My final word on PS3/360 graphics analogy (56k)

[QUOTE="Gh0st_Of_0nyx"][QUOTE="hyperboy152000"]

[QUOTE="Gh0st_Of_0nyx"]The ps3 isnt more powerful then the 360 and multplats prove that.hyperboy152000

no, at most it means the devs are not going to treat the tgwo consoles the same way and a bunch of devs do like using the 360 more, but multiplats were never a real indication of any gap in gfx.... exclusives do

no but both have games that run smoother on either or....doesnt that count moreso then pixel count or texture res.? well i mean as long as the game doesnt scarifice just about all graphical fidelity for smoothness (ala haze)

and the only debate i can really think of for multiplats are dev fault vs inferior hardware arguements like the one i stated above

[QUOTE="hyperboy152000"][QUOTE="Gh0st_Of_0nyx"][QUOTE="hyperboy152000"]

[QUOTE="Gh0st_Of_0nyx"]The ps3 isnt more powerful then the 360 and multplats prove that.Gh0st_Of_0nyx

no, at most it means the devs are not going to treat the tgwo consoles the same way and a bunch of devs do like using the 360 more, but multiplats were never a real indication of any gap in gfx.... exclusives do

no but both have games that run smoother on either or....doesnt that count moreso then pixel count or texture res.? well i mean as long as the game doesnt scarifice just about all graphical fidelity for smoothness (ala haze)

and the only debate i can really think of for multiplats are dev fault vs inferior hardware arguements like the one i stated above

not really, considering the fact that most devs port the games and if they are built simultaniously they make both versions almost identical, and given alot of reviewers have stated games like DMC4 and GTAIV run smoother while still looking almost identical with a few trade offs, and yes a good amount of devs just dont want to deal with working with both consoles so they treat the ps3 as the red haired step-child

The graphics are the same on both. I don't see any clear-cut superiority of one over the other. Both have games that look great.thinicer

True I agree but the PS3 was supposed to Dreamcast the 360 and Sony fanboys said 360 was xbox 1.5 and it's under powerd compared to the PS3, which was supposed to have 4D graphics at 100fps with 2 teraflops of floating point performance.

Fast foward to today and there isn't really much of a difference. Well what happend?

I don't think it's that Devs are lazy, it also cost more money and takes more time to Dev for a system that is difficult to Dev for, thats not a good thing. We paid a lot for are consoles and should get the most out of them, if 1 console is easier for Devs to pull power out of, props to that console because it's the owners which will benefit or suffer due to the difficulty.VirtuaCast

well its mostly that its Sony's loss overall since a game can still be good without having spectacular visuals, it just shouldnt turn out to be like haze, but i do agree with the rest of that statement, but in a way the devs are lazy insofar that they dont give the ps3 the same attention as the 360 counterpart, but i dont equate that to them being stupid or anything like that

[QUOTE="VirtuaCast"]I don't think it's that Devs are lazy, it also cost more money and takes more time to Dev for a system that is difficult to Dev for, thats not a good thing. We paid a lot for are consoles and should get the most out of them, if 1 console is easier for Devs to pull power out of, props to that console because it's the owners which will benefit or suffer due to the difficulty.hyperboy152000

well its mostly that its Sony's loss overall since a game can still be good without having spectacular visuals, it just shouldnt turn out to be like haze, but i do agree with the rest of that statement, but in a way the devs are lazy insofar that they dont give the ps3 the same attention as the 360 counterpart, but i dont equate that to them being stupid or anything like that

I think it's more about money then attention. Should Devs spend more time and money on the PS3 versions? Should they not take advantage of eas to Dev for the 360 counter part?

Ps3 games look better. It's like Last gen. Games looked better on Xbox, but not much.theheavydrinker

I don't see the mass hysteria of Uncharted's graphics. I just got a PS3 and downloaded the demo...it looks pretty ok, but Gears of War looks better.Ilived

part of the beauty is the environs, and the Animation. It was cows that decided it, there was an actual poll here (that i didn't vote for because it was a good looking game and I didn't like the ps3 at the time)

[QUOTE="Ilived"]I don't see the mass hysteria of Uncharted's graphics. I just got a PS3 and downloaded the demo...it looks pretty ok, but Gears of War looks better.XTy

part of the beauty is the environs, and the Animation. It was cows that decided it, there was an actual poll here (that i didn't vote for because it was a good looking game and I didn't like the ps3 at the time)

No, I didn't see the beauty in it at all. It looks good, but not that good.

[QUOTE="theheavydrinker"]Ps3 games look better. It's like Last gen. Games looked better on Xbox, but not much.tonyleo01

read the NEED FOR SPEED : Hot Pursuit 2(XBOX) REVIEW at this site, or most sites like IGN. You're logic is flawed. Don't like that game? check out MGS2 : Substance for Xbox. it wasn't a "Hell" of a lot better, it was what I would call smoother, I loved my xbox, but I hated the PS2 ports it suffered from....luckily its reversed these days. The PS3 is suffering lol.

[QUOTE="XTy"]

[QUOTE="Ilived"]I don't see the mass hysteria of Uncharted's graphics. I just got a PS3 and downloaded the demo...it looks pretty ok, but Gears of War looks better.Ilived

part of the beauty is the environs, and the Animation. It was cows that decided it, there was an actual poll here (that i didn't vote for because it was a good looking game and I didn't like the ps3 at the time)

No, I didn't see the beauty in it at all. It looks good, but not that good.

It isn't "That Good", its simply better.

As far as Beauty goes, thats in the eye of the beholder. If you lilke GeoW art style better (Like Me), you're in luck, we (most of us here) all agree with that.

The actual graphics from an analytical perspective are techincally better in Uncharted, but by a small margin.

No one said it was all that and a bag of chips.

How can anyone here honestly say the PS3 in is significantly more powerful than the 360, when the games have proven otherwise

Both systems have the same memory, the same CPu clock speed, and roughly the same GPU clock speed, they are so closely matched its crazy.

The PS3 has its Cell CPU with a single core Power PC and 8 SPU's wich can be used to improve graphical and computational performance, but each SPU has to be programmed individually

The 360 has a triple core Power PC with a dual instruction set, meaning each core can processes two things at once, While techinically not as powerful as the cell, it is alot alot alot easier to get all the power out of it, that is one of the problems when porting from 360 to the PS3, triple core to single core, ask orange box if that can effect performance.

So in the end, what do we have, two evenly matched consoles, look at the very basic numbers, and it proves it, better yet, look at the games.

[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]Yeah, PS3 is more powerful, but it's not that much more powerful.A-LEGEND

i would love to go back in time and put a bullet in the head of the PR person who jammed that idea in your brainwashed skulls. was it marketting, teh blUUUUUUUUUUUUray, or the piece of crap CPU the cell.....? im so fed up of ignorant people spreading ignorance to other ignorant people through word of mouth saying "oh yea its more powerful...thats what they say...."

[QUOTE="Ilived"][QUOTE="XTy"]

[QUOTE="Ilived"]I don't see the mass hysteria of Uncharted's graphics. I just got a PS3 and downloaded the demo...it looks pretty ok, but Gears of War looks better.XTy

part of the beauty is the environs, and the Animation. It was cows that decided it, there was an actual poll here (that i didn't vote for because it was a good looking game and I didn't like the ps3 at the time)

No, I didn't see the beauty in it at all. It looks good, but not that good.

It isn't "That Good", its simply better.

As far as Beauty goes, thats in the eye of the beholder. If you lilke GeoW art style better (Like Me), you're in luck, we (most of us here) all agree with that.

The actual graphics from an analytical perspective are techincally better in Uncharted, but by a small margin.

No one said it was all that and a bag of chips.

True, plus I think someone really should play through the whole game before making a judgement on its visuals.

(not directed at just Ilived, but anyone in general)

[QUOTE="tonyleo01"][QUOTE="theheavydrinker"]Ps3 games look better. It's like Last gen. Games looked better on Xbox, but not much.XTy

read the NEED FOR SPEED : Hot Pursuit 2(XBOX) REVIEW at this site, or most sites like IGN. You're logic is flawed. Don't like that game? check out MGS2 : Substance for Xbox. it wasn't a "Hell" of a lot better, it was what I would call smoother, I loved my xbox, but I hated the PS2 ports it suffered from....luckily its reversed these days. The PS3 is suffering lol.

mgs2 was a port. plz dont start a xbox vs ps2 here...we've already got our hands full:)

the simple fact that doom3 and fear shipped on the xbox and the fact that the devs clearly stated that porting these game on the ps2 was "not technically possible" proves just how much the xbox was 'technically better' than the ps2. the same doesnt hold true for the current consoles. i doubt the CELL processor will handle crisis in all its glory no matter how good the devs get at using it. the developers have clearly stated that BOTH the consoles cannot handle crisis. SO taking this as a benchmark, i doubt the PS3 is going to knock any serious graphic related punches.

and oh...crisis is being ported to the 360....atleast we'll know just how much the 360 can handle by wat the developers can toss in it...

[QUOTE="crunchUK"]wow that KZ2pic is just amazing... wait it's not.Rhys555

I did say watch it in motion.

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/33691.html

I don't know why i bother responding to sheep mind.

Same goes for every other game? You really have to watch it in motion, you really have to play on a HDTV. Seriously, the same thing goes for every other game on PS3 or X-box 360.

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"][QUOTE="xXHackettXx"]

You'll begin to see more of a difference between PS3 and 360 multi-platform games (in PS3's favor), but nothing really noticeable.

thegoldenpoo

your right hostory is repeating, the ps3 is always on the verge of a graphical break-through. the cows are always on the defensive.

i didn't see this damage control coming :roll:

who is doing damage control here :roll:

I stoped reading when he said that ps3 has 8 cores :lol: what a failure of thread,and GTA IV is not superior on ps3 and it never was,running at 640p without AA = install fail,the 360 is running the game at 720p with x2AA and better framerates,the rest your opinion and not a fact.LordoftheVacas

The failure is all yours. The PS3 does have 8 cores, 1 main core, and 7 slave cores, which is what i put in brackets. And using some simple maths, 7 + 1 = 8. :|

[QUOTE="LordoftheVacas"]I stoped reading when he said that ps3 has 8 cores :lol: what a failure of thread,and GTA IV is not superior on ps3 and it never was,running at 640p without AA = install fail,the 360 is running the game at 720p with x2AA and better framerates,the rest your opinion and not a fact.Rhys555

The failure is all yours. The PS3 does have 8 cores, 1 main core, and 7 slave cores, which is what i put in brackets. And using some simple maths, 7 + 1 = 8. :|

[QUOTE="LordoftheVacas"]I stoped reading when he said that ps3 has 8 cores :lol: what a failure of thread,and GTA IV is not superior on ps3 and it never was,running at 640p without AA = install fail,the 360 is running the game at 720p with x2AA and better framerates,the rest your opinion and not a fact.Rhys555

The failure is all yours. The PS3 does have 8 cores, 1 main core, and 7 slave cores, which is what i put in brackets. And using some simple maths, 7 + 1 = 8. :|

I really hope nobody takes Gamespot comparisons seriously. The only thing i use gamespot nowadays is screen-shots, news, and maybe previews. It really surprises me that people hardly dispute these graphics comparison they occasionally do. Not only are they they filled with there bias, subjective opinions, but they fail to take into account a few factors. Take GTA4 for example, on PS3 several sources have claimed the PS3 version has less pop in, but also has other graphical superiority's. In spite of this, gamespot ALWAYS goes for the 360 version :|

On the technical side of things, The PS3 is a much more advanced console. It has 8 cores (1 main, 7 slave) and its infamous cell processor. The 360 on the hand has 3 main cores. Its inferior to the 360, but, its easier to develop on. this has lead to several multiplats having slightly better textures/frame rates etc. But now developers are getting used to PS3 hardware, graphics are improving all the time on multiplat titles, and in few cases are superior on PS3. This of course, is also based on subjective opinion. In my experience, the only way you would notice graphical differences between formats is by running the games side by side, which i doubt anyone but bias gaming have done.

And as for exclusives games, the PS3 really shines. Heres some screenshots.

Gears of war 1/2: (probably 360 best looking game)

(killzone 2, PS3 exclusive)

You have to see killzone 2 in motion to be honest, but most gamers agree its the best looking thing on consoles.

Finally, uncharted. Its quite hard to find a shot of this game in its full glory. its best experienced in motion on hi-def tv, but its absolutly stunning:

As far as i'm concerned, PS3 is the clear winner graphics wise. These low-res shots from IGN do either console justice, but ive seen both gears and uncharted from start to finish, and nothing tops uncharted console wise. multi-plat titles have a advantage on 360 of havings its simpler architecture, and might do for some time to come in a few cases. Oh, and before hermits come into this thread with there crysis screenshots, id just like to say, if you can afford the computer to actually run it on high, you deserve them. I re-installed crysis today and it would only word at a certain resolution, otherwise i was looking at a black screen with talking eyeballs. I can only run the game on low, and i have a 8800GTS.

Rhys555

First off games are wayyy more dependent on the graphics card instead of processor. And the x360 vga is skightky more powerfull from ps3 vga. And you are saying you can only run crysis with 8800gts with low settings. I'm guessing you are either lying or you dont no a think about pc's and probably you didnt even installed the drivers for your vga or your trying to play crysis at 2560x1980 with 16AA

8800gt benchmark

8800gts(old version) benchmark

8800gts(new g92 core version) benchmark

Even the old 8800gts(320 and 640mb versions) which are the weakest performance wise from the 8800series vgas can run crysis at 1280x1024 evrything high with an average fps about 32fps. And the 8800gt which costs about $170 can achieved almost 40fps everything high

[QUOTE="LordoftheVacas"]I stoped reading when he said that ps3 has 8 cores :lol: what a failure of thread,and GTA IV is not superior on ps3 and it never was,running at 640p without AA = install fail,the 360 is running the game at 720p with x2AA and better framerates,the rest your opinion and not a fact.Rhys555

The failure is all yours. The PS3 does have 8 cores, 1 main core, and 7 slave cores, which is what i put in brackets. And using some simple maths, 7 + 1 = 8. :|

Uh the PS3 does NOT have 8 cores, it has one core, a Power PC processor, and 7 SPU's that can be used to make the Ps3 seem more powerful by performing mathmatical task that do not relate to any noticable improvment in gameplay, seriously though they are NOT full processors, and can only handle simple task assigned to the by the programmer

the 360 has a full triple core processor each with a dual instruction set, meaning each core acts as two processors, so thast would be 6, and all the programmer has to do is put in the code, and the CPU distributes the workload, there is no special programming, or assinging tasks to certain processors, do you see why Muliplats developed on the 360 always look and play better on the 360

games made to be multiplats on the PS3 use only the single core processor, and can easily translate to the triple cored 360 with a better GPU

[QUOTE="Rhys555"]

[QUOTE="LordoftheVacas"]I stoped reading when he said that ps3 has 8 cores :lol: what a failure of thread,and GTA IV is not superior on ps3 and it never was,running at 640p without AA = install fail,the 360 is running the game at 720p with x2AA and better framerates,the rest your opinion and not a fact.crispytheone88

The failure is all yours. The PS3 does have 8 cores, 1 main core, and 7 slave cores, which is what i put in brackets. And using some simple maths, 7 + 1 = 8. :|

Uh the PS3 does NOT have 8 cores, it has one core, a Power PC processor, and 7 SPU's that can be used to make the Ps3 seem more powerful by performing mathmatical task that do not relate to any noticable improvment in gameplay, seriously though they are NOT full processors, and can only handle simple task assigned to the by the programmer

the 360 has a full triple core processor each with a dual instruction set, meaning each core acts as two processors, so thast would be 6, and all the programmer has to do is put in the code, and the CPU distributes the workload, there is no special programming, or assinging tasks to certain processors, do you see why Muliplats developed on the 360 always look and play better on the 360

games made to be multiplats on the PS3 use only the single core processor, and can easily translate to the triple cored 360 with a better GPU

sorry for my ignorance but whats an SPU?

[QUOTE="crispytheone88"][QUOTE="Rhys555"]

[QUOTE="LordoftheVacas"]I stoped reading when he said that ps3 has 8 cores :lol: what a failure of thread,and GTA IV is not superior on ps3 and it never was,running at 640p without AA = install fail,the 360 is running the game at 720p with x2AA and better framerates,the rest your opinion and not a fact.st1ka

The failure is all yours. The PS3 does have 8 cores, 1 main core, and 7 slave cores, which is what i put in brackets. And using some simple maths, 7 + 1 = 8. :|

Uh the PS3 does NOT have 8 cores, it has one core, a Power PC processor, and 7 SPU's that can be used to make the Ps3 seem more powerful by performing mathmatical task that do not relate to any noticable improvment in gameplay, seriously though they are NOT full processors, and can only handle simple task assigned to the by the programmer

the 360 has a full triple core processor each with a dual instruction set, meaning each core acts as two processors, so thast would be 6, and all the programmer has to do is put in the code, and the CPU distributes the workload, there is no special programming, or assinging tasks to certain processors, do you see why Muliplats developed on the 360 always look and play better on the 360

games made to be multiplats on the PS3 use only the single core processor, and can easily translate to the triple cored 360 with a better GPU

sorry for my ignorance but whats an SPU?

Wait, so now that your final word is that PS3 looks better than 360, is it final? Like um, is your word law? Because I think that GeoW 2 detailed environs looks much better than KZ2's washed out textures and bad lighting. But since, you already made this decision for me, it's a fact! :roll:MadExponent

killzone 2 has better ground textures then gears 2.....and uncharted is still the best looking console game even with gears 2 included

[QUOTE="st1ka"][QUOTE="crispytheone88"][QUOTE="Rhys555"]

[QUOTE="LordoftheVacas"]I stoped reading when he said that ps3 has 8 cores :lol: what a failure of thread,and GTA IV is not superior on ps3 and it never was,running at 640p without AA = install fail,the 360 is running the game at 720p with x2AA and better framerates,the rest your opinion and not a fact.LordoftheVacas

The failure is all yours. The PS3 does have 8 cores, 1 main core, and 7 slave cores, which is what i put in brackets. And using some simple maths, 7 + 1 = 8. :|

Uh the PS3 does NOT have 8 cores, it has one core, a Power PC processor, and 7 SPU's that can be used to make the Ps3 seem more powerful by performing mathmatical task that do not relate to any noticable improvment in gameplay, seriously though they are NOT full processors, and can only handle simple task assigned to the by the programmer

the 360 has a full triple core processor each with a dual instruction set, meaning each core acts as two processors, so thast would be 6, and all the programmer has to do is put in the code, and the CPU distributes the workload, there is no special programming, or assinging tasks to certain processors, do you see why Muliplats developed on the 360 always look and play better on the 360

games made to be multiplats on the PS3 use only the single core processor, and can easily translate to the triple cored 360 with a better GPU

sorry for my ignorance but whats an SPU?

and what does that mean exactly?

what is the difference between SPU and CPU?

[QUOTE="MadExponent"]Wait, so now that your final word is that PS3 looks better than 360, is it final? Like um, is your word law? Because I think that GeoW 2 detailed environs looks much better than KZ2's washed out textures and bad lighting. But since, you already made this decision for me, it's a fact! :roll:mingo123

killzone 2 has better ground textures then gears 2.....and uncharted is still the best looking console game even with gears 2 included

[QUOTE="mingo123"]

[QUOTE="MadExponent"]Wait, so now that your final word is that PS3 looks better than 360, is it final? Like um, is your word law? Because I think that GeoW 2 detailed environs looks much better than KZ2's washed out textures and bad lighting. But since, you already made this decision for me, it's a fact! :roll:LordoftheVacas

killzone 2 has better ground textures then gears 2.....and uncharted is still the best looking console game even with gears 2 included

The ground textures in KZ2 look like one stretched polygon in that pic...

I wouldn't want you guys to make the mistake of suggesting that Guerilla knows how to bring out graphical mammoths like Epic does.

I don't get how someone can think, after looking at the posted screenshots, that Killzone 2 or Uncharted looks better than Gears of War. You are in denial if you think so.jbz7890

[QUOTE="LordoftheVacas"][QUOTE="st1ka"][QUOTE="crispytheone88"][QUOTE="Rhys555"]

[QUOTE="LordoftheVacas"]I stoped reading when he said that ps3 has 8 cores :lol: what a failure of thread,and GTA IV is not superior on ps3 and it never was,running at 640p without AA = install fail,the 360 is running the game at 720p with x2AA and better framerates,the rest your opinion and not a fact.st1ka

The failure is all yours. The PS3 does have 8 cores, 1 main core, and 7 slave cores, which is what i put in brackets. And using some simple maths, 7 + 1 = 8. :|

Uh the PS3 does NOT have 8 cores, it has one core, a Power PC processor, and 7 SPU's that can be used to make the Ps3 seem more powerful by performing mathmatical task that do not relate to any noticable improvment in gameplay, seriously though they are NOT full processors, and can only handle simple task assigned to the by the programmer

the 360 has a full triple core processor each with a dual instruction set, meaning each core acts as two processors, so thast would be 6, and all the programmer has to do is put in the code, and the CPU distributes the workload, there is no special programming, or assinging tasks to certain processors, do you see why Muliplats developed on the 360 always look and play better on the 360

games made to be multiplats on the PS3 use only the single core processor, and can easily translate to the triple cored 360 with a better GPU

sorry for my ignorance but whats an SPU?

and what does that mean exactly?

what is the difference between SPU and CPU?

i love seeing cows in damage control after GS said 360 has better graphics :lol:
and way to go picking a multiplayer pic for gears
100Gamer

They were talkin Multiplats, Funny how they didn't bring Devil May Cry 4 in the arguement. PS3 best for it.

You say we shouldn't take gamespot comparison seriously. But why should we take yours?

I will give some reason why we shouldn't take YOUR comparison seriously:

-You choose the worst Gears of War pic I've ever seen. Actually, Gears looks A LOT better than that.

- Killzone 2 has not even come out. How can you compare its graphics? What if it gots frame skip problems, pop ups, or so?

-Gears of War is 1.5 years old. A right comparision should be Gears 2 vs Killzone 2. And, if you like to compare pics and videos, I'd say both games shows the same graphic quality (Gears maybe a little better)

Yes, the 360 and the PS3 have both really good graphics, almost equal. The problem is that Sony promise a lot more than that.

[QUOTE="100Gamer"]i love seeing cows in damage control after GS said 360 has better graphics :lol:
and way to go picking a multiplayer pic for gears
caseypayne69

They were talkin Multiplats, Funny how they didn't bring Devil May Cry 4 in the arguement. PS3 best for it.

The technical differences are quite intriguing though, the most blatant being how both games achieve their smooth anti-aliased 720p visuals. With Xbox 360 it's a case of hardware-assisted AA as per the norm, but with PS3 what you might call 'temporal' anti-aliasing is in evidence. Basically, Capcom is blending frames together in order to smooth off the edges and the rule of thumb appears to be that the faster the movement on-screen, the more frames appear to be sampled and thus there's a higher degree of blur. Before we go any further, regular readers of these features will know that pretty much any kind of gratuitous blurring really annoys me, but in this case I think the effect just works okay.

That said, while the 360 game does tend to have a shimmering effect on its most intricate textures, personally I think it's the better-looking game, but in all honesty, the effect is only really a noticeable issue when you have the two versions running side-by-side. I doubt anybody sampling the game on PS3 will be returning their copy because of this effect. In terms of compensation for PS3 owners, it appears to be ever-so-slightly less prone to screen tear. Both versions appear to have been expertly colour-balanced so the difference in gamma levels seen in many cross-format titles isn't an issue here.

Loading times are also slightly reduced on PS3, but we're literally talking about 3-5 seconds difference between the two games - barely relevant in the greater scheme of things. Certainly the notion of a 25-minute, 5GB install on PS3 is much more of an issue for me. In my view, console gaming is all about immediate fun. I don't really want to be in a position where I have to free up hard disk space just to play my games - particularly if a future reinstallation is going to take another 25 minutes. And neither should I be required to DIY-upgrade my console with a bigger hard disk just to accommodate lazy developers. You can argue this one out amongst yourselves, but European gamers should think themselves lucky they weren't lumbered with the 20GB PlayStation 3 hardware. Between DMC4 and Lost Planet: Extreme Condition, over the half of the HDD space will be gone simply to accommodate these two titles.

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=94112&page=2

I don't get how someone can think, after looking at the posted screenshots, that Killzone 2 or Uncharted looks better than Gears of War. You are in denial if you think so.jbz7890

pls read the post.

Anyhoo, with little effort an idiot could find the resources of gameplay for all these games and would probably see Uncharted beats Gears. Then you could say KZ2 gameplay graphics look better. Then you could say Gears is better gameplay but you'd not only be incorrect but not incorrect cus its your opinion even despite never having played it. And the viscious cycle turns yet another revolution as people new to logical reasoning fail at the first hurdle proving mankind is doomed to failure when under its free will.

killzone is not out. i guarantee when it comes out really the graphics will not be nearly as good as they are now

You say we shouldn't take gamespot comparison seriously. But why should we take yours?

I will give some reason why we shouldn't take YOUR comparison seriously:

-You choose the worst Gears of War pic I've ever seen. Actually, Gears looks A LOT better than that.

- Killzone 2 has not even come out. How can you compare its graphics? What if it gots frame skip problems, pop ups, or so?

-Gears of War is 1.5 years old. A right comparision should be Gears 2 vs Killzone 2. And, if you like to compare pics and videos, I'd say both games shows the same graphic quality (Gears maybe a little better)

Yes, the 360 and the PS3 have both really good graphics, almost equal. The problem is that Sony promise a lot more than that.

IronBass

just because you like the colors in Uncharted does not make it anywhere near the best looking game. Just the technology behind Gears of War 2 and the UE3.5 completely and utterly smashes anything weve seen on consoles thus far. its not an opinion. its technology. technology does not have an opinion. and in terms of technology Uncharted has no say. i dont understand why thats even the "show off" game for the PS3. its nothing special.A-LEGEND

this is what annoys me... my 360 died the other day and i can either have it replaced by the shop or pay a little more for the ps3...

now, do i want a games console with the best graphics and best games but faulty hardware, or the second best console with not so good graphics and not so good games with very reliable hardware... agHHHH!!!!

this is what annoys me... my 360 died the other day and i can either have it replaced by the shop or pay a little more for the ps3...

now, do i want a games console with the best graphics and best games but faulty hardware, or the second best console with not so good graphics and not so good games with very reliable hardware... agHHHH!!!!

thetruespin

well the only thing Xbox360 has is a larger games library, certainly not better graphics and as you mentioned a faulty hardware... (to be fair not faulty but with a very high percentage of hardware failure)

[QUOTE="thetruespin"]

this is what annoys me... my 360 died the other day and i can either have it replaced by the shop or pay a little more for the ps3...

now, do i want a games console with the best graphics and best games but faulty hardware, or the second best console with not so good graphics and not so good games with very reliable hardware... agHHHH!!!!

Malta_1980

well the only thing Xbox360 has is a larger games library, certainly not better graphics and as you mentioned a faulty hardware... (to be fair not faulty but with a very high percentage of hardware failure)

I'm really not sure what to do... i kinda like that the ps3 has wifi built in, but kinda turned off by HD installs and a games library that is taking a while to "take off". it also seems that on most the multiplats so far, the 360 has the edge, even if only by a bit... but above all else, I just can't be bothered to deal with replacing consoles and, to sonys credit, my old ps1 and 2 still work, even if i have to turn the ps1 upside down...

I just had a look at some of those comparisons and just worry that if i get a ps3 instead i'll be having the "second best" version of games. I don't doubt that the ps3 can pull of the same graphics, but i wonder whether developers will invest the time since they know people will buy regardless... poor me and my complex consumer choices.