Well, the second party game developers have truly created some stunning stuff for the PS3. Nothing new, I suppose.

"If you want to keep a stable framerate with 4 people playing at the same time" - That should have no effect on the single player! Surely they would improve the single player version from the split screen version, It would just be plain lazy not to!

Disk space IS relative to hardware (A disk is tangiable and therefore hardware) and UNLESS you want to go onto multiple disks, you have to make sacrifices (On a DVD at least). Plus puting a game on two disks = extra manufactuing costs, extra shipping costs (Shipping is usually priced by the weight of the product) and leads to the consumer having to fork out that bit extra, therefore it is uncompetitive to have games on multiple disks. Not to mention that when consumers see FFXIII on one disk for PS3 and three disks for 360 (also taking into account that early reviews report better graphics on the PS3 version), which one do you think they will choose?

MS generally suck, it's no great surprise, all I have to say is Windows Vista and RRoD

I don't even care about half the features on my PS3, I was quite happy with simple online play (Which the PS2 had), Achievements and trophies just ruin games for me by popping up evey other minute!

If they were to change the split-screen from single player by cutting features it would effectively change the game and make it into a less enjoyable experience. Who the hell wants to play 4 player split screen if there are less enemies/action on screen. If you knew anything about game development you would understand that sacrificing features for split screen would be a massive turn off to the players. In fact cutting features for split screen is the lazy way to go.

Your second paragraph has pretty much no relevance to the argument. Multi-disk games don't cost more for the consumer and they have nothing to do with graphics potential. I love how you conveniently ignore my comment about crysis because it doesn't fit into your skewed perspective. Also what the hell does FF13 have anything to do with graphics, the game has already been visually surpassed by many games.

Your train of thought is generally that of a child, you see the world in black and white. Sony has made just as many if not worst mistakes than MS. Sony have had massive issues with everything from DRM to PS1 and 2 hardware failures.

 Sure RROD was a huge mistake but MS fixed it by giving me a 3 year warranty with free repairs and have upgraded their hardware to a point where it is very stable. If your PS3 craps out on the other hand your out $150 and don't tell me they don't. There is a known issue with earlier PS3's dying.

http://www.gametrailers.com/user-movie/bbc-watchdog-ps3-ylod/330593

Just because your ok with features from a decade ago doesn't mean everyone else is. Its called technology and it only goes forward not back. Whether you like it or not multiplayer and integrated online are here to stay, and for the better.

This has gone off-topic so I won't be responding to you anymore but all I can say is to stop being a fan of multi-billion dollar corporations and do some research before making statements.

Ignorance is a bliss.

"Your train of thought is generally that of a child, you see the world in black and white." Oh the irony!!

"Sure RROD was a huge mistake but MS fixed it by giving me a 3 year warranty with free repairs and have upgraded their hardware to a point where it is very stable. If your PS3 craps out on the other hand your out $150 and don't tell me they don't. There is a known issue with earlier PS3's dying." My PS3 bricked, I had a 2 year warrenty and I was outside of it, I had to pay £120 on Christmas day, I was pissed off believe me.

But most of my friends are on their second and third 360's, they don't even bother ringing MS because their phone lines suck so bad!

I'm sorry, but if you have to cut features in order to HAVE split screen, you may as well not have split screen, you tout split screen as some great advantage, but the fact of the matter is you must either sacrifice spit screen or overall quality, I for one think the overall quality of the game is much more important!

Sony have made mistakes, but in my experience they have been business mistakes rather then product mistakes, every MS product I have owned has broken save for my current windows PC. My MS mic broke, my headset, mouse, keyboard, even MSN messenger is virus ridden and screwed, I have NO faith in them anymore and no reason to change my mind.

Sony on the other hand have always provided me with quality hardware and games despite their poor marketing campaigns and slow uptake of new innovations.

I don't hate the 360, I just dont trust MS enough to buy one, there are some games I would really like (Mass Effect, Fable) , but I will just play them at a friends house if I have to.

"Just because your ok with features from a decade ago doesn't mean everyone else is. Its called technology and it only goes forward not back. Whether you like it or not multiplayer and integrated online are here to stay, and for the better."

Sorry for making my own decisions based on my own personal preference, Ill just buy what everyone else tells me to next time! It's not like I don't want these features, in fact I enjoy them, I just dont NEED them, they are like a bonus to me.

"Multi-disk games don't cost more for the consumer and they have nothing to do with graphics potential" Evidently you know nothing about shipping or business, you add an extra dick, that disk has to be manufactured, burnt, printed, it all adds up and that's why the company has to decide to either make less on each unit sold, or pass along the cost to the consumer, I assure you smaller companies will not shoulder the deficit.

"I love how you conveniently ignore my comment about crysis because it doesn't fit into your skewed perspective." Crysis fits on one disk and the graphics are great, but it is a short game, only about 13 hours, when you consider that Dark Chronicle on the PS2 was over 90 hours, it puts into perspective how much space was used on graphics and how much was used on story. It is a similar story with Gears of War, good graphics, short game.

When you look at Uncharted, you see the advantage of Blu Ray, when you dont have to worry about space, you can make a game that does not compromise on content or graphical quality.

The article writer is entitles to his opinions. Noone is wrong. It all depends on what your eyes prefer.

I dont know when the article was written, but it seems he/she hasnt played ME2.

Also it seems unusual that Crysis 2 isnt mentioned. Something that is likely both on PS3/360 to beat ANY previoues graphics from either console all in 1 foul swoop.

Also has prementioned. Every PS3 graphically good game has never had splitscreen. All the 360 graphical games have had bar 1. ME2. Whether people like it or not, making a game which has normal campaign splitscreen will always give a graphical hit. Both in level design ( drawdistances ) and texture work ( only so much can be removed for splitscreen ). You see this wont affect Splinter Cell because the main campaign ( which is only 1 player ) is not the same campaign or levels as the splitscreen campaign. There will be a noticeable graphical difference between the 2.

This is the first year we are seeing singleplayer 360 games pushing out. Alan Wake will likely take the console graphics off of ME2 ( if GOW3 or Splinter Cell hasnt already done so ). Then theres the sheer awesomeness of Reach. If it really does look like the gameplay trailer with 100+ enemies as promised, then that is a new level of OMFG. Then theres Gears 3. Epic, will want to prove a point again. ( How good could GeoW 2 looked if wasnt splitscreen? )

Already this year the 360 has surprised people. ( OMFG at ME2's end boss, you have to see it ) And AW looked alot better than hat people originally thought ( which was great back in 2006 ).

holy crap! do not wan to many pics!

but yeah, Sony has done a great job on graphical beauty.

If you make a game splitscreen aren't you halving the resolution of each render? Or at least halving the vertical/horizontal resolution? So then KZ2/UC2 wouldn't take the massive hit you guys are on about. Also I don't care for splitscreen when playing a FPS. It just seems kind of boring to stay at home and play PS3 when I could be outside with my friends.

EDIT: what's the next game to take the graphics king from KZ2. First it was F3, followed by U2, then MW2?, now ME2(Personally I don't think any of them beat it). The only games that haven't come out in the last month that I still see mentioned with KZ2 is UC2. Although I don't get why anyone would ever compare Forza to a FPS.

on consoles yeah, not on PCs. PC has had the graphical advantage since 2007, actually 360 had the advantage over PS3 til 2007 as well. The advantage of PS3 over 360 isn't really that huge anyways, and is only present in a handful of games.

I think it's hilarious that ppl are trying to use split screen as a legitimate argument.

And Johnsobas, PC has had the advantage FOREVER, not just since 2007.