Gamespot article comparing PS3 to 360 graphics on Multiplatform games

It sells out and restocks and re-sells out because each store only get like 3-4 units. The Wii spanked the fuck out of the PS3 and I hate the Wii. You're just living in never never land. It sounds like you're telling yourself ANYTHING you can to justify being a dumbass and spending that much on it.
 
yeah if it can hang with the 360 and only been out for a month... thats saying alot. Let the developers get use to working with the blu ray and then compare.
 
wow another typical wii fanboy post by you....i'am simply stating that I....let me say that again...what I saw is more blu-ray commericals than HD. I didn't say shit about it doing better becuase of this fact.
 
I would bet that the PS3 would sell out just as much if stores got 8-10 units on a weekly basis.

But of course, I'd tell myself anything. Shit dude, I buy Dells. God knows they all suck.
 
Yes, but the PS3 is also out a full year after the 360 and costs $200 more. A year newer technology plus $200 more cost should equal OBVIOUSLY better performance. Given that, the PS3 should easily beat the 360 in the graphics department, without even breaking a sweat, but so far, the 360 has the better graphics. The 360 was just better designed. PS3 is a design royal fuck up.

Sony fucked up with the PS3. It's going to be funny watching the $600 PS3 try to compete with a $220 core, $300 premium 360 next Spring (a $100 price drop is a sure thing in Spring 07) while the 360 games will still sport the superior graphics. And to add more insult to injury, Halo 3 drops in November.
 
saying that in a year the ps3 will have better graphics becuase of extra dev time is silly, since in a year the 360 will also have extra dev time. It's like a younger brother telling his older brother "In 2 years I'll be older than you!"

Also does nobody remember that the PS3 has been delayed by many months? The PS3 launch games were supposed to come out months ago, when the PS3 was supposed to be relased. That means months of extra dev time, and if there's been any improvement I can't tell. Maybe they didn't use it? I dunno.

Lastly, why compare launch games to launch games? If you do that you're saying that the PS3 owners buy new games, and 360 owners buy year old games. When I make a purchase decision I base it on options currently available to me, not a new option vs. a year old option.
 
My buddy traded in three xbox all over heating did they ever fix that problem? When i go to bestbuy they have fan coolers right next to the xbox boxes. Are they hinting that they overheat?
 
One more thing

To justify spending the extra $200, either the graphics will have to be noticably better than the 360, or blu-ray has to win. If neither of those are true, it's hard to justify buying a PS3. Most games are multiplatform now, so why would I spend 50% more on a machine unless it's clearly superior to the other option? If you only get it to play FF, MGS and GT you've basically spent eight or nine hundred bucks to play 3 games.
 
too bad ps3's take twice the effort to code and uses a technology better for decoding the massive bandwith of blu ray discs then actual video game usage... ps3 ftl
 
thats the way games should be compared, granted theres a year difference, but both are LAUNCH titles and each system wasnt using much of its potential for the first set of titles as we all know. when the ps2 was out, everyone was comparing halo to ps2 games that launched, but that was cause it was precious M$ and they do no wrong i guess.
 
Back
Top