I was looking forward to Quake:Enemy Teritory and I caught the IGN review of the game. Seems like its a pretty average game and I most likely won't get it anymore...but if I were to get it which version would I get? According to the review, they are both mediocre in same ways except for one difference -

360 review

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/877/877173p2.html

6.0 Graphics
Occasional framerate drops and bland character models, environments and effects.

PS3 review

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/877/877445p2.html

4.5 Graphics
One of the worst looking high-profile releases ever on the system. Bad framerate and bland texture work.

So this joins the list of I don't know howmany FPS games that came out for both systems and had to be delayed, or came out looking worse. Infact here is the list of the ones that come to mind...

Blacksite:Area 51 - delayed a month because of dev issues

Timeshift - delayed a month (dunno why)

Orange box - delayed, came out looking worse

FEAR - Delayed 4 months, came out looking worse

Rainbow Vegas 2 - worse frame rate

On the other hand, Unreal 3 which is coming out for 360 this summer seems to have loads of aditional features such as split screen deathmatch and 2 player campaign mode. I doubt it will look any worse...

Now you can blame the developers for being retards and not knowing how to use ps3...but come on, Valve...Ubisoft montreal, these are AAA studios.

I personally think Sony owners can officially stop expecting graphical dominance over the 360 in day to day games because its obvious that with the cell processor....what it gains with more horsepower, it loses because of bad architecture that leads to difficult optimazation of the hardware. As I bought a PS3 recently, I still have that WOW factor around the system...but its becoming clear to me its not really any more powerful than the 360.

Sure, an exclusive title may eventually look pretty impressive...but I imagine this is because sony is pumping insane amounts of money in to their exclusives. Whats Killzone 2's tab this days?

Whats your take on why this is happening?

Ubisoft.....Played Assasins Creed? They can screw a game.

Valve didn't do anything with the PS3 version of The Orange box.

EA ported it.

Stupid developers. Learn to use the ps3 RIGHT!

 Well he is right,  if others can it why not those?

Assassin's Creed was a great game. It clearly wasn't done by the same team.

And yes, EA did The Orange Box, which was fine. I played F.E.A.R. on PS3 and enjoyed it. I don't think there were serious framerate problems in Vegas.

Most importantly, this issue is going away in 2nd generation games. No one is going to play Quake on consoles, anyway.

Call of Duty 4 is the most important one so far and turned out fine.

I loled, well this is one of the consecuences of the Cell, is hard to adapt engines created with single-core dual-core procesors in mind, using just the PPC is putting all the machine below the levels of a single-core 2.0Ghz, so yeah, this is due to three reasons...

Budget
Time
Hard time developing for the PS3...

come on PS3 is only a year and 7 months old,,,these thing will happen for the next year or so,,,,but This year lots of titles are starting to look better on PS3 ,,,,you cann't go from all worse than 360(last year) to all better than 360 in one year,,,but lots of multiplat titles are starting to look better on ps3

COD4 proves that the other developers just suck! IW said that programming for both consoles was the same. Thats theonly  multiplatform FPS I care about anyway!

Once the PS3 catches and then passes the 360 install base, you'll see a lot more effort being put into PS3 games.