whatever... take my friend for example , he just bought it for his XBOX 360 ELITE and he also owns a PS3 (and a Wii), but guess what? after approximately one year and two months his XBOX 360 Elite throws at him SOMETHING WORSE THAN RROD. Scared now , aren't you? what's that you ask? ERROR 74, and his console procceded to fry itself like salami.

So much for a better version you can't play, and even if you're able to, not without looming despair. No thank you. Needless to say, it was the third 360 that died on my friend (the previous 2 were "Pro" versions), and he said it was the last straw. F#$%%# shitless M$ FTW.

@Magnific0,

you are not trolling my friend. You are definitly not

Now chill out and think - what is the difference and likeness between RROD and graphical comparisons!

I saw this one coming. Add no DLC to that and you'll get the full picture lol. Good thing I ceased to care about fallout. I wish they had swords instead. The whole shoot thing is played out

did anyone doubt the PC version would be best followed by the 360? I hope no one did.

Why all PS3 users just start to bash the game, only cos 360 version is a bit better?

The game is good. Just buy it and have fun.

Why should we get shortchanged on the DLC as well? Also I'd rather have a sword game. I'd have gotten it anyway if not for the DLC announcment. What if we wan't more? They obviously don't care about our business because we chose ps3s so I ceased to care about their game as well. Saves me $65 and time for other options.

First of all, no one said you cannot use Eurogamer, and no one said it wasn't a reputable source.

Second, you said...

"It also win both Bonus Rounds - The Orange Box and GTA IV."

In regards to GTA IV, IGN wrote:

"Past GTA titles have had mild-to-serious framerate issues and technical glitches, because the games were trying to do far more than the PlayStation 2 could handle. While GTA IV is pushing the PS3 and 360 to the limit, it also runs amazingly well. Sure, there are framerate hitches here and there and (particularly on 360) there is some texture pop-in, but it actually runs better than I expected. That a game with great AI, an awesome physics engine and a detailed open world runs so well and with such short load times is a technical marvel. For that, I can forgive framerate issues and some noticeable aliasing."

...and...

"For those wanting to know which version looks better, the edge goes to the PS3. The textures and framerate are comparable, but the PS3 has far less pop-in. The 360 has richer colors, but the PS3 has better anti-aliasing making it look a little cleaner. Because GTA IV can preload onto the PS3 hard drive, the in-game loads are faster. Don't worry Xbox owners, the load times are rarely more than 30 seconds and don't occur very often. The slight visual edge goes to PS3, but the 360 is no slouch. Either version will do you proud."

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/869/869541p5.html

But maybe you think IGN isn't reputable because the review does not favor your console of choice. See, that's cherry picking. Out of the whole bunch, you only pick what appeals to you because IGN gave the graphical nod to the PS3 version of GTA IV. So in your mind as long as the website/source favors the 360 version of a game over the PS3 version, it's reputable and honest as you said...

"At least PSM is being honest (9/10 for Fallout 3 PS3 version)."

Again, you CANNOT successfully refute my statment...

"But why Eurogamer or any other specific source? Take Assassin's Creed for instance. If you read a variety of reviews for both platforms, some say the PS3 version was graphically better while others said the 360 was better. The same went for GTAIV. What do you do about it? Don't make it an issue because it's not. Unless it's some covert way of bashing the competition by cherry picking what favors your console preference..."

Fanboys cherry pick to paint a false picture to hide behind. You have proven that.

Wrong again. He said...

"Last gen the PS was the dominant platform..." with "dominant platform" being the key phrase, and he also said "this is the advantage you get for having a bigger user base."

The PS2 was dominant because "of it's relatively large userbase and extensive lead" which is what I fleshed out. That's without guessing what he meant by using the his own words in context so it wasn't about graphics. NOWHERE in his paragraph did he say that. You failed again because of your biased fanboyism against the PS3 and reasoning.

Your faulty reasoning really invalidated your point that "Now guest which console is not more graphicaly powerfull then 360?" because in a previous post in this thread in regards to GTA IV, I have proven you wrong.

Maybe some gamers don't care much for a post-apocalyptic environment.

I dunno anything about it. Really, the only reason this kind of stuff is ever such a big deal, is a lot of Sony fans like to pretend that the PS3 has much better graphical potential than the 360, when that has not only yet to be proven, but even if it is, it'll be so late in the generation that it won't make a practical difference.

Potential and reality often differ. Ask my mom.