This is the last post that should need to be made on this subject:
You guys are a little too political about this. Video game consoles are supposed to be a leisure relaxing experience, not something to get hot headed about. Try to remember that a gamer is a gamer, and not a "Playstation Guy" or an "Xbox Guy". If someone is close/narrow minded to think one console is better than the other and the other console is garbage, then that's their cross to bear. And quite a cross it is, indeed. For they will be the unfortunate person to not be able to enjoy games of all genres and executions.
Killzone 2 is not Halo 3, neither is the vice versa. Does that make either one a better experience than the other? No. Yet I enjoy both games fully. What Halo 3 lacks in graphical muscle, it makes up for in raw physics, action engine and multi player experience. There's never been an offline multi-player game that me and my friends have been able to play consistently for so long, as much as Halo or any rendition of it. With that being said, the single player and graphical experience of Killzone 2 puts to shame any game I've played to date on any console.
I don't hold loyalties to Microsoft or Sony. My only loyalties are to: a) What I can afford that I see value in, and b) The games I enjoy and find comfort playing.
The whole graphics argument- I hate to break it to you, but back in the day, SNES had better graphics than Genesis. Sega Saturn had better graphics than Playstation. Nintendo 64 had better graphics than either. Xbox was graphically superior than Gamecube, which in turn was graphically superior than Playstation 2.
Ironically, none of those facts contributed to the selling power of each system. What counted the most, even for the systems with the most graphic power that succeeded, was third party support. The Nintendo 64 was a monster graphically, yet it failed miserably by traditional standards and almost drove Nintendo out of the console wars and even drove Squaresoft into the arms of Sony.
And no, 360 non-exclusives aren't "ported" to PS3, neither are PS3 non-exclusives. Whoever is making that judgment has no idea what they're talking about and I don't care how much that offends them. The two systems have completely different types of programming and hardware and anyone that's programmed for even a few days knows that you can't just "port" something, unless the engines both systems use are similar enough that the code can be copied over. PC and 360 share a lot of "ports" because the Xbox 360 uses a rendition of DirectX for its graphics properties, hence why a lot of people called it a PC Gaming Console.
The reason a lot of non-exclusives look better on 360 than PS3 is quite simple: The 360 had an extra year of development ahead of the PS3 for people to get used to, and those same developers had even more years of development practice using DirectX. Those are two combined efforts which lead to the graphics on 360 being more "refined" than the PS3's.
EDIT: And while Xbox 360 does share that advantage, as a dual console owner I have to point my "fellow 360 owners" to one huge flaw the Xbox 360 has that will hold it back for its entire lifespan: It had a SKU that had no internal memory. Because of that, developers will always have to design games for the Xbox 360 that can run on only the DVD drive. These storage limitations are what cause a lot of PS3 games to load faster and run quieter as a system in comparison. Microsoft took one of its hugest advantages that it had when the first Xbox was released, and killed it by making a "budget" SKU with no hard drive. Because the PS3 has every sku with a hard drive and its fitted with a BluRay drive in every SKU, developers for Sony are free to use whatever storage manipulation techniques they can to make use of compression, single-disc formats, installation and the like.
So trust me, they really are on par with each other technically.
Lastly, play what you enjoy and stop making it a personal concern of yours to "defend" your system. You don't get paid for it, you're not Sony's or Microsoft's PR Representative and you're not going to bring anyone to the dark/light side by flaming them or making ad hominem arguments against the "monopolithic" Microsoft or the "complicated" Sony.
The only discussions of either system should be objective arguments based on the real differences between multi-platform games and not even why one system has more features than the other for a particular title.
If developers are ignorant enough to think putting exclusive downloadable content on the 360 rather than the PS3 is somehow a good decision, then that's their cross to bear. This isn't the first, and I'm sure it won't be the last time, I have to take subliminal shots against the likes of Rockstar. That developer has wedged a spike in their side and chipped their shoulder for the worst for quite some years now.
![Rich'[ard]](/forums/data/avatars/m/81/81732.jpg?1626886362){kind=avatar}
