I think that's a no brainer. Additional year in development, using an improved engine that is to be used in the next installment. A flamebait comment there, expected better from you mantle ._.

Quoting IGN's other interesting "pieces" of journalism would have been a much better example, in terms of gaming sites IGN is everything I hate about gaming journalism, personally.

Couldn't some of the CPU tasks on PS3 be transferred to GPU? A lot of the tasks Cell is good at can be effectively acheived on todays GPUs (e.g. Physics)

running an emulator on a GPU wouldn't really work as GPUs are clocked much lower than CPUs the CELL is 3.2Ghz and I don't think there is any non overclocked GPU over 1Ghz and clock speed/core performance is what counts when emulating something. The general rule is for each CPU)  you need a CPU 10x more powerful (clock rate being the main factor as the emulation has on overhead and then you actually have to do the work at the same speed as the CPU you are emulating) to emulate it so unless someone comes up with a way of spliting each CPU core's work load between multiple cores in software without compleatly breaking  compatability that wouldn't work. I mean you would need a CPU with at least 8 cores at like 30Ghz to emulate the Cell or 6 cores at 30Ghz to emulate the 360

I don't see emulators of current consoles being possible for a very long time given the trend for more cores rather than higher clock rates in current proccessors, not until optical or at least graphite bassed CPUs start being made and clock rates of up to 30Ghz are possible...

sorry I geeked out for a minute there 

So you guys actually believed IGN when they said Mass effect 2 was superior on the PS3?

PS3 version is equivalent to the 360 version according to both DF and lens of truth.

It wasn't said as as a flamebait, it was written to prove that IGN has been wrong before, and it seems that IGN is wrong again.

since when was a 7 or 8 crap??? I've played DA2 (pc/steam version) for 50 hours since it has come out, and I would not give it higher than a 7.5 (if I reviewed it...) but is it worth playing? of course it is--it is a highly enjoyable game despite some minor shortcomings. 

Crysis 2 has reviewed great because it is a great game. I have friends on steam who have purchased the game and absolutely love the single player portion...stop posting elitist bullshit please. 

Its crap compared to the original.

It takes a system that is roughly 10 times stronger in both the CPU and GPU than a console to successfully emulate it. PC is about 7 times stronger currently. Hence why I specifically when into stating the CPU is the issue. The CELL has amazing abilties that truly isn't going to be easy to emulate. It will probably take two of Intel's next architecture "tock" (Rosewell) overclocked to truly manage an emulation.

Y'see I think the graphics arguments this gen find their origins in the graphics difference os the previous gen. Superior graphics on Xbox was a stick Xbox fans like to beat PS2 fans with, because it was the only weapon in their arsenal. So that made thge graphics debate this gen take on an importance that it wouldn't otherwise have if XB and PS2 were equally powered in graphics (GC graphics capability became irrelevant to this gen the moment Nintendo decided not to go HD with Wii).

So this gen (some / many / most?) PS3 fans are taking pleasure in beating Xbox 360 with the stick that XB fans used to beat PS2. So this petty vindictiveness of course magnifies the graphics differences such that one would think the differences were night and day. The irony of course is not lost on the fact that PS3 has sold the fewest units this gen. Then of course there's the rearguard defence mounted by 360 fans, who at various times have claimed that the next 360 exclusive will take the graphics crown off PS3. When those games get close, but fall short it just adds more fuel to the fire.

Hopefully in the next gen the consoles will be indistinguishable in terms of graphics output with the best each has to offer. That way it'll be all down to what art/animation style you prefer and all this debate will be done and gone.

Anyway as to the OP. It's possible that a multiplat title will be regarded as undisputed console graphics king at some point, and it appears Crysis 2 isn't quite there. But the thing is for the vast majority of this console cycle the graphically best console game at any given time has been / will be an exclusive title. The point of the article being that if you want the best looking game of the gen then you really need to make it exclusive. But apart from MGS4 the counter argument is that 3rd party developers are really up against it regardless of exclusivity and they will pretty much always fall short. First party studios eat, breath and sleep the parent company's console, so for them pushing out the best graphics on the console is much easier to achieve than a 3rd party developing an exclusive title. 3rd parties are developing for all (or most) consoles so even if they are making an exclusive title they can never commit the full resources of their business to a single console.

All this adds up to Crytek having achieved something quite outstanding with their engine right out of the gate, because from a console graphics perspective everything was going against them: they're a 3rd party; they made a multiplat game; it's their first ever console game. They really shouldn't have been able to do what they did with the consoles.

You got me thinking and I figured I'd do a comparison.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-590-review/11

PC version on 1900x1200 with:

• 4x Anti-Aliasing
• 16x Anisotropic Filtering
• All settings maxed out

Gets 224 frames per second running GTX590

PS360 versions at 1024x600 with none of those settings gets 60 fps or less.

I am aware its like comparing apples to oranges but in real world application like this, GTX590 is processing 13.8 X more pixels per second than PS360. And that is not counting the AA and AF and much better details that the PC version is pushing and fact that CPU is probably the bottleneck on the PC version at 224 FPS (SLI GTX590s run it at same fps count).

So its safe to say that the current best video cards get ~15X better performance in a real life application (not theoretical) than the 5 year old gaming consoles. And they say next console gen won't be as big of a leap in graphics as before...