I don't know but from what i'av heard from ME2 it sounds good but Uncharted 2 Voice acting was EXCELLENT that shit was crazy.

ME2 graphics are nice and realistic but Uncharted 2 Lightings and Texture details is just crazy

It sounds like am Boasting about Uncharted 2 a lot but am not its just what i have seen. Am really hyped about ME2 and am definitely getting it, watching the first 30 minute of the game was Crazy and has high chances of becoming GOTY no doubt

The first Mass Effect (for 360 , that's the one I played) was a technical mess. Pop-in all around, tedious loading, screen-tearing, game-crashing glitches ( I ran into one that had I not saved my game in a different file I would've lost everything), and worst of all choppy framerate. I seriously question reviewers like IGN that are so ready to crucify games like the poorly port Bayonetta while they just turn their eyes away from a mess like Mass Effect and award it with a very high score. That game was just ugly while in motion and painful to play.

I'll take whatever any reviewer has to say about ME2 "technical shortcomings" with a MASSive grain of salt....

and since when are uncharted 2 and killzone 2 in competition in ME2? The first 2 are action adventure and first person shooter and the other is RPG. they re completly diffrent games. he obviously wasn't comparing ME2 with Uncharted 2, KZ2, Gears 2, MGS4 and FM3...

Mass Effect 2 OWNS 2010 !! Change Topic tittle!

THe competition logically are going to be other multiplatform titles, not other exclusives, and no where does it say PS3 titles. Not to mention IGN are part of the overall hype machine as their reviews have gone from being infortmative to now unexplained praise. Why are the graphics so good? What does it do so well? I couldn't see any field of depth effects, nor high models etc.

Oh and not to mention the review is a combined 360 & PC review. Considering the two will be different in terms of graphics (and the 360 suffered from tech issues no less) to say the graphics are that good is BS. Crysis will look better, and even Far Cry 2 probably looks far better in terms of competition. Saying it's so good but not stating the competition makes a potentially informative phrase nothing but useless.

So depth sensing on the eyetoy is the same? Wrong.

EA say it but others dont.
http://www.gamegrep.com/news/21779-xbox_360_and_ps3_not_maxed_out_so_says_criterion_games/
http://www.gamesthirst.com/2010/01/05/who-said-xbox-360-is-maxed-out-nothing-but-fallacies/
http://www.destructoid.com/forza-devs-reckon-xbox-360-is-not-maxed-out-yet-150240.phtml

EA might have maxed it out but then the old Sony fanboy addage of 'Lazy devs' come into play when other devs throwing out higher quality games are saying different;y. But you fixate on the one quote to make yourself feel better. Ignore the others

It's not a spin off but is using ideas from it. It doesn't need SPU's because it's not desginged that way. Teh cell needs them because it is designed that way. You said the 360 gpu is slightly stronger and the cpu was far weaker. Wrong and that's you marginalising anything that doesn't favour the PS3.. The 360 GPU is far stronger and not just because of the pipelines. The entire card was designed from the ground up soley for the 360 and as for pure grunt outperforms the ps3s 7600.
http://forum.pcvsconsole.com/viewthread.php?tid=19237 one example.

"By using custom designed hardware, the Xbox 360 will have a GPU with some technology that might not be available in its entirety until late 2006; that is one year after the Xbox 360 has shipped."

http://features.teamxbox.com/xbox/1145/The-Xbox-360-Dissected/p5/
So not released with "Dated tech" as you keep proclaiming.

It's good that the PS3 gpu can offset graphics to teh cell because it needs to. A bad design. Should NEED to? no This stops the cell from performing other tasks and stops games looking even more incredible.

2x doesn't mean it should be gone? it can smarted up the appearance a lot. What world are you living on that you would say 'well it's only x amount lets not bother' If you are too scared to show ingame shots from prologue yet think you can show promotional shots from gt5 and tell me to wait until its released but wont do the same for ME2 then oh dear.

Prologue has been released and if you are too scared to show shots from it or the recent demo it can be for only one reason. They don't match up to the shot you produced and you know it. I should hope the graphics have improved in 3 years. They need to to match up to the promotional shot you showed us.
Also why can't a non-eclusive have "teh best grafiks eva"? Unlikely but not impossible?

This isn't to say that the ps3 sucks or gt5 looks crap this is because you keep putting the 360 down with nonsense and posting bullshots to make ME2 look bad. Which is doesn't but you will keep saying it does.

Oh the lovely opinions.

uh.... the 360 GPU seems stronger is because of the pipelines if you pay close attention to the link you posted, the unified shader is a much more efficient design. They are actually not that far apart if you just talk about raw performance, but the more advanced pipeline design gives the 360 a higher edge in shader capabilities. The triangle part is pretty much just whore shit that doesn't matter much these days.

Well if Bioware claim they haven't reached the limit for the 360, why did they downgrade Dragon Age: Origins for it?
And if you read what Criterion actually are saying they aren't commenting on hardware but just you can keep on making games for it even if hardware limits are reached.

Plus news just in from Bungie they have maxed the 360.

Lazy devs? Don't argue what hasn't been mentioned.
The cell simply is far more powerful than the 360 CPU. There are no two ways about it, and the Cell can do more than the 360 CPU.
The PS3 doesn't have a 7600. Stop trying to argue about something you clearly know almost nothing about. The RSX engine is based on 7000 architecture but still has 32 pipelines, and the rendering abilities of the Cell allow the PS3 to churn out better graphics on exclusive titles that actually use the SPU's.
So GPU vs GPU the 360 wins, but as no benchmarking tools for the Cell exisits, that's not the graphical battle over with as the Cell can take a lot of the workload off the RSX, unlike the 360 CPU. This is how Uncharted 2, God of War etc can kick out great graphics.

A tricore processor was hardly the best out there when it was made, and 512MB ram was still very low. And no permanent HDD and still DVD's? Yeah, that's dated.

Since when were you an electronic analyst? The Cell was originally planned to do everything. So should the GPU offload to the Cell? YES otherwise you have a lot of wasted power. What other tasks should it be doing?! Uncharted 1 ran mainly on the PPE and none of the SPUs were used. A bad design? No offence but you sound like a silly kid trying to criticise a design you clearly don't understand.

"It can smarted up the appearance a lot."  I'll decipher that and presume you mean it helps. Well it does, but 2x is still hideously low has very little results to the image, while giving a performance hit. At 720p which isn't a great  resolution to begin with, you need at least 4x AA to make a difference.
I never asked for ingame ME2 shots  - I simply said the shots shown weren't great. And they aren't. There is no feild of depth effect, the AA is okay, clearly low polycount as theres a lot of bump mapping going on and so on. You are the one insisting on ingame shots for some reason. And GT prologue is over 3 years old. Really think the graphics haven't been changed since then?
Why can't a non-exclusive have the best graphics on a console? Because it has to be made for a plethora of other systems and not perfectly optimised for one. This means the console won't have 100% optimised power behind the game due to architeture.

I'm not putting the 360 down and stop protecting it like an insecure 15 year old trying to justify his choice for a present. Fact is the 360 has pro's and con's and as this moment in time it seems to be that it is weaker than the PS3. By how much you can't measure, but it's what the games at this moment are showing. Doesn't mean it won't have great games on, or better looking games in the future. And ME2 graphically looks okay, but how can you really expect a game that's recommended to be played on a 4 year old GPU to be top notch?

Thats the most interesting post in the thread.

I think this thread was made with the intention to stir up people.