Im 23 years old and have been gaming ever since the nes/snes days and i love mostly online shooters nowadays but i played the Ratchet and clank demo and loved every second of it. Is there something wrong with me liking Ratchet and Clank and being 23?!MikeCOD80

no not at all 20 might be a bit younger than 23 but im wanting it also.

found this on n4g and completely agree with it. 360 winning

Definition of AAA game titles

I don't know why I am wasting my time on this.

But I am still provoked by the fact that nobody really knows what this Absurd-Alcohol-Allergy is about. What does tripple-A mean (in game related contexts) and what does it stand for? Well... My most qualified guess is that the term "AAA" was invented by producers and/or publishers. Its the equivalent of Super-MEGA-sized burger meals or XXX porn movies. More is more and bigger is better. Its that simple. Though I am still positive that the first real XXX games will end up being AAA games as well. But thank God I am not the only one speculating about this.

There are numerous and similar definitions floating around on the net. Basically "AAA" refers to very large and expensive production titles, which include a highly productive PR/marketing apparatus. Several companies are now referring to their titles as having "AAA" potential, which is basically just to hype it up. In my opinion "AAA" is only something which makes sense after release, reviews and sales records. Or maybe it would be more easy to say that the definition of "AAA" is something that has sold at least a million copies?

"...Presently, in 1998 you have basically three types of games: AAA, A, and B games.

AAA game means games that have almost unlimited budgets and are media events. Blizzard is the AAA game company these days. They won't release anything that doesnt fall under AAA.

They killed Warcraft Adventures not because it was a bad game but because it would have been only an "A" rated game. AAA, A, and B level games have nothing to do with how good the game is. If I wrote the worlds greatest space invaders clone today and even if it had great graphics, great sound, and was totally rock solid, it would still be a B ****game. Only a handful of games each year make it out as AAA because the bar is so high to be a AAA game. It costs millions of dollars to create a AAA game. My personal favorite game, Total Annihilation, barely makes it out as a AAA game because it didnt have full motion video through out, the units didnt talk. Its a AAA game still but just barely. So even the best and funnest games may not be AAA games. Starcraft is a great example of a AAA game and Ill use it because its also an excellent game.

Games like Entrepreneur, Panzer General and Warlords III would be great examples of A games. They may be as fun or even funner than AAA games but dont have the budgets behind them of a Starcraft. No full motion video between every level, they are about the game, not the game and experience.

Deer Hunter is a great example of a B ****game in quality. Cheap to make. And where Deer Hunter changed the world was in discovering that a B level game can now make as much money, if not more than a AAA game. And believe me, the game designers of AAA game companies are probably sweating a bit about Deer Hunter. Because corporations are about profit and if they can make more money cranking out B titles they will. But that's for another discussion entirely.

Historically, AAA, A, and B games represented how much money youd put in and get back. A AAA game may cost a ton to create but they bring back the big bucks. They are the games of the year, they are the 2 million plus unit sellers. Myst, Dialbo, and Starcraft, these are AAA games..."

Don't just put one side of the story in this, the Xenos > RSX, plain and simple, SONY can spout all they want, but the fact remains, the PS3 has LESS available memory and has to eat into that memory for AA, HDR and Frame Buffers.

The Xenos is not only more powerfull, but is much more efficeint, when the RSX hits a Pixel heavy portion of a game, the Vertex Pipelines go idle, wasting those Pipelines, since the RSX has dedicated Pixel and Vertex Pipelines.

The Xenos doesn't have this wasted Pipeline problem because of its USA (Unified Shader Architecture), because all 48 Unified Pipelines can do BOTH, Pixel and Vertex.

Nagidar

CONCLUSION
When you break down the numbers, Xbox 360 has provably more performance than PS3. The truth is that both systems pack a lot of power for high definition games and entertainment.

Memory and Media

From a memory standpoint, both systems are roughly equal with about 512MB of memory dedicated to system and graphics. The Xbox 360 has Unified Memory Architecture that lets the CPU and GPU share the system's 512MB of memory. The PlayStation 3 on the other had has 256MB of XDR memory and 256MB of GDDR3 memory dedicated to graphics. We still have to take a closer look at the memory bandwidth differences, but game developers will be happy with the graphics bandwidth and memory space available for both systems.

The PlayStation 3 comes with an array of data storage and transfer features. Whereas the PlayStation 2 only supported a memory card and the optional hard drive attachment (for a brief time), the PlayStation 3 supports numerous forms of portable media. The PlayStation 3 has 6 USB 2.0 ports, a memory stick slot, an SD slot, and, in stark contrast to many of Sony's other consumer electronics products, the system actually supports compact flash. Sony even saved a space for a removable 2.5" hard drive.

The Xbox 360, in comparison, doesn't have as much in the way of media support. It has two memory card slots and a handful of USB ports that are rumored to accommodate a host of devices like the iPod, USB memory sticks, and even Sony's own PSP. However, the real power of the 360 is in its networking ability. We can't forget that Bill Gates's new system can also reach across the network to access media from local, Windows-based PCs.

Sony and Xbox took different strategies when it came to decide on an optical drives. Sony decided to use the PS3 to further its own Blu-ray format, which allows for discs that can hold about 54GB each. The Xbox 360 will support dual layer DVDs, which can hold about 9GB worth of data. Both consoles will support older media formats such as CD-ROMs, conventional DVDs, and user-created DVDs. You'll impress a lot of ladies with the Blu-ray line, but the Xbox 360's normal DVD should serve you just fine in the near future.

The Cell architecture can go further though, there's no reason why your system can't distribute software Cells over a network or even all over the world. The Cell is designed to fit into everything from (eventually) PDAs up to servers so you can make an ad-hoc Cell computer out of completely different systems.

What if we told you that Sony combined the CPU and GPU performance numbers to come up with the 51-billion number while Microsoft only reported its CPU performance number? The Xbox 360 actually has 33.6-billion-dot-product-operations per second if you also include GPU performance.

We're not saying to ignore specifications altogether--most of them are relevant in some way or another. And we're going to talk about the specifications that really jumped out at us at first glance. Let's start with the processor. Sony has announced that the PlayStation 3 will have a 3.2GHz Cell processor that consists of a PowerPC-based core with seven synergistic processing units. The PS3 spec-sheet says that there's an eighth SPE reserved for redundancy--whatever that means. The Xbox 360, in comparison, has a multicore PowerPC processor that has three dual-threaded cores that can handle six total threads at a time. You might be able to call the Cell's SPEs overgrown math units, but we think Sony's Cell processor wins from a brute power perspective.

The PlayStation 3 has a pretty strong Nvidia graphics processor, but you can see how Sony may be afraid of the specification sheet comparison by the pipeline number conveniently omitted from the PS3 graphics specifications. We're guessing that the RSX graphics processors has a traditional, non-unified shader engine, so it likely has a smaller total "pipeline" number than the ATI chip. Even if the RSX's normal pipelines are more powerful than the Xbox 360's pipes, Sony doesn't want to risk printing a lower "pipeline" number since people won't understand that it isn't an apples-to-apples comparison.

So how many traditional pipelines does the RSX have? Sony has revealed that the RSX GPU has a 550MHz core clock and has over 300 million transistors. Sony has also stated that the chip is more powerful than two GeForce 6800 Ultra cards put together. Your first guess might be that Nvidia simply doubled the pipeline number on the 6800 Ultra to make the RSX, but you also have to remember that the Ultra only clocked in at 400MHz. If the "double" performance measurement is based on fill-rate performance rather than hardware, the clock speed increase up to 550MHz is clear sign that the hardware improvement isn't from a pure doubling of pipelines. We're guessing that the actual pipeline count is going to be at 24, which is about right for 300 million transistors and, at 550MHz, has just a slightly larger fill-rate than two GeForce 6800 Ultras clocked at 400MHz. Since the GeForce Ultra had 6 vertex pipelines, the RSX likely has 6 more vertex pipes in addition to the 24 pixel pipelines.

[QUOTE="mmirza23"]but the really hyped exclusiveson the wiiflopped and for cows this is supposed to be one of their hyped exclusives, the R&C series on PS2 have been 1 AAA and 2 high AA and they said this game is going back to a similar style of play as in the first R&C, which scored AAA, so i dont see why it shouldnt get AAA.shadowfox55

I am telling you just like Metroid had points off for being like its predecessors so will R & C.

why take points from mp and r&c for being sequals,franchise like those usually make the most money.