i don't see any signifcant performance increase justifying spending 400$

[This message was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator]

[This message was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator]

i think the guys at gamespot know what they're talking about when they say the graphics are looking good for an unfinished game, and if you haven't even tried the beta yourself you cannot say the graphics suck. you have to play the game and see how it all comes together to really judge it. a screenshot gives you only a small idea as to how the graphics are

lovinweed you need to stay off the reefer or maybe roids, your getting mighty angry for gamespot just laying down the deal on whats going on. If your paying over 600$ to play the same old ps2 or ps1 games your a fool. Sure both systems 360 and ps3 have their problems, but this isn't a microsoft funded site, and noone is reporting to exploit the ps3's weaknesses and reinforce the 360's strength; just stating the facts and opinions of smart gamers. lay off the juice

pathetic playstation fanboy, you obviously know more than the editor's because you looked at the screenshots they made from them playing the game on multiple systems. you have probably never have seen it running, how ignorant can you be...even on the mid spec pc, the lighting effects need to be toned down to keep a stable framerate. the pc does have sharper textures and pic quality, but that without realistic lighting and shading doesn't do much good. If you want to be superior to 360 graphics you need a relatively high end system. you don't have to sacrifice anything to get the overall graphics quality on the 360. if you don't believe me read the article again

[This message was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator]