I don't get this thread, and I'm not reading all 16 pages to see if somebody mentioned this but...
1) isn't having the bet graphics a good thing?
2) isn't this the exact same thing that MS fanboys were boasting about when the OG Xbox had the graphical advantage over the PS2?
1.) If there was a clear difference then sure. Is there? According to early specs it would seem like the PS4 has the advantage. But that is not based on real world calculations which is all that really matters. The PS3 spec wise killed the xbox, but in real world scenarios the xbox killed the pS3 in graphics more times than not
Then sony caught up about 2yrs ago and games been equal on the multiplat front. The sony exclusives (not all of them) basicaly Killzone and Killzone only looked great because of the budget and time (6yrs) to make the game. Just like a Hollywood movie, bigger budget = more action set pieces/etc. Uncharted was another game that was well planned and funded. Nothing wrong with that, it just is what it is. But only Killzone 2/3 reached a graphic benchmark that was worth admiring. Crysis did that as well, but since its on xbox as well, those same fanboys don't want to acknowledge the truth.
2.) The Xbox actually had a crucial graphical advantage over PS2, thats not what is happening here. Xbox also had XBL while PS2 didn't even have a PSN
So online games suffered crucially, games like Splinter Cell online were different games completely on PS2 compared to the xbox versions (FACT)
That game is probably the sole reason why I was convinced that PS3 would fail, because of the XBL factor. You taking that fact and applying it now makes me suspect you still a lil salty over it? Why talk about fanboys from 2gens ago