I apologize if my thoughts are a bit convoluted, this started as a comment, and erupted into a wall o' text, lol. Please read and sound off below, i'd love to get some feedback.

A Graphics Discussion:

I think a lot of us (myself included) have been slowly lead to think that when it comes to the Xbox 360 exclusives, they will never look as good as the PS3's (even if they are) because the PS3 is supposed to be the "ultimate (fill in whatever accolades here)". This thinking has slowly been injected into the gaming community since PS3's inception because of Blu-Ray, the stronger processing power, etc. So now it's PS3 for graphics king (no matter what comes out on X360), and X360 for games (no matter what comes out on PS3). I think because the industry was first introduced to the next gen from X360, and was wowed by it's graphics, by the time PS3 came out, everyone naturally expected it to beat the X360 in terms of graphics. That didn't happen initially, and so the whole "better at everything" argument wasn't a strong one, but I think the turning point was when the console graphic bar (at the time) was set with Gears of War, and bested not by it's successor, or another X360 game, but by the competition (namely MGS4 imo, and the Killzone 2 trailer). Since then it's like everyone thinks of the PS3 as they wanted to when it was first released ...the "better at everything" console, and so in terms of graphics, it "can't" be beat...at least, not by X360. While the bar has been set yet again from titles like Killzone 2, Uncharted 2, and more recently Heavy Rain, the X360 has shown major improvements also, with Forza 3, Mass Effect 2, and Alan Wake, just to name a few from both ends. So I guess the point I’m getting to is this, will the greater gaming community (especially PS3 loyalists) sit on their laurels, and not appreciate, or accept when a game from X360 has come not only close, but possibly bested the competition for overall graphic fidelity, and set the bar once again? Have we fallen into the thinking that PS3's exclusive games are the only ones to offer the best graphics this gen, and X360's exclusives are the only ones to offer the better gaming experience? Graphics vs. Gameplay? PS3 vs. 360? Uncharted vs. Nothing? Hype vs. Results? Sound off.

Honestly, I think all the PS3 graphics accolades have been well-deserved and I don't think anyone wouldn't give the 360 exclusives there due in the graphics department. For example, Gears 2 when released arguably had the best visuals of anything released. It just happens that there have recently been more PS3 exclusives pushing the PS3 hardware than 360 equivalents.

And in time, Crysis 2 will blow both out of the water.

Anything that is exclusive on PS3 people automatically think its better because its "Using the Full power" of the PS3.  Its no different if the 720 was supposedly more powerful than the PS4 even if they had the same graphics, in our minds we "think" games are "only possible" on our system. 

Those are both solid points Scoobes, and Garnett. I especially agree with you Garnett in that in our minds we "think" games are only possible using a certain method on our console of choice, but then again, that argument has been refuted many times over form developers. I do think though, that it has MORE to do with Blu-Ray than the power of both systems, in that the developers can uncompress, and just fit more into one disc (and experience?).

That is a good point except that Crysis (The best looking game peroid) is only around 6 gigs thats with the story.

No console game has better graphics so i dont believe its the disc space that does it. Also 360 games can use 2 DVD's like Mass effect and Forza.

I think to a certain extent, a couple of the PS3 games have become "unbeatable*" (* = except by another PS3 game) in the eyes of many gamers here. The general attitude is sort of a "rest on your laurels" type of attitude. In general the differences for an average human being on an average television are going to be so subtle between the high-end games that suddenly everyone has become a super-human with x-ray vision, a tech expert on AA and lighting effects, and the rest of us "need glasses" or need to "lulz get a good TV".

The graphics battle has bled over into our own personal interactions, where a subset of the population has not only a greater number of posters but also a quantifiable (via reviews of course, they matter when they support what you're saying, otherwise they're "garbage") advantage graphically on their system. The bar of decency has changed, and when everything you say is backed up by the majority of your peers, it's harder to self-censor. You get into the habit of badmouthing people, somtimes unintentionally by virtue of escalating emotions in a thread, and since there aren't any people to call you out (or enough, and their voices get drowned out by the people supporting you) you feel comfortable saying what you might not otherwise.

All of this adds up to an artificial graphical bar decided upon by the majority, and the bar then can move to encompass whatever that majority decides it will. These are fundamental human interaction truths, and very difficult to get around. This is why people such as CGI and JaggedSac who are able to put aside these problems are fairly well respected in spite of their known affiliations, as they have risen above base behavior to treat the rest of the community with a modicum of respect that we all deserve.

Excellent response Common, and i completely understand what you mean. Well said. I've also noticed that about CGI, and Jagged, and respect how they voice their opinions, often trying to imitate them, but sometimes failing miserably, lol. On the matter though, you mentioned the subset of the population along with reviews (reviewers actuallly), and that raised a question. What about reviewers/journalist themselves? Haven't they been the ones to start the hype? I'm starting to find that the same rut in which gamers have fallen into (imo) is one that journalist have as well, especially when initially talking about a game. For the longest all I heard about God of War was the graphics, likewise Uncharted, and Killzone, but little about gameplay, until the "final hours" of the game's release/review. Yet when talking about X360 games, it's mainly about the gameplay, and more traditional articles, and hype. Of course this isn't for every new PS3 exclusive and so forth (like Heavy Rain's articles overall where based on gameplay), but i notice it more, and it creates this divide in which console does/excels in what.

I have not fallen into the Console Graphics Wars...yet. A person can only see what they want to see...I don't like the way some console loyalists think, but as long as they can have a civilized debate, I'm all for it.

Alkamist-

The problems the reviewers most often run into is their own websites' hype of the games most prominent features. With the PS3 "graphical dominance" becoming such a ubiquitous term, it's such a nice crutch for reviewers and websites to cling to. The problem is that they have all these screenshots and video's saying "Oh this looks so great!", then they get their hands on the game and it doesn't live up to their own hype. They review it lower than the impression they gave, and the interwebs go nuts.

For my money, there are no differences. Nothing has blown my mind like Bioshock did (as my first current gen game), and I don't think anything will on a technical level. It's all about whether the particular art style works for you and the gameplay. Nothing else really matters.

"So I guess the point I’m getting to is this, will the greater gaming community (especially PS3 loyalists) sit on their laurels, and not appreciate, or accept when a game from X360 has come not only close, but possibly bested the competition for overall graphic fidelity, and set the bar once again? Have we fallen into the thinking that PS3's exclusive games are the only ones to offer the best graphics this gen, and X360's exclusives are the only ones to offer the better gaming experience? "

Simple answer Yes. Absolutely yes. There are plenty of smart people however.

The long answer is yes, but many of those with blind eyes really can't distinguish graphical king vs presentation.

In many cases there are samples where graphics look fantastic. But in those cases the 3d objects are very simple in design because it's just a box with a high res textures. City environments are easy. They reuse substantial amounts of textures and shapes. Let alone right angle nature of cities make objects far easier to render with less power. You can then afford to increase fill rate for textures.

PS3 BR is a certain advantage because of it's size and allows for superior quality of textures. However the graphics setup in 360 is better. In the end it's easier to use higher quality textures than coming up with creative ways to use a graphical tools. So those who have learned to use 360 tools should be commended. Though to be fair anyone who has made good use the Cell should have people kneeling to them. Learning how to use a complicated chip only to have it gone next gen. sad.