They also published the PC versions.

I see the Rockstar logo on my very precious and totally awesome copy of Max Payne 2.

I wasnt sure if you were counting them, though, as it does have Rockstar, but developed by Remedy.

:(

I want a Max Payne 3

I don't know why, but I always assumed Rockstar developed Max Payne, not just published it. With that being said, I wish they'd make Max Payne 3! They milk everything else to death, why not MP????? It had to sell fairly well.

At least they do develop Midnight Club. I've always liked that racing series, and that sells pretty well.

I don't know why, but I always assumed Rockstar developed Max Payne, not just published it. With that being said, I wish they'd make Max Payne 3! They milk everything else to death, why not MP????? It had to sell fairly well.

At least they do develop Midnight Club. I've always liked that racing series, and that sells pretty well.

The only racing series that matters(to me) is Burnout. All others I don't like.

Rachet And Clank.

I was never into any of the Ratchet games. I probably wouldnt have tried the game too if the PS3 library isnt so limited and I wasnt too impressed with the game footage either. So far into it, just like Ninja Gaiden, its a pretty good game and not frustratingly hard at all. One thing the PS3 games do is bring out really great graphics that are better than the 360. The graphics are probably better than Heavenly Sword and the gameplay is much much better. Im only an hour and a half into it but Im liking what Im playing so far

Fill rate is one of the primary ways to measure graphics performance - in essence, it's a number describing how many pixel operations you can perform. The fill rate on the PS3 is significantly slower than on the 360, meaning that games either have to run at lower resolution or use simpler shader effects to achieve the same performance. Additionally, the shader processing on the ps3 is significantly slower than on the 360, which means that a normal map takes more fill rate to draw on the ps3 than it does on the 360. And I'm not talking about small differences here, we're talking roughly half the pixel pushing power.

You don't have a high-def TV, do you?

Every side by side I've seen of like games, almost always looks better on the 360. A recent site did a side by side of Assassins Creed and said the 360 looked better (I'll see if I can find it again).

It could be a porting issue, but so far every game that we can compare side by side looks better on the 360.

It isn't just Roid saying it, Tony. Read some reviews.

I had the chance to play Assassin’s Creed on both Microsoft’s Xbox 360 and Sony’s Playstation 3, but in my opinion the game plays best on Xbox 360, with a crisper frame-rate and more detailed environments.

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6162742/index.html
I think Tony was referring to this
First screenshot for NFS looked better on the PS3 while the last two looked better on the 360. Madden does look better on the 360 and so does Tony Hawk and Marvel Alliance. Tiger Woods looked better on the PS3 and quite a huge difference on Fight Night. The author is smoking something or just a MS fanboy when he said Fight Night on the 360 looked much better

Why the PS3 version often pails in comparison to the 360 version, and why exclusives often suck:
As outlined above, getting equivalent performance out of the PS3 requires a lot of work unique to the platform, and in many cases, even with all these tricks, you still won't see equivalent performance. Thus, many ps3 games have simplified shaders and run at lower native resolutions than the 360 versions. On top of this, there is shrinking incentive to do this work; the PS3 isn't selling.

The code needed to make the PS3 work is most likely only useful to you on the PS3, as the types of tricks you need to do to make the thing perform are very unique to the platform and unlikely to be useful on any other architecture now or in the future. These issues all stem from unbalanced hardware design, and any future hardware that is this unbalanced will likely be unbalanced in a completely unique way.

Finally, there's the problem of resources. Game Development is, at it's heart, a resource management challenge. Given finite resources, do I have these five engineers work on optimizing the PS3 version to look better, or do I use them to make the game play better and fix bugs? Do I change my design to fit with what the PS3 hardware does well, or simply run the game at a slightly lower resolution on the PS3 to make up for it? Developers striving to push the PS3 hardware have often sacrificed their game in the process.

This post might come across as a lot of Sony bashing, but it's just the reality from the trenches. Sony let their hardware be designed by a comity of business interests rather than a well thought out design that would serve the game development community. They are going to loose hard this round because of it, and I hope that in the next round they take lessons from this round and produce a more balanced and usable machine.

From what you posted, it seems like developers are just being lazy to put some extra effort into making the PS3 graphics look better. Their reasoning "why take so much time on graphics when the PS3 isnt selling and lets just work on the bug issues". It didnt really specify that the system cant handle it but because the developers arent motivated to do so. Hence the argument is that the third party games could simply be ports if thats the attitude. That could explain why exclusives like Heavenly Sword and Ratchet & Clank have far superior graphics because they dont have any other third part support