JaggedSac said:
None of this talk matters. Games for either system will never look substantially better than another. Thats why Sony says they are not m aking another console for 10 years. Thats false! It is likely that the PS4 will be out at a reasonable time and this has been discussed before.

The technology jump of the near future will not clearly offer substantial gains in graphics. As for PCs, you need to spend mega bucks for a graphics to be good. And then they are spotty at best. Look at Crysis. You need a $3000 system to get it to not be a slideshow on the best settings. Raw power does not necessarily mean better graphics.

Look into the near future, the gtx280 has 580mm^2 and 1.3 billion transisitiors. As for mega bucks, you only need to spend $149 to get console level resolution. Lastly raw power doesn't make it look better, but it can help you greatly to achieve the art direction you want.  

It is much easier on developers to utilize a consoles hardware because they a sure of the least amount of power each system has. Not so on a pc. They have to use a lot of development time ensuring a large amount of the population can play the game. It must be compatible with a large array of hardware setups. Not so on a console. They are able to eek out every last bit of power because they know that all system have the same basic hardware. I am glad I spent my money on a 42 lcd and console than a high power pc that I will have to upgrade in a year or two to keep up.

 Console developers must spend a lot of time making sure the game runs under 256mb of memory on the PS3 and optimizing the game to run faster on the closed box. As for PC hardware, its not that hard anyway. Most computers are in spec and there are a limited number of GPU, CPU and Chipset types.

The truth of the matter is that both the PS3 and XBox360 are ensured to have incredible looking games made for them for the duration of their lives. There is no chance of either failing. The talk of which console is pointless since it is the games that matter and both platforms will have their fair share. I chose the XBox360 because I grew up on PC games and it is the natural extension of that. I am not interested in the Wii at all because the games don't suit my taste. It is not a bad system, just doesn't suit me. The future will probably be solid state hard drives, no optic drives, streaming content(games included), and some form of control.

Hehe, the retailers would have a fit about the no optical drive part! They make money off the games not the consoles. Actually as for SSD's I would predict that the Wii would get one before anyone else. It fits the design profile of the system if they can be bought cheaply enough.

Actually this is never mentioned but one of the huge advantages for consoles is consistant art direction. On PC games you have to think about what a game will look like on all the settings, but with Consoles you don't so you can get a much more cohesive development process going. This is why console games are artistically better than PC games often. It is also why Consoles last so long, it is because of art rather than technology.

GTA 4? That's the game in lower resolution on the PS3, right? It's HD on the 360, but not HD on the PS3.

CoD 4 looks very similar on both systems. I didn't notice much of a difference myself, except that they both looked like shit compared to the PC version. I don't know about Burnout, but if you look at Madden 08 it's very obvious that the 360 version looks and plays better. Same with

I'm not a dev, not for high end games anyhow, but I do understand the architecture of the Cell (I developed a pipelined processor while earning my computer science degree) and I understand game engines (developed one of those, too). You can find plenty of devs who will say, "the PS3 is more powerful" or "the 360 is more powerful." The only real area of contention is the Cell and Xenon, as its accepted (and simply a fact) that the 360 has more fill rate and they have about the same amount of memory (small advantage to the 360 here).

And Cell vs Xenon is not a simple discussion because they cannot be directly compared. The ultimate answer is that the Cell is very fast for some things, but not others, whereas the Xenon is quite fast for most things. Again, compared to modern processors they're both fairly slow, but not nearly as slow as the GPUs in each of those systems.

They're both video game toys, sure. Neither is a super powerful system -- we're already 3 years into the "Next generation" of games, and already PCs can mop the floor with either of the systems handily and they're struggling to live up to the promise of HD gaming. But, whatever, take offense that I suggested the 360 toy is about equivalent with the PS3 toy, except for some minor differences.

EPIC fail.

burnout, GTA4, COD4 to name a few.

uncharted looks better then anygame on 360 and killzone kills halo3 is graphics. GT5 KILLs forza in every way possible and has more shit in it.

and are u a dev? because real devs say all the time that the ps3 is stronger...this is a fact... i hate when people argue the facts. In fact a couple of devs said that 360 is maxed out whereas ps3 is not.

I dont feel like finding a link but i will if u want me to.. i am at work....

"Its been 18 months and the PS3 has yet to assert such technical dominance."

Game, Set, and match

I have to agree 100% on the whole previous statment.

Why dont you just marry him?

Why don't you hold the bible and I'll be a witness?