[QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"]Every day there is a Playstation 3 graphics debate. It's amazing that it hasn't sunk in yet, really. At E3 a few years ago, we all remember Sony showing off all the photo-realistic CGI and the cows lapping up the fact that the PS3 would be a "supercomputer" as Kutagari said, capable of unmatched realism. At the time, all the 360 had was actual real game shots, and if you remember for a good few months lemmings were treated pretty much as cows are now - non-stop bashing because of their inferior graphics. The cows were pretty much certain that their system was on another plateau compared to the 360.
We know now that that is not the case, yet still we get graphics debated every day. So i ask you to look at the original XBox. It launched a year after the PS2, with better tech, and from day one games like Halo were sharper than anything the PS2 had produced up until that point. Dead or Alive 3 set a visual benchmark. From day one, it had better graphics. I'm not saying it was the better console or anything like that, but graphically, there's no question. And it continued from that point on, as PS2 games looked better, Xbox games did to, always one step ahead of the PS2 visually, as seen with every multi-plat on the two consoles.
But ask yourself - was the difference that big? We all know the Xbox looked better, but would we buy an xbox over a ps2 JUST because of the graphical difference? No, most people did because of the online, for games like Halo - i dont think anyone bought an xbox for the graphics, because the difference was so small. Nicer lighting and animations in splinter cell, some sharper textures in Burnout.
Agreed?
Now look at the PS3 and the 360. Day one, the PS3 looks darned good, but better than the 360? No. We all know the current best-looking console game is gears of war, which looks to be defeated by Mass Effect (possibly...). Both 360 games. Am i saying the 360 has better graphics? Of course not. Just that it's JUST AS GOOD AS THE PS3.
And dont get me wrong, there might be a difference between the two, but if there is, it's clearly less than the difference between the original xbox and PS2, which we've already established was negligable.
So face it, Sony-fans, graphically, the two systems are pretty much the same. The added cost on your PS3 is down to the Blu-Ray inside, not because it's on some higher level of tech than the 360.
Redfingers
We'll see, dude. Uncharted, MGS, Motorstorm....they all rip Gears to shreds. The question is whether Gears 2, Halo 3, Forza, Too Human, and Mass Effect will truly win out over what PS3 has to offer. If it's such a dimension, something you cannot forsee, then why talk about it like you're so sure? The difference is not so minute when you're talking 1080p with high-res textures, self-shadowing, possibly ray-tracing, physics and AI or animations along with some astounding particle effects... It's gotten to the point where the difference can become a chasm that really makes people interested. Or, not. I know developers are doing a superb job on games like Mass Effect, and they could sustain a limited difference for a long time. But games like Ratchet and Clank and Lair hammer it right home for me...I'm on the bloody edge. I'll definitely get my fill of b****in' looking games, no question. Anyway, good luck, but it's seriously difficult to doubt that the PS3 is a capable machine. wow... have you [QUOTE="Redfingers"]Take Resistance for example. It has 30 levels to how many in Gears? It has particle effects that are flipping gorgeous, requiring a huge amount of physics calculations, acceptable physics as far as character models, and some gigantic environments....this is compared to Gears. Gears has some good blood particles, and supposedly the rain is very good, but none of it is very physics intensive and clearly the Playstation 3 has it on the content realm. I'm just saying, you step that game up, with some additional content (Insomniac spent a lot of time creating the game engine...Epic just used UE3, which means far less work on part of the developer, and yet, the only thing we really saw that was visibly superior was stronger texturing on the whole), up the resolution to 1080p, more calculation-intensive physics, larger environments, and texture streaming (something that was missing from Resistance according to Brian Hastings) and you have an amazing experience. Again, there is no denying that that makes a quality experience. Part of the reason Oblivion and Gears of War (I would argue probably the main reason) were rated so high was because of their outstanding visuals. Take that to the next level, and you have an even more involving experience. Motorstorm displays this in spades. I seriously think Motorstorm 2 will shock people. And that's all that's required. wow... you seriously have no clue.... Have you EVER taken into consideration that geow was designed so that it had less people at the same time? Ressistance is a RUN AND GUN... Its no fun running and gunning through 4 people.... Geow is a totaly different game and you comparing the two shows your ignorance. 
Log in to comment