When I see a 360 game that looks better than uncharted I will reserve judgment for myself.

As of now, nothing(on 360) comes close to MGS4 or KILLZONE 2.

NG2 may calculate up to twice as many pixels per second as Uncharted, but what does that matter if the game doesn't look or run as well?

I would rather have the game run at 30 fps with a solid framerate and more detail.

Ninja Gaiden II is by no means a good source for citing technical or graphical capabilites of the 360.

Framerate issues:

http://digg.com/xbox/Ninja_Gaiden_2_Frame_Rate_Issues_in_the_Final_Build

http://boards.ign.com/ninja_gaiden/b6073/164849639/p1/

It also has hefty loading times at the start of each chapter and there as also mid-level loading sequences. (In comparison to Uncharted which has virtually none at all).

Enemies also seem to have terrible AI in some sections with GT reporting them as "falling into animation loops, making them easy to kill".

Shadows are pixelated, and common effects like reflections in water are completely missing. (Again unlike Uncharted which has reflections).

Furthermore, the character models in NG2 have a very "plastic" look to them and the backround (Again according to reviewers) suffers from low level of detail in a lot of areas.

You've been bringing NG2 up a lot recently NJ5, in my opinion you would do well to choose a different game to better display the technical prowess of the 360. (Although I'm not sure what game...)

In my opinion Uncharted not only visually looks better then NG2, but overall it's a better developed game. I think the fact that Uncharted got better review scores reflects this.

X360 has also better textures in DMC4. PS3 also has some issues with aliasing.

Technically GTA IV is better on X360. Better aliasing on PS3 comes from upscale.

The main problem here isn't if ps3 games are better than 360 games. The comparisions are close enough that opinion, personal bias and subjective matter will me it seem like the 360 is better at times and the ps3 is better at times. The truth of the matter though is that sony hyped the ps3 to the point that it should be "killing" the 360, but the truth of the matter is that it isn't

The way some people talk about the ps3 you would expect that we shouldn't even need to compare in that the ps3 should look significantly better than the 360. It doesn't though, its only marginally, subjectively better at best and that can be argued.

Leo-J said : "if the CELL has nothing to improve on the PS3 then why did SONY PUT IT IN?"

This is in fact a very good question that would need its thread to be questionned. IMO, this is certainly a move from Sony to push its technology, one that they could control and earn.

The interest regarding 3D game development has yet to be proven.

Shall i repeat what MikeB always forget to mention : the power of the GPU is far more important to the way that a game will look than the CPU.

First , if the RSX was not somewhat weaker than Xenon regarding geometry, there would be no need for a help from Cell.

Second, 3D geometry calculations are (by far) not as power hungry than those on pixels and post-processing. Regarding those, Cell is a dwarf to the giants that are the GPUs.

Third, regarding game development practices for 10+ years, would you give the choice to developpers between more CPU power and more GPU power, more GPU power would be chosen at once by more than 95% of them.

Fourth, many mention algorythms that are "tailored" for the Cell (facial culling and so on). How do you explain, 3 years in the development process, that the PS3 has not produced on this subject something superior to the PC, despite the fact that the Cell has way more floating calculation power ?

We already show you how GeoW is close to MGS4, I think there is no point in keep arguing since you can understand it...

It doesnt even come close to its CGI, and I played it.

the PS3 version of DMC4 had motion blur which can not be captured properly in still screen shots, and it's that  that made the PS3 version look slightly better in motion.

Looking at the screenshots one has to wonder what 360 and Eurogamer are on about:

http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/8/8/4/7/7/720p_2.jpg.jpg

The bulk of those games look near identical. It's not like night and day like comparing Killzone 2 with Halo 3.

This thread rocks :) +7 kudo's to the creator ^^

This whole thing seems so pointless and silly. The Pro PS3 people say take a look at the exclusives, in which case the PS3 walks all over the 360 in terms of graphics, physics, draw distance, people on screen, effects, hell friggin name it. Then the 360 fans retort with "well look at the multi-plats", I mean is it just me or has it been proven that multi-plats are always technically underwhelming compared to exclusives considering you can't utilize a systems strengths?

Also in regards to multi-plats, lets not forget that the 360 had a year and change head start on development, here, lets go on a quick bus ride on our generation so far.

PS3 multi-plats worse than they're competition (potentially to blame on hardware learning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (short time later) >>>>> PS3 multi-plats damn near on par with 360's >>>>>>>>>>>> (short time later) >>>>> Heavy debate over which multi-plats look better (GTA4, DMC4, COD4, Quake Wars, GRiD, Burnout, your face, your mom's face, possibly your dog's face.) Now I have a question, where does this bus-route go from here? Anyone seeing a slight trend? Maybe? No? Well I'll tell you where it's not going, the other goddamn direction >_> In such a short time (over the course of maybe a year) PS3 ports went from god awful to "Oh shit whats better? AA or Blur Effects? I dunno they damn near look the same but the choice is yours!".

And epic LOL @ the GPU stuff. I love that so many people have established that the better GPU is now the be-all end-all of what theses consoles can produce graphically, yet the PS3 exclusives sport higher poly counts, further draw distance, more effects on screen, etc etc etc, and yes according to reviewers the "best looking console games to date". So wait, it's been out a shorter period of time? Check. Has a worse GPU? Check. Is proven to be harder to work on due to new technology? Check. Has less super mega transplant bone marrow super bus overclocked niko ram technology? Check. Aside from all the nonsense I just listed. The 360 is claiming superior graphics, yet doesn't have them. Interesting... The ps3's been fighting an uphill battle to prove it's superiority and now 360 fans are defending they're stake against it o.O? Saying it can keep up just fine O.o? Does that mean you guys already accept that the PS3 is technically superior O.O?

So today, our graphical contest comes down to two companies. In the Microsoft corner we seem to have Epic, using an engine they've been tweaking since god took the rib from Adam, on PC's (which the 360 is supposed to be similar to), on a console that's been out a year and change longer than it's competition, on the second installment of the franchise giving it time for modification and tweaks, and with a better GPU and were having them duke it out with a game from Sony's corner, which is made by Gorilla Games (which many have claimed are the suxors and making teh gaymez, which I personally find wrong but whatever x.x), on the PS3 which is known for it's un-common architecture, on the first... installment of the series on said new hardware, using an engine built from the ground up :x From almost all aspects I can think of this is pathetic.

PS3 multi-plats are already getting much MUCH better and soon the entire point of having a multi-plat (identical games on all platforms) will be fully recognized. The differences now are so negligible it's sad whereas they used to be night and day. It's the exclusives we have to keep an eye on, and in that regard the 360 seems to be fighting that up-hill battle.