JHKHLUJNM, by all means support the PS3 (it's a great console), but do so in a way you understand (i.e. your experience, the games, the features etc). Please avoid the tech wars because most of your 'tech' statements are simply wrong. :|

amulbocus "To Dr Yassam, the lead developer at epic games for Gears of War openly stated that GOW pushed the 360 to its absolute limits" No amulbocus, that was a typical case of gamers mis-interpreting what was actually said (as happens SO OFTEN online). The fact is, EVERY dev pushes a console to it's limits. Whatever game you see was the best the developer could do on the hardware AT THAT TIME. Once a game is finished however, with the information they've learned, they can find ways to push the console further in their next game by optimizing the methods they used in the previous game and by implementing new techniques and code. Hence since Gears, Epic have found numerous ways to get more out of the 360, as they show and discuss here; http://www.gametrailers.com/player/32198.html So tell me, how was it possible to improve the engine and get more out of the 360 if the first Gears had already reached the 360's maximum capabilities? You can't go beyond the maximum, you can't get more than 100% out of a console. :P "but come on, the PS3 is technically more powerful than the 360, not equal to it. 360's GPU is better at shading but thats it, RSX has more raw horsepower." Most devs agree that the RSX in the PS3 is at best equal to the 360's GPU (Xenos), and at worse, slightly less powerful. It doesn't have more raw horsepower, that's based upon specs which are not comparing like with like. RSX is actually the console version of NVidia's G71, known as the GeForce 7900 on the PC. The Cell processor in the PS3 has an arithmetic advantage over the CPU in the 360 (Xenon), offering up to twice the performance, however Xenon has about twice the (general) power for running game code. So overall it balances out, with the edge being in the PS3's favour given the increasing importance of floating-point arithmetic for games. So overall I would give the edge to Cell for the CPUs, and Xenos for the GPUs. And given that both consoles have the same amount of memory (512MB), there isn't much between them overall in terms of power, and devs confirm this. Therefore the PS3 could be considered at best to be slightly more powerful than the 360. It's is far from having the power advantage that many gamers believe and therefore are sitting around waiting to see the PS3 pull ahead of the 360, and make excuses for the reasons why it just isn't happening. :| BTW, I consider both the 360 and PS3 to be superb consoles. "At the end of the day the PC still rules, and my 8800 gts eats these consoles for breakfast including my ps3." Ok, yes, the PC is more powerful but.... this is about 360 vs PS3. ;)

amulbocus wrote: "Remember the 360 has pretty much reached its peak, graphics and processor wise, with the PS3 still in its infancy with only about 50% of its potential being used so far" That is completely false. NO developer anywhere says this, the only people who make this claim are uninformed gamers online. :| "All these games shown were initially developed for the 360 and ported to the ps3 which will always be worse off." To repeat myself again, the PS3 was the lead platform for Burnout Paradise, and seperate teams worked on the 360 and PS3 versions of COD4, with Infinity Ward's best programmers working on the PS3 version. :|

blade_deathhand wrote: "This is still comparing games that are being developed at the same time, even though developers have had a year longer to work with the 360 then with the PS3." So why wasn't this an issue last gen for multiformat games released on PS2 and XBox? The XBox was released 18 months after the PS2, so devs had a year and a half longer to work with the PS2 (by your arguement), and the PS2 was the lead platform for developement, and yet the XBox version was usually the best multiformat console version from day one (better graphics and/or better framerates). :| So stop making excuses please. The 360 and PS3 versions of these games are on par because in terms of power, both consoles are on par. Last gen, the XBox was more powerful than the PS2 and GC, hence XBox versions were usually the best.

thomasduo wrote: "Games are developed first on an XBOX360 platform then converted to PS3 because of the 360's user base.." Why do so many of you ignore COD4 and Burnout Paradise? As I mentioned before, the PS3 was the lead platform for Burnout Paradise, and seperate teams worked on the 360 and PS3 versions of COD4, with Infinity Ward's best programmers working on the PS3 version. :|

DAzn2341 wrote: "The 360 was the lead platform for GTA IV" And the PS3 was the lead platform for Burnout Paradise, and seperate teams worked on the 360 and PS3 versions of COD4, with Infinity Ward's best programmers working on the PS3 version. :|

m_mobarakabadi wrote: "graphics on ps3 looks like original xbox.i think it`s ps 2.5" Well since the 360 graphics and PS3 graphics are mostly on par in the comparison here, then 360 graphics must also look like the original XBox by your logic.

jackrocks123 wrote: "every1 knows 360 has better games, but remember this, ps3 been more then 1 year out and 360 been more then 2 and 1/2 years out" It's a year and a half for the PS3, which launched November 2006, 360 launched November 2005. So that's one year apart (but only because the PS3 was delayed up to 6 months). Also, the launch date arguement is just an excuse really, since the XBox launched 1 and a half years after the PS2, and yet it was getting better results in multformat games from day one! :|

realgundam wrote: "Dr_Yassam well it's not like I'm trying to help PS3, though I like their games more. The thing is I see all these stupid editors that don't know how to set graphics keep leading on the 360 and somehow left out the point PS3 when they did something better. That really bugs my on GS and someone haev to say something..." Ok, just one more post ;) I can understand that and the feeling that the PS3 games are not being shown at their best. I haven't got a PS3 myself, but a friend of mine has. So when I can, I'm going to check out his settings for RGB and Super White to see the difference it makes firsthand (although I don't think this is related to many of the comments GS makes, but I can see why it's annoying to gamers here). Anyway, I don't think he knows about these settings, so I'm sure he will be grateful for the improvement (he has both a 360 and PS3). "For example they would never think why PS3's image tends to be blur at a distance. It is how the "reality something graphic" engine render stuff, because thats how you would see it in the real world with human eyes." Actually, that's more to do with what the PS3 is not doing, rather than what it is doing. :| Except for deliberate depth of field effects, blurrier graphics is not a feature, it's more of a failing (to a point). That said, there's still not much between both consoles, and a blurrier look can sometimes be more appealing to some (GTA4 being a good example, where gamers are split between which version they prefer graphically). That's it....food is calling me...I'll say no more except thank you and goodbye (for real this time)

realgundam wrote: "The point I want to make is that the 360 VMX128 does not use the complete set avaible in AltiVec. The links you gave me stated that too. So depences on what codes are removed can really screw the potential vector processing" Come on now realgundam, it should be obvious that IBM are not going to make it worse! :) VMX in the PowerPC was VMX32, i.e. it was 32-bit. In the 360, they have increased it to 128-bit, removed unnecessary commands and added commands which are beneficial for use, i.e. those of benefit to games. Similarly, SPE also has a subset of VMX commands, plus new commands of it's own. So again, the commands dropped are obviously commands which are unimportant, since anything the dropped commands were doing could be implemented just as well with the remaining commands, or better with the new commands added. In otherwords, IBM removed commands which were redundant. This is how it stands today realgundam. There are no articles, no reports, no comments from developers and certainly no evidence in the games themselves that vector processing has been 'screwed up' in the 360 as a result. Instead, the opposite is true, hence IBM have done a great job on Xenon, just as they've done on Cell. Besides, I would expect nothing less from IBM (they don't have a great reputation for nothing ;)). So overall, there is not much between the PS3 and 360. Why one version of a game looks or performs slightly better than the other is due to many factors, and it's when all these factors are brought together that we finally see which version (if any) has the slight edge. Sometimes the CPU is the deciding factor, sometimes it's the GPU, sometimes it's memory, sometimes bandwidth etc, often it's a combination, so we can't really say PS3 games are better at this or 360 games are better at that, but I do believe we can say they are very close to each other and therefore the performance difference between the 360 and PS3 is far closer than many gamers choose to admit. :| Anyway... tiredness (and hunger) is setting in now...thanks for the discussion realgundam, I did enjoy the debate with you (I'll let you have the last word and will read it later). Until next time..........bye