Games aren't protected the same way movies are (in terms of needing HDMI to get full resolution playback). HDMI, DVI, or Component will all give you the highest resolution available.

I'm sure tons of effects will be added before release, but FSAA is applied here. 360 games still have 2x or 4x FSAA, but 4x is still going to show some jaggies and I imagine that's what's displayed here.

If there was no AA applied, it would look like a jagged mess and these aren't that bad.

The ground does look good, but the vertical walls look like ass. Which is the exact opposite of Call of Duty.

Call of Duty isn't really a good comparison anyways as it was a direct port of a PC game.

The reason I picked out Call of Duty, was because the PC version had much better ground textures than the 360 version. But yeah, not sure what is up with the wall textures.

huh, that makes no sense. Games will not feature any type down-rezzing due to the connection used. Sure, you will only get 1080i through component, because thats all it can handle. 1080p through HDMI/DVI, etc. But the games won't be protected (resolution wise).

Shit. I meant to say "aren't". My bad. Thanks for the catch.

Good to hear guys, thanks.

I read that and originally thought, "No kidding? I thought just the opposite. That seems stupid to do, but I guess it wouldn't be the first time something that stupid was done."

Obviously I wasn't sure enough to say anything.

Anyone else see that demo movie for MGS4 where they stop the demo and move the camera interactively? That game looks like it will be the shit! I'm for that title alone.

New teaser video for Assasins Creed (looks cool): http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/772/772025/vids_1.html

New clips of Untold Legends (looks meh):
http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/814/814614/vids_1.html

Assasins Creed does look great, Untold Legends looks truely horific. That game needs to be burned down and then spit on.

That game alone is going to be reason to buy the PS3.

According to the devoloper they could have almost rendered that on the Xbox 360 as well. The game does look damn impressive graphically however.

The difference between the 2 systems is more than just graphics. The game library on the Playstation consoles has always appealed more to me. Sure I played the occasional Mario Kart and what not, but I'm not a real FPS kind of hguy (Xbox 360) and I feel "too old" to play any of the Nintendo Franchises (Mario, DK etc). I'm not saying I don't enjoy Nintendo games but I just can't get into the games as much as when I was in college.

The developers for the PS2 have really been making games that appeal to me: Ico, Amplitude, Shadow of the Colussus, Devil may Cry, FFX, God of War, Katamri Damacy.

No other console really has a selection like that. One thing the 100M user base allows is for developers to get really edgy with their game development because even if a fraction of the users buy the game it could still be a multi-million seller. I mean the greatest hits section for the PS2 is ridiculous! Upcoming games like Okami and God of War 2 continue the string of games that resonate with me.

I'm sure PS3 will enjoy similar types of games too. Enough with the futuristic FPS's already. I'm already sick of seeing Unreal Tournament 2007!

New Tony Hawk game (project 8) on PS3

PS3 Install Base = 0
360 Install base ~4 Million.

Riiiiiiight... like that'll last long. Listen, if you're enjoying your 360 (I am) that's great, but don't fool yourself. It's not gonna top Sony any time soon.

In other news, I've been wondering what's gonna happen when Sony announces their Playstation Network which supposedly has all the features of Xbox live with none of the payments. I can't wait for my reimbursement check for the past 5 years or so of Live.

Actually, Kojima said it could be done on the 360.

Gears of War is more impressive graphically anyways, art style is another issue though.

Get your facts straight. Microsoft announced 5 days ago that they shipped 3.2M worldwide. I doubt they sold 800,000 in 5 days.

http://www.thestreet.com/_googlen/te...FREE&cm_ite=NA

N00B!

I'm sure PS3 could run Halo3 as well, but the point is MGS4 will be on PS3, first at the very least.

I'm still not sure what to make of that. They might offer it free to try to get the Japanese to care about networking. But why get them to care about it if you can't make money off it, and it costs you money? I don't see them making it free (and having it be a quality item) for the entire life of the console.

Because they'll use it to sell us stuff, like game and movie downloads eventually. Plus there will probably be some advertising to offset costs.

Is Sony using their servers to host the online play? or are they relying on the game makers like they did with EA titles on the PS2?

sony's ps3 site is live: http://www.us.playstation.com/PS3

I can imagine that there will be a ton of individual games that will probably charge a seperate fee for online play. I don't believe sony will be able to match XBL while not charging a fee even with some advertising offset. Plus the promises of the PS2s online capabilities still leave a very bitter taste in my mouth.

I hope they get it right though that's for sure.

Majesco has a similar stance on thier game The Darkness.

I suspect that it will be the same in the majority of cases. It's all going to come down to library and price.