Which is a rarity, and usually they will still run much better on the 360. Fallout looks better in screenshots on the PS3, but the performance is all over the place.

hence why I said, cell, not so much, not going to change the fact that if the devs actually bother, one would have more assets than the other without having to disc swap, it's just a bottleneck waiting game that people who dev for cell has to overcome.

I do not get why people keep bringing up multiplatform games. If that is the area of concern then of course the Cell and Blu-ray was a waste of time. No multiplatform dev so far has had the balls to tell MS, we are making this game PS3 first and scaling back to you console. The PS3 always gets the shaft. I know that this is because of the sales, and it was the same way with the original Xbox vs the PS2. Last gen Xbox versions should have blown away PS2 versions, but all you got was better anitailiasing, and framerate.

Now as far as the PS3 versions being worse. That is very 2007. In the last two years, it has been to close to call. Most games look identical besides colors, with a pretty even split for games looking better on one platform over the other.

Going into the future, things should continue to get better for PS3 on this front. Sony knows that devs will not take the time to learn to program for the PS3, and they have been very generous in giving out all of there tricks. Gurillia, Naughty Dog, Insomniac, and Sony Santa Monica have all been completly open with 3rd parties. As the PS3 continues to sell, and Sony becomes profitable, they may even be able to lend dev power to certain studios to make true PS3 versions of there games. Stuff like Madden, and Call of Duty would be great with a true PS3 version that could be ported down to 360. However I don't see PS3 being fully taken advantage of until we have next gen consoles on the market, that all use HD formats for content.

RE5......

The area of concern is gaming on the PS3 as a whole, and a majority of the games released on it are multiplatform games. And even in many recent games, the PS3 version will be slightly worse than the 360 versions. DiRT 2, NFS:Shift, II-2 Sturmovik, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Assassin's Creed 2 and Modern Warfare 2 are just some of the recent games that have a slight edge on the 360.

It's not about balls to stand up to Microsoft, it's about resources, and making a great looking game requires less resources to do on the 360 than on the PS3. That's just reality.

Obviously depending on your tastes, somewhere between 75% and 95% of all games people buy for their HD console this generation will be multi-platform games. Now having the "Inferior" version of a game in itself isn't reason enough to get "angry" at Sony, but if a consumer spent more money buying the PS3, Sony lost more money on the PS3 hardware, the hardware came out a year later, and developers invested more resources to optimize the PS3 version and it still is "Inferior" to the XBox 360 version there is a serious problem.

While it is impossible to know how it would have turned out, it is entirely possible that Sony could have made different choices for the PS3 hardware which provided lower theoretical performance but higher real world performance with less effort; and was a much less expensive system to manufacture. An example of this approach was the Gamecube in the previous generation which didn't have anywhere near to the theoritical performance of the PS2 or XBox (which is why Nintendo only published real-world stats for the hardware) but its ability to sustain high levels of performance in real world applications ensured that it produced several of the best looking games of the previous generation; and the system cost consumers less to buy, and Nintendo lost (far) less money selling the hardware than their competition.

What I have never understood about the fans of the Cell processor is how they always assume that moving away from high levels of theoritical performance means that real world performance would (necessarily) suffer; when (in fact) the PS3 could (potentially) be a higher performance and less expensive system if Sony stuck with a more conventional processor.

The cell hasnt just been costly for sony it has been hell expensive for developers hence the ports from the 360. Go back to the amiga and ST days everybody knew the amiga was better butit got so many crap ports from the ST because it had a much easier processor and less costly. In the end it showed tremendously the good developers from the bad. Seems times dont change much. Blue ray really is needed for the PS3 to keep up with the 360 because the cell has made developers lazy (like the ST ports to the Amiga) and the structure of the cell makes it impossible for developers to make a game look as good as the 360 with the same size. Anyway BR will be with us for awhile but it wont be looked at in the future as a fantastic piece of technology. It is past it's date now, I have not seen anyone I know use discs now it feels very 1970's to use discs. Technology is changing so fast now compared to when DVD came out.

actually, most of the games you have mentioned pretty much look the same outside of different style of AA. woudln't exactly call them having slight edge, was more dev choice, and people forgetting to turn super white and 0-255 color range on while using HDMI cables on the PS3 lol..... geniuses.

Not really, all of those games have more frametearing on the PS3 while most of them will also drop more frames on the PS3. Not necessarily a big difference, but it gives an edge to the 360 versions no less.

screen tearing is only really a problem on shitty TVs, which does remind me, would it kill them to just have vsync on? like wtf cell is so hard to work with that you can't limit the FPS to 60 or lower, now that, is lazy.