Wow, this thread moves so fast you can barely keep up... :) Anyway... TheMammoth731 wrote: ",Lol.. Yassam, not once did I say anything about growing up. And yet, we see that my arguement holds true, while you continue to toss insults rather than come up with something credible. The point is that YOU talk about ebing an adult, but all you've done in EVERY response you've made is insult others, rather than make a valid point." Stop lying. YOU were the one who started throwing insults at me in your first response when you said "If you took a moment to take your mouth from Microsoft's sack...". Now point out were I made similar type of remarks to others prior to your post (I'll save you the time, I didn't). "You repeatedly just praise the 360, and do nothing to refute ANY of my arguements." As expected, seeing what you WANT to see. Quote my repeated 'praise' of the 360! All my comments are based on the fact that the two consoles are very similar in terms of power. If that's prasie to you then it shows you're a deluded gamer who thinks the PS3 is way more powerful and therefore thinks anyone who says different are biased (which is exactly why you dismiss all these comparison features as being biased). Return when you can back up your arguements. To quote from your post "all of the "comparisons" you just mentioned are companies/sites that are SPONSORED by, or are affilliates with Microsoft". So according to you, these comparisons are biased against the PS3 because of Microsoft, well the enthasist is for you to prove that. In otherwords, either put up or shut up. :|
TheMammoth731 wrote: "Yassam, you do realize that all of the "comparisons" you just mentioned are companies/sites that are SPONSORED by, or are affilliates with Microsoft." BS. That's the classic denial response people like you resort to as a means of dismissing the truth. "Oh they're biased".."They're paid by MS"..."They hate Sony" etc. Just grow up and take the facts like an adult. And talking about growing up... "If you took a moment to take your mouth from Microsoft's sack, go look at Japanese comparisons... The PS3 always looks better." And if you grow up and discuss these points like an adult instead of like an angry child, then perhaps we can take this discussion further. Oh and, whilst you there, do point us to a similar comparison feature elsewhere which conflict with the views of Gamespot and Eurogamer. :|
Sh0p0w wrote: "im saying that gt represents ps3 graphics and forza represents 360 graphics and that gt graphics are better. you cant go wrong with this. " And I'm saying it's not as simple as that! Polyphony have been creating this type of game for just over 10 years now, starting on the Playstation with GT and GT2, to the PS2 with GT3, GT4 Prolog and GT4, and now the PS3 with GT:HD, GT5 Prolog and next year GT5. So tell me, which developer had a better looking driving sim than Polyphony on the Playstation, PS2 and PS3 during the same period? That's right, NO-ONE. So give it a rest please, if devs working on the SAME hardware couldn't beat Polyphony's results, then why should a developer on another system automatically be able to do so? This shows it has FAR more to do with the TALENT and EXPERIENCE of Polyphony than the hardware itself. No-one could argue now that the XBox wasn't more powerful than the PS2, and yet look at GT4 compared to Forza! Polyphony still managed to create a visually better looking game despite weaker hardware. Of course, this was helped by less environment detail, simple tree models, no damage and poor AI, but just the same, it looked better visually. So even today, Forza 2 (which was released LAST year), visually doesn't look as appealing as GT5 Prologue, however again the environments in GT5 are more simplified (using various tricks again, such as photo backdrops) and there's no damage, the AI whilst improved is still not as good. In it's favour are the car models, lighting (which Polyphony excel at) and the driving physics (although it should feel much better on DS3). " theyre both exclusives built for each systems specifications so each game is the clear representative of each system." But that does NOT mean they represent the best of each. You may believe that for GT5 Prologue (it's argueable), but Forza 2 is clearly not the best the 360 has to offer. Lair was an exclusive built from the ground up for the PS3, but unlike Forza 2, it was a poor excuse for a game. So please don't use the reasoning that such games represent the best of a console. They have the *potential* to be, but they can be very poor too!
The fact is, both the 360 and PS3 are superb consoles, but both are similar in terms of power, so it's not surprising that the PS3 fails to blow the 360 away as certain fanboys expected (and therefore keep making excuses as to why it isn't happening...yet). This is the 3rd PS3 vs 360 comparison feature on Gamespot, Eurogamer.com have had TEN so far (yes 10!), and the results are ALWAYS the same, i.e. the 360 versions equal to or slightly better than PS3 versions for the vast majority of games compared. And this applies to comparisons elsewhere. So are they ALL biased against the PS3? Or could it be that the 360 does have the edge over the PS3 in this respect? (Oh no, surely that can't be the reason. ;))
Dr_Yassam's comments