My message got deleted so here it again. Like I said with the box you can get games free.

Note: Some stupid fanboy reported me because I said that and the reason for my suspension was for proving cracks or begging for cracks. makes no sense. I only said that you can get games free which has nothing to do with begging or providing cracks. Now if the forum moderator's brain was only bigger than a pea...sigh...

Anyways the xbox is clearly the winner.

Well, based on thexbox 360 fanboy bible. Paragraph 7 line 4 says the following:

Never will a Ps3 game have superior graphics to an Xbox360 game.

So technically the ps3 version of Ninja Gaiden cannot have better graphics than Gaiden 2 for xbox360.

The xbox360 has the best name because when it breaks (RROD) you have to send it to Microsoft and then they send it back to you thus making a 360.

[QUOTE="Coolboy420x"]

With problems mentioned in PS3 such as overall graphix inferiority, they can't make patches for problems such as these. otherwise eveyone would be expecting and every dev would be making patches to upgrade the graphics of the game. Sorry but i think its the final product, deal with it or take your hard earned money elsewhere. LBP for example or Dead Space even.

Silent-Hal

The problem isn't that the game is graphically inferior, it's that the game is supposedly full of bugs and glitches that actually affect gameplay and sometimes even require restarts. People shouldn't have to 'deal with' these kinds of problems.

I have about eight hours in the game and I have yet to encounter any bugs mentioned that require a restart or that keep me from advancing. Maybe the gamespot and IGN reviewer got a beta version or something. Like you say: "is supposedly full of bugs." Yes supposedly... Well I haven't seen one. (other than the notification PSN bug which will be fixed in patch and the GAOT exam which will also be fixed as told by bethesda). I have both 360 and ps3 versions but I like the ps3 controller better so I've been playing that one instead.

I think you should get this game. People are just overacting. As for the graphics: to see the difference between the two games I had to load them on two different 52 inch HDTVs one beside another and test the draw distance, AA, textures like the reviewer mentions. I lost about an hour making those tests as I was kind of curious to see the difference and in the end the only difference was that the PS3 didn't have Anti-aliasing. The rest was all the same. Textures were the same, draw distance was the same.(you can look at the video comparison from n4g on the internet that will confirm this if you like) I swear if I didn't spend all this time trying to find the differences I would have never noticed. Also if you have a smaller HDTV than 52 inch you will even have more trouble spotting the differences.

Note also that the Ign review was modified a bit after it was written and some things on the ps3 were taken out which seem kinda weird and makes me thing something fishy is going on.

Their game engine is multiplatform so as far as I can tell if there's a bug in one version, the same bug should exist in all of them (except the one related to the OS like message notification from ps3).

[QUOTE="EmperorSupreme"][QUOTE="Pajamasalad"]

[QUOTE="EmperorSupreme"]I think X360 graphically topped a year ago with Gears. That is why nothing better has come out. So I chose Resistance 2. We all know Playstation systems get better and better with time and games are already surpassing X360 games in terms of graphics. Insomniac will go all out on Resistance 2. One thing you can count on also is some insane weapons another Insomniac trademark. jlh47

You are such an obvious fanboy. What hardware advantages does PS3 have over 360 besides disk memory? No one ever told me.

Can you prove me wrong? Nope because what I said is true like it or not. I'm standing by what I say until a game graphically better than Gears comes out for X360. Currently there are several games better than Gears on PS3. Unreal Tournament and Uncharted are two that come to mind.

mass effect's facial features look better.

Mass effect uses unreal engine. The same as Gears lmao.

In 2006 Gears of war whooped up on Resistance, cows were hyping Resistance better than Gears, didnt turn out that way.

So IF both of these games come out in 2008, which one will be better.

kool-aids

You're basically comparing apples with oranges. One is a FPS first person while the other is third person. Resistance was a launch title also so they didn't have the money that gears 1 did so comparing these is just stupid.

Resistance 2 -> looks very good. IGN gave it 9.5 I haven't played it yet but you can be like 60 in multiplayer at the same time so this sounds cool and there are so many modes that it takes more than 20 hours to finish. Compare this to gears 2 that will take more or less 12-13 hours.

Gears 2 -> I got it yesterday and played the first level in the hospital with the locusts. The story is boring but the graphics are still pretty but its a game where its all flash and explosions, no substance. But don't get me wrong its a very fun game when playing with a friend. It's just that its not very innovative so far. I felt it was like gears 2.5. However I only played the first level but so far, it's good but definitively not amazing.

build a bridge and get over it.

they aren't that different.. the draw distance is what bugs me more.

americahellyeah

The draw distance is the same. I did the test using two 52 inch HDTV one on ps3 and the other with xbox. If you don't believe me you can also look for N4G video of their comparison where they show the video and they say the draw distance is the same. What's bugging you is just a lie made up by the gamespot reviewer. He was probably paid by microsoft or something or he wanted to create panic for no reason in the forums which he succeeded in doing.

i just bought my friends copy from him. so thay missed out on at least one sale. my friend got it and just got sick of it fast. he went out this morning and bought a 360 and got it for the 360. he didnt buy a 360 JUST for that game but figured he would have the better version. i got it for 20 bucks even though i had it pre orderd .havent yet played it. i votedfor number1 by the way. what every the resone its BS to have such an inferior version. slightly blurry textures like in other ports i can deal with but that plus more jaggies less draw in distence, graphicle glitched and bugs na thats just BS and i was not going to pay 60+ forsuch slopy work. shame on the devs.Wild_Card

I forgot to say this but: please learn how to write! Capital letters do exist. And second, how can you say that it has all those bugs if you even haven't played it yet?! Stop posting lies and speculation based on a gamespot review. The ps3 version is indeed inferior but you're exaggerating by turning it into something its not. Its a great game. Also, this is not a port! It shows that you are ignorant as to how games are made.

[QUOTE="bobly007"]

[QUOTE="klub77"]I dont believe Bethesda or any other company has an excuse to make PS3 game graphics so ridiculously flawed or graphically unequal to the 360. Its been proven that they have the same capabilities graphically with the new release of Bioshock. Ive seen it on the 360 and it has some of the best graphics I have seen and the PS3 version is claimed to be indistinguishable by Gamespot because they spent a year working on it separately from the 360 version. Developers need to spend more time on the PS3 version because were not spending more money on a better system to give us poor graphics on stupid multiplatform games (not that Fallout 3 is stupid).Wild_Card

You have to understand that Bethesda's game engine (called gamebryo) is crap because its caters to multiplatform and advantages PC and xbox over ps3. Bioshock's engine is the unreal engine (which has been said works better on ps3 than on xbox) and was designed to use more of the ps3's GPU power. That's what Bethesda gets for using middleware product to make a multiplatform AAA game. It seems they cannot afford Unreal or any other engine that is better. Or they just don't want to change because its not cost effective. However, I also think people are overacting with the ps3 version without even having played the game to confirm. The difference is very small. I can't figure out why everyone makes a big fuss out of it!

If the difference is so big, then tell me what they actually are. I have both console side by side running at the same time and I can say that you are one of the people biased by the reviews of gamespot.So what there's the PSN bug. It's going to be fixed with a patch. The only difference are the jaggies because of the ps3 GPU that can't do AA. That's about it. Its a pretty minor thing. I've tested the draw distance and its the same on both consoles. Both things pop at the same time.