After last year's detour to Santa Monica, E3 returned this year to its traditional home at the L.A. Convention Center. But the more things stay the same, the more they change, as they say (if they're a bit confused). Despite the return to the old location, much of this year's E3 had an empty, ghost town feeling when compared to E3s past. The general lack of participating developers and publishers, combined with the strict, invite-only attendee list combined to make a show that seemed incredibly small in the incredibly large convention center. To see just how small, check out our "E3, then and now" gallery, which compare scenes from previous E3s to similar scenes from this year's show.

Wipe away those tears, sunken-eyed PC loyalists. We know you're upset that Firaxis appears to have turned their back on you in favor of the somewhat fairer console waters, but perhaps the latest edition of Big Versus on Joystiq's youngest sibling, Big Download, will mend your tattered hearts. The console-exclusive Civilization Revolution is measured against the PC-exclusive Civilization IV in this installment -- are PC gamers being robbed of an important chapter in the seminal turn-based strategy franchise, or are they dodging a dumbed-down, oversimplified bullet? You've got to read to find out -- but knowing you brainy PC types, that shouldn't be a problem.

There it was. A quiet, thoughtful moment, right in the midst of our rat-a-tat assault. There's not much room for unnecessary thought during a drive-by shooting -- aim and pull the trigger, aim and pull the trigger -- but this one provided an odd moment of stillness and clarity. As time slowed to a crawl and a prostitute's unlucky encounter with our front bumper became a slow-motion aerial ballet, we saw the world. Peering out the window at our decaying urban surroundings, we could think of only one question. "What would this be like ... in a game?"

Grand Theft Auto IV attempts to answer that question, reshaping New York City into the architecturally approximate, but satirically scathing Liberty City. Flickr user (and blogger) Matthew Johnston has created a photo set that compares the Big Apple to its rotten, in-game core, with various real and virtual landmarks placed side by side. We think you should check it out.

Just to quiet the fanboys (or rile them up), GameVideos has put together a comparison video between the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions of Grand Theft Auto IV. You can find it after the break. To be honest, we really don't see a difference, but we're sure that won't stop someone from mentioning how multi-bump aliasing is totally missing from one version of the game. Normally, we'd have a witty closer here, but we're working on a severe sleep deficit at the moment. Now, back to Liberty City!

Squint really hard and take a couple pills of delusion and maybe, just maybe, you can see the difference between Call of Duty 4 on the Xbox 360 and PS3 in the video above. Sure, maybe the dimorphic transgressive bump-mapping is fractalized on one of the consoles -- but we're not gonna say which one.

What we can say is that the video above does show that we're finally starting to hit a better balance point between the Xbox 360 and PlayStation. This is a far cry from the Madden '08 comparison video where the differences were pretty clear even in an internet quality video. We'll take this as a good sign that we're moving away from having obvious performance differences and gamers can choose their multiplatform games based on controller preference and (if important) online experience.

Analogies help us make sense of life. They can take a complex, confusing set of variables and couch them in familiar terms. So for instance, when a major publisher compares the Wii to "two Gamecubes duct taped together," the listener gets a clear picture of the unfamiliar system vis a vis the familiar purple box. Complexity simplified!

Nintendo's George Harrison has a different analogy in mind to describe his system, though. In an interview with eclectic financial site The Motley Fool, Harrison compared the Wii to a hybrid competing against two SUVs with "big new chrome rims." While all three are technically cars, Harrison argues, the markets for each aren't likely to overlap much. "Two companies are going in one direction, and we're headed in another," Harrison summed up.

While he's definitely right on that last point, we're not sure the hybrid/SUV comparison is the most apt analogy to describe the current console wars. Here's a few other contenders we've managed to come up with:

• A nutritious Apple (the Wii) vs. two heart-clogging double bacon cheeseburgers.
• A pea-shooter vs. two rocket-propelled grenade launchers.
• A $99 suit vs. two custom-tailored Giorgio Armanis
• A Casio digital watch vs. two diamond-encrusted Rolexes.

These are just off the top of our heads. We're sure you can do better. Leave us your favorite Wii vs. the world analogies in the comments.

[Via Aussie-Nintendo]

Here we have GameTrailers presenting a side-by-side comparison video of Madden '08 on the PS3 and the Xbox 360. We know what USA Today thinks is better -- they went with the Xbox 360. We also know what "EA tech support" thinks on the issue. They "fully understand and respect" if you go with the Xbox 360 version, because with the PS3 version it was "very difficult to get it right the first time."

Now, it's very difficult to get a proper grip on how much of a difference the two console's respective frame rates bring to the presentation in this video, because the video goes at its own frame rate, so whatever that's set at is what you're watching. Essentially, you're just looking at whatever pops out as being different. What do you all think?

Update: We added GameVideos comparison video after the break.

So, here it is, the comparison video: Halo 2 next to Halo 3. Time to judge for yourself if there's something to the "meh" graphic statements uttered about Halo 3. Considering this has been an issue of much, much, Halo fanboy ire we're just going to let the pictures speak for themselves. Although, we will repeat that the beta is not the final version of the game, so what you see is not necessarily what you'll get come Sept. 25.

Variety has a great article up that calls out some movie critics for derisively comparing the movie version of 300 to a video game. While the movie does rely on computer graphics and special effects, as do many video games, the article correctly points out that this surface comparison inaccurately stereotypes all games as repetitive and violent. As the Variety author points out, "Few horror pics are able to instill the bone-chilling terror of 'Resident Evil 4.' A dramatic filmmaker should aspire to reach the epic scope of 'Shadow of the Colossus.' And those looking to make the next great franchise should should only hope their movies engross viewers half as well as 'World of Warcraft.'"

We think turnabout is fair play here, so we're calling on all the video game critics out there to compare the next cheesy, cut scene filled epic they play to the movies. "If we wanted to fall asleep watching boring, babbling characters we can't even control, we'd we'd go to the movies." Something like that. See how they like it, for once!

Evaluating high-end gaming mice has always been a somewhat subjective process, relying more on a reviewer's opinion of the mouse's "feel" than any quantifiable measures of performance. Now, a writer at ESReality seems to have solved this problem with an inventive setup that can compare mice objectively on their own merits.

By clamping a mouse over a controlled-speed turntable, the author has created a system to accurately gauge the exact speed at which a mouse goes from "perfect control" to malfunctioning randomness. How much sensitivity is necessary depends largely on your play style, but it goes without saying that a higher top-speed is generally preferable to a lower one.

When the final results were tabulated and weighted the overclocked Logitech MX500 reigned supreme, giving perfect control even when zipped along the surface at a blazing meter per second. If you're moving your mouse any faster than that, may we suggest looking into some sort of program for caffeine addiction.

[Via Digg]

Dpad's Michael "Optimus" Perry has posted an extremely technical (and eleven page long) article detailing in non-layman's terms what makes the PlayStation 3 and the Xbox 360 tick, graphically speaking. It's all RSXs, GPUs, pipelines, vertex shaders, and ops per clock and oh my god we're blind. The guy even has a freakin' bibliography, for pete's sake. Still, it's the best "here it is in black and white" article we've read about the graphic capabilities of the two.

However, Perry is smart enough (as if this article isn't proof enough) to say, "What it TRULY boils down to for the vast majority of people out there is that they don't care about the specs of a console. All most people care about is 'How good are the games available for it?'" He doesn't mean this to be a pissing contest between the two consoles, he just wants to explain what each console is capable of ...

... of course, thereby allowing you to throw down the "Oh yeah, well Sony's RSX is clocked at 74,800,000,000 shader operations per second" card. Go on, throw it down.

[Thanks, Lost_Watcher]

Over at sister site Engadget, they've noticed that a recently released Sony fact sheet (relevant section pictured above) uses some pretty interesting math to make the Xbox 360 look more expensive than the PS3 once all the extras are added in. Let's go through their list and see what's valid and what's just obfuscation?

• Console: Starting with the lower system prices is a little misleading right off, since a majority of PS3s and Xbox 360s are sold in the pricier premium packages. Still, I'm sure that $499 looks a lot better than $599 from Sony's point of view.
• "Requires Users to Buy": This is misleading because none of the following items are actually required to, y'know, use the system. However, the items are required for 360 owners who want certain functionality that the PS3 has right out of the box. "Extras" or "Add-ons" might have been a better heading.
• HDD (20GB): Yes, this does cost $100 if you buy the core 360, but upgrading to the premium SKU gets you the HDD and extras like a wireless controller, headset and component cables for the same price. Highly misleading.
• HD-DVD drive: A fair comparison, but only if you want to play HD movies on your system, which is far from a valid assumption for all buyers.
• Wireless controller: This is possibly the worst item, making it seems like the 360 doesn't come with a controller at all. Buying the core 360 and a $50 wireless controller actually gets you two controllers -- one wired, one wireless -- compared to the PS3's $0 for one wireless. And, as stated above, using the premium pack comparison would change this $50 to $0 for an apples-to-apples comparison.
• Online Access/Xbox Live: Possibly the biggest argument in Sony's favor, the $50/year for full-featured Xbox Live balloons into even more over the life of the system (I'm surprised, in fact, that Sony didn't extend this cost to include a few years of service). However, the free silver subscription provides much of the functionality for free, making the comparison a little more complicated.

So is it fair to say that the 360 costs more, in the end, than the PS3? Yes and no. It really hinges on whether HD movies are important to you and whether or not you're willing to pay for online multiplayer. Regardless, implying that you need to spend close to $700 to use a 360 skirts dangerously close to the edge where creative marketing meets false advertising.

(Thanks to everyone who sent this in)

Perhaps you heard a loud rumbling sound several moments after our friend, Krazy Kutaragi, took the stage at the Sony E3 press conference and revealed what was, according to him, a big "secret" regarding the new old and improved PS3 controller. The source of the noise was undoubtedly the countless gamers rolling their eyes in unison at a new "innovation" that, if you're at all interesting in gaming, is unlikely to have struck you as very innovative at all. It's arguable that Nintendo's Wii merely uses parts that have been around for ages and isn't particularly innovative in that sense, but it's difficult not to raise an eyebrow when a competing console manufacturer decides to implement a control interface that, until recently, was considered unorthodox. It was pretty shameless.

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. This short but sweet comparison shows games from the 1980s put side-by-side with their modern counterparts, helping to show how far gaming has come in two decades.

What's harder to judge is whether the games on the left are fundamentally any different from those on the right. A glossy graphical coating might mask identical gameplay, and you may have had as much fun playing The Bard's Tale then as you do World of Warcraft now. The success of various Xbox Live Arcade titles is testament to the timeless nature of some games; next-gen graphics are undoubtedly nice, but they serve to hide any advances being made on the gameplay fronts.

[Via /.]

Here at Joystiq, we love comparing the size of different things. Ignoring for a moment the deep-seated psychological trauma behind it all, we've found this image which takes PS3 and Revolution mockups and compares them to the Xbox 360, Xbox, PS2, slimline PS2 and Gamecube. Whew. Hit the 'Read' link for the full image.

It looks a fairly realistic mock-up, with the Revolution winning "tiniest console by far" award, stealing the crown from the slimline PS2. However, if the Revolution really will be that small, we can't help but wonder how large the power supply will be in comparison.

[UPDATE: 4 color rebellion point out that the picture of the Revolution is misleading, as the CDROM wouldn't actually fit. They've fixed the scaling here.]

[via digg]