First,the MGS4 pic is from a cutsceen,not actual gameplay like Gears 2.

Second,the 360 not only has better GPU (said in the article and the entire world) but also better bandwidth. Many have said that the system`s bandwidth is holdind it back. Guess why?

Third,it is very easy to develop for,even if it borrows from the Cell technology. Good thinking,Sony,I like that every generation your console is special.

Last,I still smile when someone makes the "bluray makes the games better" argument. Bluray is so slow,that developers install gamedata on the ps3 hdd so the game loads quiker. Or they duplicate gamedata into parts of the disc so the laser doesn`t have to travel so much. Both metods use that extra space on the disc,so no...blueray was the trojan horse for winning the format war against HD-DVD.

It`s not the consumers fault that the cost of winning that war was so high that they are in the 3`rd place now and seeing the ps1 and ps2 profits evaporate.

i really don't care which one is powerful. whats more important is who likes you more.

I have a question then:
If the Xbox is easier to develop for and the PS3 is such a pain to develop for, and they are for arguments sake "equal" in terms of power, then how come a game such as killzone 2 looks better than ANY game on the Xbox? Are the developers for the 360 not as advanced as the killzone makers? THe killzone developers have stated somewhere (it`s in the forums somewhere) that it uses something like 60% of the cell power. WHy isn`t there a game that looks this good on the Xbox. BTW I am not trying to add any fuel to any fire here but it`s an interesting question.

its probably a bad screenshot, btw why did ignore uncharted?, also use view image to clearly see snake in the picture.

no

gameplay looks pretty much the same

All the people talking crap about MGS4 and Uncharted and that rubbish they state about anything being like that on 360. Well for the most part these people havent even played through Gears 2 or at best seen the opening level. Gears 2 is phenominal. For those who havent seen how the game really is, heres some vids.

SPOILERS!!!

Obviously it's shitty youtube, but you will get my point. This game is visually stunning.

Yeah, pretty much Gears 2 Graphics > MGS4 and Uncharted. MGS4 looks too plasticky and barbie like. Sort of the same with Uncharted characters. As far as realism, Gears 2 has it, but as far as beauty and color, Uncharted gets it. MGS4 just gets the most grey/green plastic award.

@Jo21: Comparing those two screenshots, the floor/wall textures look more detailed in Gears 2 than Uncharted. I haven't played either game though.

Lets see, Killzone 2 development time = how many years?  4+?  Gears 2 development time = 2 years.  If the 360 devs wanted to waste years on just one project, the 360 could easily have a game looking better than Killzone2.  Gears 2 is already only barely less than Killzone 2, and the devs of Gears say they can get even more out of the 360 for the sequel aka Gears 3.

UT 3 PS3 version

ps3 can do that too. ^

@NJ5 only that?, what about tree leaf everything is very detailed the rocks have lighting when you move the camera all of them. same for the leafs,

@nightsurge gears 2 used unreal engine 3, development time was short because of that, games using that engine can be done fairly quickly.

now if u add development time of the engine is not 2 years only.

same for metal gear solid 4 they said it took 4 years but the first 2 were testing the hardware, and the starting moving 3rd 4rd year.

also metal gear is a over 20 hours game, gears 2 its not that long.

@Jo21

Your point? Gears 2 looks better than UT3... the characters look pretty good in UT3, but look at the crappy ground textures in that second screenshot. It's clearly using the older "everything shiny" version of Unreal Engine where as Gears 2 has the more realistic version.

If you are posting UT3, again I ask, what's your point? Are you going to compare the PS3 version to the 360 version or something?