I think this is because you can't fight about much.  The PS3 clearly produces the better looking games.   Numerous games have proven as much.  

the 50-60% quote is a complete missinterpretation. He is talking about the engines functionality, nothing to do with the ps3.

I bet you still wouldn't, even if a game did. 

MikeB will post any second now explaining why this is true...

"Better looking" is subjective, please clarify. I disagree wholeheartedly with this statement.

OT: I really want someone to come out and say, "Well, that's all she wrote, nuthin's gonna look better than that last game", that would be epic.

This is not an issue for a 10 year console it cant not be maxed out already the only question is what is the ceiling for either system. I think 360 will peak in about a year to a year and half. While PS3 is likely 3 years away. The only thing is will it peak after the new gen has begun?

All I know is that apparently PS3 has 3 high budet exclusives which look better than anything on the xbox360. Even if one wanted to see how much better PS3 is, they can't...as these games are not on the 360. I also know is that every time I see a game on both consoles I can't tell the difference.

Now people here always argue that this is because of bad programmers, 360 ports....etc. But doesn't it then make sence that those 3 PS3 exclusives are amazing looking because of good programmers?

See the faulty thinking here...

Red dead redemption on PS3 is 640p and on 360 is 720p = bad developer

while

Uncharted 2 is way better than anything on the 360 because PS3 hardware is much more powerful than 360...not cause maybe Naughty Dog may be good for squeezing great visuals out of a console.

Besides, do these minor differences in visuals really matter? Entire last gen graphics on most Gamecube and Xbox made their PS2 games counterpart look like their retarded cousin...but no one will argue that PS2 was the console to get last gen.

How inefficient and wasteful. That extra performance cost them an arm and a leg and hasn't been used by more than a fraction of the game library. So yay for a machine which cost another $200 too much at launch in order for games that at most 10% of the PS3 population will buy and then appreciate that difference. Good old Sony, its definately money not well spent.

I agree with your point but not some of the details.

I can't think of a single multiplat last gen that ran better on the PS2. In fact Xbox usually ran smoother with better frame rates, looked better and supported 480p/720p output where PS2 only did 480i/480p for the same games games. MK Armageddon for example...

Console exclusives like Forza vs GT4 or God of War vs Ninja Gaiden could go both ways as they are custom tailored to showcase each systems strengths, but for multiplats PS2 couldn't keep up.

I remember playing Sonic Heroes on PS2 first and thinking that Dreamcast is more powerful since PS2 had terrible frame rate while sonic games on DC ran great. Then I played the Gamecube version and was quite surprised at the difference in quality... I always thought Gamecube was this cute little system. That thing could render those polygons like a beast :)

Gotta enjoy the PR talk.

Its all good, can't wait to see the new benchmark once GT5 hits.