I think I'm not... I was expecting a lot more in the graphics department. But the main reason may be because I got used to similar graphics before even getting my PS3.

INTRODUCTION (You can skip this if you want):

In late 2007, I wanted to get a PS3 to play all the sequels and new games that I liked but the PS3 costed around 800-1000 dollars here at the time (I think :P)... well... the point is that I couldn't afford it back then. I remember looking at prices online very often, looking at pictures of the PS3 thinking I'd probably never be able to buy one. Well... the time passed and one day when I was on the bus on my way back home I had an idea: "hey, I've got like 700 pesos saved (less than 200 dollars at the time), and there's this hardware store that accepts PC components as payment, maybe I could afford a PC that can play all the games I want". So, when I got home I started searching which games I liked would be released on PC... those were Devil May Cry 4, The Last Remnant (I think I actually found about this one some time AFTER getting the PC :P), Resident Evil 5 was a maybe, Silent Hill: Homecoming, Prince of Persia (I don't know what I was thinking, lol), etc. Well, DMC4 alone was enough to convince me :P So I started searching to see which were the requirements (I didn't know anything about PC components at the time xD) and came to the conclusion that I needed at least 2GB RAM, a 512mb videocard compatible with Shader Model 3.0 and a DualCore CPU.

I called the guy in the store and told him what my PC components were, how much money I had and he told me what he could give me for that (a crappy 9400GT, 2GB RAM ddr2, a crappy MotherBoard, and a Dual Core E2180 @2.0ghz). I accepted, got the new (crappy) PC and was finally able to play some of the games I wanted. The first one was Devil May Cry 4 :P. I noticed how low the FPS were, specially in the jungle level xD. I thought I had a good GPU because some dude told me the higher the number, the better the GPU was :P. I searched in the internet and found out that the 9400GT was crap, even a 8600GT was better xD But at least I could play the games I wanted.

Years passed, kept playing on a crappy PC while saving money for a PS3 because there were only like 5 games I liked on PC (I like japanese games and dislike shooters, RTS, WRPGs... the PC was full of games I didn't like) . I remember watching lots of Heavy Rain, MGS4, Final Fantasy XIII, Final Fantasy Versus XIII, God of War III, etc trailers on YouTube. One day, in late 2009, I saw they were selling 80GBs fat PS3's for only 535 Dollars and I had enough money to buy it... so I did xD.

INTRO END (You can start reading if you want... or just reply without reading :P):

Well, when I got it (the PS3) my aunt lent me some games because I kind of spent all my money on the PS3 and couldn't afford any games xD She lent me Viking: Battle for Asgard, some Pro Evolution Soccer game (which I didn't even try, lol), a MotorStorm game and some other racing game... I think it was some Need for Speed game.

I didn't even have an HDTV at the time, so I played those on a 21" CRT TV. I tried Viking first... and I was very disapointed xD I thought it looked like God of War II. I was expecting to get mind blown like the first time I saw a PlayStation 2 game in front of me (Soul Calibur 2), but it was kind of disapointing. Then I tried the NFS game... but it looked so crappy (plus I don't like racing games) :S I tried MotorStorm... this one had better graphics than NFS... but it still looked bad for me, the textures were so bland :S.

I played Viking until I had money to buy MGS4, then I returned all those games to my aunt (I didn't even like them, but I had to play something :S). Well, I loved MGS4... but was disapointed again by the graphics... the floor and wall textures looked so pixelated I couldn't believe it :S How can a crappy PC pull out better graphics than a PS3 (with massive framerate drops, though... sometimes I was playing at 15 FPS xD)?

Well, I thought it was all because I didn't have an HDTV. I was lucky and got one at the begining of this year (I think)... played MGS4 with it (when I got the HDMI cable) and thought it looked better than before, I could at least read stuff that was impossible to read on the CRT TV. I thought it was just a "more detailed" image quality but the textures and all the rest still looked the same :S.

Up to now, I still haven't played a console game with graphics that I consider "good". I tried Uncharted 2's demo because people who played the demo were very impressed by its graphics... it kind of disapointed me too xD. The only PS3 game that I've played that I consider it has kind of good graphics is God of War III, I think it would run at 5 FPS in my crappy PC xD

Thank god I don't play games for their graphics. I even gave GoW III a 8.5 score and Nier a 10/10 score (Nier is the game with the worst graphics I've played this gen, but its one of the best games I've played... I prefer Nier over GoWIII because graphics don't make a game)

I think I've learned my lesson, I will never buy a PC for games BEFORE getting a next-gen console... besides, it's a waste of money for me because it barely has any games I like :S and It really spoiled the graphics for me, I probably would have been mind blown like when I saw the PS2 for the first time :S

So, are you satisfied with current gen consoles' graphics?

Dude, I was satisfied with last gen's graphics. Seriously; they look fine, enough that I don't see any meaningful improvement even from HD.

As long as the games are good doesnt much matter to me.

I am satisfied for the most part.  I don't play games for graphics, and now what I see are diminishing returns as far as graphics good.   Really good art direction and I am set now.  Now I get wowed by good art direction.  Beyond this, not sure what else is needed as far as capabilities.

Now, I can understand if people were expecting to be wowed, like this generation would be way beyond the last, with stuff that looked like the Killzone and Motostorm trailers, with monsterous draw distance and epic detail in them.  But we don't have that.  In their place, we do get stuff that is real good, even if not THAT good.  Killzone 2 and Motorstorm turned out real good on all fronts, even the graphics, and what didn't live up to the trailers didn't really matter.

Am I satisified?  Yes.  Am I blown away?  No.  Do I need to get blown away?  No.  My gaming time is spent mostly with Game Room, Pinball FX2, and also likely LittleBigPlanet 2 when they come out.   Also throw in some boardgame stuff.  This means I do care more about gameplay than graphics.  Shoot, I am pumped for Sunset Riders to be hitting again in a few weeks.  We are talking pre-2000 for that.

I am, hell Alan Wake still looks amazing too me, i'm even satisfied with Assassins Creed brother hood's graphics. Aslong as the game doesn't look like Prototype it doesn't need to be "revolutional".

I don't care about the graphics, if the underlying gameplay is good (or bad) enough. A great, fun game can be comprised of blocks (see: Tetris), or a game with crappy gameplay can't be saved by pretty graphics (see: FF13). Graphics could stay as they were on the SNES forever; as long as there's good gameplay, I'm happy.

I'm always satisfied about the graphics till something considerably better starts to appear.

For instance, youtube vids showing the latest Nvidia GF100 in Directx 11 with tessellation show that current gen is already a bit dated.

But as long a game is fun, I just play it. I'm currently hooked on Battle City for the NES, and it is an archaic ass game.

I'm satisfied with wii graphics....

i'll second this. hell, even RE4 graphics were good enough for me.

I'll never be satisfied with graphics until I can't tell them apart from real life. I feel the same way about the PS3's graphics as you do Jdevil3. I was underwhelmed when I first used my PS3. The graphical difference between the PS2 and PS3 is really small. The jump in graphics wasn't as big as the PS1 to PS2. The majority of PS3 games look like PS2 games unless you play them on a HDTV.