Can't since I don't own a PS3, but I have no intention of buying a console for one. The game's graphics are better than average for a console, but still very poor compared to a PC.
I like how I made this thread about a pc strictly for gaming with no os or atleast a very limited one, and it has turned into a graphics war. I don't really care about graphics all that much because most of the games that have really good graphics generaly have piss poor gameplay or limited area to play in(fenced). Most rpgs for instance now days suck because of this. In my opinion rpgs should only be made on pc because of the limitless space available. To me if you could make a game like Fable 2 with the open world like say a sacred 2 or oblivion then that would be the ultimate rpg to play.
Oblivions fighting sucks and Fable 2's fenced in approach sucks. The RPG died after FF9 and until they make one with that type of go anywhere anytime philosophy then it will continue to be the same old crap day in day out.
The whole point of this would be so the developers could sell more copies because suddenly a game that may require 3gbs of ram to play now only takes 2, and so on. the cpu would not have to be as fast and really the only thing that would be needed would be a good video card. It was an idea that has went south I am afraid. But keep it up it is entertaining.
I played Killzone 2 in HD. It was largely similar to FEAR 2. It would be a good candidate for a PC port as it's fairly sharp. Not mind blowingly amazing. But it looks really damn good for a console game. Though IMO Episode 2 on the 360 still beats it.
And just for the record, Oblivion's fighting kicks ass.
To be fair, what you were asking was on extremely unlikely concept. Off-topic conversation perhaps isn't that welcome, but often happens when people pick up on the auxiliary points of a post.
The Gaming OS makes sense in principle, but realistically, you're halfway there by using Windows XP rather than Vista. I personally love the PC's ability to run all sorts of programs whilst gaming, It's just the extra RAM needed that's a pain, and XP isn't too bad in that regard, you only use up to 700-800MB even with loads of windows open. Vista on the other hand uses 1.7-2.6GB of RAM in the background which is a bit excessive for how few extra features it offers.
