personally I thought far cry was the best looking game on the 360. From what I've seen of killzone, it doesn't look like something the 360 couldn't do. Especially given that the campaign is only 10 hours. I would have thought that with the big blu ray capacity sony always croons about, they'd be able to get games out on the ps3 that actually gave you more than a short campaign and lots' of mulitplayer maps. I've always found campaign play better and more interesting than multiplayer. Yet every game on every console is shooting for that high margin revenue cow that's online play. This is why I'm itching to get a PC..........better graphics and better campaign style games. And if I really want to go online multiplayer, I don't need to pay for that. PC really is where it's at.
I agree with you on PC gaming (sad that it's not as developer-supported as consoles). Although I think a lot of people would be zzzz'd out if for example a 30-40 hour shooter came to market. Different genres have different game lengths that are appropriate to the type of play, and replay value>game length, except maybe for RPG's. Even then it could be chore to play through if the story sucked. Think of it like this: Nobody complains about movies only being 1.5-2 hours long and there are a shitload of dvd's being sold to prove it.
Bluray vs. DVD kinda reminds me of when CD's replaced cartridges. I'm playing Gears on PC and can say with 100% certainty it would've had a higher quality presentation if it were released on Bluray. Why? Because they compressed the hell out of it, and it's especially obvious in terms of sound and during several cutscenes. With Bluray you don't have to cut nearly as many corners content-wise as you do with DVD. Game length is a whole other issue that mainly depends on developer's tight deadlines these days. Rare examples capitalize on everything. MGS 4 was a great example that did. A typical first playthrough gives you about 15 hours of gameplay plus 9 hours of optional cutscenes. Most of the game, especially the cutscenes, uses uncompressed textures, as well as 7.1 uncompressed sound. If you have the theater system to play it on it'd be tough to find a crisper and more detailed looking/sounding game anywhere.
Yeah. I know. They're pulling some elitist attitude with their console. I'm like WTF? You're in third place!
Sony sucks at marketing for the most part. Take the typical console lifespan. Lets be conservative and say 5 years. A PS3 costs $400 with an 80 gig HDD and all the trimmings. An Xbox 360 cost $200, plus
-60 gig proprietary HDD: $80
-Wifi adapter: $100
-Xbox Live @ $50/yr x 5= $250
So the real cost of an Xbox 360 roughly equivalent to a PS3 is $630, for a $230 dollar difference when all is said and done. We won't count an HD disc drive since HD-DVD is irrelevant at this point, but that would be another $200.
Microsoft says it's to "give the consumer choices" but who wants a bare bones system that doesn't even have an HDD?
Microsoft marketing 1, consumer 0.
By the end of this console generation everyone should realize the PS3 was the most high quality, value-added system all along. Judging by worldwide sales most people already seem to realize this though. Maybe if Sony knew how to market it better to thickheaded consumers they wouldn't be in third place.
As far as the Wii goes, if they don't do something quick Nintendo will probably end up being the biggest letdown of the three in the eyes of gamers. So much for first place.
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
