and you prove it with a wait for it wait for it. Bull shots

Too bad we don't see many CryEngine games out. I mean, the game edditing tools of CryEngine 2 were amaizing, I thought games will pour out made with it, yet it's not so. I can see why, it's probably expensive and doesn't run that well on most machines (PC's) out here. But now that CryEngine 3 is available and runs well on PS360, I expect great things. I mean, one (game studio owner) could potentially spend as little as 10% of the resources (time/money-manpower/attention) on gameplay mechanics/effects coding, and the rest on design.

Romero should love that :P.

Bullshots etc.

I agree that nothing currently beats K2 and I make no judgement on any game until the final release is in my console.

I also agree with many who say there is not a lot in terms graphics from what we have seen so far between the two.

I do think however that a newer console (PS3 was released a year after x360) which is far more difficult for developers to come to grips with has more potential to produce better graphics eventually than one that is 4yrs old and easy to program (x360) even if we start with both as being equal.

These sorts of posts confuse me. I am soon to proudly own PS3 slim ( come on christmas, it's killing me ). But I have played alot of games extensively through HDMI. My opinion is Sony got good in graphics quick. But Gears 2 IMO beats UC 1 with ease. The only game out now that clearly beats 360 is KZ2. All others are under Gears 2 IMO. And looking to the horizon 360 is matching PS3 head to head. Theres a great Fanmade trailer of Heavy Rain and Alan Wake together in the video. Environments look better on Alan Wake and character models better on Heavy Rain. But it's still barely noticeable. Then theres Splinter Cell, Forza 3, Lost Planet 2, Assasins Creed 2 and CRYENGINE 3. CRYENGINE 3 looks better than all. And basically identical across both versions. with lighting better on 360 and pop in less on PS3.

There really is no difference. Just some devs concentrate on different graphical elements.

I, personally, was not THAT impressed by Killzone 2 --- graphically or gameplay wise.

Sure it looked great, but people refer to it as "the standard" for graphics.  I just don't see it as such.

I wish PS3 fans who continually claim the PS3 has a distinct advantage, graphics performance-wise, over the 360 would pay attention to the bolded part above.  "it runs a bit faster on 360" and "it's a bit quicker on PS3".  A "bit", meaning slightly.  Not, "it's definitely faster" or "it's significantly quicker".

In other words, the performance differences are subtle, not significant.  The developer states plainly what they were finally able to do with a lot of hard work on the PS3, "it's been tricky, but we've got a strong PS3 engine... we have parity between the platforms now: both run at the same speed".  So it was tricky to get the PS3 engine up to parity with the 360 engine.

The reason the OP keeps hearing that the PS3 is much better/more capable than the 360 is because of three factors, none of which have anything to do with actually game performance:

1. Until recently, the PS3 has been much more expensive than the 360, prompting PS3 fans to try and justify the extra expenditure.

2. The PS3 was expected to come out of the gate with DRAMATICALLY better visuals than the 360, but this simply hasn't happened.  They're both very capable HD platforms, and other than true die-hards pointing out subtle differences that few gamers would ever notice, there is little difference between what can be accomplished on either platform.  This fact adds to the pressure on PS3 fans who want to claim their console is definitely superior to the 360.

3. The PS3 was expected to blow the 360 out of the water, sales-wise, when it released.  Other than surges driven by MGS4 and price cuts, the PS3 hasn't done all that well against the 360.  In fact, the PS3 was about 5 million behind when it launched, and now it's about 8 million behind, so overall, it's lost ground.  Again, more pressure on the PS3 faithful to explain why the "clearly superior" PS3 is soundly in third place this generation.

The above is why you will hear the following CONTINUALLY from many of the hard-core PS3 fans on the message boards:

1. The Cell gives the PS3 much greater graphical potential than the 360

2. When game X or game Y finally releases on the PS3, sales will skyrocket past the 360

3. Blu-Ray is much better for games because it has so much storage compared to DVD

4. The PS3 is a much better "value" than the 360 because it includes WiFi and Blu-Ray

5. 360 hard drives are expensive (very true, although the prices have come down some)

6. The RROD has caused 126% failure rate of 360s   j/k about the percentage rate

What you will never hear from a PS3 fan is:

1. Blu-Ray drives are slower than DVD drives under some random-access scenarios

2. The extra storage of Blu-Ray drives has seldom been used, to a large extent because it costs money to add more content, textures, etc. to a game.

3. All 360s can have hard drives added, so even Arcade/Core units support hard drives if the user is willing to spend the money

4. MS has added hard drive installs, which can offset the single-disc advantage that Blu-Ray provides for a very small number of games

5. WiFi can be added to all 360s... the original 20 GB PS3 owners will NEVER be able to add WiFi to their consoles... the best they can do is to add a second wireless router directly to their PS3.

6. All 360s have backwards compatibility for a large number of original Xbox games... the early PS3s had this, but Sony had to pull backwards compatibility early on to get the price down.  Whenever this is brought up to PS3 die-hards, they will jump through incredible flaming hoops to explain why this feature isn't important.

I'm sure others could list more, but this gives you a general idea why you will continue to hear arguments such as "the 360 can't do graphics like the PS3" as long as the PS3 is on the market.  Considering how often some of PS3 die-hards post, I have to wonder how they even have time to admire those amazing PS3 graphics...

@ crumas2 - shouldn't you go and post all the above non-graphical stuff in one (or all preferably) of the 1 000 000 general Xbox360 vs PS3 (die MS, f2ck Sony) threads out there?

he girls, gfx isn't everything.
does anybody listened to the sound of the R8? wrommmm..wroommmmmm

oh..I have to by this game only hear this sound more often

wrommmm

Those threads are fanboyism, pure and simple. They believe that any game on the 360 is inferior, and multiplats breed mediocrity, despite the fact that the best games this gen are multiplat, and Forza 3 compares to the top PS3 games in terms of graphics, as does Gears 2, to a lesser extent.

The whole argument revolves around BR, and it's the same argument PC fans made when consoles started getting multiplats.

Truth is, like PC fans, they're worried about the competition, and looking for a someone to blame their lackluster or equal multiplats on. The PS3 fanboy is of the absolute belief that the PS3's graphics are vastly superior to the Xbox 360s, and the only reason that doesn't show very often, is because developers are lazy, equal minded, and don't want to make the PS3 look too good.

Ironic, because most 360 games look better than most PS3 games. Only Killzone 2 has really backed up the superior graphics argument, and that game was vastly expensive and time consuming, and no undertaking of that magnitude created on a new engine has been attempted on the 360.