Three years and the Xbox 360 is already outdated.

Thanks for posting, that really looks interesting. I played 1 and two on PS2 and enjoyed them both, always wished the first one would come aroung to GC. Never bought them because of my not wanting to get into the sequel without beating the first.

I never got it for PC because I heard there were a lot of headaches at the time with 3Dfx cards/drivers. That and the controls seemed excellent on consoles.
For me with shooters. If it was designed for PC (like Half-Life) than buy all means keyboard and mouse are the way to go. If it was designed for consoles (Turok:Dinosaur Hunter) than by all means Console is the way to go. I knoe people disagree with it, but thats my story and I'm sticking to it!

the wii's chickens have come to roost

@ OP. It is clear to see that RFG is not the best looking 360 by any means. Far Cry 2 and Gears 2 both beat it easily. Funny thing is both Epic and Ubisoft said there is more room in 360 graphics yet. Epic promised Gears 3 would start to utilise all 6 cores rather than the 2 that Gears 2 uses. For instance. Also you only have to look at KUF 2 and Alan Wake for 2009 to see what the 360 is pulling off in 2009.

However RFG looks interesting. Heres a trailer.

About the thread...

Didnt Kojima said that they had pushed the cell to the top in mgs4?

I really belive that ps3 and 360 can still make better graphics because it is not just about using the hardware 100%, it's about optimization and learning methods to make games look better using less hardware. I'm sure some crappy games use hardware at 100% in both consoles, because mediocre programming

Actually looking at the game closer. There may be some truth in this. Everyone here is thinking in terms of visuals. Lets think in terms of technical engines. Alot of them not visual as such. RFG seems to have a massive engine built around real world stress points and physics. This determines the stress level of every tiny and large thing in the game world. For instance this is way way way more advanced than the engines in say Killzone 2 or Kingdom Under Fire 2. Watch the videos below. To me it's fairly obvious why the game isnt looking as photorealistic or as sprused up as some games.

Because the destruction blows every other game completely and utterly out of the water. As does the physics. It destroys every other game completely. Systems arent just maxed out by visuals. More realistic engines take more load on the console to. For instance I guarentee if Gears 2 or Killzone 2 had this engine for physics and destruction both games would look nowhere near as good visually.

 The 360 isn't outdated. Just because a company's game uses up a crapload of memory, doesn't mean a console is outdated. It's going to sell like shit anyway, so why should this news phase the 360?

Incidentally, a developer talking about what they can do on an imaginary system that hasnt been built yet when they are struggling to create an effective solution to a game of their own design on an existing system shows a lack of priorities on their part.

Its all very well saying 'Wow look what we can do', but if it is completely useless as a viable product then the only response can be 'Wow, what a waste of time'.

 You obviously know nothing about the game, if you think it's just an engine. The latest playthroughs have been good. Also the singleplayer is coming along very nicely. I think it's an imaginary system then I have nothing more than ROFL to say. Go read up. Also the system is fully available to see in the videos above. LOL.

The 'imaginary system' i was refering to was the mention of the what they could do on the next generation console, not this existing game engine, i did watch the video. And fyi we have already been discussing the load on the system due to the calculations in the engine vs using that processing power to just create great graphics, but you would know that if you had read the whole thread.