thanks snyper that had already been established... lol I guess we have already moved from that original question....

LOL I have never started a thread that has gone "fire ball".... I'm so HAPPY I could cry!!!! LOL!!

judging by fallout 3...the PS3 is holding teh 360 back.stiltzsy

That just does not make sense.... In any case the PS3 was held back because of the game being developed on the 360 and then "ported" to the PS3 and not being translated well... If the 360 has the better looking version how is it being held back....

Like I said at the beguiling of this post I have both systems and I and not a fan boy of either system... I actually play more games on the 360 that on the PS3... (for the record)

First of don't flame me I was just asking some questions.

I do understand that AI in a sense does not need more storage.... but there is a code and the code will be longer if it's more complex and therefore more storage would be needed (this is what I'm basing my assumption on) .... Thanks for the correction!!

Also if a game like far cry looks good on single player then why is the multiplayer slightly downgraded? I thought it was an issue of storage because I assume that they (single vs. multi) share some of the data stored on the disk but some is different(thus more storage), yet I understand now it's an issue of processing.

Now for the mention of GPUs'.... I thought (from things I read before the consoles came out) that the PS3 GPU was slightly weaker yet it had more memory so it was kind of evened out. As far as 360's games being better looking than PS3's i think it was established that it was a matter of developers "developing" initially for 360 and then porting to PS3 sort of speak.... Also from what I have read some companies have decided to create for the PS3 and then port to the 360 resulting in more even match games, some people have said, for example, that Dead Space was slightly better looking on the PS3 (so slight only a trained eye could tell the difference).

ok, stiltzsy and vacacagona(lol) I got the message.... and It is of course very reasonable that the PS3 needs to flex some muscles to see if they boost their sales.... I guess only time will tell which machine is more time prof.... the PS2 has proven that sony is comited to this and I have to say I am sometimes suprised about what the PS2 cand still produce.... maybe once developers get more acquainted with the PS3 devkits and the PS3 sofware maybe we can see better first party titles from sony...

Im not saying that Blue ray means better graphics but I do asume that better graphics require more data and thus more storage space. Also when I said MP I meant multiplayer.... and since we are comparing we are obiously talking about multiplatform games....

Also, does the PS3 come closer to a PC when it comes to some game features(like being able to have dedicated servers)? Why can't console games have dedicated servers (asuming that is the sole reason console games have less players on MP games) if they can, why don't they? I don't understand how if the 360 is the only system in wich you have to pay to play they don't have large dedicated servers...

I never owned the original XBOX but since it came at a later date and it was more powerfull because of this than the PS2 I would say it is probably right that the XBOX sufered from the PS2 being the "lowest comon denominator" yet it was very resonable with the many consoles the PS2 sold...