Dryker - 1 - Name one new thing MS have tried to pioneer in this generation (granted they introduced great online gaming but that was last generation AND it had been done on PC's for years). What innovative product have MS included in the 360? In what way have they tried to advance console gaming? People may day Home is a rip-off of Second Life, Live, Mii etc etc but the fact is it's an attempt at a step forward in console communities. Is that not trying to advance? Blu-ray is new technology, is that not an attempt at advancing (and granted, market penetration. But then again you know who mainsteadmend home DVD's? Oh, right, you got Sony to thank for that). 2 - Last I checked it wasn't Sony who have been involved in (and lost) monopoly and unfair trading suits (particularily in Europe). You really think MS's gaming division is so far removed from MS's software division? If they're not trying to fleece users then why don;'t they make the main part of online, i.e the gaming, free? Oh wait ... right.javascript:submitPostAjax(); Submit Zeecorner - Considering Kojima is already complaining that dual layer BR is not enough currently I think the likelyhood of MGS4 coming to the 360 is very far off. But then again thats just my opinion )as is yours).

Blazer88 You still haven't replied to my query as to how you can say the PS3 is disappointing because they're wh0ring all their old IP's which have been going for years (ignoring Warhawk, Lair, Heavenly Sword, Motorstom, LittleBigPlanet etc) yet in the next sentence you compliment the Wii whose 2 MAJOR releases are a Zelda game and a Mario games, not quite "new" IP's.

s3lFc0nTr0l Sterling idea my good man. But don't you think that'll be a bit tough on the non blu-ray PS3 owners considering that all the games are on blu-ray disks?

Blazer88 Eh? you make a comment that the playstation brand needs new IP's (Lair? Motorstorm? Heavenly Sword?) yet then you comment about the Wii? Now isn't that a bit hypocritical considering that the 2 major releases for the Wii are ... a Mario game and a Zelda game. Wow, now those haven't been done a million times before.

Nikefreak - Nice partial quote there. I't clear you twist things to support your views. I notice you handily omitted where I wrote: "Undoubtably, the PS3 is no perfect machine and Sony is no perfect company (as with the competition). But the way Gamespot (and a number of other sites) are going so overboard with the hating, it's just laughable" Perhaps I should repeat the first part of that sentence for you agan in case you miss it again: "Undoubtably, the PS3 is no perfect machine and Sony is no perfect company" Oh and the "Cross platform games look better on the PS3 argument" is a VERY debatable point. using FNr3 for example, the character models on the PS3 are CLEARLY better than the 360, as with Madden. However the crowds and backgrounds are clearly better on the 360. So both systems shine in their own ways, to say "one is better than the other" is just naieve. Handily forgetting that if a game is designed for the 360 and ported to the PS3 one would EXPECT it to look better on the 360 because that's the architecture it was designed for (basic programming knowledge). What will make an interesting comparison is if/when a game is designed for the PS3 and then ported to the 360, will the 360 still look better? Unlikely but once again expected. Case in point, Oblivion, Bethdesa went to great lengths to restructure the game for the PS3 architecture as opposed to doing an EA "cheap port" and, surprise surprise, everybody who'se seen the PS3 version says it looks better (although some, not all, of the graphical upgrades will be made available on the 360 via download). Granted they had a year extra development time so one would expect, even demand, it's better but that's what happens when they redesign the game for PS3 architecture. Had they just done an EA "cheap port" which would have gottent he game out faster then undoubtably it would have looked better on the 360, it's called logic. A game will look better on teh system it's designed for. But I doubt this will sink in, as with my last post you'll probably just hack and slash bits out of it to support your argument.

Ah, this is another article along the lines of "Madden 360 is better than Madden PS3 because look, the PS3 can't even create shadows but the 360 can" .... apart from the little fact they forgot to mention like that they choose game different times i.e. on the PS3 the time where it wouldn't have shadows and on the 360 the time when it would ... but they "forgot" to point that out and then claimed the PS3 couldn't handle the shadows. I think that occurance alone is enough to clearly show which way Gamespot leans ... i.e. all the way forward while taking it from behind by MS. Basically anti-PS3 rubbish compliments of gamespot doesn't surprise me anymore. Is some of it true and deserved? Undoubtably, the PS3 is no perfect machine and Sony is no perfect company (as with the competition). But the way Gamespot (and a number of other sites) are going so overboard with the hating, it's just laughable. Oh well, one notch lower on the credibility scale (if it's possible after the "comparison" article which GS have clearly tried to cover up, hence the ban on "GS bias" threads in the forum. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" springs to mind.).