All the people referencing level size are seriously misinformed.  Level Size means NOTHING. elder Scrolls Dagger fall had a continious world that spanned the scale size of Great Britain. Judging from video of lair the land is pretty barren anyways so you are pretty much seeing 25 square kilometers of crap. On another note on Level sizes Flight simulator X lets you fly around the whole world and that game came out way before the all powerful PS3.

 

On graphics Lair looks like crap. I put the graphics right next to Bullet Witch in quality. Sharing the same muddy textures and texture pop in. Lair even has graphical glitches from PS1 era with objects popping up and the N64 fog. 

Tokaithegreat

 Agreed.  Lair looks ugly to me.  And level size is an indicator of nothing.  I mean, even Dynasty Warriors can boast a big level with thousands of enemies.  Still won't mean the game was a beast to get running.

[QUOTE="SacredShotgun"]Does anyone who has ps3 think the cell engine has a direct impact on gameplay, and if so on what games?squallff8_fan

I will tell it like this. I own a xbox 360 and a ps3, and the year head start the xbox 360 advantage for devs to take advantage of the xbox 360 has shown great graphics so far, but nothing that I cant see the ps3 doing. I mean the ps3 for the short time that it has been out has amazed me with games like Motorstorm which I still have yet to see any physics so realistic in a racer game on the xbox 360. Just like the other poster before me said, with Resistance Fall Of Man, how many enemies and allies and objects with explosions happening on the screen with high detailed graphics going on at one time, compared to gears of war where there is only like 5 or 6 enemies on the screen at the most, and barely even anything going on as much as u see on resistance fall of man. U can clearly see that when a game is built from the ground up for the ps3 such as motorstorm and resistance fall of man and taking advantage of the hardware, that the ps3 is alot more impressive then the xbox 360, and that is the honest truth. I will admit that right now the xbox 360 has more games that I like to play on there but the ps3 for a console that just came out, it is showing me alot of things that I havent seen the xbox 360 do, besides the graphics which the xbox 360 holds for the time being, but I think that will change when devs start to tap into the ps3 and the first game I think that will show the ps3's graphics will be MGS4 and Gran Turismo 5. I think Lair and Heavenly Sword and other games will show off some other areas which take advantage of the cell processor which we will notice just like we have with RFOM and Motorstorm. I love both systems but the ps3 for the short time that it has been out, has shown me alot more then the xbox 360 and I believe it will only continue to surpass things as times go on vs the competition.

So the argument is having more enemies, explosions, etc., on screen, yet the comparisons always include Gears, and xbox game which happens to have no more than maybe 10-12 enemies on the screen at once.  Ok, true, but are people forgetting about how hectic Lost Planet and Dead Rising get?  What about Ninety-Nine Nights?  I'm not arguing over which system is better, but please, make better comparisons.

A guy in the Halo 3 message board posted this:

"At about the timing of 6:06 through the new Vi-Doc, you will notice "Mr.Dan Shoe Hsu of EMG" in the background smiling during the playing of Halo 3 multiplayer, when the group is laughing. Why is the evidence substantial you might ask? Well thats because that was when he visited Bungie in October of 2006 for the cover story of the November issue of EGM. My point is Halo 3 looks "MUCH" better then it does in this 'OLD" footage."

I'm just being the messenger.