also, i see the 360 selling more than the ps3 on the fact that halo 3 is coming out alone. Because of how many people have played halo and most people love it, they want a 360 to get halo 3. The only really good looking game that i would like to play on the ps3 is killzone dos. But then again, they said the trailer vid was actual gameplay but then one of their workers said it wasnt anywhere near that and got fired for it, so...

---

it wasn't gameplay lol all pre-rendered....on PCs lol all the 360 E3 stuff (at elast most) was realtime rendered on the actual hardware

the reason why the ps3 stuff was nearly all prerendered, is because sony hadn't decided specifically on certain things in the console, so they didn't really have any ps3s to actually render the stuff on

---

Signature removed. - Thunder

annnnnd thats y sony sux..........wen H3 and HW come out no one is ever gonna buy anything that has to do with Sony gamewise

---

360 has the best games

Really the PS3 is a very impressive piece of hardware. It's perfect for 3d rendering, or even supercomputing. It's main problem is that its designers forgot what type of processing power a video game needs. Video games require synchronization. In video games the physics and animations must match up with the AI, the  sound must match up with the action, thus these all must be in sync, because everything is being created in real time. The PS3 doesn't appear to work on the principle. 

I loved the games for my PS1 and PS2. They were awesome. Apparently this was more luck on Sony's part than anything else. I'd hate to see Sony go the way of Sega because I think increased diversity in the market adds to creativity and leads to cheaper products. They need to fail this generation as punishment. Sony's executives need to be ousted and some intelligent, honest, people in their to actually make a good product.

the 360 still does graphics better than the ps3, so clearly the PS3 isn't perfect for 3d rendering when the 360 like....100-ups it in that department

---

Signature removed. - Thunder

ninjatheory:

the 360 still does graphics better than the ps3, so clearly the PS3 isn't perfect for 3d rendering when the 360 like....100-ups it in that department

The rendering I am speaking of is the type of rendering that Pixar and other 3d companies do, not the graphics you see in games. For example, the hundreds of computers that Squaresoft(now Enix) used to render CGI movie Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within were no more powerful than the original Xbox, but no one would argue that the original Xbox could produce that level of graphical refinement in its games. That's because there is a difference between rendering in real time and normal 3d rendering (it can take from less to a second to several hours to render one refined image). When rendering an image from a 3d program it takes multiple steps, first it might shade all the given objects, then it might calculate all the photon rays from one object, then the reflections of another object, and another, it also takes into account the textures of the given 3d object, and it might have to calculate the shadows again. The physics and animations of any given scene have already been computed before hand. It might be able to do this in 1 second to several hours, depending on the complications of any given 3d scene. Games do not have the luxury of doing things stepwise like a 3d program can. Everything that is seen in a game must be rendered in real time, nearly simultaneously, which normally means that each scene is rendered in 1/30th or 1/60th of a second, something that the PS3 cannot do as well.

hm...i get waht ur saying, but is there anythingproving the ps3's pre-rendering capabilities?

---

Signature removed. - Thunder

Lol, I just realized I had confused Pre-rendering and real time rendering when I wrote that post, so I edited it out an replaced it with what I meant: real time rendering, sorry about that, but everything still applies. (I hate current 3d jargon) Anyway, the proof of it is in the computational ability of the two systems. There is a keyframed script in normal 3d rendering that allows for things to be done in a stepwise computational manner. This doesn't exist in video games, you make the script with your controller movements, so the possibilites are nearly endless of what changes you can make to the enviroment.

 If the PS3 were a perfomer it could throw twice as many baseballs per minute than the Xbox 360. That's well and good, but video games are about juggling basballs, not throwing them. The 360 can juggle more baseballs than the PS3 can.

im lsot now lol

the 360 has a better graphcis card than the ps3, because its 95%-99% efficient under normal conditions (ie. ACTUAL) while the ps33 is no more that 65% on a good day 

---

Signature removed. - Thunder

RonTom:

may i add, (yes i read it all, damn, give me an hour of my life back plz), the best thing to do is to try them out, both, with the same game, at the same time. go to a toys'r'us or something, try it, feel in analyze it, ect.

i liked 360 much more than ps3, may i quote myself

360 is superior in graphics, ergonomics, community and online service. also, cheaper

all this based on my experience on both consoles, i usually dont pay attention to numbers (except prize, of course)

The PS3 and 360 arent level on graphics, actually the PS3 has a better graphics capability than the 360 because of its 8-cores and super gpu. The difference between the 360 and PS3 is that the 360 concentrates on high res textures to coat the models, while the PS3 uses a higher poly count to make actual 3-dimensional objects rather than textures that appear 3D.

 The PS3 isnt better all around, but its a good system. The problems it really has isnt just its price, but its games. Right now, all PS3 games save for one are remakes, ports, or multiplatform. The only original game is Resistance, which was considered basic in terms of gameplay. The PS3 will catch up though, once the heavy hitters are released and the console drops in price. I honestly like the 360 better, but the PS3 isnt bad at all.
 

---

Chaos is the score upon which reality is written.

^^^as i said, the 360 has better all around graphics, but the ps3 can have more stuff going on at once.

---

UL71M4 G33K:

RonTom:

may i add, (yes i read it all, damn, give me an hour of my life back plz), the best thing to do is to try them out, both, with the same game, at the same time. go to a toys'r'us or something, try it, feel in analyze it, ect.

i liked 360 much more than ps3, may i quote myself

360 is superior in graphics, ergonomics, community and online service. also, cheaper

all this based on my experience on both consoles, i usually dont pay attention to numbers (except prize, of course)

The PS3 and 360 arent level on graphics, actually the PS3 has a better graphics capability than the 360 because of its 8-cores and super gpu. The difference between the 360 and PS3 is that the 360 concentrates on high res textures to coat the models, while the PS3 uses a higher poly count to make actual 3-dimensional objects rather than textures that appear 3D.

 The PS3 isnt better all around, but its a good system. The problems it really has isnt just its price, but its games. Right now, all PS3 games save for one are remakes, ports, or multiplatform. The only original game is Resistance, which was considered basic in terms of gameplay. The PS3 will catch up though, once the heavy hitters are released and the console drops in price. I honestly like the 360 better, but the PS3 isnt bad at all.
 

u didn't read the article, the ps3 can only use 6 of the SP cores

and the 360 has higher poly counts and mroe efficiency, compare the 360 GPU to any GPU on the market, and the 360 will win in overall ability and efficiency, iit has less brute force, but the efficiency ups that

---

Signature removed. - Thunder

Sony is really screwing European consumers right now. They're going to release a "V2" of PS3, sort of, the "upgrade" is the removal of the ps2 emotion chip that allows for backwards compatibility. So now  they can play PS1 games, but not PS2 games. The UK price for the PS3 is equivalent to $900.00. 

ninjatheory:

UL71M4 G33K:

RonTom:

may i add, (yes i read it all, damn, give me an hour of my life back plz), the best thing to do is to try them out, both, with the same game, at the same time. go to a toys'r'us or something, try it, feel in analyze it, ect.

i liked 360 much more than ps3, may i quote myself

360 is superior in graphics, ergonomics, community and online service. also, cheaper

all this based on my experience on both consoles, i usually dont pay attention to numbers (except prize, of course)

The PS3 and 360 arent level on graphics, actually the PS3 has a better graphics capability than the 360 because of its 8-cores and super gpu. The difference between the 360 and PS3 is that the 360 concentrates on high res textures to coat the models, while the PS3 uses a higher poly count to make actual 3-dimensional objects rather than textures that appear 3D.

 The PS3 isnt better all around, but its a good system. The problems it really has isnt just its price, but its games. Right now, all PS3 games save for one are remakes, ports, or multiplatform. The only original game is Resistance, which was considered basic in terms of gameplay. The PS3 will catch up though, once the heavy hitters are released and the console drops in price. I honestly like the 360 better, but the PS3 isnt bad at all.
 

u didn't read the article, the ps3 can only use 6 of the SP cores

and the 360 has higher poly counts and mroe efficiency, compare the 360 GPU to any GPU on the market, and the 360 will win in overall ability and efficiency, iit has less brute force, but the efficiency ups that

 Thats what i felt even before reading this article (now that I have). I always wondered how in gods name the PS3 would run all that power with only 256 megs of RAM. Didnt seem possible. Now I know taht 2 cores are wasted pretty much, and the 360 in fact does render better textures and poly counts. If the PS3 doesnt get a good, new game out, they may not last the next year.

---

Chaos is the score upon which reality is written.