Only ONE game on the PS3 supports mouse and keyboard and there is no indication any other games will carry that support. In fact it is unlikely too ever have wide spread mouse and keyboard support in games because of the whinging and whining from joypad users.

The fragfx is a pathetic solution it is the worst of both worlds and in my point of view not even worth 6 cents let alone $60 (or whatever price it is now). Now whether you feel mouse/keyboard is too easy is a matter of opinion, to me playing with the mouse/keyboard is a much more enjoyable experience and I want to keep using that control system.

I play all my games in NATIVELY rendered 1680 x 1050 later on this year I will be upgrading my monitor and looking to building a PC because I want to start playing games at 2560 x 1600. Why ? I hear you ask because games LOOK better. The best these "next gen" consoles can do is 720p (if you are lucky) upscaled to 1080p which in my view looks god awful.

I am not knocking owning a console, if you like gaming on a console then good luck to you. But the sheer arrogance of some people on this site is staggering. You may think console gaming is a fit for everyone but it isn't, just like PC gaming isn't a fit for everyone. I don't go around telling people to "buy a PC" just because they want to play Diablo 3. In fact I would happily get behind a campaign to bring Diablo 3 to consoles. I personally don't care what is exclusive to what as long as I can play it on MY preferred platform and others can play it on theirs.

Correction Charmers, the PS3 is a 1080p machine. Have they made a game to run natively at 1080p for the PS3?, no not yet, but the PS3 is capable of doing that.

I can only imagine the time and or money that you must put into upgrading your PC. The thing is that year after year the developers keep pushing the limits of the PC and in order to play the game at the best specifications, you must keep upgrading. This is another reason why PC gaming is going down hill.

All I have to say is watch what the PS3 can do over the next couple of years with games like Killzone 2 and Heavy Rain. They havn't even come close to maxing out the capabilities of the PS3. Thats what I love about consoles, they make games for the consoles, not consoles for the games.

Actually there are NATVIELY rendered 1080p games on the PS3 I believe sudoku is one of them. However you will never see a game like Killzone 2 doing 1080p natively. You just need to look at Resistance 2 I wouldn't say that looks any different to Resistance 1 and I believe it will still be rendered natively to 720p so where is the advancement then ?

As for how much I spend on my PC's. I basically do a rebuild every 4ish years (new board/processor/ram/HD/GPU) for around £500 ($1000). Then I take it as it comes, usually around year 2/3 I might need to shove a £150 graphics card in the PC to get me by till the next rebuild. The PC I am using now is 2 years old and plays everything at 1680 x 1050 and is not showing any slow down but I am getting a bit bored with it and fancy bumping up the res.

As for the games you mentioned, I am not interested in Killzone 2 a shooter without mouse and keyboard support does not appeal to me, Heavy Rain again another game that doesn't appeal to me. As for the PS3 not maxing it's capabilities erm yeah right don't believe all you read. You see that is what I don't like about consoles they hold gaming back, they force developers to compromise to get their ideas running on 2 - 3 year old technology.

Anyway we are getting dangeroulsy off topic now, I don't think either of us will agree about each others stance. I think you can agree though that you are happy with console gaming and I am happy with PC gaming. I would never say to you "buy a PC if you want to play Diablo 3, Starcraft 2, Stalker, Witcher, Crysis and Crysis Warhead".

I'll let you know if the graphics have improved in Resistance 2 after I play the beta, they do look better from what I've seen. But as far as advancement goes, I would say that 60 player games online and 8 player online campaign co-op is a vast improvement for Resistance. Lets not forget the MMOs comming to the PS3 like The Agency, DC Online Universe and M.A.G.(256 player games with having teams in squads of 8) I would hardly call that "hold gaming back".

Anyway we'll agree to disagree

Cherio

@charmers, i prefer playing games on my 50" HDTV at 1080i and lying on couch than slouching over the keyboard on my computer desk looking at 1440x900Rz on my 19" widescreen monitor. I hv played enough games on pc now its time to move to consoles where the games dont require upgrade of graphics card every couple of months. My last stupid purchase was 7950GX2 ($700) and water cooling kit to o/c my 2.4ghz E6600 to 3.4ghz. I coudn't even play COD4 of last year properly on it without notching down on graphics. Instead i played COD4 on 360 and got around 700+ achievements on it and all beautifully displayed on the 50" screen.

I now work in Asus can can get most items at half the price i'm eyeing 9800GTX which we used for demoing and revewing purposes but even it wont motivate me to go and sit on the computer to play games where i've to squint on the tiny 19" monitor.

@sak500 well I am glad for you, however some of us cannot adapt to console gaming that is my point. I have tried console gaming and I didn't like it. It could be to do with the fact I have my PC hooked up to a monitor and a TV so I can CHOOSE how I want to play the game. I even have a lil coffee table with a wireless mouse and keyboard on it so I can lounge on the sofa and play the games whilst looking at the TV.

I don't know why you couldn't run COD 4 with Max settings on those specs you listed, I certainly have had no problems running COD 4 at 1680 x 1050 which is quite amazing when you consider the console version only runs at 1024 x 600 and is upscaled to 720p/1080p.

My point is console gaming is not a "fit all" solution just like PC gaming isn't a "fit all" solution. You tried it and found you enjoyed it, I tried it and found it limiting, frustrating and in my view a backwards step from PC gaming. No one is right here and Lucasarts and this Cameron guy are way off base saying the PC cannot handle this game.

However at the end of the day it looks like Lucasarts made the right call, this is a game that would not have sold well on the PC, it is just a hack n slash game. I just wish they would come out and say "we didn't do it for the PC because it isn't their type of game" instead of all this rubbish about the PC not "running" it.

Having played the demo on the 360, the mouse really would feel better to toss objects around, aim and such. Yes this game would feel great on KB/Mouse.

As for the PCs can't handle the game? the PS3 graphic chip is a glorified GeForce 7600GT , every 300$ PC comes with at least that nowadays. the 7600gt can be found for 30$ on the net please.

I don't believe that guy either. But I am also sure he wasn't referring to the graphics, but more to how they run things in parallel. They have kind a 3 engines running together, natural motion's Euphoria, physics and what else. Guess they designed it in a way, it uses multi cores or SPUs a lot. Everything is at least dual core now, not a big problem for a PC, I'd guess. If there is any truth to what he said, then I would imagine, they have designed it to take advantage of a parallel machine a lot.