness on their part? Possibly. Blame Activision all you want, the problem is the end result and that is PS3 owners are not getting the best product possible. That is likely because the PS3 does not cater to developers like the PS2 would have where the bulk of sales are generated on that platform. So of course their attention would be greater on the PS2. Sony knows this which is why they are deciding to not make the same mistake with the PS4. They cannot afford to have another systems potential lost due to not having control over the developers. They can't keep creating proprietary hardware unknown to game programmers in hopes they will see the benefits. All indications show the PS4 to be more like a PC and easier to develop for. Why do you think that is?
No Mike, the PS2 didn't cater developers in anyway, not even in sales. You're missing a very important point in this which you REALLY should have considered... the PS2's difficulty. The PS3 is extraordinarily easier to work on than an architecture that caused rivals like EA and Activision to come together to make custom API's... A!!! P!!! I'S!!! in order to get any source coding done, or the likes of Naughty Dog to make a custom version of LISP as 'minor' examples. Not to mention that all devs had literally nothing to work with at the beginning other than assembly level machine language, a proprietary Vector Unit language, a 1980's manual rasterizer and operating instructions in only one language (japanese). The PS3's only problems were streaming co-dependent CPU cores, old fashioned RAM discrepancies and a downgraded GPU and VRAM from original spec. There's no reason for more people to be having more problems on dramatically easier hardware, but this trend is continuing with the Vita no matter how you look at it, and will probably continue with the next PS platform.
Most games look as good or better on PS3 these days, Treyarch is like Bethesda. Their games aren't bad, but their technical capabilities are.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.