LOL...so true.

Killzone ftw! Crysis was beautiful in single player, but, as everyone else has said, truly inconsistent; the only time I was able to enjoy and marvel at Crysis 2 was when i stared at the butt of the gun as I was running. (lol)

You know... Metacritic is still putting reviews... so Crysis 2 will ends with evem or lower score than Killzone 3.

graphics are to do with looks, if something looks better than the other you can chuck away numbers and thats the point

I've seen better lookin games

youre confusing graphics with looks. looks and art design have to do with looks.

graphics are the technical aspects of games: frame rate, screen tear, resolution, polygons, etc

They both look pretty average to me. :/ Then again I am part of the PC master race so I'm used to having the best possible graphics. :P

On a serious note though, if you have to have a 15 page debate on which game is graphically superior then I think it would be pretty much a wash or the differences are pretty much neglible.

LMAO!

no thats engine etc. Just because a lot of running for eg polygons if they are not done right then they fail... resolution to an extent yes but a low res game can look better than a high res game thus have better graphics... i dunno thats the way i have always seen it *shrugs* i do see where you are coming from though

No, that's not right.  Your mixing up graphics with artistic direction.  Graphics is resolution, AA, shaders, tesselation, polygons, etc.  Graphics are factual values that can be compared - such as a game running 30 fps vs a game running at 60 fps or 720p resolution vs 1080p resolution.

Artistic direction is the artwork, is the "look" of a game - such as the design of the Covenant, or foes in Super Mario Galaxy, texture content, design of trees or assets or whatever.

Artistic direction, obviously, is much more subjective.  Some people might think the Helghast are better looking enemies than the Covenant and others will think the opposite.

With graphics there should be no opinions.  1080p is a higher resolution than 720p, 4xAA willl produce better results than 2xAA and so on.

I think what you're trying to refer to is the term that's in trend at the moment of IQ "Image Quality" which, so far as I can tell, is an attempt to meld the two together to judge the final results - for example great artistic direction can sometimes make a game with a lower resolution, etc. "look" more attractive than a game with a higher resolution.  The issue with IQ though is that again it is subjective as it melds the factual graphical values with more subjective artistic direction elements.

I think people should just decide what they like visually and there's no issue with that, but graphics will always be factual and they do allow for more opbjective comparisons - for example despite the IQ arguement a game that is well coded and running at 720p with good artistic direction is almost certain to visually look better overall than a game running at a lower resolution.  There are exceptions, but for the most part better graphic values will equal less jaggies, better textures, etc. and hence a better IQ.