Final Fanatsy 13 is on 360 too, you know :/ Why is everyone ignoring that?

What the hell is "Soooo much better"? You can't be taken to have a serious point when you throw around subjective and frankly silly comments like that. DA was downgraded, no point in arguing it and ME2 on the 360 has technical issues according to IGN.

You were arguing a point with yourself about lazy devs. Read that? Arguing with yourself. Pointless

The Cell is more powerful, and unlike the 360 CPU, the Cell can help out with the graphics. Considering the cards were close to begin with, it may be enough to give the PS3 the leading edge and the results seem to be there (Uncharted 2). The Cell isn't taking over - you clearly don't understand the ****** process here of how it works, and are acting as if it's a short coming of the GPU. The Cell was designed to do graphics AND processing, so not to use it for graphics would be like keeping a Ferrari from going above 40mph. Therefore it IS ideal that the Cell works in conjunction with the GPU as it was designed to do so.

Tricore is dated, and was dated back then. The PowerPC cores were meant for the Cell and the Cell is far more than just a tricore processor.

The PS3 has 512mb yes, but half of it is 256mb 700Hz (same as 360 speeds) the other is 256mb at 3.2Ghz. That's higher than DDR3 RAM today by a long shot and is 450% faster than the 360 RAM in terms of speed.

No, the AA obviously helps, but not enough. Not my fault your grasp of grammar was abysmal.

Yeah 1:09 is the end of the video, so it shows nothing other than the game name and logos....Nice. And where is the feild of depth? The textures hardly look high resolution (look at the weave of her clothing) and so on. The graphics are nice, but nothing that hasn't been done a lot better before.

Well I was dubious as whether EA had maxed it out as they aren't known for exclusive titles, but now Bungie have said they have maxed out the 360, so yeah, I don't think games on the 360 will look great in comparison to PS3 games. And yeah, ME2 is low poly count, if you can't see that from the surrounding environment you are being kidded by the bump mapping.

I'm the one talking nonsense, and yet you really expect devs to tweak games for each machine? That's not cost effective. Simple, and that's why it doesn't & won't happen. Obviously an engine made specifically for the 360 will run better on it than an engine made for the PC and ported to the 360.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,703669/Mass-Effect-2-Galactic-battle-Geforce-versus-Radeon/Practice/
There we are. It runs great on the 8800GT at a higher resolution than 720p. Research could help you avoid wasting time arguing some points.

Actually you are the one who mentioned the 360's power. I've stuck behind my argument that ME2 doesn't look graphically great, and to expect a non-exclusive title to be the best looking game on a console is absurd. To be blunt, I know the PS3 is more powerful than the 360 & I really don't care because my PC is more powerful than both. You're the one arguing over facts for whatever reason.

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.

Well Mass Effect 2 playthrough is on Youtube now. Definately has soft shadows and ' depth of field '. And the review was the 360 one. As they said if you play on PC everything is a bit better everywhere. Also found a great 360 HD video.

The effects, particle, fire explosions are stunning.

Really clean video. ( You said the other I posted was crap quality. ) I think it's the best Ive seen for consoles.

Change the quality from 320p to 720p with the contoller.

 EDIT: SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just because 1 had good textures & 2 is an improvement doesn't mean 2 is instantly amazing as you have to look at the games and how the market has developed since ME1. Which is a hell of a lot.

As you clearly are not looking at what I've noticed, I have far too much spare time and so have highlighted them in the following screenshots:
http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/8544/vlcsnap2010012512h04m22.png
As you can see the textures for the enviroment are very simple and so are the shadows. On the left during the video the soft shadows are basic, which is seen on the right as there is a very clear distinction between hard & soft, not a gradual change. Hardly top notch graphics and you have to remember, this game runs great on the 8800GT, which is telling about the graphics.

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/7648/vlcsnap2010012512h05m09.png

The above link shows how the supposed amazing textures aren't there. Look at the facial hair. It's just texturing, whereas the skin is quite low res bump mapping. Though a mad amout of detail has gone into Shepard who looks ace.

So there we are - exact screenshots from the video at 720p and the game looks ace, but the graphics are hardly the best on the consoles.

Where have I argued that DA wasn't downgraded? Again you are making baseless claims without the quote to back it up.

So now it's the speed of the ram? Not what you said. Backtracking again. you're comment was

But now it's about it's speed?

In the vid I meant 0:29 but you can't see it and deliberately choose not to. You are here for no other reason to bash the 360 and build up the PS3. You have been slagging the graphics of ME2 which is going against what every reviewer and person who has tried the game is saying in the press and on the internet. For that reasion alone you have no credibility.

I'll read the last bit of your comment as I wan't a chuckle.

Expect to see you in the Sony thread saying how sony used dated tech, bluetooth, it's GPU etc.

No oh, wonder why?

Oh I'm arguing over your opinions. You want facts... use them.

Again disagree. These screenshots are video captures. Poor video captures at that. motion blur etc affecting the quality of the image on the capture. ( It is Image Shack after all ).

On the Ps3 argument you were making it's interesting to note that 5 months after KZ2 relesed the worlds most influential and greatest graphics designer gaming has ever known had this to say about making Rage. Lets not forget Rage is 60 FPS to.

"CVG details an extensive 10-page feature on id Software's Rage in the latest issue of UK games magazine Edge. The piece includes confirmation by John Carmack that the Xbox 360 version of the game will run at a brisk 60 frames per second, but that he has found PS3 to be at a disadvantage to Microsoft's console in terms of rendering power. "The PS3 lags a little bit behind in terms of getting the performance out of it," he said.

As a result, Edge reports that the game runs at "just 20-30fps" on Sony's console. Carmack places the blame on the PS3's GPU -- the RSX -- saying that, "The rasterizer is just a little bit slower -- no two ways about that...the RSX is slower than what we have in the 360." He sees both consoles as being comparable in terms of raw processing power, however. "The CPU is about the same, but the 360 makes it easier to split things off," he told the magazine. "...that's what a lot of the work has been, splitting it all into jobs on the PS3."

Now, before you go making a comment you can't take back, know that the Edge article doesn't clarify whether or not the performance of the PS3 version will be improved prior to release. It's also telling that Carmack states that the PS3 is only "a little bit slower" than 360 in his findings -- if that's the case, we can't imagine that the finished will run at fully half the speed."

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/07/30/edge-rage-running-at-60fps-on-360-just-20-to-30fps-on-ps3/

How can you disagree with screenshots?!?!?! I played them in VLC player at the same quality as the video. Talk about ignoring what is infront of your eyes. Does that skin realy look high resolution? Of the environment? And what about the clearly sh*t soft shadows which is move obvious when the video is running?!

Yes rage will run faster on 360 because I can guarentee the SPUs will be ignored. Why? Because it's cost effective not to use them and just use the one PPE. This is the case with almost all multiplatform titles and is hardly new news.

To say the CPUs are about the same is nothing shy of stupidity. The Flop fogures are there that disprove that, not to mention its a CPU that can help with graphics unlike every other CPU on the market - ask Guerilla nad Naughty Dog about using the Cell for graphics.

Frankly I'm getting sick of educating people on electronics & economics. Not using SPUs = easier, therefore, cheaper, but less performance.