It seems in this day and age, the very second a popular game is released across the Xbox 360 and PS3, we feel the need to immediately compare the two, scrutinize them, find a flaw with one version and then declare the other 'inferior.' Why, exactly, do we do this? Everyone has their preference of system, which in a way makes us all fanboys of some nature, but why can't we just let two versions of a game exist without fighting like children? Why can't we all just get the f*ck along?

Now I'm not immune to this effect, I enjoy arguing about graphics and system superiority as much as the next guy, but I don't see it as a way to degrade one system, instead trying to defend the other. If someone blasts 360 for having inferior graphics, I'll defend it with reasons why I prefer the 360 version. If someone spouts nonsensical arguments about a game like Bioshock looking better on 360, I'll call that out too. But from my time here, and the internet in general, I've learned that arguments of graphical superiority almost always devolve into one system being inferior over another.



Before beginning, I have a confession to make. I used to be an Xbox fanboy of sorts. I would defend my system to the grave if necessary, and if you told me something was better on PS2 or PS3, I would never believe you. I don't know where that loyalty came from, I mean, I had my launch 360 die within a week of buying it, after sitting outside for 14 hours straight to get it. You'd think if anyone would absolutely disgust Microsoft, it would be me.

But I stayed with them, for the games, for the community, for my friends, for the controller I learned to love. Little things, big things, medium sized things. A lot went into that, and to this day some of it remains. But then one day, something happened, I bought a PS3. I bought it for Metal Gear Solid 4, a game I touted as being one of the most beautiful games ever for some time. I slowly began playing games on it, exclusives here and there, but never anything multiplatform. I still prefer the 360 controller, but that's me. Over the years I've really grown attached to the shiny thing, recently beating Uncharted (yeah, the first one).

So now that I own both HD systems, I'm faced with this horrible decision that arises every time a new multiplatform game comes out. Which system do I buy it for? To this, I generally look to the internet to identify the strengths and weaknesses of a given version. But that's where the graphics comparison always rears it's ugly head. It's just always there, like clockwork, someone releases a set of screenshots in an attempt to prove superiority. Now that would be fine if it stopped there.

But as any avid internet user will tell you, this will always result in fanboy riot.



So I'm here to throw out my opinions on this war, what I think, why I think it, what it means to me, to you, and to the industry. How do we factor in to this war? Why do we even care? In order to understand, we need to look at both sides of the argument. No doubt you have taken one of them.

The 'Superiority' Side

The superiority side craves for what their name implies. They want their system to have superior graphics, they need their system to have superior graphics. If it does, they can freely bash the opposing system, and have won. If it doesn't, they become aggressive and begin making excuses as to why the game looks the way it does, often throwing in lots of specs or technical jargon as makeshift weapons.

The 'Equality' Side

The equality side are a different case. They generally want a game to look and run equally across both systems so that both sides share the same experience. Some of these people simply don't care about graphics and simply want to avoid the arguments involved. Some of them might just be hiding their fanboy ideals. Whatever the case, this side generally sacrifices certain graphical elements in order to even the playing field.

The superiority side is driven by human instinct, the need to win, to succeed. That is perfectly normal, and of course, necessary in everyday life. Without a will to do better than someone else, you can't ever expect to advance. The equality side, in contrast, is driven by the idea that no one needs to be superior, and that we can all exist side by side with no conflict. Of course, most of us know that goal is unrealistic. Peace cannot exist without war.

And that's when the shit hits the fan.

Now, graphics used to be a big thing, back when consoles constantly battled to have more bits than their competitor, more colors and a better GPU. But as technology advances, consoles slowly get closer and closer, and graphics suddenly become a battle of draw distances, pop up, and random bits of foliage. And that's where I start to question this entire argument.

In fact, what sparked this was a recent comparison between Final Fantasy XIII's graphics between the 360 and PS3. We all know it will look better on PS3, after all it was developed for PS3 in the first place, and I will certainly buy my copy on PS3. But as I read the article attached to said comparison, I began to notice just how unbelievably determined we are to choose a superior and mock the inferior.



The comparison listed several examples of the 360's lesser status, while they are all valid points, I begin to question. Why do we care about a missing bush in the distance? Why do we care about having a slightly lower resolution grass texture? And who in their right might will ever notice a difference that can only be spotted when zoomed in 600% on a targeted area?

While overall resolutions were listed, the shots from eye distance both look really good. In fact, both versions look beautiful graphically, and showcase what are probably some of the best visuals on either system. But yet, everyone still marks the 360 version as inferior due to a missing blade of grass or small irregularity.

Tell me, why can't we just agree the game looks great on both platforms? Are we really so caught up in our battles that we can't just step back and admire what a game does right, instead of what it does wrong? I don't, and wouldn't, label the 360 version as inferior. It's just different. To say that increased resolution makes a better game is simply idiotic, yet that's what so many people are already trying to do.

I'd like to cite, if I may, the examples of Oblivion and Bioshock when remade for the PS3. Both of these games were previously 360 exclusives, both featured great gameplay and had graphics that were downright amazing for their time. Of course, when the games came to PS3 much later, they received a huge graphical boost. Immediately, those who once labeled the 360 versions as beautiful were now mocking it for the lack of resolution and graphical elements.



But the game played exactly the same. Both games were still fun on both systems. But the 360 version was labeled inferior.

So now we are suddenly back to the idea that graphics are more important than gameplay, an idea that most people think they disagree with. But we continue. We never stop. We obsess. And above all, we fail to realize what really matters.

We need to move on.

We need to drop this attitude and just admit that just because a game doesn't look the same, it can still be just as good. That we can enjoy a game equally regardless of graphical differences. When we can do that, maybe we can take a step beyond the graphical war, and beyond the console war and rediscover that what really matters is playing the game.