Question -
When do we all expect to hear any official comments from either Sony or Terminal Reality regarding 1) The PR bull we were told that the developers are going to push the PS3 cause its the lead build and 2) Why Sony are Publishing a game (timed exclsuive or not) that is obviously an inferior port.
I don't think the developers ever said that the PS3 was the lead SKU. That was just extrapolated by forum goers because they are absolutely infatuated with "superior" verisons, as opposed to controller preference, friends lists, or online services (you know, the stuff that actually matters).
Anyway, I specifically remember the developer saying that they were
focusing on PS3. That in no way suggests it was the lead platform. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, it tells more that the 360 version was probably easier to work with, and the larger portion of their team was working on the PS3 version to get it working. That doesn't make it the "lead" platform. Too many people throw around that stupid buzz word in an attempt to establish their expectations.
That said, it looked like the PS3 version was using Quincunx AA, which may be cause for the softer image and textures (similar to RE5). I actually haven't had a chance to play it myself, so I don't know for sure.
I also know they had to sacrifice some special effects on the PS3 version, but that's not really a deal breaker to me. So long as the game is still playable and runs at a stable frame rate, then I honestly don't see what any of the fuss is about. To me an inferior port is one that has massive slowdown, unacceptable load times, significant visual downgrade (think Splinter Cell: Double Agent) etc.
This game doesn't look to have any of those issues. Is the 360 version "better"? Yes, it is visually better, however, most reports I've seen say they run w/the same frame rate, and both suffer from screen tearing.
Prepare for the lulz.....(thanks grandmaster)
360 Pic 1
360 Pic 2
PS3 Pic 1
PS3 Pic 2
What a disaster this is. This is an impressive foot in mouth job by the dev. I wonder how much of their boasting had to do with pressure from the exclusive contract.
If you can find me a quote from the developers that we can all agree is "boasting", then I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I don't think you will.
Unless of course you're talking about the statements they made regarding their development experience on all the consoles, which happened long before Sony snatched up the publishing rights for EU.
If I remember right, they said that "if we were developing only on PS3, we could have more things on screen, etc" (obviously a paraphrasing of said quote). That doesn't suggest lead platform, boasting, or superior graphics. In fact, all it says is that they could have more moving objects on screen, which is a pretty solid statement, the Cell is better equipped to deal with more physics calcs, is it not?
I'm not calling you out, but really, I think you, like many others, are simply too "knee deep" in the whole "x version is superior lulz" game. I understand finding differences and dicussing them, that's completely acceptable, but fabricating things about a developer, such as statements or "lead version SKUs" is really far fetched.
draconian - You really think that Atari gave up publishing rights for this title? I ensure you that they didn't think that the game would be largely successful in Europe, and Sony got the publishing rights for a decent price, it was not "free". Nor was it a "gift" or "favor". That's a ridiculous statement.
