Danielaclmx Yes. Agreed. The blu-ray "we have more space so we have better graphics" theory is a load of crap. Triple layer DVDs are plenty for a game. Plenty. Yes MGS4 had a lot of cut scene which may be why it took 50 GB. I honestly think, however that Sony put more detail into the videos and graphics than can be outputted by 1080P signal, we don't have like 1500P sony so don't bother over doing it. Again, I'll just say. Crysis.. Too powerful to be put on a PS3/360. Still only looks like 8-10 GBs to me on a PC. Plz people, Blu-ray is the future for games and the present for movies. And when I say future, I mean 5+ years at least. And remember, while we all sit here and talk about this stuff? Guess who's whooping Msofts and Sony's ass? Wii. Now, I have one and I NEVER PLAY It. It's outselling the hell out of everything, but I swear it's the least played system. Be that as it may, it has crap graphics, crap sound, only uses dual layer dvds, and has the worst online playability you can compile. Why is it winning? Games, and innovation. 360 Has games. Ps3 is getting them by the end of next year. Which will make both consoles dead even in my opinion. But won't do neither of them have? Innovation. You all say Ps3 will be supported for 10 years? I say if msoft is getting a new console in the next 2 years, sony needs to. Why? because the Msoft console will have to incorporate some time of ground breaking innovation such as the wii did. It doesn't have to be motion, maybe 3D, maybe motion controls anyway. But I tell you what, the sixaxis isn't enough innovation for me. And dam well not for the market because it has spoken loudly. If sony doesn't release a new system when Msoft does, and the new Msoft system is as innovative as the Wii, I think Sony will be pushing their luck.

@ Khai Agreed, Gamespot is doing some deception here, they must be. Except star wars of course. Damn Ea. However.. umm.. Yes madden does look the same on both systems.. Or were u not being sarcastic lol?

Showtime Agreed. 100 dollars for a router is ghey. At the same time I do prefer wiring all my stuff because of reliability. But I can definitely see how that can get you upset. In the end, A pro 360 + Router = Ps3 in price. You can get the elite if you're worried about space but the price of it will drop soon and it'll even out. The only real advantage I see to the purchase of a PS3 is the blu-ray player. At the same time, they got rid of backwards play. That's upsetting still...

@ AND TO ALL BLU RAY LOVERS @ Yes, I love it too! It's the future! It's a bigger disc, what's not to like! But plz, don't think a game with be graphically or technically superior just because it fills a blu-ray disc. Why? Crysis, still todays most demanding game (which is why it isnt on any console) takes up no more than 10 GB of Disc Space uncompressed... That should tell you that you should be able to do all you need on one or two discs my friends. The day will come when we'll need more space, but I would be surprised if that even came during this console generation. DX11 may start using 50 GB of disc space, but not DX 10.

@RoyTheViking I still have my 60 GB too. Thank God. If I couldn't play DBZ 3 budokai I would be pissed. I like DBZ games but all the new ones are crap. Bud 3 is still the best. At the same time, just about all of my fav 360 games are backwards now. Thank God. One thing I am noticing about the 360 I like, alot of games that come to pc, end up going 360. And Vice Versa. mass effect for example.. Wow great game. That showed some of the 360's power. I mean damn. To me that game (and gears) rivaled MGS4. And I love that games like Halo3, Gears2, and Fable2 will all be on Pc. Rumors are going around that CS:S will go 360 which would be awesome! And it's things like that (small things they are) that bug me about Ps3. The lack of backwards stuff, the over supporting of ps2, having games come out for Ps3 later than 360 (bioshock, Elder scrolls). Now the late game thing I know will stop. But it's hard to love my Ps3 when my fav titles like those games previously stated (like mass effect) aren't on Ps3. Microsoft game studios puts out excellent games. And then when you FINALLY get another good RPG like Mass Effect and Elder Scrolls, and it's not fable 2, on ps3... You get graphical glitches (apparently..) It just makes loving my Ps3 so hard, when I loved my Ps2 so much :(

Show time it appears to me like your a PS3 fan boy. Sorry man. It's not that the war is over. I'm speculating, by using the current situation via sales, quality, and titles which console is atleast winning right now. You can name all of sony's game studios if you want. That's great. But don't say 360 is crap because it relies on sequals because it's block busters happen to all end in 2 or 3 this year. You craping on 360 because you're saying people will be busy playing halo 7 and fable 6 because microsoft is unoriginal or something? Come on man. To trash a game or system because of the # on the end of the title is absolute bull****. If it wasn't a good game, no one would of bought it. Let's not mention MGS4, and Final Fantasy XIII then right? And hey, screw that classic FINAL Fantasy VII, that's not original like Sony. And hey, all those mario games? Trash, nintendos relying on sequals.. The production companies are giving people what they want. I'm damn happy valve made a half life 2. Was it much different from one? NO. Do I want starcraft2 to be different from starcraft 1? NO I don't care about NEW story lines and characters. You can do that with sequals too. What does that matter man? It doesn't. And half of sony's exclusive games next year are sequals. Nothing wrong with that. And that's GREAT. ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC that sony is still supporting ps2. 10 year console support is AWESOME. Im serious. That's bang for your buck and I'm all about that. But when it starts taking away from their Next Gen system, we have a problem. Cuz then its coming down to the point where the people who spent 500 dollars and want to play a game that doesnt look like it was made in 2001 on an intel celeron processor say "Hey... Can i have some support too? Plz?". That's not fair to PS3 buyers. So don't use ps2 as an excuse for sony's over looking of ps3, so you say.

and.. @ cleaver... Dude, you may hate pc fanboys. But they (and I) have a reasonable argument. We spend thousands of dollars to build (or buy.. haha newbs stop buying alien ware and wasting your money >.

@ show time. Not saying that. And not a fan boy. I'm saying that Dead space, never had those ps3 glitches or lighting problems they're showing. That's their setup, not mine. As an avid player of soul cal on both systems, they are identical. The 360 version is not that blurry. If it was I'd be dying because I'd feel like im under water. The only thing that **** the bed in this review was star wars. For whatever reason, it looks like crap on ps3. I don't know why.

I agree with spartan as well. And Irbanx. The ps3 won't 'win' this gen In my opinion. I believe many of their sales are based on the "slumbering giant" theory where people are expecting the system to crush the 360 in terms of quality and exclusive games. But that's pure speculation, which I believe will wear off. When looking at the current situation, the current titles, and the current production qualities (graphics, sound, etc) of both systems , without speculating at the future, it looks obvious that the 360 is winning this competition. It has more games, more exclusive block busters, is nicely priced, and has quality online playability. Combine this with the fact that the 360 is, as of right now with the 80 gb ps3 not being backwards compatible, more backwards compatible (that's a twist!) than the ps3 and we have ourselves a winning system. I do not like that sony is damn near abandoning backwards compatibility. Crappy compatibility beats none at all.

@mason Agree with your posting. Although I think COD5 does not look better on ps3, I think it looks absolutely identical to the detail. A X 50 zoom means jack **** to me when I'm playing my video game. Star wars was more horse crap, showing nothing about the consoles power, at the same time, soul calibur IV does not look that blurry on 360. I think GS contrast or screenie system is messy because the images are not that dull on 360, nor so sharp by contrast on the ps3. Gamespot is just fussing. However... A side note: you said Nvidia has pretty much always out done ati in the graphics world. As a high end pc builder and user, I can tell you that Ati has alot of fight in them (especially with their HD 4870 X2 being top of the market). Not to mention Ati was the first to make a graphics card that could do HDR lighting and AA/MSAA simultaneously. I believe it was their Radeon x1950 series, competing with nvidias Geforce 7900 series. Radeons didn't out perform the 7900, but it only didn't due to the fact is was actually adding more to your picture than the 7900, due to simultaneous rendering of HDR/AA. As for fallout. It's a pc game. And we all know it. It's best on PC, and the console versions are available for 2 reasons. One, if you don't have a pc that can play it nicely, and two, for sales because pirating would murder this game (it has no online content what so ever). It looks slightly better on 360. It's disappointing to ps3 fans because we ALL KNOW Bethesda does NOT cut corners nor rush games. Also, this should be a game the ps3 should of out shined the 360 on, its a perfect example of what the cell processor and GFX card should be able to do. Why it didn't render better, and the fact that it rendered worse than the 360 is beyond me. Perhaps Bethesda can tell us why. It still looks nice though.