PS3 exclusives are much larger than other console

I see this all the time, and I am just dumb founded. There is such a huge leap in content, usability, craftsmanship, production, and quality between multi-plats, and exclusives. As the generation moves on this is getting even more and more profound. Look at Halo Reach for example. That game offers at least twice the content of any multi-platform game and every bit of it at a quality that could not be done across multiple systems, without massive cost. The only way that a developer could recreate Reach on PS3 would be to take another team of 200 people and spend 2 years fine tuning every  bit of it to match in performance and quality. 

There have been good Multi-Plats this gen, in Bioshock, Mass Effect, and Burnout Paradise. Those 3 games are the only multi-plat titles I have felt made that exclusive level of quality. Out of them two are time exclusives. Bioshock was amazing on 360 and felt the same on PS3, and I am sure the same will hold true for ME2.

Meh, they don't really matter that much to me. It's kind of like how CGI and special effects don't matter in movies to me. Sometimes flashy CGI can actually cheapen a movie.

I'm much more interested in quality gameplay, story, and controls. Uncharted is good because it has interesting characters and fun gameplay, imo. The graphics are just a bonus. :P

There are tons of games with great graphics that suck ass, but no game I've ever played, that has great gameplay, sucks.

Wait and compare with Versus XIII... FFXIII isn't one of the best looking PS3 games... if so then there are ten or more games petty than it.

If you mean code efficiency, use of controls, use of system resources (which will normally surface through game performance, fps, resolution, etc) then yes, of course, no question about it.

Given most consoles have different specifications supporting them all forces a balancing act with regards to optimization of the engine/interface while supporting only one allows a greater degree of optimization for all aspects of the game.

You should see this lovely thread right here.

Graphics do matter, but not in the way fanboys want them to. Visuals matter, and graphics are a big part of that. Where would Mario be without his handsome looks? The whole 'push da consoles to da limit, omfg graphix' thing is overblown though, I'll give you that.

OT: I love good graphics, but I love games more than that, so I'd rather compromise graphics and features a little and make sure a game gets out to a greater userbase, so long as the compromise doesn't mean the game is noticeably worse than it would otherwise have been. Many multiplat games avoid this compromise somewhat by designing their features around what the platforms have in common, but it is not the best scenario still.

Honestly, I would point to this thread of mine for what I think would be an ideal solution to this issue, in the console space at least.

Nah.  The best looking game on the Gamecube was RE4.  On the original Xbox, Doom 3 was one of the top games.  One of the best looking games on both consoles is Enslaved (buy Enslaved, kids!).  GTA4/Red Dead offer more ambition than most of the other games on today's HD's platforms.  I'm sure people can come up with even more/even better examples.  Exclusives make the systems seperate but in my opinion, (with the exception of recent PS3 games) historically third parties push the console more.

of course,if it's a first party game.

L.O.L Crytek is talented and make good games without relying on graphics? , did you even play Crysis ?

I think he meant talent for pushing technology, and Crytek rank pretty high in that regard.