Because what you say it!? They look the same, and I prefer to play it on PS3.

Yeah, I dunno.

I don't want to be confused with a fanboy, but I feel the PS3 looks better in about 90% of those pictures, it has much better lighting.

its your opinion people its your opinion .. but as you can see gamespot says the 360 version looks better in all the games except dragon age dont know why but i think because its a bad port.

The graphics are sharper in RE5, ACII, and Dragon Age. MW2 is identical except maybe differences in contrast. Batman looks just about the same, excpet the 360 version has slightly better textures (as evidenced by the guards logo on his arm).

In no way is the lighting on the 360 better in every comparison. The 360 version looks simply washed out in RE5, ACII, and Dragon Age (quite a turn of events based on past comparisons). And overall, the PS3 versions colors are WAY more vibrant. What exactly are you looking at?

Dragon age, Dirt, Batman, maybe Assassins creed (textures are worse, but everything else is better) looked better, Dragon age looked NOTICEBLY better on the Playstation 3.

There's similar enough that I don't even care. Outside of the poor ports like Bayonetta, why must people bother with these comparisons anymore?

I disagree on the CLEAR winner.

I own all 3 systems (not that the Wii counts here) and I buy all my multiplatform games on 360 only because more of my friends have the 360 (online multi).

All of these screens show us that the PS3 has more vivid colors, while the Xbox for some games sacrifices that for a slightly duller look that runs slightly better.

AC2, Batman, Dirt, they all looked a little better on PS3 IMO. Better darks and lights all around.

Regardless, it doesn't really matter, because the differences are so minuscule, Gamespot shouldn't even care to do these segments any more.

Gamespot basically blows though.

The whole light and dark thing probably has more to do with settings such as setting RGB to full on the PS3. I remember people harping on the PS3 over the years for having a washed out look when that was the reason why.

But yea, in all they're very close so I'm quite bored of seeing these comparisons.

The only thing this proves is that the PS3 is still getting rushed ports...the difference is significant enough to care anymore.

As an owner of both systems I like these comparisons. I want the superior version of the games that I choose to buy. I also want to know if there are any bugs or other issues. Personally, I buy multiplats for the 360 and exclusives for the PS3. If I can confirm that both versions are pretty close and there aren't any other factors such as multiplayer I have no problems buy the PS3 version.

Some of the older PS3 ports are definitely inferior to their 360 counterpart. The PS3 version of Area 51 is probably one of the worst ports ever. For 99% of newer multiplatform games both versions should be almost identical. But, the PS3 version will most likely have worse AA and a few more hiccups than the 360 version. But, there are a few games out there where the PS3 version is superior.

As an owner of both systems I like these comparisons. I want the superior version of the games that I choose to buy. I also want to know if there are any bugs or other issues.


Have to remember that up until recently, MS mandated consistent 720p & 2xAA for every game. Now that 360 developers are able to use some of the same tricks that Sony has been using for the PS3, I wonder if we'll see some noticeable jumps in graphics quality on the 360.