Umm... I dont see how that can compare to Resistance graphically. I dont have a 360, or the beta... but I think resistance looks ALOT better... but hey, it's hard to compare a launch game, with a 3rd gen game. If the consoles have comparable power, the 3rd gen game should look at least 20-30% better. The models are all blocky, the maps are really low polygon, and the textures are not up to snuff.

Halo2 killed the halo gameplay for me... such a turnoff.

Halo3's only chance of me buying it was for the fun eye-candy of nearly photo-realistic cornilia, or however it is spelled. If it looks slightly better than Halo2, wich looked slighly better than Halo1... that means Halo3 looks marginaly better than Halo1. Considering the 6 year game release/age diffrence, and the fact the 360 has nearly 8x the power of the x-box... The x-box is basically a GeForce2, while the 360 is basically a 7800. Crysis will likely run on a 8800. (about 50-75% faster than a 360)

Crysis is in a leauge of it's own graphically. All modern games should attempt to look like crysis. In all honesty, if you do your research on a game, and learn how they are made. You can buy a engine like UE3 for around 1million, buy a 2 million HD texture set, and pay a good team of 50 for around 12 months. You just made a game on a 6-10million budget... That would easily rival resistance.

Graphically are not as expensive as companies make them out to be.

 Seeing those graphics, if microsoft says Halo3 cost more than 5million... I will think they are telling fibs, because that looks like a pimped out Halo2 engine, running full quality Halo2 textures. And the mappers need fired.

I'm seriously stupidifyed at how bad that looks. I saw one of the early Halo3 beta videos... I thought it was a halo2 mod.

I cant think of a excuse for a modern game to look like that, unless they are on a pinch budget. (sub 10million)

I feel halo should be on a 20+ budget, well over 20 actually. 

"To put some perspective on it from my viewpoint, the 360 has 44 games on Gamerankings that received an average score of 80% or above while the Wii has 5 games to do that. Since those games that received 80% or above have great gameplay why wouldn't it seem logical for someone to pick the 360 over the Wii if their prime motivation is gameplay?"

we have a nintendo hater in the building. sound the alarms

Hey Kwaad. Well I don't think they look that different. A little crisper, and some minor detail changes. Otherwise same game. I think Gears of War was better.

Sorry, I don't mean to insult any people, I'm not used to write in english and might take some innapropriate word. But when I say people are buying a 360 or a PS3 for graphics, I don't say all, but in general. Hey I bought a 360 for Oblivion and I think like you, I buy for the games, not for the graphics, but many people don't think like that. If you know many times I heard in my shop people saying that the next-gen are cool only because graphics. How many people are bying these platform because they are the next-gen in graphics ? I can't say a number, but I can say it's one the main reason, the gameplay is not. That why I personnally love the Wii and Nintendo, they changed the situation, they gave the priority on the gameplay. Thats why i say in GENERALY people buy Wii because it gave them different way to play game and can create some new genres and people who want High Def graphics go with the other two.

You forgot to say that the 360 has more games under the 60 % than the Wii if even if we compare the number of games of each console. And don't forget that scores are general idea of the games, not the exact image of it. you can have a 9 on gameplay and 5 on graphics for 70 % scores on the Wii for a 9 on graphics and 7 for gameplay on for 80 % on 360.

That soon? Wow. Still enough time though.