Hmm... mods don't really count in my opinion. But I certainly have lots of graphics mods for my PC Oblivion. All the texture packs suck though because they're made by lousy amateurs.

But I love the draw distance mods.

Mafia 2 says hi.

A game can look incredible on just about any system given if the developers are competent enough to work around the given limitations of the hardware they are working on and optimize their code to make the most out of it.

Most of the best looking games I've seen have had nothing to do with the amount of polygons on screen or whether or not the special effects were real time or scripted.

The art style, direction, quality of animation and sometimes the attention to detail are what pop to my eyes.

Not the draw distance (unless there is unbearably ugly pop-ins), not the resolution, not the amount of tesselation being applied, or anything of the sort.

Games like The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker, Uncharted 2, God of War 3, Super Mario Galaxy, Flower, Mass Effect 2, and many others, are taking the crown for me as best looking games in my book.  Not because of the technical intricacies of their graphics, but because their direction, animation/attention to detail and art styles are top notch and above anything I've seen to this day.

Heck, I've never felt Crysis was impressive.  And I run the game on its maximum settings.  Sure it can do all those real time effects and has near limitless folliage and very far draw distance.  But its designs, art style, look bland and uninspired to me.  Proof to me that pushing technology just for the sake of it isn't really worth it. 

Just because a game isn't using the latest DirectX 11 effects, and runs at a 2560 x 1600 resolution at 120 fps doesn't mean it can't look as great as a PC game.  In fact, most PC games (those that aren't multi-platform) that I play just don't have that kind of flair that console games have, visually speaking.

To reiterate, it's the developers that make the diference.  Of course,  if a game is available for consoles and PC and you DO happen to have a decent gaming PC, then go for that version, unless your friends are all on consoles.

I admit that that comment was too blunt, but I didn't change my tune. My point all along was that in a technical sense, PS3 and 360 games are not impressive at all when compared to PC games (mostly their direct counterparts ie. multiplatform games or same-genre games).

In this industry, gamers and journalists debate about which game has the best graphics, and often Uncharted 2 and Killzone 2 are used to prove the PS3 is "graphics king". Why not throw Muramasa or Super Mario Galaxy in there? Because the Wii is underpowered? Well, so are the 360 and PS3.

Uncharted 2 looks amazing. God of War 3 looks amazing. That is my opinion. However, those games shouldn't be compared to PC (or Wii) games. When someone says Crysis 2 on PC looks better than on PS3/360, it's stating the obvious and shouldn't be news-worthy. Ofcourse PS3 and 360 are underpowered machines. Everyone knows it. But mostly the fanboys are out of touch with reality and argue that the PS3 and "teh cell" are the most powerful hardware around. It isn't.

tldr: PC is much more powerful than consoles, but it don't matter because art direction determines how pretty a game looks. Arguing about console power is useless and sad.

Uncharted 2 is the best looking game EVAR.

It's not about polygons.

But about

1-Animation

2-Character geometry

3-Environment

4-Animation again.

It's like a DVD.

A VHS have shit image quality, but a movie in VHS still is WAY more realistic than Heavy Rain on PS3 on 720p.

It's the same with PC vs PS3. PC generates more polygons, resolution and AA. But PS3 developers still can make better looking games.

With the criteria you mentioned, I think Muramasa looks miles beyond Uncharted 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioSxc-W_ilg&hd=1

At 56 seconds was the comparison I was talking about, notice how the lighting turns red on the wall to the right and the light source on the left just gets this overkill bloom on it that the 360 version rendered properly.

Yeah, I thought the same thing too (hence my previous comment). But look at the 1:24 mark, too. The PS3 version there, IMO, looks noticeably better.

Yeah like I said forested areas look better on PS3 urban areas look better on the 360.  I just think they focused on those to areas for each console and didn't get around to optimize the other.

Why? I played Muramassa as well. I don't understand your logic.

Uncharted 2 is both way more realistic AND push more polygons than Muramasa. Muramasa is in 2D. I think you misunderstood what i was trying to say.

A better comparison is:

Resident Evil 4 vs Resident Evil 5

IMO the graphics of the two are almost the same. RE5 may push more polygons but in terms of realism, RE5 don't blow RE4. The animations of the both are the same.

And when i mean animations, i'm trying to say the way as the character moves. In Uncharted 2, drake have like a "spirit", in comparison with other games, other character feels that have no "soul". He behaves like a human(relatively).