And good looking games means nothing if the gameplay is not there. Ratchet and Clank has great gameplay, so even if it looked like a Wii title, I’m sure people would still like it. Similarly, Bioshock might not look as good as Uncharted, but who can deny it is not a better game? Many of the developers who have had problems with the PS3 say that so much time is spent on ensuring the PS3 version looks the same as the 360 version, that there is less time to devote to making the gameplay the same as well, hence why multi-platform games are better on the 360 (so far, until developers make the PS3 the lead platform).

And I think Carmack is still relevant as he is still employed by ID (Doom 3, Quake 4, Quake Wars …). But even if he isn’t working in gaming anymore, he is a legend of gaming and what he says is always relevant. The need to attack someone as revered as Carmack is exactly what I’m talking about in terms of “fanbois” in this blog. And even if he is “irrelevant”, what about Greg Zeschuk? Gabe Newell? Denis Dyack? Mike Bilder? They all say pretty much the same thing in that while 360 development is more in line with existing programming techniques, the PS3 differs in these techniques (thanks to Sony) plus it has memory related problems, making it more difficult to develop for. It’s not saying the PS3 isn’t a better console than the 360, or that PS3 graphics won’t be better than the 360, it’s just a reality of game development. Big developers will absorb the costs, but smaller developers will look to limit their already multi-million dollar development on platforms that sell well, and the PS3 (currently) isn’t one of them.

Bottomline is, people are making beautiful games on the PS3, the likes of which are just not possible on the 360.

If the PS3 was released at the same time as the Xbox 360, with a normal processor and sans Blu-ray, then maybe the PS3 won’t be that much more powerful than the 360, but it would have completely wiped out the 360 before it even got started. Sony has nobody to blame but themselves.

I’m also a big PC gaming fan - PCs can play any game that consoles play (if you buy a good gamepad), but consoles struggle to play many games that PCs can play (RTS, flight sims … even FPS plays better with a keyboard/mouse combo). It’s a shame that some delopers are shifting away from making PC games (Call of Duty 3, for example, plus some other good Xbox 360 games such as Dead Rising, Saint’s Row and Crackdown). But consoles make gaming a bit simpler - just pop in the disc and start, no need to configure drivers and solve compatiblity problems. Plus, unless your computer sits in your home theatre next to your large screen TV, consoles are still the easiest way to play games at 1080p with 5.1 surround sound. Computers that can play games smoothly at 1080p (1920×1080) are still a bit too expensive.

There is only one reason I won’t get an XBox machine. That is most of XBox’s good games come out on the PC after a while. So what’s the point if I have a good computer.