Xbox 360: It has tough graphics,what I mean is It makes things look sharp. Like if it was showing a ant the ant would look like a robot ant or something. It would look tough, puffy, and strong for no reason. I can' t explain what I' m trying to say, but in all the movie trailers you can tell it' s a game when you take a closer look. So far Xbox 360 has better games.

PS3:It' s Graphics are realistic when I saw the tekken trailer It was like looking at your self in the mirror. Than when I saw his hair it was to pointy at the end which made me realize it was a game. In Metal Gear Solid 4 the graphics are hot too but the area made me loose intrest. I still know it will be great. PS3 looks realer.

Nintendo Revolution: It still looks like gamecube graphichs which is alright. Its not all about the graphics, but it stinks.

What I' m trying to say is Ps3 has real person graphics,Xbox 360 has overdone its graphics it' s too much of something,because everything looks stiff. For Nintendo I still cant see an improvement but we will have to wait until all systems come out.

I believe the Revolution will have the best graphics. We don' t know what the graphics look like anyway (and that Metroid 3 demo was said to run on GCN hardware), but it' s coming out last, and it' s an industry rule (to me, anyway) that the console that launches last should have the best graphics. I know the Xbox 360 will have the worst visuals, though.

Again, it' s too early to make a verdict, but making guesses is fun!!

Just to let you know the majority of trailers shown at E3 for the PS3 were prerendered CG. Dude. Your comments are really poor and have no backing to support them. Do some research.

ORIGINAL: Jason Zeidan

I believe the Revolution will have the best graphics. We don' t know what the graphics look like anyway (and that Metroid 3 demo was said to run on GCN hardware), but it' s coming out last, and it' s an industry rule (to me, anyway) that the console that launches last should have the best graphics. I know the Xbox 360 will have the worst visuals, though.

Again, it' s too early to make a verdict, but making guesses is fun!!

Please don' t speak anymore...

Outside of one of those consoles rendering an extra leaf, grain of sand or tree branch than the others I doubt you' ll be able to spot much of a noticeable graphical difference in the games of the next-gen consoles.

.

Well your ' just so you know' , ' screw you' writing attitude isn' t exactly research-rich.

Sorry, you were talking about the guy who made the wacky opinions on the top. Oops. Anyway, what do you have against my opinion? Huh? I need to know.

Your opinion is false and innaccurate and has no back up or support. To start with, the 360 will not have the worst graphis. So far it has the most advance GPU shown for next gen because of it' s integrated ram which allows more effects, shaders, and AA without hindering any system perormance of CPU usage.

Next, you can' t say that the Revolution will have the best graphics. Nintendo hasn' t shown of any hardware for their system, or software for that matter. The only thing coming out of the rumor mill is that Nintendo will have a less powerful system but will be more user friendly than any of the other systems. Ninitendo isn' t basing themselves on graphics which is why they are putting so much into the whole thing about downloading old NES games.

Finally Dumas' s comments were just plain stupid. He was comparing CG prerendered cutscenes to unfinished alpha kit 360 games.

that is why I don' t like your opinions.

Well, these are afterall OPINIONS...

AHAHAHAHAHa it was so funny reading the nub posts at the beginning. Some 12 year old who has no idea about the facts but really wants to make a post so just makes some assumptions about the very few things he/she does know and posts them.
Nothing like teh ub3r nub posts.

and oh by the way I' m guessing xbox 360 games will look by far the best at the beginning when PS3 games first come out. Then about 3 years after PS3 has been out PS3 and Xbox 360 games will look much closer to the same. And all the time in between that PS3 games will be getting closer and closer to Xbox 360 graphics but in the end never be able to catch up to the 360. Oh and as for Revolution I couldn' t really say but I would guess somewhere around what Splinter Cell Chaos Theory looks on PC with shader 3 enabled. So not too far behind xbox 360 and PS3, but it will be very noticable. And I' m guessing they won' t go all out with the CPUs like the 360 and PS3 are, so the physics won' t be as insane as 360 and PS3 games.

And the reason the 360 will look better right away is because the features are way way easier for developers to take advantage of. Especially with the GPU. As for the CPUs 360 will be easier for developers than PS3, but not that much easier. And I think PS3 will have a little bit more capabilities CPU wise. But graphics wise PS3 will be inferior because of the new unified shader architecture and memory architectures of the 360.

Sigh. It looks like some more people have fallen victim to Sony' s marketing machine.

Firstly, I' d like to state that BOTH the PS3 and XBOX 360 are amazing pieces of technology in their own right. BOTH will be capable of amazing visual effects and the differences between the two graphically will be minimal when the potential of both machines are realised. And I will be buying both

Now down to business. We all hear about how the PS3 cell processor has twice the power of the XBOX 360 processor right? We all saw Ken Kutaragi get up there and say it. Why shouldn' t we believe him? Well what Sony didn' t tell you is that the cell processor is only twice as powerful as the XBOX 360 processor when it comes down to floating point calculations. Now games these days are about 20% floating point calculations and 80% general purpose processing. The XBOX 360 processor is three times as fast as the PS3 cell processor when it comes to general purpose processing. (The XBOX 360 has three general purpose cores, cell has just one)

Another interesting fact is that 90% of floating point calculations are handled by the GPU anyway. Both GPU' s on the XBOX 360 and PS3 are very impressive. Arguably the XBOX 360 GPU is indeed more advanced and powerful than the PS3 GPU (unified shader architecture sounds very powerful and versatile indeed). But this is yet to be proven.

So what have we learned from this? Sony is good with smoke and mirrors. They are very adept at getting people to see only what they want them to see. But when you look a bit harder - you can really see that all is not what it seems.

Very Well Said, The Fact that somone has thought this through and used basic mathematics.
I think Xbox 360 will be able to carry out more detail in games, for example Spots on face lol.
The ps3 i say will have less detail, but it will be good in dark ares such as games like Doom3. (you know what i mean like the dark corridors)

Personally i think, its down to graphic companies, Ive always been an ATI dude and i find there pictures are more Colorfull and More Detailed, Thats why you see ATI storm ahead in benchmarks on halflife2 ahead of Nvidea.

The Ps3 as i think will be better in games like doom3, as Nvidea are good at dull colours, there not as vibrant or " alive" .

so i go with ati and that equals xbox360
Oh by the way would this in anyway relate to you' re post unlucky one.?
go easy on my im not an expert lol.

Why can' t I say Revolution will have the best graphics? This is an opinion. Afterall, Nintendo downplays the ' power' part of every system they manufacture, because Nintendo never clearly said " hey guys! The revolution isn' t going to be as powerful as our competitors' s, nor will it have comparable graphics..." . They never clearly said that it' s not going to be as powerful or visually-stunning, but they said that it' s not as important as the games played on them. It' s the Nintendo routine! The graphics will be stunning, but it' s not something Nintendo' s bragging about. So, yes, the graphics will be on par with 360 and PS3.

Look at the GC. When the first news about it hit the sites, Nintendo said that graphics aren' t as important as the fun-factor contained in the system. I clearly remember them saying that. And George Harrison stated that when the public see GC software, they shouldn' t expect ' turbo graphics' . But what do ya know!! The graphics are amazing, and top that of the PS2. And about the download compatibility, Nintendo didn' t create that to overshadow Revolution graphics. The Revolution is a virtual console, and backward compatibility is just a part of what will make the Revolution so unique. Even something so amazing as that is created, and still people look the other way. Strange...

Plus, Nintendo has the same graphics chip partner as Microsoft, so do you think that Revolution' s graphics chip would be something well inferior to Microsoft' s respective chip? Methinks not. And if the Revolution isn' t as powerful as the 360 and 470 or whatever the hell they' re called, it won' t be far off comparitively. Afterall, Nintendo does care about technology, so expect Revolution to compete in every way fathomed. Okay, rant over...

Do you like my opinions more now, Rampage???

No, not really. At least your backing up your statements a little better now. Still though, the likelyhood of the Revolution out performing the other 2 consoles is slim to none. Let' s go over the reasons.

1- The size. Have you seen the size of the PS3? It' s freaking bigger than the Xbox. The 360 is smaller than the original Xbox but still not by much. Then you look at the Revolution which is like the size of a hand. There is no way that I can comprehend them fitting comparable technology into their console with that size. Sure they are great at making handheld technology smaller and smaller, but the hardware in those ar far from what the next gen consoles will be pushing out.

2- Cost. If the system is that small and they do manage to fit that technology in there the price will sky rocket. Unlike the beast MS who can sacrifice a hundred or more bucks per console sold, Nintendo really isn' t as financially strong as MS. Also, Nintendo seems to try and be more price friendly than the other two companies so I don' t they' ll want to pull a PS3 approach where the creator is telling people to work more hours to buy his console.

3- The GPU. ATi created the 360s GPU using technology that isn' t supposed to be introduced for another couple PC generations. From what I' ve heard Nintendo is sticking with more cost effective current gen PC hardware, which is still powerful but not on par with the 360' s hardware.

I' m not expecting the Revolution to be a supercomputer like the other two consoles. I' m expecting it to be fun though and offer something new and innovative. I' m looking forward to it more than I am the PS3. I' ve always been a big Nintendo fan because they got me into gaming. Even after the piss poor console they delivered with the GC (other than a handful of great games), I' m still hoping for the best next gen. I' m being realistic though. Have your opinion by all means. Just realize a lot of what your are sying has very little to back it up. Don' t just pull your opinions out of he air.

anyone who actually beleives that what sony put out in it' s so called " footage" is a moron

sony just used cgi companies to make most of those they are not even true trailers they are sony' dream of what they want their games to look like

dosen' t anyone remember the playstation 2 videos when they first revealed it? it showed something that was better than what we have today most of it was bogus. all sony is trying to do is create hype that they cant deliver on.

and the revolution will probably not have the best graphics because its not their style. the playstation and xbox are definatley after each other but nintendo is in its own little world which is why it is still successful today

and as for the xbox 360 it will have the better graphics once again the stuff that they showed was only on alphs kits and only 25%-30% of its true power once x05 comes everyone will see why the xbox will rule

I can' t say (even though I' d really like to) that the revolution is going to have the " best" graphics. And by that I mean the machine is able to pull off the most complex calculations, and put the most effecs/objects on the screen at once. I do not however think it' s going to be waaaaaaaay behind, I think for the most part games will look pretty similar across all 3 systems. However, if Nintendo does this whole revolution thingy right, I think it' s possible for them to have the most UNIQUE graphics, and by doing so may be able to garner the most oooohs and aaaaahs from the gaming public without them being the most technologically advanced graphics.

This is so funny!

Faztastic, the reason ATI does so much better with HL2 is because ATI paid them millions of dollars, something like 6 million to develop HL2 on ATI equipment. So it was basically designed for the 9800. The 9800 had a feature that the latest nvidia card, the 5900 did not. So it didn' t run nearly as well on the nvidia card. Doom 3 was designed on nVidia equipment so it ran better on nVidia cards. It has nothing to do with how bright or dark the colors are. If you knew about how this equipment runs you would prolly laugh ur ass off about what you said, I know I did.

This is so funny!

Did I miss something?

I agree with what Rampage is saying. The revolution won' t be the most powerful system out there. It won' t be miles behind but it won' t be " up there" either. They simply do not have the financial resources available to take a loss with each console sold. Let me put things in perspective for you.

Last time I checked, Microsoft' s total value was estimated at $375 billion dollars. Last year they made $10 billion in profits. Nintendo' s total value is estimated to be $10 billion dollars. So basically Microsoft makes a Nintendo each year.

So Nintendo has to limit the losses they can take on each console. In fact I' m pretty sure that Nintendo was the only company making a profit on each console they sold this generation. Nintendo is probably going to go down that path again. Take inexpensive parts, manufacture them into a console and sell each one for a profit. Then profit on games too. This strategy is different to Microsoft and Sony who will both take losses on their consoles and not see any profits for a couple of years. If Nintendo tried to do what Sony and Microsoft are doing, there probably wouldn' t be a Nintendo anymore!