gamewhat wrote: "Remember when the 10 mb of edram was the reason why 360 games would always be better anti aliased with no hit for the 360 gpu. I remember fanboys saying that and also saying the ps3 would never AA as good as the 360. What happened? Well they were all given a bunch of garbage and useless info about why the 360 would be more powerful, and guess what. The PS3 now has better AA." Just browsing through and picked up on that point... The problem is, fanboys always turn information into something it's not, making it bigger, better and more important on their favorite console whilst doing the reverse for the 'enemy' console. The free AA on the 360 using the EDRAM was never really free, it was free-ish :) That is, there was a very small performance hit, but far less than the hit through traditional AA methods (hence they say it's free). But to achieve this, game engines have to be written from the ground up to use AA on the 360 in this way. In otherwords, you can't just add it to a game engine later and achieve the same results. A good example of this is the Project Offset engine first demonstrated a few years ago for the PC; http://www.projectoffset.com/media/project_offset_august2005_1280x720p.wmv And later shown on G4TV; http://www.projectoffset.com/media/g4tv.wmv This engine allows every object in the scene (including particles) to cast shadows, for everything to have motion blur and numerous other effects to be applied globally. This is going well beyond other game engines for the same effects and was achieved as far back as 2005 because the engine was designed for this purpose from the ground up, instead of having such effects added into the game engine later (with limited results). So getting the most out of the hardware is an issue affecting both the 360 and PS3, where just taking existing game engine technology and modifying it for a console is not the way to achieve the best results. But that's not to say the devs are wrong, because modifying existing technology is the best way for devs to learn about the hardware and to get their games into the market on time. With the knowledge and experience gained, devs can then start creating game engines built from the ground up to make use of the features unique to each console, and therefore we should start to see the benefits of this over the next few years.

exorzz wrote: "But the 360 Is using like 90% of its hardware power and the ps3 only 20 to 50 %(confirmed by lots of game developers. They just have to find an way to unleash all off this power" Please stop saying that guys, it's completely untrue. :) To get a good idea of what devs think about 360 vs PS3, you need to listen to the developers working on both consoles. For example, Criterion are the developers for Burnout Paradise in this comparison, therefore listen to their views on 360 vs PS3 in podcast episode 15 "Invasion of the programmers"; http://www.criteriongames.com/podcast/archive/ :)

thenephariouson wrote: "This thread is very repetative, how many times can the same things possibly be said (4644+ perhaps) LOL" Agreed, this thread is very repetative, how many times can the same things possibly be said (4644+ perhaps) LOL. ;)

VanKroy wrote: "Its funny, gamestop goes with the xbox 360 all the time and say that ps3 looks blurry, well Ive seen other ps3vs360 comparisons, and they say that the ps3 look better, for example ign said that ps3 beated the 360 in grand theft auto." But it's always very close VanKroy. Some comparisons give the PS3 the edge in GTA4 because of slightly better loading times and the overall look of the graphics. Others comparisons prefer the slightly better framerate of the 360 version and the slightly sharper graphics. Hence it's not biased to prefer one over the other, since there's not a big difference between the two versions. So in the end, it comes down to personal preference. :|

AAR_Pingu wrote: "I would have to chose the PS3 as it offers real exclusive games with quality that the 360 and the PC simply cannot offer. Want an example? Haze..." Haze? Please tell me you didn't mean that. ;) MGS4 should be superb, Killzone 2 has the *potential* to be great, but we'll have to wait and see. Besides, I don't buy the PC arguement. Yes you can play those games on the PC too, which is fine if you're willing to wait long enough, and if you have a good enough PC to enjoy the game, but that's not really an issue for most console gamers. Take GTA 4, superb game (and yes not a 360 or PS3 exclusive), but I wouldn't be surprised if it's announced for the PC soon. However the possibility of it arriving on the PC after the console versions isn't really an issue for gamers wanting to play it today, and the same applies to those 360 console exclusives. :|

VolcanicDemon, that's a big solid block of text, please split it into paragraphs for easy reading. :) I'll pick up on one point however (since I haven't read all of your post); You wrote: "The slight differences in graphics will be no more as developers are now opting to develop for the ps3 first and 360 secondly." But this is what Criterion did with Burnout Paradise in this comparison, where they developed the game for the PS3 first and the 360 second, and yet the differences are still only slight. :| COD4 (also in this comparison) was coded seperately for the 360 and PS3 by different teams at Infinity Ward, where they put their best programmers to work on the PS3 version, and yet again the differences are slight. Hence I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that the PS3 will have much better multi-format games compared to the 360 when developement leads on the PS3. What we'll see are less bad PS3 ports, since it's easier to develop on the PS3 first and then port to the 360, rather than the other way around. Therefore COD4 and Burnout shows the future, which are good quality versions of multi-format games for BOTH consoles, but only slight differences between them.

mcurling wrote: " LOL what a question!! of course I am and EVERYBODY ELSE HERE IS A FANBOY, NO EXCEPTIONS..." Well, I'm arguing here on the basis that both are superb consoles with similar power. Neither console is 'better' than the other, just different (a view which I expect will be unpopular amongst many 360 and PS3 fanboys). What type of fanboy does that make me? ;)

awheaten wrote: "I think god of War 3 will settle the discussion of which console is better." Superb series of games, and GOW3 should be great for those who enjoy the series, but no *single* game is going to settle the arguement of which console is better. Both the 360 and PS3 are great consoles with similar power, therefore it's going to come down to personal preference as to which console has more of the games you want to play (in your case, it's the PS3 ;)).

Myzz617 wrote: "Well even though the 360 graphics are better is because it has been out longer than the PS3 duhh." Please stop saying this guys. :) This gen, the 360 was out 1 year longer than the PS3 (which was delayed), but last gen, it was the PS2 which was out than the XBox, and yet multi-format games looked better on the XBox from day one! So last gen, the Xbox looked better because it was more powerful. This gen, there's not much difference between the PS3 and 360, and that's why the multi-format games look so similar.

skillzdatkillz0 wrote: "@ TehEnergy. You cannot compare games that have been ported from PC to PS3 and 360 as the 360 is basically just a PC. These games weren't developed specifically for the PS3 and as it is less similar to the PC in terms of hardware, the comparison means nothing in terms of console power. Only in the porting skills of the developers." So why ignore COD4 and Burnout Paradise? Neither of these games were ported to the PS3. COD4 was developed by seperate teams working on each version, and Infinity Ward said they put their best programmers to work on the PS3 version. The PS3 was the lead platform for Burnout Paradise, so in this case, the 360 version can be considered to be the 'port'. So the pattern is the same even for games developed on the PS3 first or seperately, which is on par or slightly better. This is because both consoles are on par with each other in terms of power and RAM. Last gen, the XBox was more powerful and had more RAM compared to the PS2, and it showed in multi-format games (usually being the best console version, i.e. better textures, and/or better framerate, and/or more polygons etc). "Have a peek at some of the PS3-exclusives. If they were ported to Xbox now without any visual updates, they would almost surely look inferior." We could always speculate on what might or might not be, but I have no doubt that if (in a parallel univerve ;)) those same developers where working with the 360 hardware instead of the PS3, they would achieve equally impressive results.