Could Xbox 360 handle Infamous 2?

Infamous 2 couldn't be done on Xbox 360 - despite the fact that the game is currently only using around half of the PS3's power.

That's according to Sucker Punch game designer Darren Bridges, who told CVG that he believes the cell processor of PS3 gives it the kind of power other consoles can only dream of.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
MGRogue20173646d ago

Simple answer: No, Because that system doesn't have the CELL processor.

Dragun6193646d ago

Technically, No. 360 Doesn't have the Cell processor that Sucker Punch are Utilizing in the PS3 for Infamous 2.

CivAddict3646d ago

That is just one part of why the PS3 is so much more graphically powerful than the Xbox 360.

The Broadband Engine(Cell) chip
The crazy fast RAM the PS3 has and the 360 doesn't
The 25/50GB BluRay
The RSX and its much more powerful pixel pushing power

All that adds up to a massive graphical power advantage that is why the PS3 has destroyed the 360 graphically this gen.

Xeoset3646d ago

ITT: People that don't understand the architecture of this generation's system.

OpenGL3646d ago

I love when fanboys that know absolutely nothing about hardware try to act like an expert.

Chris_TC3646d ago

Well, CivAddict received 14 agrees, so clearly he's considered an expert.
After all, everybody knows how MASSIVELY important "crazy fast RAM" is for real-world performance. I mean, DDR3 triples your frames per seconds, right? RIGHT?

CivAddict3646d ago

"After all, everybody knows how MASSIVELY important "crazy fast RAM" is for real-world performance"

Now that is hilarious. You obviously didn't stop to think just how idiotic what you wrote was...

Chris_TC3646d ago (Edited 3646d ago )

Oh really?
I won't waste more than 30 seconds on you, so here's the first RAM speed comparison Google brought up. Have fun:

Edit: This site is so awesome. I get disagrees for posting an article that benchmarks RAM modules.
So which is it: you don't like the results or you don't even understand the numbers?

Vicodin3646d ago

This is the first generation where a console, the PS3, has so totally annihilated its competition, the Xbox 360. There never has been another generation where a console has completely humiliated its competition in every single graphical area:

* Resolution
* Materials
* Lighting
* Animation
* Poly counts
* Particle effects
* Storage space/graphical data size

There isn't a single game where the PS3 doesn't destroy the 360 in each of those areas.

Every previous gen the competing consoles always had areas that one console was more powerful or capable than other consoles from that gen.

OpenGL3646d ago

If "Crazy fast RAM" is what makes the PS3 so powerful, what excludes the 360's 10MB of eDRAM that peaks at 256GB/s of memory bandwidth from the conversation? You do realize that the PS3's 256MB of XDR has 25.6GB/s of memory bandwidth and the RSX's 256MB of DDR3 has 22.4GB/s, right? The video memory speed is actually the same on both systems, the difference though is that some of the 360's memory bandwidth actually gets saved because the back buffer is rendered in the 10MB of eDRAM.

I'd probably argue that the PS3 is indeed the more powerful console of the two, but the biggest difference between them actually from Sony's OpenGL ES based graphics API and the openness it provides allowing developers to utilize hardware in new ways not previously imagined, in comparison to the 360's more strict DirectX 9.0C based API.

Vicodin3646d ago

Developers don't really use the OpenGL interface to the PS3 hardware. They did in the early days, but now developers use a more direct PS3 specific interface.

3646d ago
OpenGL3646d ago

So developers have stopped using the RSX completely then? You do realize that the RSX is based on Nvidia's G71 which has absolutely no GPGPU support, right? There is simply no way to use it without taking advantage of a graphics API like DirectX or OpenGL.

Vicodin3646d ago

"There is simply no way to use it without taking advantage of a graphics API like DirectX or OpenGL."

This is wrong.

OpenGL3646d ago

How is this wrong? G71 does not support CUDA, DirectCompute, or OpenCL.

Vicodin3646d ago (Edited 3646d ago )

You have direct hardware access with libgcm for the PS3.

gamingdroid3646d ago

RAM speed and size are to independent factor that affects your software in different ways depending on situation and how you design your software. I for one do not believe something is impossible on another system as both consoles are pretty much comparable.

Sony just happen to have a lot of first party studios that get a lot of freedom and time to work on said technology.

Sony and their affiliated keep claiming this is only possible on the PS3, but I would love to see a more detail explanation than some at best vague answer.

With that said, the story ends with:

"It's pure speculation, [Sucker Punch has] no idea of whether we can do it because we don't work on Xbox or any other console."

Perhaps Sucker Punch should then just STF! Clearly they don't know then why open your mouth!!!

OpenGL3646d ago

The PS3 actually uses LibGCM and PSGL (OpenGL ES 1.2 + Nvidia CG) Do you understand that it is just a stripped down version of OpenGL? Since OpenGL is open source Sony is free to take it and modify it how they want, but it is still at its core a version of OpenGL.

The fact remains that the RSX is an extremely dated GPU that uses discrete shaders without any sort of GPGPU functionality.

Vicodin3646d ago (Edited 3646d ago )

OpenGL, none of the things you are writing are making any sense.

No, libgcm is not 'a stripped down version of OpenGL'. libgcm is a low level hardware access API. The OpenGL ES implementation for the PS3 is built upon libgcm to some extent.


LOL @hoops!

Don't even know where to start with such stupidity.

The PS2 and Xbox had the exact same storage format/size. Standard single or dual layer DVD.

The PS2 destroyed the Xbox in graphics ram based effects thanks to the insane EDRAM. That's why games like the port of MGS2 to the Xbox ran so poorly because it couldn't handle PS2 level frame buffer operations/effects.

The PS2 destroyed the Xbox in floating point power leading to the PS2 having superior animation and bezier curve based graphic elements.

The only real area the Xbox had over the PS2 was in multipass rendering(aka 'teh Shiny'). And even that was mostly in the early PS2 days.

The game cube had its fast RAM and lightning quick seeking drive that gave it its edge.

All three consoles last gen were pretty much in the ballpark of each other in real world performance with all three putting out just about the same number polys per frame.

Just another clueless PC gamer throwing around a bunch of PC graphics hardware terms who is totally fucking ignorant of real console hardware.

hoops3646d ago (Edited 3646d ago )

"This is the first generation where a console, the PS3, has so totally annihilated its competition, the Xbox 360. There never has been another generation where a console has completely humiliated its competition in every single graphical area:"

The Xbox1 completey destroyed the PS2 in graphics, physics, RAM, Space, lighting effects and especially PIXEL/VERTEX shader performnce.
It was not eve close. Why?
Because the PS2 did not have a dedicated GPU and did not have hardware for programmable all. Everything related had to be done with software. The Xbox1 had the first programable shader GPU inside. The Xbox1 had more bandwidth, more ram. More than 2 times as much as the PS2.
There was NO AREA that the PS2 could compete with the Xbox1 OR the GAMECUBE.
You stand corrected. The generation that was not close was not this one. It was last generation. Look at the specs...It's a pure blowout.
There was never a game on the PS2 that looked like Splinter Cell Choas Theory or Chronicles of Riddick or Ninja Gaiden. Nothing came close.
Get your facts straight

LOL. I am getting disagrees for stating the truth. Only on N4G.COM
The truth of the matter is, the PS2 did not even come close to the Xbox1 in terms of power. It had less RAM. Less bandwidth. Less pixel/Shader performnce. Less EVERYTHING.
The PS2 only had 32Megs of RAM. The Xbox had double this. The Xbox was the first gaming product to feature Dolby Interactive Content-Encoding Technology. It had a better sound chip.
It supported DX8.1 which had API features the PS2 did not support at all even when using OpenGL or its other API.

FlatulentGhost3646d ago

The GameCube,PS2,and Xbox all were almost identical in real world power last gen. All three cranked out games in 15-20 million polys per sec for leading games. Each console last gen had games that were doing things the other two console weren't: 60fps Metroid Prime on the GameCube, ICO/Shadow of the Colossus, God of War, Gran Turismo on the PS2, and so on.

turok3646d ago

u make less sense than OpenGL

hoops3646d ago (Edited 3646d ago )

Name me ONE game on the PS2 that had the technical apsect and graphics as Splinter Cell Choas Theory or Chronicles of Riddick Or Ninja Gaiden?
Good luck. There were none at all. I am not talking about ART DIRECTION. You spew a whole lot of garbage and know squat.
The same argument Sony fanboys use: Show us one Xbox360 game that looks like Uncharted 2 or KZ3.....
Well show us one game that looks better then the ones I mentioned above for the PS2? And the ones you WILL name are ART direction. Not graphics or physics.

Btw. Storage Space has NOTHING to do with visuals.
That comment makes you look stupid as rocks.
The Xbox1 had more RAM. Double TO BE EXACT.
The Xbox1 had a dedicated GPU. The PS2 did not.
Xbox1 exclusives such as Panzer Dragoon Orta and Ninja Gaiden and Chronicles of Riddick and Half Life 2 blew away EVERY PS2 game.
GOD 2 and FF12 had great art direction but not even the same graphic or physics direction.
Ask yourself why ALL multi games except that crappy version of MGS looked, ran better on the Xbox1?
They all did. And Because the Xbox1 had higher bandwidth, mofe memory and a moe powerful GPU that was PROGRAMABLE, game resoltuions were better. And the fact the PS2 DID NOT SUPPORT AA at ALL.
Ansiotropic Filtering on the PS2 was pitiful.
Dude you are blind. It was common knowlwedge that the Xbox1 blew away the PS2 in terms of visuals and everything else.
It was also the first Console to use a HD.
Look up the specs....i know you wont. Its clear you have your head up Sony's ass.
And you mentioning "particle effects"
The smoke and mirror effects of consoles. Its the easiest graphic calculation a system can perform.
Please dude. Take some Vicodin like HOUSE and no longer post.
You are clueless.
You actually said the PS2 blew away the Xbox1...LMFAO.
Dude was not even close.
When you can pull a game out that looked like Ninja Gaiden or Chronicles of Riddick or Splinter Cell on the PS2, then talk

FlatulentGhost3646d ago

"It was common knowlwedge"

LOL! Wait you're saying a bunch of dimwitted Xbots parroted a bunch of desktop PC based graphics hardware terms and made inane claims about the relative graphical power of their console?

Wow, sounds just like this gen...

This is why console developers despise Microsoft. Just because Microsoft was stupid enough to throw a bunch of expensive desktop PC graphics parts in a big ugly box, now every stupid little kid with a PC thinks they have a fucking clue about console graphics hardware.

ExplosionSauce3646d ago (Edited 3646d ago )

Hey! GOWII and Shadow of the Colossus are beautiful PS2 games, as well as MGS3 and it managed RE4 quite nicely too. So the PS2 wasn't that pitiful. Considering it's huge success and how the mightier Xbox died so quickly as well as the GameCube.
Since when does a system's RAM and power, equal the fun a system can deliver? Give me some games!

@ plenty a tool
GTA4 was multiplatform. Not a PS3 exclusive that was later ported to 360. Your argument didn't make much sense.

Lifendz3646d ago

Who cares if it could? Why speculate when it'll never happen anyway? Unless Sucker Punch has worked on the 360 hardware and is willing to give an unbiased opinion on the matter, the rest of us don't possess the knowledge to make an intelligent statement on the matter.

DaTruth3646d ago (Edited 3646d ago )

If you want to do post processing effects on the Cell that are traditionally done on graphics chips, you will need fast RAM like the 3.5ghz XDR. MLAA is an example of this! That is why no post processing is done on the 360s CPU.

The 10MB of EDRAM in the 360 was found to be too little and can't hold an entire 720p frame! That is why all games on 360 with AA are 540p or have really low texture resolution like Unreal Engine games!

SilentNegotiator3646d ago (Edited 3646d ago )


OpenGL3646d ago (Edited 3646d ago )

It is true that the cell has proven itself very capable of handing post processing effects.

Also, the eDRAM can hold an entire 720p frame, but only with anti-aliasing disabled. Anti-aliasing can still be achieved at 720p by resorting to image tiling. I'm not really sure what texture resolution has to do with it, as the textures aren't stored in the eDRAM anyway.

SeanRL3646d ago

I think the Xbox could definitely handle this game, but I'm no expert. Still, they could probably make it so that it worked with the Xbox's hardware, but that would take extra time and resources and it would be pointless.

sikbeta3646d ago

Pfffftttt.... I'm still waiting for teh KZ2 & UC2 killarz.....

kancerkid3646d ago

Well if they ported it to Xbox at least it would have AA

Ju3646d ago (Edited 3646d ago )

You will be surprised when this game will release with MLAA then (a first for an open world game, btw).

And btw, Vicodin, interesting read.

DatNJDom813646d ago

"That's good for us because we don't have to play to the lowest denominator of the consoles. We're playing to the PS3 and we're making a game that we can make, technology isn't limiting us."

The story of this generation of consoles.

Kurt Russell3646d ago

Serious nerd war going on in this thread... many lols!

Ladies one in one out you say?

+ Show (32) more repliesLast reply 3646d ago
mrcash3646d ago

if its only using half the power then yes, the ps3 is only 33% stronger than xbox well at least the cell is than the 360 cpu. But no because its only on ps3.

doa7663646d ago (Edited 3646d ago )

not hard to see, just compare Heavenly Sword to Enslaved, both games by the same studio, one PS3 exclusive, the other multiplat

the 4 year old Heavenly Sword looks better than Enslaved, and to pass an opinion on this you need to have seen both on your own TV and then you'll know this is a fact

the difference is a lot more clear when you see them in motion

raztad3646d ago (Edited 3646d ago )

Where that 33% came from? LMAO

@edhe bellow

"I honestly can't believe this stuff's coming up again after Rage et al. "

Sorry but if you visit any decent tech savy forum you will understand how weak RAGE technically is. It has nice textures and framerate but everything else was sacrificed.

Quote from the interview:
"That's good for us because we don't have to play to the lowest denominator of the consoles." LOL. Fanboys raaaage.

You can disagree, take bubbles away, but that doesnt change what the developer said.

3646d ago
CWMR3646d ago

Enslaved (at least on the 360) definitely looks better than Heavenly Sword.

forcefullpower3646d ago

You really haven't played the game on the 360 then. It doesn't screen tear as much but by god does the games slow down. There where so many points during the later levels showed the 360 could not handle what was going on onscreen.

And doa766 was right heavenly sword is graphically amazing compared to enslaved and that came out 4 years ago. I bet with 4 years they could have refined the ps3 engine they had and enslaved would have been jaw dropping.

At the end of the day tho. Enslaved is a great game shame they also couldb't have made it jaw dropping aswell.

raztad3646d ago


There ar some screen tearing, however the case in point is why a 4 years later game doesnt look leaps and bounds better?

If HS2 ever happens it would outdo HS by a mile.


Oh really? because both Enslaved SKU look pretty much the same.

mrcash3646d ago

heck now enslaved on 360 doesnt even look as good as gears 1 and its using the same engine


aztad, you should have put, "...if you go to any ps3 savvy forum..." ;)

Active Reload3646d ago

Raztad, its funny you use the words "leaps and bounds", when you're trying to take something away from a game that isn't a PS3 exclusive. Here is the thing though, there isn't anything on the PS3 thats leaps and bounds above anything, anywhere except for whats on the Wii.

Darrius Cole3646d ago (Edited 3646d ago )

It is rather amazing how delusional some people still are about this. It should be clear to everyone who watches both consoles now that there are several games on PS3 that could not be on the 360 without reducing the graphical output.

No 360 game, exclusive or multi-plat, looks as good as Uncharted 1, which is 3 years old now.

No 360 game, exclusive or multi-plat, looks any better than Gears of War 1 which is 4 years old now. Gears 2 is the only game to match and it doesn't look noticeably better than Gears 1.

Uncharted 1 looks better than Gears of War 1 and 2, yet there are several PS3 games that look better then Uncharted 1.

PS3 exclusives are still advancing their graphical output.

360 RPG's have started to hit storage limitations...most notably, Mass Effect 2 and FFXIII

Only with multi-plats do you get the back and forth of sometimes the 360 version looks better/sometimes the PS3 version looks better.

For anyone to say that there are no games on PS3 than the 360 can't handle without nerfing them first is just not reasonable.

raztad3646d ago


Dunno about it. Actually I was thinking about Neogaf. Come on, even Crytek in their tech talks has mentioned RAGE as an example of a game weak on the technical side. Fully pre-baked lightning and low polygon count are two of the main complains I have came across.

gamingdroid3646d ago

... and CryTek isn't a competitor of Rage?

3646d ago
+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 3646d ago
edhe3646d ago

Yes that's true, because you'd have to change the ISA over to x86 RISC which would be .. ooh a job of coding it.

Or maybe just run it on a middleware platform that will emulate the cell.


it's just a processor. Any processor can emulate any other processor given the right low-level code.

I honestly can't believe this stuff's coming up again after Rage et al.

blahblah3646d ago

congratulations, you've won the "most uninformed comment ever" award

emulation in real world? not on mine... if you have PC, try emulating PPC on it (use PearPC) and tell me how usable that is. now consider those two architectures don't differ much, at least they share same family as "general purpose processors" which translates into "jack of all trades", aka. can do everything decent, but has no specialization.

Cell is special purpose processor (performs well above average in his specializations and well bellow average in the rest). It has completely different way of executing jobs, aka. SPU pipelining and sharing. Emulating Cell on PC or PPC would be disastrously slow.

one thing where Cell over performs everything is single based arithmetic. and since games don't need precision it is perfectly suited.

vsr3646d ago

May be xbox 720p will do

Ju3646d ago

You guys know that both, the 360 and the PS3 run the exact same PPU core, right (PPC G3 based core, both are identical cause developed by the same team at the same time.). Just saying.

And for emulating: There is nothing which can emulate SPUs in realtime. Won't happen anytime soon. The only way this would ever work (if at all) would be with some sort of GpGPU streaming code on a latest generation (like a G300 or something).

It's quite easier to port ATI/Shader code and PPU threads to the CELL than the other way round. Unless, as some people have published in the past, you write generic C/C++ code which runs native on SPUs (first) and also compile straight to x86 (PC) and PPC (360) code.

Anyhow, byte ordering (LE vs. BE) and ISA (x86 vs. PPC) is not an issue because very little code is written in assembler (if at all). These routines can easily be re-written. Byte ordering can be handled with macro code (but needs some preparation).

TEFL0N_D0N_813645d ago

you fanboys just don't read the whole article. If there's one sentence that glorifies the PS3 over 360, all other sentences are ignored. This is straight from the article, "He added: "It's pure speculation, [Sucker Punch has] no idea of whether we can do it because we don't work on Xbox or any other console. ".

Basically, they're just talking shit. Can they be right? Maybe, but they just admitted that they're only talking shit!

Why the F*** is this even an article when it substantiates nothing? And there's nothing to disagree. The guy says it can't be done on the 360, and then says he has no idea in the same interview.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3645d ago
deadreckoning6663646d ago (Edited 3646d ago )

@first comment- Unless ur a hardware specialist...u can't prove that. I'm astonished that you have 22 people who agreed with you. I'm betting none of these people even know how to write a line of code..much less determine what the 360 is capable of technologically.

And the ongoing struggle of fanboys trying to prove that they made the right console choice looms on.....

"If the 360 can, then why has it not shown it yet.........
It's been 5 years."

If Sony can implement cross game chat/party system to PSN..then why haven't they done it yet? It's been 4 years.

Just because something hasn't happened yet doesn't mean its not possible.

Syronicus3646d ago

Why has it not yet done so? There is nothing on the 360 that rivals the games the PS3 has in its exclusive bag of games so if the 360 could actually run a game like inFAMOUS 2 or Uncharted 2 or Killzone 2 or even GT5, then why has it not yet done so? Waiting for the right time? I think not.

mrcash3646d ago

Infamous 2 doesn't look much better than Mafia2 on 360. Heck Castlevania looks better than I2, who knows if how its goin to end but at the moment I2 doesnt look like its on par with KZ2 or Uc2

CWMR3646d ago

The problem is, fanboys just claim certain games look better than anything on the 360 even when they don't. It's circular reasoning. I could ask the same thing by saying "if the PS3 could run a game like Alan Wake or Gears of War why hasn't it"? It's a form of begging the question.

First you have to prove those games are doing something that is more advanced than in various 360 exclusives or multiplats.

In my opinion other open world games like Red Dead Redemption (on 360) and Assassin's Creed look better than inFamous 2.

CimmerianDrake3646d ago (Edited 3646d ago )

"If Sony can implement cross game chat/party system to PSN..then why haven't they done it yet? It's been 4 years."

-Ask EA. You don't remember? Sony wanted to implement custom music and cross game chat/party chat, but it made some games look bad and didn't work for them. So, a large 3rd party publisher (most believe it to be EA) threatened to pull support from the PS3 if it was implemented because they didn't want their games to look bad. So, custom music was relegated to being the publisher/devs choice and cross game chat was put on the back burner until it could be more successfully and smoothly integrated. Super Secret I believe is the guy's name that told everyone this.

So, there's your answer. Now answer why the 360 can't do whatever the question was that was asked.

@CMWR: Alan Wake is unimpressive. That's why it's not done on the PS3. Gears of War has already been surpassed, why would it be done on the PS3? And finally, InFamous 2 is still in development, so what's all this comparing it to already released games?

CaliGamer3646d ago

Your Quote: ("if the PS3 could run a game like Alan Wake or Gears of War why hasn't it"? It's a form of begging the question.)

I think by now, it has been proven that with the correct budget and effort, the PS3 has produced some stunning results. It is up to the 360 at this point to show that it's exclusives can match what the PS3 has on hand for its consumers, not the othe way around.
The question of the 360's strenght is a valid one when you look at exclusives, in that respect the 360 is indeed running behind the PS3, that is plain to see IMHO.

Just Sayin.

3646d ago
gamingdroid3646d ago

"If the 360 could run a game like this then...
Why has it not yet done so?"

So everything in life that has happened is impossible?

Because it hasn't been done doesn't mean it is impossible.

But as somebody else pointed out, cross game chat must not be possible on the PS3!

noporcru6233646d ago

how on earth do you know if they can or cannot write a line of code, its not that hard dont assume that jus because theyre arguing about something potentially complicated that they have no idea what they r talking about even if they dont some may and they dont even have to know code for that kind of information, now you can find out the capabilities of systems anywhere or you can just look at the games like uncharted 2 and gt5 no doubt just cant be done on xbox as of yet

noporcru6233646d ago

Game graphics and content and size...HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH SYSTEM FEATURES. thats not even a valid argument thats like saying strawberries taste better than bananas because the seeds are on the outside..its dumb

n4gno3646d ago (Edited 3646d ago )

Wow, how delusional/denial fanboyz cwmr and others are, just buy some new eyes, please...

nobody with common sens can't deny the facts, graphics and polygons are not "art", and best ps3 exclusives are way better than anything on xbox (easier to program for ! so, if you did'nt see any game with uncharted 1 quality since the beginning, it's obvious they can't do it, don't be so naive/in denial)

[email protected] talking again of future games "bububu you'll see when halo3....uh...alan drake....uhhh bubububu rage, brink..." hilarious

incredible too see how they are in full force, denying the reality, even after 4 years and a lot of obvious proofs.

"I find it funny how the PS3 fan boys spend so much time commenting and defending there console on this site. While the 360 supporters are too busy enjoying there system to care what some snotty nosed, 13yo brat has to say. "

look around you, you 'll never see more xboboxs denial than here, some of the worst fanboyz pretending "uncharted2, kZ2, gow, heavy rain, etc to be "not so far away" from 360 best exclusives" = DENIAL POWER (or really bad 5" tv)

Syronicus3645d ago

"So everything in life that has happened is impossible? "

You have not answered my question. If it could have been done, why then by now has it not been done? Considering that the 360 had a full year head start on the market you would think it would show in the titles released but it has not. So I say to you that there in lies the answer to the question posed by the article. No, games like inFAMOUS 2 could not be done on the 360. If it could, the devs and publishers would have seen to it already. But as with anything else Microsoft, they are content as are the fanboys with mediocrity.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 3645d ago
StanLee3646d ago

It can handle Rage and Brink. Both demoed running on the console at numerous trade shows and both look fantastic on the console and better than Infamous 2. If the XBox 360 is maxed out, how come further into the console generation it continues to showcase great looking titles. Microsoft doesn't have as many internal studios to tap the console and why would they care to? Sony marketed it's machine as the most powerful console, and it's built a software library to back this up. Microsoft has built it's console on being social so it's focus has been cooperative play and multiplayer. Uncharted 2 looks great, Halo Reach you can play 4 players splitscreen online with your friends. 2 very different software focus.

Chuk_Chuk3646d ago

I have seen Rage and infamous 2 in real life at Eurogamer on saturday. and its safe to say that while Rage does look damn good Infamous has that extra something that makes it look better. Like someone said above it seems a lot of things have been sacrificed to get such amazing texture quality in rage. Looking at rage it feels as if its missing something but i can't quite but my hand on it.

"Halo Reach you can play 4 players splitscreen online with your friends."

Warhawks says hi.

InTheKnow3646d ago (Edited 3646d ago )

The question is...could the Xbox 360 produce Infamous 2???

Infamous 2 doesn't do anything that Star Wars: Force unleashed 2 doesn't do