Lets be honest if I was wrong you would have posted screen pics. Sorry but the 360 and PS3 getting a lot of crossover games isn't going to change in a year or two. Look at the profits that multiplatform developers are making on consoles, do you really think they're going to walk away from all that?

I guess you just haven't faced reality about where PC/PS3/360 games are heading yet but no worries, in a year or two if we're both still around here you can feel free to tell me how I got it right.

To suggest in 2 years consoles will be outdated is ridiculous. The PS2 has been going for 7 years, and look at the graphics it pumps out in the later games such as FF12. The increase in graphics from the beginning of the PS2 to now is amazing considering what developers were working with in terms of hardware.

Graphics will continue to improve solidly, as they always have done for consoles, throughout this current gen life. PC will always be ahead, but I'd rather stick with paying £400 now and having that investment than paying £500 every 6-12 months because I have to upgrade another piece of my PC for it to run a game.

 Compare Ratchet and Clank to Super Mario Galaxy graphics.  It made me wonder what Galaxy would be like with PS3 graphics.  I played both on a SDTV, too.  It's hard to go from 1 to the other without noticing.  If you think a wall was hit, you are sadly mistaken.

Doesn't matter, the PC constantly shows what can be done with increases in technology.  This is the most ridiculous thread topic.  There is no wall. 

 Exactly.

I sat there for a second boggling at how you can watch that video, listen to people talk about the PC version of Gears blows the 360 version away (they don't even beat around the bush about it) AND see the DX10 effects in Bioshock and still be in doubt.

Then it occured to me that you're the same guy that said SMG was 7 hours long and that SMG review that essentially at R&C commercial was legit.

Gimmick poster confirmed, I'm done wasting time with you.

And yes, the PS3 and 360 are getting embarrassed this generation by the Wii. Enjoy your gimped version of Alan Wake, Gears, COD4, Mass Effect, Rage, etc etc etc.

@Bladeneo:

You can build a screaming system now, everything included, for something in the neighborhood of $800. Upgrading every 6-12 months is a common misconception--you build a system that is easily upgradable in tiny chunks.

To give you an idea, I typically build a system once every 4 years, and I upgrade a graphics card once again for about $200 usually once in that time span. The trick is knowing when the tech jumps are. Like people who bought AGP boards weeks before PCI came out, they got screwed because they weren't paying attention to technology. Most recently this is multi core processors and DX10 capability.

Those jumps aren't viable until the price goes down. The mid range system is now DX10 optimized, so the price and technology are in the right place. Consoles generally stay in their own sphere, same with PCs. The only time you see crossover like this is near the beginning of the generation (like now). Games like Crysis and Starcraft 2 won't be possible on consoles, and PC gamers aren't going to play old tech games. We're the WORST of the worst of the graphics mongering tech whores

The price you save in games more than makes up for that one card upgrade. Consoles are paying roughly $60 while PC games are $50 each. So if you buy 1 game a month, after 2 years that new card upgrade in the middle has already paid for itself.

A good rule of thumb is avoid the people that put them together and instead build one yourself, you save a mountain of cash and can retain that flexibility for upgrades if the desire arises. When all is said and done I generally spend about $900-$1200 (the bulk being up front new system cost) in a 4 year span, which isn't all that much when you consider that it's spread out enough to be easily managable financially.

STILL no pics?  'nuff said.

Legend11 - 1     cAPSLOCK - 0

I'm not even part of this argument and legend drives me nuts.

At this point I can't tell if you're being serious or just trying to be funny by pretending to miss the point.

"Doesn't matter, the PC constantly shows what can be done with increases in technology. This is the most ridiculous thread topic. There is no wall. "

That was my point there is no wall for the technology but there is limit to what a human can do.

I think we are hitting a cross over point, in the past games where limited to what the hardware could do. but now we are reaching a point where we are not so much limited by hardware but how much code people can write to use the new tech.

Sure we can have hardware in the future that can make games look as good as "real life" but if takes 1000 programmers 5 years to make the game, its not gonna happen.

People will get more skilled and efficient etc, but the problem is the tech advances 10 times faster than are human ability to get the most out of it.

With consoles its like as soon as the devs start getting the best out of them, the next gen comes along and we back at the start.