It's about time someone is actually doing real research on this. People play games intentionally or not and I'm not necessarily talking about the literal sense. Eric Berne did a great deal of research on transactional analysis and compiled an excellent pop psychology book based on it called, "The games people play." If a game is defined as a series of transactions in order to gratify oneself with a payoff, then a game is defined as any action we perform for gratification. Really what this comes down to is applying what we already know about transactional behavior while observing through the video game medium. The media is not educated on the subject of video game addiction and has no right to editorialize or speculate about the inherent evil or goodness of the video medium. The media is supposed to deliver information, not speculate on the information that they provide. So hats off to Gamespot for simple delivering the information. There's much more I could say on this subject, but that would get long winded. Looking forward to part 2.

CarlosMind Posted Nov 27, 2008 9:41 pm GMT Graphics ---------------- PS3 = 5 Xbox 360 = 4 ---------------- I'm an xbox 360 owner. I accept that PS3 looks better. Xbox 360 got the best multiplayer games out there. ------------------------------------------ That's a point I will concede to....I really only care about single player though unless I am playing a fighting game in which case I just invite friends over.

[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]

Gir777 Posted Nov 27, 2008 9:35 pm GMT Gamespot, why do you insist on propagating these wars between fanboys? The graphics look practically the same, almost completely unnoticeable differences, yet you feel the need to point these out so that you can pit 360 fan against PS3 fan instead of bringing them together in their vested common interest. It's childish, and I think it says something about journalistic integrity when the only way you can maintain an audience is by sparking controversy. --------------------------------- Competition bring more interest then harmony...that's why.

hermes200 wrote: @Kaneada: Better hardware doesn't mean better console. The PS2 had the worst hardware of the three the last generation, and the Wii has the worst hardware on this generation... ---------------------------------- Yes I do agree that software is everything when it comes down too it, but i think that also shows how little effort one port gets in comparison to another. As I stated also Gamespot seems to have a personal biased namely because they did not use a cross platform title that they reviewed better on the PS3. I am a PS3 owner and its more because of the controller then anything else. Let's face facts, the PS controller has worked since they ripped on Nintendo and its still comfortable and beyond usable today. Just my personal opinion, the Xbox controllers don't work as well for fighting games and I personally own all PS based arcade sticks. In response to your initial statement, I do completely agree that the PS2 was a dated system before its release especially when compared to the Xbox. The same can be said definitively of two generations earlier when the Genesis and SNES were head to head. Right now I spend more time with my DS then I do my next generation consoles and there is a lot of merit to superior hardware not necessarily having superior software. Don't get me wrong, I am not against the XBox 360 in any way shape or form and would probably own one if it were less about the FPS' which is a genre I completely can't stand. My arguments are based solely on hardware and how exactly the same exact game can perform worse on a console that is superior hardware wise. This comes down to software, I would be interested in seeing source code for the various versions of Fallout just to see how much or how little it was changed to fit the PS3 hardware and take advantage of its resources. The argument I have is the counter intuitive logic, after all I was very much a part of the Genesis vs. SNES wars and I can't think of a single game that did not look better or play better on the SNES in comparison to the SEGA when it came down to cross platform titles. I also wonder why Gamespot would intentionally cripple the PS3 by using what seems like a an unbiased analysis, but does not use games they reviewed better on the PS3. That's hardly a fair match up. Let's throw some marketing in here as well...no console war, video games sales plummet! Both systems are very good hardware and very much worth the buy. The problem with the PS3 is both the pricetag and the too little too late formula that Sony has been preaching for the last several years. The problems with the 360 is the flood of FPS titles which is really kind of foolish as it will eventually collapse the market just as the JRPG market was collapsed by the flood of games coming out of Japan late in the PSX's life cycle. If people get sick of FPS based games, Xbox no longer has a market. From the looks of it the FPS is going to remain a heavy hitter throughout 2009 on that console, I'm just waiting for people to become tired of it. Sony needs to keep to its strengths which it has failed to do as it's trying to run neck and neck with Xbox in its own arena. People loved the original Xbox for its shooter based games, but the Ps2 kept pumping out great Japanese action and RPG titles one after another. Sony needs to bring the Japanese back to the market to increase sales. Other then some lackluster (not all just some) JRPG's on the Xbox, the Japanese have very little presence in our market outside of hand held consoles, partially because of their own doing. Games like Lost Odyssey which could have benefited greatly form the storage and processing power of the PS3 would have done way better on the PS3 simply because it was built to handle giant games such as this. However we get long load times, several discs, what are we back in the PS1 days?! Makes no sense to me. If Gamespot wants to throw comparisons out there, then why don't we talk about the lack of diversity between the two consoles? Should we really care if a game is properly anti-aliased on one system at 8x and on the other at 4x? There are better things to look at and while were at it, if we are going to have console pissing contests can we at the very least have fair grounds consider all the facts and not just the games that sold best on the 360?

I think this demonstrates a few things. 1. We have a biased toward American based games. Gamespot reviewed Eternal Sonata as being superior on the PS3 vs the 360 graphically. Yet to my findings here this is not represented in this comparison at all. 2. Secondly, I think its only natural to assume that most of the games listed here were most likely developed on the 360 and the code was ported to the PS3, which would demonstrate the superiority of the original code. It's like porting PC software to a MAC, works great on the PC; without some serious alterations to suite the systems hardware on the other hand you can expect that it will not run quite as well on the other system. 3. The true test: Final Fantasy XIII I am predicting will be superior on the PS3 as it is being developed and then ported in reverse. I think the same goes for most Square titles. I think another crucial test will be the PS3 version of The Last Remnant, which reviewed poorly due to technical flaws on the 360. What this really comes down to is that most developers don't put enough effort into the ps3 simply because the 360 sells better. This does not demonstrate accurately the superior hardware that is in the Ps3. I have not seen one game that uses more then 3 SPU's and am still waiting to see FFXIII as it is the first game to my knowledge to be using 4. No matter how biased anyone is, the truth is no one has seen the Ps3 pushed to the test, its a personal bias on the developers part.