CGReviews.com writes:
"In this race of consoles, it seems that we are hearing more and more often the following phrase: "Platform 'X' wouldn't not be able to handle Game 'X'." Surely I am not the only person who is sick of hearing this. So, I set out to find some examples of this phrase--and how to prove them wrong."
Ayi Sanchez: "Old work. I did this 10 years ago now as part of a material test for a remaster of Gears of War 2 that never happened."
Weird, in mean they had no studios to make anything really new so there's a part of me thats kinda glad they scrapped it. If they released this back then it would of gotten ridiculed for remakes and remastering stuff. Now they have new and interesting games so the collection is harmless.
Geez, Xbox, something like that I would’ve bought Day 1. Great business decisions over there.
10 years ago it wasn’t such a big deal. The games were only a few years old by that point
Gears of War: Ultimate Edition came out in 2015 (essentially 10 years ago), having a follow-up to that on the then next-gen console would’ve absolutely been welcomed, in my book.
I can only assume the the Gears of War Remaster flopped so they decided to scrap the other remakes?
Seems short sighted to me as I really enjoyed the 1st remaster. Regardless, I'll snap up some remakes to play on my PS5.
The PlayStation 3 is Sony’s most interesting home console ever, but what’s most interesting of all is trying to nail down the very best games on a console with hundreds of incredible games. Let’s give it a shot.
We desperately need Motorstorm back. Evolution is no more though and this makes me sad
Sly Thieves in Time
Stay the Party
Portal 2
Dj Hero
Demon’s Souls
God of war Ascension
2 of those games got railed through the “gaming media” during release.
Sly and god of war.
Both of which were fantastic games.
Yes it’s a decent list of popular games with a heavy hand on FPS and no Warhawk or Starhawk 2 of the best games (not sale wise) on ps3.
I would buy a Starhawk again even if it didn’t have a graphics upgrade hell I would even take a new one with micro transactions 😱🤯
I've noticed a recent nostalgia for the PS3 and I don't get it for me it's been my least favourite generation to date and I've been gaming since the NES I just feel like the ambition of the developers outweighed the capabilities of the consoles so I remember lots of games running in the lower end of 20fps range and I remember for the first time ever actually disliking the duelshock 3 and it's curved triggers
Sure there were some standouts and great games but that's the only gen I switched entirely to PC gaming
Maybe the recent nostalgia is because pretty much all of its games are trapped on that console. People want to play them on more modern hardware. hell... if XB can do it then so can Sony. there are competent emulators out there that can run on PS4/5 hardware but Sony just wont let them become official... why is that?
If we are talking least favorite generations (personally) then this one is certainly mine. i had more fun playing 8th, 7th and 6th gen stuff than 9th. And it isnt like i dont have access to do so... the heavy hitters just havent shown up anywhere close to those previous gens. The few here and there just doesnt cut it compared to the likes of constant good games that showed up in 6th, 7th and 8th gen. hell.... I'll even throw in 5th gen has been better than this one.
I tend to agree there's lots of amazing games locked to the PS3 like GTA IV or mgs 4 but then again my issue was never with the content the PS3 had but rather it's performance many other people have said the PS3 felt like it couldn't walk and chew bubblegum at the same time using PSN and downloading a game could take a few minutes to just start a download.
I typically don't worry all that much about performance I've never had a problem with games that run at 30 but games like crysis 2, Skyrim are good examples where the performance was so unstable you would never even touch the top of the frame cap and the hitching was worse than say Goldeneye on the n64
I think emulation is more than possible on the ps5 though it's just that Sony has no incentive to rush it's development it will likely be a ps6 feature if it ever happens at all.
But yeah the 9th gen has been so bad from a content perspective thats a given I see constant articles where people are frequently expressing their disappointment around the industry as a whole right now to much live service competition that sinks longstanding studios and consumes Devs time less ambition and games cost so much to make they have to play it safe.
The 5th gen was easily better than the 9th we had some all time greats crash, Spyro, Tony hawk, mgs, Mario,64, Goldeneye, Mario kart 64 the list goes on. The 5th gave us a new dimension and I remember being blown away by how much more open gaming had become the 4th gen with the mega drive and SNES was great and very easy to still revisit some of the greatest games of all time came out like earthbound, secret of mana, sonic , Mario world etc but saving our games was still not a standard function or a given so gaming was still evolving but it was very impressive to see some of the tricks Devs used like dithering to give us new experiences those earlier gens limitations bred innovation.
if XB can do it so can sony? I didn't know xbox had a cell processor in their older consoles, that's the reason why ps3 was so cool, but also the reason why games are hostage there and no, xbox did nothing similar even though their backward compatbility is good, they always had a similar architecture to their consoles.
Sorry Michael... I guess you missed the obvious part where i said there are already emulators out that do this. and that is what XB is doing... emulators for OG and 360 games. Its why the full slate is not BC on XBO/Series.
Gears of War's creator has spoken out against the trend of turning established franchises into live services, urging developers to focus on single-player experiences.
Too bad he didn't have this opinion when he chased trends with Lawbreakers. Or when he chased trends with Radical Heights.
He learned from the mistake or he wouldn’t be advocating for more single player experiences. I find this refreshing in a world where we often see people so stubborn that they tend to double down on a mistake which results in making things even worse. Seriously, good for him!
@Popsicle
Oh for sure, better late than never. And better to somewhat own up to your mistakes, rather than just blaming your release window, or advertising partners, or gamers lol.
@Popsicle
Of course we will never know his intentions, but it's hard to believe he is just a naive agent that is learning from his mistakes.
He could have done one himself after Gears of War but he did Lawbreakers…look how that turned out.
Jawbreakers would have been a better name! Heck, I might just go and trademark that right now.
You're missing the point. His studio's short lifespan is what *inspired* him to make this comment in the first place.
Oh I know the point...I'm just stating the obvious and how stupid he was in the beginning to jump on a trend he had no real experience in. A first person hero shooter with heavy GaaS elements is a lot different than the multiplayer in Gears of War.
He'd have been better creating something like Gears of War again, a great single player story and a good online mode.
-"A first person hero shooter with heavy GaaS elements is a lot different than the multiplayer in Gears of War."
I mean... you're kinda muddying terms when Gears has always had a strong multiplayer component. Even if I grant you that, Cliffy B started cementing himself at Epic with Unreal Tournament, which was among the earliest shooter series to have "proto-GaaS elements" (downloadable maps, cosmetics, special editions that bundle stuff together). Lawbreakers and Radical Heights (were it finished) weren't major career shifts to him like they would be for, say, Fumito Ueda.
Regardless of that, it's still kinda useless to state the obvious when CliffyB himself made his comments with the benefit of hindsight already.
Look, these a-hole publishers can do this, in fact I want them to, so they can f*ck around and find out and fail hard scaring away everyone else from doing this live service push.
This industry is run by some of the dumbest corporate pieces of sh*t I’ve ever seen. They spend stupid amount of money with literally nothing that stands out from games from the previous generation (look at Arkham Knight to the $200 mill Suicide Squad comparison vids), you’re overpaying devs, and you focus on games as a service to milk consumers that a lot of them grew up off traditional games. We’re not idiots, we sniff this sh*t out and won’t touch it.
So, what’s your answer to not getting a ROI? Raise game prices and double down on GaaS so you can suck your consumers dry. That model only works for some games and even then how in hell do you expect it to work with multiple games!? They’re ruining the damn hobby with this corporate greed.
Cut back on dev budgets, cut back on how much your staff is getting paid, until sales for games bring in a profit. That’s the answer and make some games that feel like there’s passion behind them, not some cookie cut up game that feels like the entire existence behind it is to offer as little as it can with repetitive bullsh*t and selling off all this content throughout its life. It’s gross.
Games do bring in a profit, it's the greed that is killing the industry. Here is a fact, live service games overall make more, significantly more money than single player games
What you should be asking is executives not wanting continuous growth or firing them. Saying devs should be fired when those who are fitting the bills and setting unrealistic expectations would make things worse. What do y9u think would happen if they released say, 30 single player games and over half of them fail? You are going after the wrong crowd.
About time he learned. I guess he finally stopped blaming everyone else and took accountability for his mistakes and realized that people really don't care that much for trends or live service.
Well it's obviously PR in some cases, but if you have a functioning pair of eyes, you can see that the 360 really hasn't produced a game with graphics on par with the top tier PS3 exclusives, so it makes the claim seem pretty accurate in other cases.
does not adopt more custom engines on its exclusives the 360 wont get pushed... exclusives like gears and mass effect are devloped by third party studios... and thrid party studios usually tend to save lot of money and resources by adopting middleware engines like unreal...
basically if you wanna push your console to the max you need a development team of you own who can build an engine designed specifically for your console that will push your hardware to the max... but for that development team you need your own first party studios...
It's true, there are games that can't run on other systems in their "ORIGINAL" form. Arguing that they can be run "gimped", defeats the purpose. Can Killzone 2 be done on the Wii? Yes, but can the Killzone on the Ps3 be done on the Wii? NO.
POOR ChatBot!!! ;-D
I don't think anyone but a fool can't see that the 360 is an older, less powerful console than the PS3. Honestly, I couldn't care less anyway, because a good game doesn't need the most crisp graphics in the world. There are plenty of ways to make a stylish game without graphical power.
But some people really do care about graphics, unlike me. To each his own. That's where gaming really shines. There's something for everyone.