Are you serious? Halo Reach? Don't get me wrong, it has good graphics. But seriously? Sure your Master Chiefs are detailed as can be, but... You haven't played Uncharted 2 have you? Your name says it all.

You actually made me laugh GreenRingOfLife

Well, at least they realise about that, you know it can be even worse lol

Sony setting the 'graphics bar' this generation... Yeah! since the launch of heavenly Sword a Game Released like +3 years ago

Gamers FTW!!!

A lot of people think I'm trolling. I assume that my one-liner sounded incredibly sarcastic like Bungie's does. Don't worry about it though: people can spam it all they want, until they actually have the ability to formulate a response the disagrees are just a tool for people to hide behind.

@Eamon below

I haven't seen too much of Halo Reach, but I assume that if Halo beats UC2 in graphics its going to be in terms of an artistic design which is subjective in and out of itself.

@lightsaber

True, PS fans never cared about graphics until the PS3. But that comes with the territory of defending a console. They also loved bragging about sales but now it doesn't matter (and it really doesn't unless you are talking profits and not games).

I find it funny that ps fanboys are suddenly graphics whores. When the ps1 and ps 2 had the weakest graphics of their gen. As the system with the weakest graphics the ps1 and 2 was leading in sales. The ps3 (supposely the best graphics) is now in dead last in sales.

At this point if anything 'dethrones' UC2 or KZ2 visually on 360, I will be shocked. Nothing against 360, but it hasn't competed graphically with PS3 for a while now on a best vs best comparison.

Is it finally ok to say that without being lambasted as a fanboy?

Edit- Guess not. But I'm sticking with it until a 360 game can prove the point wrong.

Nice fanboy blog.

I doubt Halo Reach will "dethrone" Uncharted 2 in terms of graphics. Gameplay is another story though.

But yeah, Sony really is setting the graphics bar. Looks like finally developers are getting the hands with PS3 tech that was before claimed to be very difficult to play around with.

The Last Guardian may beat Uncharted 2 in the graphics scene.

Sony made the platform but it is the real talent of the programmers to make that platform come alive and keep reinventing itself over time.

The bar will always be moved so long as there is a passion to do what someone else has not thought of. Lazy devs let the hardware do all the work. Smart devs MAKE the hardware do things never before seen.

I think this generation more than ever, the whole graphics vs graphics of specific consoles is really being brought to the forefront, and this may not necessarily be a good thing. Though great graphics are more and more a prerequisite for a blockbuster game, I don't think we should substitute them for gameplay (thankfully this hasn't been the case with most games). As an example a had a PS2, Gamecube and Xbox. Some of the most amazing gaming experiences for me came from the PS2, when there were clearly 'better' looking games on the Xbox and GC... I think the younger gamer especially has a hard to realising that great graphics don't always equal a great game. Anyway they are my thoughts, anyone else want to contribute to a healthy discussion?

Fanboys need not reply :)

The 360 and the PS3 have taken turns raising the graphical bar. First it was Gears of War then it was Uncharted 1. After that came Gears of War 2, then Killzone 2 surpassed that and later that year Uncharted 2 surpassed both of them. Mass Effect 2 was just released and it looks absolutely stunning and is right up there with Uncharted 2. Several games this year look like they will also surpass those previous games.

Microsoft set the graphics bar last gen, Sony's doing it this gen. Really seems like the companies have switched ideologies...

No doubt about it. Without Sony we'd still be stuck back in 2007 level graphics.

Gears - Unreal Engine.
Gears2 - Unreal engine.
Mass Effect 1 & 2 - Unreal Engine

The 360 has yet to topple Uncharted1 or even Ratchet & Clank with any title / engine. And it sure isn't one that also runs on the PS3. Its like the same horse is bet every race. The unreal engine on consoles doesn't even sport object blur for the love of jeebus. Not to take anything from the Unreal Engine, but Uncharted1/Killzone2/MGS4/Heav y Rain/God Of War are all made specifically for the PS3, which is why they out perform the Unreal engine in every single aspect. I mean, have you seen the combination of Animation like Uncharted + lighting/fx? Same as Killzone2? Gears2 has great character models, and stuff happening far away. But come on, its like people haven't played Killzone2 if they pretend Gears 2 is "close".

I'd love to know what Bar Gears raised over Uncharted1. And even better, the bar raised over Killzone2!

Its a joke, its like Sony devs do all this work, when they should just use the Unreal engine? Really now? Last Guardian -- PFFTTTT.. just power up the Unreal Engine.

Sony owns. End of statement.

"But they need to watch out because Halo reach is coming and it will dethrone it"
Keep being in ignorant bliss with Bungie's pre-rendered pictures and cutscene. You'll be disappointed when the actual game releases and the gameplay isn't pre-rendered like Bungies "Screenshots", but you'll probably still troll around about it anyway.

"I find it funny that ps fanboys are suddenly graphics whores"
PS3 gamers are happy to have them. Why, would you reject them if they were that good on the 360? Ps3-less guys are always going on and on about PS3 gamers "Bragging" about having blu-ray, graphics, etc because "Bu bu bu they aren't used ALL the time"
There's no reason not to have lots of great features whether or not they're used ALL the time.

PS3 is "dead" last place? it's still behind in term of sales but "dead last"? what are u smoking there? you conveniently just forgot that 360 was released a year to a year and a half earlier didn't you? I guess if you wanna counter that with "Wii also released a year late" argument, that will make the 360 looks worst! a year head start and then doubled in 2 years!

its not like all fanboys agree on the same stuff

this gen has seen a massive graphics bump so what are fanboys gonna care about? sales? maybe if thats all you've got, everyone else wants gameplay and graphics which is where sony has raised the bar

Which is why there hasn't been a single graphically impressive 360 game in years.

In contrast, thanks to the Cell and the hybrid processing architecture, the PS3 puts out better looking games every year.

@ greywulf

In what world did Gears of War 2 not surpass Uncharted 1? There were a lot of people that didn't even think Uncharted 1 surpassed Gears of War 1. It was always debated.

And Ratchet and Clank? Give me a break. That game has average graphics. Even Banjo-Kazooie Nuts & Bolts looked better than the Ratchet games.

I have both Killzone 2 and Gears of War 2 and I can easily prove it to you. And despite what you say, yes, they are close. Gears 2 has better textures and Killzone 2 has better lighting. It's people like you that make me wonder if you have ever really played through Gears of War 2 and not just looked at screenshots or video on the internet.

All of your talking down of the Unreal 3 Engine doesn't change the fact that it is one of the most powerful engines on current gen systems. It isn't always used to the greatest effect, but that isn't the engines fault. Unreal 3 Engine has also powered some of the best looking games this generation.

"Ratchet and Clank? Give me a break. That game has average graphics. Even Banjo-Kazooie Nuts & Bolts looked better than the Ratchet games"

Get your eyes examined or stop pretending to have a PS3/HDTV.

Gears of War, was surpassed by
Uncharted, which was surpassed by
MGS4, which was surpassed by
Killzone 2, which was surpassed by
Uncharted 2, which might be surpassed by
Heavy Rain, which might be surpassed by
GoW3.

But if you have an expensive computer, Crysis looks really awesome.

"Without Sony we'd still be stuck back in 2007 level graphics. "

Without PC you'd be stuck in the dark ages. PC has set the graphics bar for this and every generation. You people need to realise that there is life after 720p.

That also goes for the peripherals and features.

3D gaming with over 500 games supported? check.
Motion control? Check.

Console's do well with hand-me-down tech though, just look at the Wii, it's drowning in it's own mediocrity hardware-wise.

-There are only two games on the ps3 that you could even argue looking better than the better looking 360 games--Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2--and those games both came out fairly recently, so it is a moot point. Personally, what I have seen of Alan Wake looks better than any other game out on consoles.-

I agree with CWMR.

From what I have seen from Heavy Rain and Alan Wake, I think Alan Wake looks much better graphic and gameplay wise, and it's not a QTE game like Heavy Rain.

Sony made a really good decision investing in all those first party studios. They went quite far pushing graphics on consoles. Uncharted 2 holy f*ck.

I just wish their profits were higher. If you think about it, the xbox 360 had a pretty great year (profit-wise) with only 1-2 great games and no significant hardware overhaul, as opposed to Sony's equally great year with a major hardware redesign and how many exclusive AAA games?

If Sony's games sold Halo numbers, Microsoft would probably be temped to form more FP studios. I want more games on my Xbox dammit!

@Lightsaber

I find it funny that Sony Haters are suddenly graphics whores, When THEY TALK ABOUT MULTIPLAT GAMES

[You see What I Did There]

lol

PAL, GROW UP, nobody is Attacking Your Console of Choice Here, so I don't need you to start a War against MY CONSOLE OF CHOICE, move on and FOCUS on Your Console and Your Games

@dchalfont

This is a Console Debate, nobody is Attacking the PC, we all know how Amazing the PC is and How comparing it to Consoles is just Stupid for obvious reasons

@silvacrest

You're SO Right, I Prefer to talk about Graphics and Gameplay rather to talk about what's the Economic Situation of a Company in which I'm not a Shareholder

Peace Out

Gamers FTW!!!

It's funny how nearly every Unreal Engine made game looks about the same. And the best looking game on the 360 is Gears 2. Or so people say.

Well I do want to say that Arkham Asylum is the best looking Unreal Game I have seen. Far better than Gears IMO.

No way! Batman AA is a nice looking game, but Gears 2 is substantially better looking. It's no surprise though, when you consider that Epic are the ones that created the engine.

Who cares any way? All of this is so subjective. Nobody will ever agree on what games look the best.

On both consoles and PC the PS3 owns in the graphics department. Wow... PC has one game... Crysis. Where as no other PC game looks better than Killzone 2, Uncharted 2, God of War 3, Gran Turismo 5, Last Guardian, and Heavy Rain. I will take my 6 games over one "better looking" game that I will get bored of faster than I would with those 6 games.

By the end of this generation you will see a game on PS3 that is just as good as Crysis if not better, so mark my words. And the 360 is still stuck with Gears of War 2 as their benchmark in 2008.

More like 63 disagrees.

You lost it when you put Halo Reach on your statement.

rofl.

"In what world did Gears of War 2 not surpass Uncharted 1?"

In the real world. Here's the proof: http://kineticninja.blogspo...

"There were a lot of people that didn't even think Uncharted 1 surpassed Gears of War 1."

They are clearly in denial, as proven by the true facts of this world.

"It was always debated."

Then this below comes along and they stopped debating.
http://kineticninja.blogspo...

"And Ratchet and Clank? Give me a break. That game has average graphics. Even Banjo-Kazooie Nuts & Bolts looked better than the Ratchet games."

Yeah right. That's an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof. Unfortunately, after all the evidence peoples have gather, the conclusion is that Ratchet looks better.

"I have both Killzone 2 and Gears of War 2 and I can easily prove it to you. And despite what you say, yes, they are close. Gears 2 has better textures and Killzone 2 has better lighting. It's people like you that make me wonder if you have ever really played through Gears of War 2 and not just looked at screenshots or video on the internet."

I have played both. And Killzone 2 looks better. Gears is full of low res textures and fake static lighting. Killzone has better textures, a hugh arrays of real time dynamic lighting, and better animations.

"All of your talking down of the Unreal 3 Engine doesn't change the fact that it is one of the most powerful engines on current gen systems. It isn't always used to the greatest effect, but that isn't the engines fault. Unreal 3 Engine has also powered some of the best looking games this generation."

The most powerful engine this generation is Naughty Dog's Engine. Unreal Engine is one of the weakest engine this generation because it is very limited in what it can do.

Oops, bringing out the old kineticninja blog. That thing has been dismantled and shown to be false long ago.

Moving on...

"Which is why there hasn't been a single graphically impressive 360 game in years."

Umm, I played a really graphically impressive game a little over a year ago called Gears of War 2 and another super impressive game a few days ago called Mass Effect 2, so I can't say I agree.

"Oops, bringing out the old kineticninja blog. That thing has been dismantled and shown to be false long ago."

No. Not really.

I would like to see that refuted. How about posting a link.

I don't know why people are expecting anything from Halo: Reach. The real game people should use to back up the 360's power is Mass Effect 2. The character models in that game are fantastic and easily tops any 360 game out now.

I nominate this as the "Most delusional quote of the year". Can I get a raise of hands who agree?

PS1:
Final Fantasy 7, 8, 9
Metal Gear Solid
Gran Turismo 1, 2
Vagrant Story
Legend of Dragoon
etc

PS2:
Gran Turismo 4
Final Fantasy 12
Metal Gear Solid 2, 3
Shadow of the Colossus
God of War 1, 2
Tekken 5
etc

Anyone who thinks Halo Reach will dethrone Uncharted 2 (graphics OR gameplay) is an idiot. Period. And you don't have to be a Sony fan to know that. If you're a fan of games, then you know that Uncharted 2 is simply the best gameplay we've seen since the release of Super Mario Bros. 3 (which most of you Halo fans probably can't remember because you weren't born yet). I bought SMB3 day one, and I did the same with U2. I wasn't disappointed with either. What other game this gen can you really say that about?

None. The answer is "None".

PC has, and by the looks of things, always will be setting the top bar for graphics. UC2 is good, but many PC exclusives and multiplats have beaten it.

All I seen is Crysis. No other PC exclusive beats the top PS3 exclusives. THe multiplatform games are only marginally better than the 360/PS3 version, so those are still a step below the PS3 exclusives.

Maybe he needs glasses or a HD TV, if his mum lets him or saves up for them both.

Although, with Alan Wake, the torch elemnt is actually applied smartly. Instead on making the 360 explode with all the info, only a small part of the environment is displayed IN DETAIL at a time, where the torch light is, of course there is sillouhettes all around, but they are not detailed until the torch light is shined on it.

A smart developer technique, but unfortunately even with it, Alan Wake pales in comparison to Uncharted 2 and Heavy Rain.

MS and Sony indeed switched places
but only on terms of gpx,
the XBOX had better gpx than the PS2 but, the PS2 had better games than XBOX
now the PS3 has better gpx AND games than the XBOX 360
this gen i have seen a lot of games (multiplats and exclusives) from XBOX 360 getting a lot of HYPE just because XBOX dont have a lot of of quality new IPs
dont get me wrong i love a lot of games on the Xbox (well i mostly play them on PC)

i read a lot of comments in the past saying Splinter Cell will be better than Metal Gear
or, Prototype will be better than Infamous

i never saw a lot of Hype for a SC game (Conviction) as ive seen for other SC titles, is this because it turned out to be exclusive?,
Ms should do more new IPs instead of be doing this.

the graphics would be at least TWICE that of the nearest competitor ... but alas .... no ... it isn't so .... all that RAW power equates to nothing more than fanboys having to analyse games pixel by pixel to notice any difference ....

poor droids .... their only does everything PS3... only does everything badly

The Xbox was basically the PS3 of last gen. Most features included standard instead of having to buy a bunch of accessories and a great library of exclusive games that took advantage of the hardware. And unfortunately the lukewarm profit too.

What a role reversal.

Now it's Xbox with the accessories galore only worse since we all know MS love to charge you for nearly everything they can. But I would not have minded that terribly if they had at least kept the first-party around instead of trying to be "different" from the model that made Sony, Nintendo, and at at one time Sega the kings of the industry. Nintendo may have gone fairly casual for my tastes, but they still pump out a variety of great 1st-party titles regularly.

With MS it's all about getting cash from Live instead of the games. Which confuses me because the two aren't mutually exclusive. If this is what I have to look forward to with the next box, I'll be one of those "I'll play it on PC" guys next gen.

"But yeah, if Sony had launched day and date with the 360 it would be a totally different landscape this gen."

I disagree. Assuming you are implying that Sony would be in a better position if they had launched a year early. I think that if Sony had come out when the 360 did they would have been worse off. This is just off the top of my head but...hear me out. The first generation PS3 titles were not special. (An argument may be made that the 360 had the same problem fine.) However at $600, for less than stellar games (that would have been even worse without the extra year dev. time) And you would have had even the most die-hard Sony loyalists switching sides. No...Sony did what they needed to in order to stay alive and released as soon as they could. I like the PS3. I wish they had done several things differently but overall it is a competent system with higher overall quality than the 360. But you are fools if you think the 360 is dead.

yeah, likely something to do with the blu ray.

As for Sony launching head to head with the 360:

I think it would have made the PS3 look weaker. Their launch lineup was poor compared to the PS2's and 360s.

However, as for if it would have changed anything, I definitely think so.

I feel that people rushed to the 360 because it was the "new console" and it was next gen. People buy consoles on impulse and if it were a head to head competition I think some Xbox buyers would have went with PS3.

HOWEVER, considering that the PS3 was much more expensive it may cancel out the above speculation.

Regardless, what happened happened and in all honesty both consoles haven't been on the smoothest roller coaster.

Rushing the 360 cost MS dearly in terms of having to extend warranties and fix hardware issues and Sony was (and I think still is) losing money from selling their consoles.

Two things on your list make the most sense. No std hdd and the use of DVD. Other than those two things, ps3 and 360 are pretty evenly matched.

alpha male, how can having resistance, motorstorm, heavenly sword & uncharted be a poor line up? uncharted wasnt at launch but it was available during its first year ? What did 360 had on its launch & first year ?

The PS3 will continue to set the bar in the graphics department with games like:

Gran Turismo 5 "Best looking Racing Simulator"
God Of War 3 "Best looking Action Adventure Game"
Heavy Rain "Most Realistic Game Ever Made"
Final Fantasy Versus XIII "Only Possible On PS3"
The Last Guardian "Most Innovative Game Play"

"Look at the PS2. It reached it's max a long time before games stopped producing."

I owned a PS3 before PS2 reached its max. GOW2 looked like a next gen game and it only played on my PS3!

Edit: Just reread that and realized that there have been 3 yrs since GOW2 and
PS2 is still producing games. My bad!

i think you guys are failing to realize that the xbox 360 launched at 500 dollars.. thats not too much less than 600.

-No, it launched at $400. I know because I bought a Pro model at launch and that is how much it cost.

@DaTruth

You are the funniest guy around. You think GoW2 looks like a next gen game, but it isn't even close. It looks like a good last gen game, because that is exactly what it is: a last gen game that was one of the better looking games at the time but in technical terms is nowhere close to even the average games of today (except Wii games).-

my bad it was the elite that launched @ 479. still not quite 500 though.

the best looking game that i can remember last gen was Resident Evil 4 for the gamecube...The xbox was more powerful but it did give an effort to show it...instead it died before the ps2 which was less powerful

Last generation there was a huge gap in the performance capabilities of each console.
The PS2 had half as much RAM as the Xbox (32MB vs 64MB).
The PS2's CPU was way slower than the Xbox's (295MHz vs 733MHz)
The PS2's memory bus bandwidth was way slower.
The Xbox had a built-in hard drive.
The Xbox was superior in most other technical areas.

This generation the 360 and PS3 are fairly evenly matched.
The 360 and the PS3 both have 512MB of RAM.
The 360 has an extra 10MB of EDRAM.
The PS3 has a faster CPU for certain types of work.
The 360 CPU has greater general purpose performance.
The 360 has a somewhat more advanced GPU than the PS3 does.
The PS3 has Blu-ray which can give benefits to FMV and sound (not graphics).
The 360's operating system has a smaller memory footprint, thus giving the 360 more usable memory to work with.
The 360 has a more efficient unified memory architecture.
The PS3 has fast XDR system memory, but the overall memory is split.
The 360's DVD drive reads data off the disk faster than the Blu-ray drive in the PS3.

So, as we can see, the original Xbox had on average twice the performance capabilities of the PS2, while this generation the Xbox 360 and PS3 each have some pluses and minuses with it all equaling out to two similarly powerful machines. In the minds of many developers the Xbox 360 actually has the edge because it is more efficient and easier to get the desired results on. Nevertheless, with the right approach and enough effort both machines can produce similar results.

Nice round up ... bubbles to you

It's true they are very similar ... on paper though the PS3 is almost twice as powerfull ... but it's the Dev's that struggle to lift the performance of games to any level higher than what xbox dev's can do in less time and hence less money.

Given a higher budget and a longer dev time all games on PS3 "should" look much better than their xbox counterparts ... and I mean MUCH better than having to analye them pixel by pixel and line by line ...

The xbox is holding it's own this gen ... it's a great gaming platform and who would have though this far into this gen we'd even be talking about it having comparible graphics to the PS3?