What a lot of cows dont seem to realise

Every day there is a Playstation 3 graphics debate. It's amazing that it hasn't sunk in yet, really. At E3 a few years ago, we all remember Sony showing off all the photo-realistic CGI and the cows lapping up the fact that the PS3 would be a "supercomputer" as Kutagari said, capable of unmatched realism. At the time, all the 360 had was actual real game shots, and if you remember for a good few months lemmings were treated pretty much as cows are now - non-stop bashing because of their inferior graphics. The cows were pretty much certain that their system was on another plateau compared to the 360.

 We know now that that is not the case, yet still we get graphics debated every day. So i ask you to look at the original XBox. It launched a year after the PS2, with better tech, and from day one games like Halo were sharper than anything the PS2 had produced up until that point. Dead or Alive 3 set a visual benchmark. From day one, it had better graphics. I'm not saying it was the better console or anything like that, but graphically, there's no question. And it continued from that point on, as PS2 games looked better, Xbox games did to, always one step ahead of the PS2 visually, as seen with every multi-plat on the two consoles.

But ask yourself - was the difference that big? We all know the Xbox looked better, but would we buy an xbox over a ps2 JUST because of the graphical difference? No, most people did because of the online, for games like Halo - i dont think anyone bought an xbox for the graphics, because the difference was so small. Nicer lighting and animations in splinter cell, some sharper textures in Burnout.

 Agreed?

 Now look at the PS3 and the 360. Day one, the PS3 looks darned good, but better than the 360? No. We all know the current best-looking console game is gears of war, which looks to be defeated by Mass Effect (possibly...). Both 360 games. Am i saying the 360 has better graphics? Of course not. Just that it's JUST AS GOOD AS THE PS3.

And dont get me wrong, there might be a difference between the two, but if there is, it's clearly less than the difference between the original xbox and PS2, which we've already established was negligable.

 So face it, Sony-fans, graphically, the two systems are pretty much the same. The added cost on your PS3 is down to the Blu-Ray inside, not because it's on some higher level of tech than the 360.

Some games look better on the PS3, and some games look better on the 360. They both have their good games, and this game can be compared to that game, but it's pretty much even overall. Yeah I agree.

And the added cost to your system is xbox live. Face the truth , they are on equal ground both in price and general graphics abilities.

And the added cost to your system is xbox live. Face the truth , they are on equal ground both in price and general graphics abilities.

Yup, this is absolutely right, and don't forget the Nintendo 64 came out a bit later than the Playstation, had far better graphics from day one, and still lost because it didn't get enough games, even though Nintendo had been the crowned champion of the console market for two straight generations.  Sound familiar?  N64 didn't fail, but it put Nintendo in the last place position for another two generations.  We could be looking at the exact same thing for PS3.

Yup, this is absolutely right, and don't forget the Nintendo 64 came out a bit later than the Playstation, had far better graphics from day one, and still lost because it didn't get enough games, even though Nintendo had been the crowned champion of the console market for two straight generations. Sound familiar? N64 didn't fail, but it put Nintendo in the last place position for another two generations. We could be looking at the exact same thing for PS3.

cheezisgoooood

Yup, this is absolutely right, and don't forget the Nintendo 64 came out a bit later than the Playstation, had far better graphics from day one, and still lost because it didn't get enough games, even though Nintendo had been the crowned champion of the console market for two straight generations. Sound familiar? N64 didn't fail, but it put Nintendo in the last place position for another two generations. We could be looking at the exact same thing for PS3.

cheezisgoooood

[QUOTE="cheezisgoooood"]

Yup, this is absolutely right, and don't forget the Nintendo 64 came out a bit later than the Playstation, had far better graphics from day one, and still lost because it didn't get enough games, even though Nintendo had been the crowned champion of the console market for two straight generations. Sound familiar? N64 didn't fail, but it put Nintendo in the last place position for another two generations. We could be looking at the exact same thing for PS3.

chadwardennn

[QUOTE="cheezisgoooood"]

Yup, this is absolutely right, and don't forget the Nintendo 64 came out a bit later than the Playstation, had far better graphics from day one, and still lost because it didn't get enough games, even though Nintendo had been the crowned champion of the console market for two straight generations. Sound familiar? N64 didn't fail, but it put Nintendo in the last place position for another two generations. We could be looking at the exact same thing for PS3.

chadwardennn

Mmmm. Convincing. I'm guessing that your first console was...PS1? PS2? Nintendo has THE BIGGEST branding all around the world. Who doesn't know the mario theme song? Ask yourself that? Now, who doesn't know the theme to FFX? A whole load of people.

[QUOTE="cheezisgoooood"]

Yup, this is absolutely right, and don't forget the Nintendo 64 came out a bit later than the Playstation, had far better graphics from day one, and still lost because it didn't get enough games, even though Nintendo had been the crowned champion of the console market for two straight generations. Sound familiar? N64 didn't fail, but it put Nintendo in the last place position for another two generations. We could be looking at the exact same thing for PS3.

chadwardennn

Yeah because it's not like Nintendo is outselling PS3 three to one in Japan, and two to one in Europe and North America or anything.

 PSP was a resounding success too.

[QUOTE="chadwardennn"][QUOTE="cheezisgoooood"]

Yup, this is absolutely right, and don't forget the Nintendo 64 came out a bit later than the Playstation, had far better graphics from day one, and still lost because it didn't get enough games, even though Nintendo had been the crowned champion of the console market for two straight generations. Sound familiar? N64 didn't fail, but it put Nintendo in the last place position for another two generations. We could be looking at the exact same thing for PS3.

Maelkav

Mmmm. Convincing. I'm guessing that your first console was...PS1? PS2? Nintendo has THE BIGGEST branding all around the world. Who doesn't know the mario theme song? Ask yourself that? Now, who doesn't know the theme to FFX? A whole load of people.

[QUOTE="chadwardennn"][QUOTE="cheezisgoooood"]

Yup, this is absolutely right, and don't forget the Nintendo 64 came out a bit later than the Playstation, had far better graphics from day one, and still lost because it didn't get enough games, even though Nintendo had been the crowned champion of the console market for two straight generations. Sound familiar? N64 didn't fail, but it put Nintendo in the last place position for another two generations. We could be looking at the exact same thing for PS3.

Maelkav

Mmmm. Convincing. I'm guessing that your first console was...PS1? PS2? Nintendo has THE BIGGEST branding all around the world. Who doesn't know the mario theme song? Ask yourself that? Now, who doesn't know the theme to FFX? A whole load of people.

[QUOTE="Maelkav"][QUOTE="chadwardennn"][QUOTE="cheezisgoooood"]

Yup, this is absolutely right, and don't forget the Nintendo 64 came out a bit later than the Playstation, had far better graphics from day one, and still lost because it didn't get enough games, even though Nintendo had been the crowned champion of the console market for two straight generations. Sound familiar? N64 didn't fail, but it put Nintendo in the last place position for another two generations. We could be looking at the exact same thing for PS3.

nyoroism

Mmmm. Convincing. I'm guessing that your first console was...PS1? PS2? Nintendo has THE BIGGEST branding all around the world. Who doesn't know the mario theme song? Ask yourself that? Now, who doesn't know the theme to FFX? A whole load of people.

Some games look better on the PS3, and some games look better on the 360. They both have their good games, and this game can be compared to that game, but it's pretty much even overall. Yeah I agree.

nyoroism

Every day there is a Playstation 3 graphics debate. It's amazing that it hasn't sunk in yet, really. At E3 a few years ago, we all remember Sony showing off all the photo-realistic CGI and the cows lapping up the fact that the PS3 would be a "supercomputer" as Kutagari said, capable of unmatched realism. At the time, all the 360 had was actual real game shots, and if you remember for a good few months lemmings were treated pretty much as cows are now - non-stop bashing because of their inferior graphics. The cows were pretty much certain that their system was on another plateau compared to the 360.

We know now that that is not the case, yet still we get graphics debated every day. So i ask you to look at the original XBox. It launched a year after the PS2, with better tech, and from day one games like Halo were sharper than anything the PS2 had produced up until that point. Dead or Alive 3 set a visual benchmark. From day one, it had better graphics. I'm not saying it was the better console or anything like that, but graphically, there's no question. And it continued from that point on, as PS2 games looked better, Xbox games did to, always one step ahead of the PS2 visually, as seen with every multi-plat on the two consoles.

But ask yourself - was the difference that big? We all know the Xbox looked better, but would we buy an xbox over a ps2 JUST because of the graphical difference? No, most people did because of the online, for games like Halo - i dont think anyone bought an xbox for the graphics, because the difference was so small. Nicer lighting and animations in splinter cell, some sharper textures in Burnout.

Agreed?

Now look at the PS3 and the 360. Day one, the PS3 looks darned good, but better than the 360? No. We all know the current best-looking console game is gears of war, which looks to be defeated by Mass Effect (possibly...). Both 360 games. Am i saying the 360 has better graphics? Of course not. Just that it's JUST AS GOOD AS THE PS3.

And dont get me wrong, there might be a difference between the two, but if there is, it's clearly less than the difference between the original xbox and PS2, which we've already established was negligable.

So face it, Sony-fans, graphically, the two systems are pretty much the same. The added cost on your PS3 is down to the Blu-Ray inside, not because it's on some higher level of tech than the 360.

Ninja-Vox

try again with the FF theme song lol.

But anywayz, that doesnt proof anything. Using ur mom as fact = FAAAAIIILLchadwardennn

[QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"]

Every day there is a Playstation 3 graphics debate. It's amazing that it hasn't sunk in yet, really. At E3 a few years ago, we all remember Sony showing off all the photo-realistic CGI and the cows lapping up the fact that the PS3 would be a "supercomputer" as Kutagari said, capable of unmatched realism. At the time, all the 360 had was actual real game shots, and if you remember for a good few months lemmings were treated pretty much as cows are now - non-stop bashing because of their inferior graphics. The cows were pretty much certain that their system was on another plateau compared to the 360.

We know now that that is not the case, yet still we get graphics debated every day. So i ask you to look at the original XBox. It launched a year after the PS2, with better tech, and from day one games like Halo were sharper than anything the PS2 had produced up until that point. Dead or Alive 3 set a visual benchmark. From day one, it had better graphics. I'm not saying it was the better console or anything like that, but graphically, there's no question. And it continued from that point on, as PS2 games looked better, Xbox games did to, always one step ahead of the PS2 visually, as seen with every multi-plat on the two consoles.

But ask yourself - was the difference that big? We all know the Xbox looked better, but would we buy an xbox over a ps2 JUST because of the graphical difference? No, most people did because of the online, for games like Halo - i dont think anyone bought an xbox for the graphics, because the difference was so small. Nicer lighting and animations in splinter cell, some sharper textures in Burnout.

Agreed?

Now look at the PS3 and the 360. Day one, the PS3 looks darned good, but better than the 360? No. We all know the current best-looking console game is gears of war, which looks to be defeated by Mass Effect (possibly...). Both 360 games. Am i saying the 360 has better graphics? Of course not. Just that it's JUST AS GOOD AS THE PS3.

And dont get me wrong, there might be a difference between the two, but if there is, it's clearly less than the difference between the original xbox and PS2, which we've already established was negligable.

So face it, Sony-fans, graphically, the two systems are pretty much the same. The added cost on your PS3 is down to the Blu-Ray inside, not because it's on some higher level of tech than the 360.

Perception1

good post, but u fail hard. Because the PS3 is waay better.chadwardennn

Great logic.

[QUOTE="Perception1"][QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"]

Every day there is a Playstation 3 graphics debate. It's amazing that it hasn't sunk in yet, really. At E3 a few years ago, we all remember Sony showing off all the photo-realistic CGI and the cows lapping up the fact that the PS3 would be a "supercomputer" as Kutagari said, capable of unmatched realism. At the time, all the 360 had was actual real game shots, and if you remember for a good few months lemmings were treated pretty much as cows are now - non-stop bashing because of their inferior graphics. The cows were pretty much certain that their system was on another plateau compared to the 360.

We know now that that is not the case, yet still we get graphics debated every day. So i ask you to look at the original XBox. It launched a year after the PS2, with better tech, and from day one games like Halo were sharper than anything the PS2 had produced up until that point. Dead or Alive 3 set a visual benchmark. From day one, it had better graphics. I'm not saying it was the better console or anything like that, but graphically, there's no question. And it continued from that point on, as PS2 games looked better, Xbox games did to, always one step ahead of the PS2 visually, as seen with every multi-plat on the two consoles.

But ask yourself - was the difference that big? We all know the Xbox looked better, but would we buy an xbox over a ps2 JUST because of the graphical difference? No, most people did because of the online, for games like Halo - i dont think anyone bought an xbox for the graphics, because the difference was so small. Nicer lighting and animations in splinter cell, some sharper textures in Burnout.

Agreed?

Now look at the PS3 and the 360. Day one, the PS3 looks darned good, but better than the 360? No. We all know the current best-looking console game is gears of war, which looks to be defeated by Mass Effect (possibly...). Both 360 games. Am i saying the 360 has better graphics? Of course not. Just that it's JUST AS GOOD AS THE PS3.

And dont get me wrong, there might be a difference between the two, but if there is, it's clearly less than the difference between the original xbox and PS2, which we've already established was negligable.

So face it, Sony-fans, graphically, the two systems are pretty much the same. The added cost on your PS3 is down to the Blu-Ray inside, not because it's on some higher level of tech than the 360.

dhjohns

Some games look better on the PS3, and some games look better on the 360. They both have their good games, and this game can be compared to that game, but it's pretty much even overall. Yeah I agree.

nyoroism

[QUOTE="dhjohns"][QUOTE="Perception1"][QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"]

Every day there is a Playstation 3 graphics debate. It's amazing that it hasn't sunk in yet, really. At E3 a few years ago, we all remember Sony showing off all the photo-realistic CGI and the cows lapping up the fact that the PS3 would be a "supercomputer" as Kutagari said, capable of unmatched realism. At the time, all the 360 had was actual real game shots, and if you remember for a good few months lemmings were treated pretty much as cows are now - non-stop bashing because of their inferior graphics. The cows were pretty much certain that their system was on another plateau compared to the 360.

We know now that that is not the case, yet still we get graphics debated every day. So i ask you to look at the original XBox. It launched a year after the PS2, with better tech, and from day one games like Halo were sharper than anything the PS2 had produced up until that point. Dead or Alive 3 set a visual benchmark. From day one, it had better graphics. I'm not saying it was the better console or anything like that, but graphically, there's no question. And it continued from that point on, as PS2 games looked better, Xbox games did to, always one step ahead of the PS2 visually, as seen with every multi-plat on the two consoles.

But ask yourself - was the difference that big? We all know the Xbox looked better, but would we buy an xbox over a ps2 JUST because of the graphical difference? No, most people did because of the online, for games like Halo - i dont think anyone bought an xbox for the graphics, because the difference was so small. Nicer lighting and animations in splinter cell, some sharper textures in Burnout.

Agreed?

Now look at the PS3 and the 360. Day one, the PS3 looks darned good, but better than the 360? No. We all know the current best-looking console game is gears of war, which looks to be defeated by Mass Effect (possibly...). Both 360 games. Am i saying the 360 has better graphics? Of course not. Just that it's JUST AS GOOD AS THE PS3.

And dont get me wrong, there might be a difference between the two, but if there is, it's clearly less than the difference between the original xbox and PS2, which we've already established was negligable.

So face it, Sony-fans, graphically, the two systems are pretty much the same. The added cost on your PS3 is down to the Blu-Ray inside, not because it's on some higher level of tech than the 360.

chadwardennn

[QUOTE="Perception1"][QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"]

Every day there is a Playstation 3 graphics debate. It's amazing that it hasn't sunk in yet, really. At E3 a few years ago, we all remember Sony showing off all the photo-realistic CGI and the cows lapping up the fact that the PS3 would be a "supercomputer" as Kutagari said, capable of unmatched realism. At the time, all the 360 had was actual real game shots, and if you remember for a good few months lemmings were treated pretty much as cows are now - non-stop bashing because of their inferior graphics. The cows were pretty much certain that their system was on another plateau compared to the 360.

We know now that that is not the case, yet still we get graphics debated every day. So i ask you to look at the original XBox. It launched a year after the PS2, with better tech, and from day one games like Halo were sharper than anything the PS2 had produced up until that point. Dead or Alive 3 set a visual benchmark. From day one, it had better graphics. I'm not saying it was the better console or anything like that, but graphically, there's no question. And it continued from that point on, as PS2 games looked better, Xbox games did to, always one step ahead of the PS2 visually, as seen with every multi-plat on the two consoles.

But ask yourself - was the difference that big? We all know the Xbox looked better, but would we buy an xbox over a ps2 JUST because of the graphical difference? No, most people did because of the online, for games like Halo - i dont think anyone bought an xbox for the graphics, because the difference was so small. Nicer lighting and animations in splinter cell, some sharper textures in Burnout.

Agreed?

Now look at the PS3 and the 360. Day one, the PS3 looks darned good, but better than the 360? No. We all know the current best-looking console game is gears of war, which looks to be defeated by Mass Effect (possibly...). Both 360 games. Am i saying the 360 has better graphics? Of course not. Just that it's JUST AS GOOD AS THE PS3.

And dont get me wrong, there might be a difference between the two, but if there is, it's clearly less than the difference between the original xbox and PS2, which we've already established was negligable.

So face it, Sony-fans, graphically, the two systems are pretty much the same. The added cost on your PS3 is down to the Blu-Ray inside, not because it's on some higher level of tech than the 360.

dhjohns

And yes hardest to develop for doesn't = best console. But knowing what the Cell can do, and working with it can do some damage if the developers use it well enough. 

We know now that that is not the case, yet still we get graphics debated every day. So i ask you to look at the original XBox. It launched a year after the PS2, with better tech, and from day one games like Halo were sharper than anything the PS2 had produced up until that point. Dead or Alive 3 set a visual benchmark. From day one, it had better graphics. I'm not saying it was the better console or anything like that, but graphically, there's no question. And it continued from that point on, as PS2 games looked better, Xbox games did to, always one step ahead of the PS2 visually, as seen with every multi-plat on the two consoles.

But ask yourself - was the difference that big? We all know the Xbox looked better, but would we buy an xbox over a ps2 JUST because of the graphical difference? No, most people did because of the online, for games like Halo - i dont think anyone bought an xbox for the graphics, because the difference was so small. Nicer lighting and animations in splinter cell, some sharper textures in Burnout.

 Agreed?

 Now look at the PS3 and the 360. Day one, the PS3 looks darned good, but better than the 360? No. We all know the current best-looking console game is gears of war, which looks to be defeated by Mass Effect (possibly...). Both 360 games. Am i saying the 360 has better graphics? Of course not. Just that it's JUST AS GOOD AS THE PS3.

And dont get me wrong, there might be a difference between the two, but if there is, it's clearly less than the difference between the original xbox and PS2, which we've already established was negligable.

Ninja-Vox

I agree with your comparison between the PS3 and the 360, but not of your comparison between the PS2 and Xbox.  Just go back and play Splinter Cell on the PS2 and then on the Xbox.  No comparison, imo.  The PS2 had to do so many "tricks" in order to get close to the visuals found in the Xbox version, they ended up making the game look pathetic.  There is a reason why games like Far Cry, Doom 3, Half Life 2, etc. never sniffed the PS2.  The 1 year difference between the PS2 and the Xbox showed significantly.  To say it was negligible is sort of naiive. 

Now, with THAT being said, I would defninitely expect the same visual upgrade (PS2 to Xbox) between the 360 and the PS3, but the fact is: you don't.  :lol: way to go Sony!  You take an extra year to release, but have YET to show any visuals better than those seen on the 360.  Teh power of teh Cell!

Every day there is a Playstation 3 graphics debate. It's amazing that it hasn't sunk in yet, really. At E3 a few years ago, we all remember Sony showing off all the photo-realistic CGI and the cows lapping up the fact that the PS3 would be a "supercomputer" as Kutagari said, capable of unmatched realism. At the time, all the 360 had was actual real game shots, and if you remember for a good few months lemmings were treated pretty much as cows are now - non-stop bashing because of their inferior graphics. The cows were pretty much certain that their system was on another plateau compared to the 360.

We know now that that is not the case, yet still we get graphics debated every day. So i ask you to look at the original XBox. It launched a year after the PS2, with better tech, and from day one games like Halo were sharper than anything the PS2 had produced up until that point. Dead or Alive 3 set a visual benchmark. From day one, it had better graphics. I'm not saying it was the better console or anything like that, but graphically, there's no question. And it continued from that point on, as PS2 games looked better, Xbox games did to, always one step ahead of the PS2 visually, as seen with every multi-plat on the two consoles.

But ask yourself - was the difference that big? We all know the Xbox looked better, but would we buy an xbox over a ps2 JUST because of the graphical difference? No, most people did because of the online, for games like Halo - i dont think anyone bought an xbox for the graphics, because the difference was so small. Nicer lighting and animations in splinter cell, some sharper textures in Burnout.

Agreed?

Now look at the PS3 and the 360. Day one, the PS3 looks darned good, but better than the 360? No. We all know the current best-looking console game is gears of war, which looks to be defeated by Mass Effect (possibly...). Both 360 games. Am i saying the 360 has better graphics? Of course not. Just that it's JUST AS GOOD AS THE PS3.

And dont get me wrong, there might be a difference between the two, but if there is, it's clearly less than the difference between the original xbox and PS2, which we've already established was negligable.

So face it, Sony-fans, graphically, the two systems are pretty much the same. The added cost on your PS3 is down to the Blu-Ray inside, not because it's on some higher level of tech than the 360.

Ninja-Vox

I do feel you but PS3 do have the slight edge in terms of power.Many Devlopers did mention it too...I think more games will look better on the PS3 in 1 or 2 years from now..For instance the upcoming PS3 games Heaveny Sword, Ratchet and  Clank Tool of Destruction, Uncharted, Ninja Gaiden Sigma, Lair, WarHawk and MotorStorm(even though it was released already but the graphics is freaken sweet and the AI is amazing)Is all great looking games and it  have a chance to come out this year. And by Next year Final Fantasy 13 and Versus, and LittleBigPlanet, White  Knight Story and perhaps New team ico game will come out and i bet you its goin to be astounding too.. ...The only game right now that the 360 that looks really good is Gears of war and Mass Effect..

So you want so-so games in the beggining of your consoles life? Look, I am not doubting the power of the PS3, I just think it should be easier to program for. I agree that MGS4 will do what you stated, but hardest to program for shouldn;t be something to brag about. To me that is a negative of the PS brand.dhjohns

Fanboy much?

[QUOTE="dhjohns"]So you want so-so games in the beggining of your consoles life? Look, I am not doubting the power of the PS3, I just think it should be easier to program for. I agree that MGS4 will do what you stated, but hardest to program for shouldn;t be something to brag about. To me that is a negative of the PS brand.REVENGEotSITH

Fanboy much?

It's obvious, you may be able to make games a graphical powerhouse very early on in the 360's life. But really, there's not going to be much of an improvement in games later on (In terms of graphics). Now with the PS3, you start off with what you can do, you learn, you improve and games start looking greater and greater, I can guarantee MGS4 is going to show off things no other system can do.

 

And yes hardest to develop for doesn't = best console. But knowing what the Cell can do, and working with it can do some damage if the developers use it well enough.

Perception1

This is where you contradict yourself. You say that the 360 is easier to develop for, therefore it will produce very nice graphics very early on, but they wont improve much over time, in contrast to the PS3, which is very difficult to develop for, allowing for great improvement over time as developers become more familiar with it's architecture.

Correct?

But last gen, the XBox was the easiest to develop for. That's why it gained so much 3rd party support in such a tiny space of time. When it launched, Halo and Dead or Alive were better looking than anything the PS2 had produced. But even four years later, your "easier to develop for" idea doesn't hold true, as games like Doom 3 were infinately better looking that it's earlier games. A generation ahead.

Look at Halo. It was a nice looking game with amazing AI and big, open environments. It ran at 30fps. Years later, Bungie was able to make it massively better looking, with the same great AI, better physics, better lighting, better everything... at 60fps.

Developers will learn to get even more out of the 360, just like they did with the XBox.

[QUOTE="dhjohns"]So you want so-so games in the beggining of your consoles life? Look, I am not doubting the power of the PS3, I just think it should be easier to program for. I agree that MGS4 will do what you stated, but hardest to program for shouldn;t be something to brag about. To me that is a negative of the PS brand.REVENGEotSITH

Fanboy much?

[QUOTE="REVENGEotSITH"]

[QUOTE="dhjohns"]So you want so-so games in the beggining of your consoles life? Look, I am not doubting the power of the PS3, I just think it should be easier to program for. I agree that MGS4 will do what you stated, but hardest to program for shouldn;t be something to brag about. To me that is a negative of the PS brand.Ninja-Vox

Fanboy much?

Yup, this is absolutely right, and don't forget the Nintendo 64 came out a bit later than the Playstation, had far better graphics from day one, and still lost because it didn't get enough games, even though Nintendo had been the crowned champion of the console market for two straight generations.  Sound familiar?  N64 didn't fail, but it put Nintendo in the last place position for another two generations.  We could be looking at the exact same thing for PS3.

cheezisgoooood

I like the TCs post and i totally agree but you sir are confused.

The N64 didn't finish last. PS1 100Million roughly, N64 40Million roughly, Sega Saturn 10 million roughly.

And be technically correct the GameCube didn't finish last if you consider the Dreamcast part of the PS2 generation.

Nice post. Cows fail to realize the real facts because they think PS3 is #1(it isn't) and PSHome will be awesome(not).

A cow is a big liar who thinks he is awesome but is a very, very, very stupid person and should be put in an insane asylum. 

Cows, that's reality. It's life. So all you cows need to stop being whiney losers and get a real life. 

[QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"][QUOTE="REVENGEotSITH"]

[QUOTE="dhjohns"]So you want so-so games in the beggining of your consoles life? Look, I am not doubting the power of the PS3, I just think it should be easier to program for. I agree that MGS4 will do what you stated, but hardest to program for shouldn;t be something to brag about. To me that is a negative of the PS brand.dhjohns

Fanboy much?

No - this is my bad.  I thought I hit "reply" to the post below yours (Chad saying Kojima said MGS4 is only possible on the PS3).  I know you're not a fanboy.  My computer sucks today, it is taking forever to refresh and I thought I was replying to the fanboy post.

[QUOTE="dhjohns"][QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"][QUOTE="REVENGEotSITH"]

[QUOTE="dhjohns"]So you want so-so games in the beggining of your consoles life? Look, I am not doubting the power of the PS3, I just think it should be easier to program for. I agree that MGS4 will do what you stated, but hardest to program for shouldn;t be something to brag about. To me that is a negative of the PS brand.REVENGEotSITH

Fanboy much?

No - this is my bad. I thought I hit "reply" to the post below yours. I know you're not a fanboy. My computer sucks today, it is taking forever to refresh and I thought I was replying to the fanboy post.

[QUOTE="cheezisgoooood"]

Yup, this is absolutely right, and don't forget the Nintendo 64 came out a bit later than the Playstation, had far better graphics from day one, and still lost because it didn't get enough games, even though Nintendo had been the crowned champion of the console market for two straight generations. Sound familiar? N64 didn't fail, but it put Nintendo in the last place position for another two generations. We could be looking at the exact same thing for PS3.

chadwardennn

Hah.. the cow thinks he is invincible. Don't get overconfiden't. 

In the end the PS3 will have more games with better graphics, physics and what not. But believe what you want to believe just don't go :cry: when it does. -supercharged-

Every day there is a Playstation 3 graphics debate. It's amazing that it hasn't sunk in yet, really. At E3 a few years ago, we all remember Sony showing off all the photo-realistic CGI and the cows lapping up the fact that the PS3 would be a "supercomputer" as Kutagari said, capable of unmatched realism. At the time, all the 360 had was actual real game shots, and if you remember for a good few months lemmings were treated pretty much as cows are now - non-stop bashing because of their inferior graphics. The cows were pretty much certain that their system was on another plateau compared to the 360.

 We know now that that is not the case, yet still we get graphics debated every day. So i ask you to look at the original XBox. It launched a year after the PS2, with better tech, and from day one games like Halo were sharper than anything the PS2 had produced up until that point. Dead or Alive 3 set a visual benchmark. From day one, it had better graphics. I'm not saying it was the better console or anything like that, but graphically, there's no question. And it continued from that point on, as PS2 games looked better, Xbox games did to, always one step ahead of the PS2 visually, as seen with every multi-plat on the two consoles.

But ask yourself - was the difference that big? We all know the Xbox looked better, but would we buy an xbox over a ps2 JUST because of the graphical difference? No, most people did because of the online, for games like Halo - i dont think anyone bought an xbox for the graphics, because the difference was so small. Nicer lighting and animations in splinter cell, some sharper textures in Burnout.

 Agreed?

 Now look at the PS3 and the 360. Day one, the PS3 looks darned good, but better than the 360? No. We all know the current best-looking console game is gears of war, which looks to be defeated by Mass Effect (possibly...). Both 360 games. Am i saying the 360 has better graphics? Of course not. Just that it's JUST AS GOOD AS THE PS3.

And dont get me wrong, there might be a difference between the two, but if there is, it's clearly less than the difference between the original xbox and PS2, which we've already established was negligable.

 So face it, Sony-fans, graphically, the two systems are pretty much the same. The added cost on your PS3 is down to the Blu-Ray inside, not because it's on some higher level of tech than the 360.

Ninja-Vox

[QUOTE="Perception1"]

It's obvious, you may be able to make games a graphical powerhouse very early on in the 360's life. But really, there's not going to be much of an improvement in games later on (In terms of graphics). Now with the PS3, you start off with what you can do, you learn, you improve and games start looking greater and greater, I can guarantee MGS4 is going to show off things no other system can do.

And yes hardest to develop for doesn't = best console. But knowing what the Cell can do, and working with it can do some damage if the developers use it well enough.

Ninja-Vox

This is where you contradict yourself. You say that the 360 is easier to develop for, therefore it will produce very nice graphics very early on, but they wont improve much over time, in contrast to the PS3, which is very difficult to develop for, allowing for great improvement over time as developers become more familiar with it's architecture.

Correct?

But last gen, the XBox was the easiest to develop for. That's why it gained so much 3rd party support in such a tiny space of time. When it launched, Halo and Dead or Alive were better looking than anything the PS2 had produced. But even four years later, your "easier to develop for" idea doesn't hold true, as games like Doom 3 were infinately better looking that it's earlier games. A generation ahead.

Look at Halo. It was a nice looking game with amazing AI and big, open environments. It ran at 30fps. Years later, Bungie was able to make it massively better looking, with the same great AI, better physics, better lighting, better everything... at 60fps.

Developers will learn to get even more out of the 360, just like they did with the XBox.

In the end the PS3 will have more games with better graphics, physics and what not. But believe what you want to believe just don't go :cry: when it does. -supercharged-

[QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"]

Every day there is a Playstation 3 graphics debate. It's amazing that it hasn't sunk in yet, really. At E3 a few years ago, we all remember Sony showing off all the photo-realistic CGI and the cows lapping up the fact that the PS3 would be a "supercomputer" as Kutagari said, capable of unmatched realism. At the time, all the 360 had was actual real game shots, and if you remember for a good few months lemmings were treated pretty much as cows are now - non-stop bashing because of their inferior graphics. The cows were pretty much certain that their system was on another plateau compared to the 360.

We know now that that is not the case, yet still we get graphics debated every day. So i ask you to look at the original XBox. It launched a year after the PS2, with better tech, and from day one games like Halo were sharper than anything the PS2 had produced up until that point. Dead or Alive 3 set a visual benchmark. From day one, it had better graphics. I'm not saying it was the better console or anything like that, but graphically, there's no question. And it continued from that point on, as PS2 games looked better, Xbox games did to, always one step ahead of the PS2 visually, as seen with every multi-plat on the two consoles.

But ask yourself - was the difference that big? We all know the Xbox looked better, but would we buy an xbox over a ps2 JUST because of the graphical difference? No, most people did because of the online, for games like Halo - i dont think anyone bought an xbox for the graphics, because the difference was so small. Nicer lighting and animations in splinter cell, some sharper textures in Burnout.

Agreed?

Now look at the PS3 and the 360. Day one, the PS3 looks darned good, but better than the 360? No. We all know the current best-looking console game is gears of war, which looks to be defeated by Mass Effect (possibly...). Both 360 games. Am i saying the 360 has better graphics? Of course not. Just that it's JUST AS GOOD AS THE PS3.

And dont get me wrong, there might be a difference between the two, but if there is, it's clearly less than the difference between the original xbox and PS2, which we've already established was negligable.

So face it, Sony-fans, graphically, the two systems are pretty much the same. The added cost on your PS3 is down to the Blu-Ray inside, not because it's on some higher level of tech than the 360.

chadwardennn