We PS3ers will get the revenge when the PS3 passes the 360 next year, the 360 is getting long in the tooth and really no one except the makers of Uncharted 2 have really "pushed" the SPUs. And we really need a disclamier for anyone with a heart condition: The PS3 is BETTER on one game...wow...never saw that coming.....
You have to expect that from Gamespot, they never say anything good about the PS3, this who piece may as well be sponsored by Micro$oft. Diffidently what I would NOT call balanced reporting. Once again (getting tired of saying this) I will take the console that was made from the ground up for HD and does not break at a moments notice (PS3 if anyone is wondering)
Yes, its what GS does when they have nothing better to do: Bash the PS3. Whatever, no one is gonna notice the differences at 60fps. I really cant notice a difference. In some photos the 360 seems brighter and in some the PS3 is brighter.
Not worth it and I would be worried about: A. Lifetime of the SSD Drive (the clusters ware out much faster than a normal HDD) B. Asynchronous read/write times which could cause games to crash.
The key words in the Dead Space section are "high end video card" I high end video card could cost as much as a 360 Arcade and a PS3 combined. Who has the cash for that any more?
I will take the PS3 anyday over the PC or the 360. Dont have the cash to max out a PC and dont have the patience to spend time on the phone to tech support to have a 360. Its not that I am a PS3 fanboi per se, I am just a fan of game machines that dont fall apart, thanks anyway.
Who has the money to make a PC that can beat a PS3 or 360? I think I have heard many times before that to bulid a PS3 for instance, it would cost over $1000 if you tried to make a PS3 beating PC. No thanks. I had to look at the screen shots many times to see what was different.
Zoomer30's comments