all this debate is making the game sound like it is no good at all when it is actually quite fun

I played the demo and I thought the visuals were pretty impressive. I would hate to look at games the way you guys do looking for even the slightest flaws, it would ruin the experience of the game.

PS3 or 360, as long as it has no game breaking flaws I'm fine with it.

Hopefully they won't gimp the PC version similar to Dead Space, I was shocked to see no AA option in Dead Space. Did the devs think PC owners are going to use software aliasing?

Sorry to come with fact, but both version runs with no-AA, so if u see less jaggies on any platform, you are biased/blind.

Fact :
http://uk.xbox360.ign.com/dor/objects/949455/mirrors-edge/images/mirrors-edge-20081030001436239.html?page=mediaFull

Mirror's Edge engine is UE3 so even if the lead platform is PS3, the engine is not...

Fiction:

The real fact is that the Xbox 360 has AA on part but not all of the screen.

I played the PS3 demo and thought it was okay.

Then again, I'd much rather see how it is on the PC instead of the consoles (mainly for using the mouse for this type of gameplay) and I highly doubt I'd be able to run it at completely smooth frame rates with max AA so I don't really care about some jaggies.

So unless jaggies and tearing is breaking or really annoying (by annoying, I mean as bad as it was in Prey), who cares?

but now i want to know why the ps3 dont have AA for its games even if the games developed on it first ??

i dont like mirrors edge

If a game runs at 30 FPS it has precisely 3.3ms to render each frame.

IIRC using MSAA takes longer on the PS3 per frame than the 360 partially due to the ED-Ram. Heres a little quote from a developer regarding the AA differences.

"It's possible GTA4 PS3 went with the blur because a blur upscale post process pass is much faster than using any form of hardware msaa on PS3. You can do an upscale in ~0.5ms, compared to potentially many milliseconds for msaa. Remember that with msaa, the more stuff you draw the more expensive it becomes. A post process upscale on the other hand is a fixed performance cost regardless of what's going on on screen. GTA4 draws far more stuff that just about any game out there, far more than your typical shooter game, so msaa on GTA4 was probably very expensive on PS3.

Also, a post process upscale will require less memory than msaa will. All games have post process passes, and the upscale step can be fit into that framework with no extra memory required. Given the scope of GTA4, it's possible that they couldn't afford the extra memory hit for any form of msaa on PS3.

Combine the two, both a performance and memory hit, and you can see why they may have chosen to not use any msaa on GTA4 PS3 and instead go with a blur filter. The reason they went with msaa on the 360 version isn't because they are all dumb PS3 programmers at Rockstar that want Sony to fail. They have some serious talent there, they contribute to many of the graphics books that we all read. Instead it's likely because there is no memory hit for using msaa on 360, and the performance hit on 360 is relatively minimal as well.

Finally, you can't compare Killzone2 to GTA4. Those games have totally different hardware demands, it's impossible to compare the two. Open world games like GTA4 are perhaps the toughest most hardware demanding style of games out there to implement."

Source: Joker - Developer on Beyond3d.