Alright, so I was sitting here today and all the sudden i wondered... why does everyone fight for the 360/ps3/wii/pc? I mean, what is everyone trying to prove? Many of us spend hours of our lives trying to defend our chosen platforms from the evils of being talked bad about.

I personally am beginning to think that the fanboy wars are pointless. If, in your mind, the Wii has won, it will always win. Nobody will change your mind. Same way with every other console. In my opinion, I think that even if people say the PS3 has no exclusives, or too many flop titles, or no features, or inferior graphics... what does it matter to me? Every day, i logon to my PS3 and have a great time with whatever game I decide to play, and am more than entertained, so why should I care if ignorant people are running rampant on GameSpot's forums saying how bad the PS3 is? Its not like Sony gives me money for advertising their console...

So, everyone think hard, what is the reason you fight for your console? I'm not looking for answers like "Becauze the XBOX 360 owns all", I want to know why you actually spend time trying to defend a gaming console.

My personal reason is because I personally like my PlayStation 3, and I don't like when people running around yelling "PS3 doesn't have an online marketplace" (yes, some xbox-fan at my school was actually telling people that one time) and other bs about the PS3. So anyway, your reasons?

I'm not talking about games Sony owns the rights to. I'm talking about cows saying that the graphics for a game are so great on the PS3 that it is impossible for it to be done on 360. You actually believe this? :lol: This when 360 has been proven over and over to have the best looking multiplats (for the most part...there are a couple of exceptions). "But, but, but teh Uncharted!" Yes, cows...I'm certain even that beauty of a game could be done on 360.

Just face it cows...even though PS3 released a year after 360, graphical superiority has not been proven with PS3. Excluding Wii and PS3, all other consoles in history that have released a year or more after the competition have ALWAYS produced better graphics (no, I'm not counting silly add-ons like SegaCD, 32x...I mean actual consoles). But not with teh PS3. :lol: I'm really not even counting Wii, because Nintendo didn't try to have a graphical powerhouse. Sony did...

AvIdGaMeR444

Sony succeeded at a graphical powerhouse. I love how you lemmings always say "TEh 360 can haves a game just like uncharted or MGS4 anyday". oh really, well why doesn't it have one then???

Plus, the only reason PS3 was delayed by a year was so they could work the kinks out and not rush it and get a multi-billion dollar red ring of death problem.

oops, that other thread with the exact same purpose of mine slipped my eye.

DONT FLAME ME PLZ!

Well, it seems that SO FAR Too Human has flopped. I don't blame it on them personally, they had trouble using Unreal Engine and had to take valuable dev time to make their own engine, but anyway that's besides the point.

Anyway, in your opinion, what is the most infamous console flop in this generation? Here are my top three:

1. Haze

2. Lair

3. Shadowrun

Shadowrun was fun for a little bit, and I shall never forget the first time I saw a guy run up to a ladder, only to float up to the top. :)

Nope, not anymore. By this time in the 360s lifecycle it had great games out, so why do we only have a couple? Also, PS3 had a huge range of time for about 7 months after launch where literally NOTHING came out, which I think is why it is so far behind.

Also, PS3 has got a bunch of chances coming up, with LBP, Home, R2, God Of War 3, Killzone 2, MAG, and more. So after all those games release, if PS3 is STILL BEHIND, then there is no excuse.

I still can't get over one of the biggest misses, Haze. I was so hyped for that, I sprinted home from school to download the demo, and it sucked so bad I was ready to go grab my PS3 and chuck it out the window..

READ FIRST, PLEASE. This is about GameTrailer's insanely stupid comparison videos, this thread is not so that cows and lemmings can fight over graphics!

Anyway, do they even do these comparisons anymore, ever since they were busted for faking it? I haven't seen one for a while, and Madden 09 still doesn't have one and I was fully expecting it.

Also, what did everyone think of these? Personally, I thought they were bad because GT didn't turn on any of the PS3's enhanced color graphics settings (and you wonder why everyone always thought PS3 had worse colors, it was because GT didn't turn the "Full Color Range" option on in PS3's Display Settings). In fact, I even emailed the web editors about it, and they replied far more straightforward than i expected:

Leimeisei,

I don't know for sure what our settings were but we like to leave them at the defaults instead of tinkering with it to make it look as good as it can. We believe it's more fair to both consoles to leave the settings alone rather than give one an advantage by changing the settings to give it an advantage. Games are ideally designed to look good without you having to poke around in your display settings. Thanks for letting us know about that though.

Ryan Cramer
Lead Programmer | GameTrailers.com

GameTrailers

Well Ryan, If you're going to leave them at the defaults, you might as well film both consoles running at 480i, because technically changing their output to 1080p is "tinkering with the settings", is it not? Also, look at that next line I bolded, and the sentence after it. That's basically like saying "Hey, the display settings on my TV are at 0 for color saturation, so my game is black and white. But hey, games are ideally designed to look good without having to poke in my display settings right?" If a console has the option, enable it!

Everyone's thoughts on this, please?