i was thinking, if it wasn't for the bluray player, Sony could have relased the PS3 before the compition at a cheaper price, they should have more so for the fact that PS2 was older than the original xbox, cube. But due to the bluray components not being ready, delays were made and what not. If anything the PS3 should have been out first, but Sony decided to get it bloated with a lot of high tech stuff. (perhaps MS, introducing the harddrive and extra's with the xbox 1, sony wanted to one up them and forgot whats important)

by now, Sony would have dominated the console race, had more games.

why i say that is, with the hardware the PS3 has, it just seemed kinda late, and pointless..for the simple fact that the 360's hardware is just as good if not better due to its simplier design (GPU strengths) Many developers have said that what ever game the other system comes out with, no matter how technical, the other console could still do it, both hardware are about equal, and in which this case, makes the 360 the prefered choice for your gaming needs.

Bluray also hasn't benifited games enough to care. IMO, bluray would have made much more sense on the PS4. by then it would have been more standard and cheaper, etc.

Sony's a great company, but maybe they should focus on the more important things, rather than care about the competition so much and trying to outdo them. (even though, they keep bragging they don't, they do)

anyone agree?

it isn't all american, but MS is an american company, they made the design, thought out the hardware (while made else where) and what not.

but who cares.

MGS4 raised the bar and since MGS is known for its killer stories, and knowing epic needed to improve theres, where else would u look for insperation. I for one think its kinda lame, just doesn't fit in the gears world. but whatever.

is it just me or are the PC boys simply annoying?

this thread basically tells me that, console lovers shouldn't argue about console graphics kings, because the PC will always beat it....yet, who the hell is talking about pc gaming? we all know this and most don't care.

i for one care about console's so a console graphics thread is fine, its all about consoles, what was the point of bringing PC into it?

and why do PC boys keep mentioning crysis in a console only thread? learn to read.

we get it, it looks good...get over it. its just ONE game. come brag when u have a dozen.

PS3 still has no AAAE. /thread

not being a fanboy, I just don't like idiots who spam :lol: things in order to seem patronizing.

pyromaniac223

thats why it has an AAAAE ;)

something the 360 still doesn't have...but might, we'll see.

Nuh, Resident Evil 5 is the console graphics king.

[QUOTE="skyform"]

Shame there is not more of this beautiful leves like the forest level shown at GT dev walkthrough.

It looks much better graphical then the town and citie levels.

When you see how beautiful and artictic this forest looks, then i really think this guys could make some awesome alien plantes with lots of organic stuff, it's a shame they choose boring cities like San Francisco and Chicago, forests and alien planets would be a much better choice.

MojondeVACA

if i recall some earlier footage, trees sway a little and what not. anyways, keep in mind while it looks real good graphically bosses/levels are massive, i think resistance 2 will set a nice technical benchmark, nothing fancy, but a good one. everything looks polished. too bad i still don't fancy its gameplay.

It is all real-time... Some cutscenes use special effects that otherwise are not used in-game.

The cutscenes that turn straight into gameplay do not use those special effects, but it is all real-time.

In my experience I was only NOT able to zoom and move the camera when the cutscenes where in-game (when the game goes from cutscene transitioning into gameplay).

Otherwise all custences are interactive. :)

Cedmln

pretty much summed up what i was thinking, but wasn't too sure.

thoughts?