Seems like in general, the 360 is a bit better for games that are available on both platforms. However, it seems like for exclusives, the PS3 is stronger. Uncharted 2, for example. One thing to note - why no mention of the zoom difference between 360 and PS3 for AA? I have honestly found Lens of Truth to be the best source I can find for these comparisons.

I agree with people who are pointing out the functionality of a PC - I don't game on mine but it is a definitely a necessity for me to have a PC. But there is a big difference between a completely competent casual use PC and a hardcore gaming rig. My PC cost me about $900 to make about 2.5 years ago, and it still has all the power I need for day to day use (internet, email, music, etc.) - but to make it run today's games on the high end of the spectrum is just not cost effective for me. In the end, it comes down to personal preferences. I have a PS3 over a 360 because I wanted Blu-Ray, and I don't game on my PC because I simply prefer consoles. Like I said before, I think they all look good enough to suit my needs.

This assertion that a high-end PC, specifically the one used for this article, is within the same price range as a PS3 or 360 is laughable. The cheapest quad core Intel cpu I can find on newegg is $185 - or more than 1/2 the price of a 360 is darn close to 1/2 the price of a PS3. The cheapest GTX 280 video card is a whopping $350. That's right - your video card alone will cost more than your 360 and likely as much as a PS3. I'm not saying the PC isn't the graphically superior platform, or that you NEED a $400 video card to get good performance. But this whole idea that these gaming rigs are not much more expensive than a console is a joke. And quite frankly, I just enjoy gaming on a console more, and in the end they all look good enough to me so I will stick to my PS3.