[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.
Javy03
Jeez I can't believe people still think the Xbox only came one year after the PS2. The PS2 launched March 4, 2000 and the Xbox launched November 15, 2001. Now lets do some math and not just subtract 2000-2001. Count the months and you get 21 MONTHS guess how many months are in ONE year, its 12. So the Xbox launched closer to TWO YEARS from the PS2. So you cant compare the PS2 and Xbox graphically differences at launch. As for which system has better graphics, how long did it take the 360 to get a beautiful game like Gears. It took a year and how long as the PS3 been out, maybe half a year. Right out the bat the PS3s 1st generation games look just as good as many of the 360s second generation games and that just using its ports and rushed launch games. Now lets see what happens when devs have more time with the PS3 before you try to claim who is better or that they are all equal. umm im qutie sure oblivion and graw looked quite spectacular... jeez you cows are ignorant 
Log in to comment