@ Squilliam
Of course different (kinds of) games show different kinds of game complexity. And yes thus a game like Infamous 2 or GTA IV which sport a big open world environment are significantly different in terms of requirements compared to a linear game in terms of complexity.
It's also possible to create an awful game based on a great game engine. Art direction also plays a crucial factor with regard to the end result. Although I agree most first party PS3 game developers are second to none I don't think Rockstar is for example incompetent or lacks resources with regard to their game development capabilities. As infamous 2 looks a whole lot more technically advanced than GTA IV did with its MLAA, special effects and complex boss fights. I don't think Sucker Punch is so much better or resourceful than Rockstar is.
For example Uncharted 1 did good HDR, good anti-aliasing in high definition, something we haven't seen any of the 360 games so far, nomatter if a linear game like Alan Wake (which was created by competent developers). The difference in technical showcasing for a game like Killzone 3 is of an entirely different level as for example seen in the Call of Duty series and those devs do have talent and resources as well.
It goes without saying someone can create an amazing looking game on the PS2 (like God of War 2) or the Wii (like Super Mario Galaxy) through great production values. But you can easily judge they are PS2/Wii games regardless, the HD remake of God of War 2 of course does look worthy of being a current generation game, but the gap with God of War 3 is still incredibly huge from a technical perspective (but one can personally prefer the art direction of the two earlier games, but that's clearly something else than what this thread is about, for example I still prefer Mario64/Super Mario World over Super Mario Galaxy despite the latter is clearly technically superior).
I thought this was talked about to great depths in the past and is all rather too obvious to include in the OP.
