The point I was trying to make was that when you said...

"Check the motostorm review thread when I said that the Motostorm review proved that the PSM wasn't biased. I've always stuck up for OXM as well."

...it seemed that you believed that OXM wasn't biased based on the belief that the Official PlayStation Magazine wasn't biased because of its reviews when in fact PSM is NOT the Official PlayStation Magazine.  Just making sure if I understood you correctly.  But I've seen muti-platform games that are equal in quality and better on the PS3.

I believe that OXM is usually unbiased based on many reviews from them over the past months. Despite how it sounded, I was just using the Motostorm example to justify my faith in OXM. Fanboys are suckers for generalizations, and they would always generalize OXM as completely biased, unless I was able to point to a reason that was beneficial for them, in order to create a new generalization that official magazines aren't biased. In the world of fanboys, everything must be equal. No side can have an advantage, in an opinion, withou a percieved bias. Thus, I simply attempted to balance the equasion. The truth is, I don't know anything about any Playstation magazine, nor do I care for an "offroad racer" type game. It might as well be a Nascar game to me. I wouldn't play it, no matter how good it is, and since I care very little one way or another about said game, I have no problem lauding it as "under-rated" in order to further my plotting

What I do care about is myself being able to tout OXM as a relevant source, and not have the magazine generalized by every ignorant foeboy poster on this forum. So I use trickery and bribes to meet my ends. This is how it has always been.

This rabbit-hole runs deep my friend.

Actually last I recalll, I believe both OXM and PSM are published by the same company.  Interseting.

No, the PC version is clearly the version to purchase here.

Well, assuming you have a PC that can run it, don't care about the DLC or achievements, and would rather play the game on a 21 inch monitor than your HDTV, for the advantage of cleaner graphics, and some user mods available in a few weeks, then yes, you're right. For the rest of us, we'll play it on a console.

Now, don't get me wrong, I have an epic gaming PC. Squilliam basically built it for me. Just bought it, for The Witcher. However, gaming on it, compared to the consoles, is very inconvinient, and while in theory it's great, it really offers very little benefit over a console, and in some cases, it's actually worse. Plus, very few people have a setup like(as good as) mine. Not to mention that I get eyestrain. Sue me, that I prefer setting in on a couch, playing on a TV, with a controller.

Basically, what it comes down to is, that yes, PC gaming is great, however, it is certainly overhyped by PC fanboys, and it's not defaultly the best option for most people. Of course this is just my opinion. I know tons of PC fanboys that own consoles, and vice versa. Both options are good and have strengths and weaknesses.

The second thing it comes down to is that PS3 fanboys sure start to tout the PC, when anyone starts to talk about how good the 360 version is.

I was certainly wrong in using the word "clearly" as my opinion isn't generally accepted.

However, since you brought it up, one thing is clear. The PS3 version of the game is the worst version. Clearly. Now sod off.

I have a 30" monitor, and 5.1 sound. If I didn't, my Computer hooks up to my TV with a 5 dollar cable (so does your, Squall speced my PC out as well :p).

Your opinions as to what makes you like one version of a game better is your opinion. The highest quality version of the game is not opinion. It's the PC version.

Clearly. Now sod off.

Why is it that when PS3 and 360 versions are compared, and the 360 version ONLY SLIGHTLY better, PS3 fans just claim the PC version is superior?

Potentially, yes, but not everyone has top of the line PCs. An affordable PC would probably just run it at mid settings.

And the 360 is the much closer comparison for the PS3. Why bring up the PC here when you can customize it to your heart's (and wallet's) content?

The difference is only very slight! You won't notice the difference unless you play them side-by-side (which is stupid, because you'll be just nitpicking between the game versions instead of ENJOYING it).

And why bring up RROD?

It's embarrassing. I had PSOnes, a PS2 and a PSP but I was never this of a fanboy!

I bring it up because I hate these comparisons. There are people out there with only PS3's, that now might not buy this game because they think they are getting a gimped version. That's bullshit.

The delta between the PC version and the 360 version is far larger then the delta between the 360 version and the PS3. Yet, fanboys want to spread there mantra like a cancer, and don't care who it effect as far as a gaming purchase.

There are games on both consoles that actually are far less playable on one (The Orange Box for example). For those games, have these discussions. But for games like this one and Fallout 3, just let it be and enjoy the game. All versions will be equally enjoyable.

No it's not. Quite simply, it's all opinion. Don't talk to me about potential. It's absoultely the most rediculious thing I've ever heard to suggest that the mass market should simply hook their computers up to their HDTV's to play the game.

You are talking about "potential."

Well, potential is theoretical, you see? About 1 in a thousand people who play Fallout 3 will play it on PC, with a controller, hooked up to a HDTV with 5.1 sound from their couch.

What is most likely is PC owners will play Fallout 3 just like they play every other game.

If we want to talk about potential, the best console to play Fallout 3 on is the supercomputer in Langley.

Certainly, the version with the most versatility and potential is the PC version. However, the PC version is missing 2 features that are exclusive to the Xbox 360. The PC version would also cause many people to need to upgrade their consoles...or buy 5 dollar cables, or whatever.

It's just as ignorant and meaningless to talk about the best potential play experience as it is to talk about the best potential console. We're dealing with what's there, and with what's here, for people on this forum, who own a mediocre PC, a 360, and a PS3....the best option by far is the 360 version. Not the version with the most potential. The 360 version of Fallout 3 might not be the best version...but it is the best option for most people here.

What we're gaining with the PC version is user mods, and graphics.

What most people would be losing is time, money, work, DLC, and effort.

My point was, even I, who has spend nearly a thousand dollars building a badass PC capable of playing Crysis, would still have to spend more time, money, and effort to play the game like I want to. With my $249 Xbox 360, it's plug and play, already set up like I want it(with exclusive dlc). It's just not feasable, nor is it worth it for a small graphical upgrade and user-mods. Sure, the best potential version of the game is for the PC, played on the Langley supercomputer.. However, in the real world, the mass market would probably rather just have the copy of the game that runs on the Xbox 360. "Best" is an opinion and it always will be.

Now, before Shio or Nazna show up, let me say this: PC gaming is awesome, and with a willing pocketbook, it has the potential to be the only contender for "best gaming platform." However, you know what I'm talking about, so don't even start, please.

It is also my opinion that the PS3 is the worst option. Wanna comment on that one? You share that opinion, obviously, or I woulda already heard about it.

PC version of Fallout 3 is expected to be the best. I would say not much difference between PS3 and X360 console version.