gcsnigar, you really havent' been paying attention this gen have you? Wait, scratch that. You obviously weren't paying attention last gen either if you think xbox games weren't visually better than PS2 games. If there is one thing that Xbox had in its favor last gen, its that it was by far the superior console when it came to graphics. And if you think the 360 can't handle great graphics, then you obviously haven't been paying attention. I'm not the type of person to call anyone a fanboy, but you're statement would lead me to believe that you are sipping on the Sony Kool-Aid my friend.
I think the graphics are fine. It compares favorably to a lot of next gen games out there, and that's good enough for me. The important thing is that it plays wonderfully. If you're playing online and you have time worry about the graphics, then you're missing out. That's what single player is for.
KMWota91 I don't see how this is not fair to Sony. Sure, the PS3 may be the "superior" system due to features, but when it comes to the real meat and potatoes of a gaming system (that being GAMES), the PS3 is not delivering anything that can't be done on the much cheaper alternative in graphics and gameplay (minus sixaxis control). This article is very fair. It does not say that the PS3 is not a great system (I have one myself and know that it is in its own right), but instead that some things need to be done to to cause the casual consumer to think that 500-600 bucks isn't too much to spend on a game console. A lot of Sony's big gun exclusives are still a ways off, and even if they were coming sooner, that still isn't a good enough reason to spend that kind of cash. In the end, yes the PS3 will do well in time, but all out domination by the PS brand in this generation is not certain.
spidermanc2k's comments