*sigh* another one of these? Does anyone really care anymore?

These were stupid when the consoles were new. Aren't Gamespot, like G4 and IGN now advocates of trying their best to be unbiased and anti-flamebait. As IGN stopped doing these, G4 has never done them. I mean there are so many media outlets now just going for the "if you want the best, own both HD systems". By doing this yet again Gamespot have lost my respect even moreso than they had before. It's because of this shit fanboys still exist, constantly saying "the 360 is better cause it's darker, no no the PS3 is better cause it's brighter" if you like dark change the contrast on the TV and then the PS3 games look identical and vice versa.

Look at that, the PS3 has 3 less pixels in Ezio's shadow. 360 has the superior graphics I guess.

This is getting really dumb. To tell if there are any differences, you'd have to stare at the picture and look for them. Whos gonna stop the game on both systems and compare? Oh wait....Gamespot does.

See I had the same reaction the rest of you had: first, why are they still doing this when no one cares? And second, sometimes Gamespot seems to see differences I don't see, and if I do, they're on one insignificant part of the level.

Besides, using multiplatform titles as the determining factor is about the worst way to go about this.

Coding on the PS3 is harder than coding on the 360 and multiplat devs don't like going the extra mile without incentive, which is completely reasonable, so until console technology is on the same level meaning the devs understand things better, 360 graphics in multiplat games will always be a little better.

There. Summed up perfectly. Now, the real question is if you care about a tiny difference such as that are you really a being worthy of life? Probably not.

Am I the only one that saw some of the screenshots jump back and forth from the consoles as both being good? The biggest example I can give were the Resident Evil 5 Screenshots. On the first set of screenshots the PS3 ones look slightly better, more sharp. But, on the last set, the PS3 ones are inferior compared to the Xbox360 ones.

I think that this comparison is actually pretty interesting at times, but I can't help but feel that sometimes these articles rig these mofos because some screen shots on the same game will look good on both the Xbox360 and the PS3. Seriously, the jumped back and forth for me.

I also found it funny how the Xbox 360's Arkham Asylum was far superior over the PS3's because of a dumb little logo. Hahaha.

What summed up the retardation of this comparison was this line very early on in the Assassins Creed 2 comparison.

"The Xbox 360 might also benefit from normal mapping, which gives the floor surfaces, the brick lines, and the door rivets a more 3D look."

Normal mapping is just that it is normal, it is flat, it is 2 Dimentional looking from distance and up close. Games that use normal mapping are everywhere and it does not give things a 3D look. Had they said something like;

"The Xbox 360 version looks like it benefits from bump or parallax mapping which gives the floor surfaces, the brick lines, and the door rivets a more 3D look."

Had the person said that then maybe just maybe i'd give him credit. Though that would be false as AC2 doesn't include either bump or parallax mapping like most games. There is absolutely no difference in any of these screenshots other than brightness and ones they blatently tampered with. The PS3 is now on par with the 360 in multiplatform games. I do not see why Gamespot would be so intent on still fueling those fires.

Watching these is like looking at a Where's Waldo picture only to realize you've been staring at a picture of a crowd in the shape of a dong for an hour. Both consoles look good. Surprise! Equality!