Lets be real, everyone knows the PC outshines console tech.  That's a no brainer since most cards pretty much cost the price of your current console has more memory and more processing units.  The point is that people are comparing the two consoles and question weather its the power under the hood or is it the developer.  Many developers have said that both consoles are close and what separate the two are the developers who create the games.  My personal opinion is that it's the developers not the hardware. 

No one is comparing PC to consoles.

All I am saying is that the arguments caused by console game visuals which are like 5-10% visual difference...is like beggers fighting for spare change.

Its just sad since the difference is so miniscule and is getting so much attention on forums when its really irrelevant looking at the grand scheme of things. Its on par with people constantly getting in to arguments over which is faster in a straight like...Mustang or Camaro. It really doesn't matter since they are so close performance and because a Ferrari will rape them both sideways...

I completely agree with your opinion. Uncharted 2 is a wonderful game...and it would be wonderful if it had worse graphics. I personally hated God of war 3 and Killzone 2, and graphics didn't make those game worth playing in my book. Its all up to the games and personal preferences.

However people always have the need to find argumentative aspects they can argue over...and graphics and pixel pushing capabilities of a game is a lot easier to argue over than actual gameplay since every game is different gameplay wise.

I disagree but respect what you see when comparing both of these games. To me Uncharted 2 is so colourful so there is a big contrast in the geometry. And with no AA or very minimal AA implemented and when upscaled from 720p to 1080p it looks kinda bad at times. As long as things are moving or are far away, all is well. But close-up parts are a different story...

I see the same stuff in RE5. Most devs for both console sides use the same trickery to make games look better than they actually are...

Sony did provide amazing production values for some games, and kudos to them. But on a technical level, 360 = PS3 in terms or performance.

The problem is that most gamers do minimize the graphics between two games because the only look at what is rendered on the surface instead of whats going on underneath.  Lets take a game like Call of Duty.  COD runs at 60FPS which is quite different from a game like Uncharted 2 or Killzone 3 that run at 30FPS.  The developers decided that 60FPS was a FPS makes for a better game and thus scacifice graphical oomph for a smother frame rate and responsive controls.  It was easy for people to state that KZ2 looked way better than COD but the total experience wasn't.  The laggy controls did not make a lot of people happy and the experience put a lot of people off.

This is proabably one of the key reasons why comparisions of two games without out stating the decisions made between the two doesn't really match up with a lot of reviews and fanboys chest thumping.

if it wouldn't be crytek's first console game maybe it would be much better on ps3 and 360 as uncharted 2 and killzone 3?

i mean hey, killzone 3 is the second killzone on ps3 so the developers learned a lot from killzone 2 as the uncharted guys did. is their a company which made a better looking ps3 tiltle as their first game? i don't believe so.

so it's not just the problem of multiplat it's the lack of experience to make games for consoles. i bet crysis 2 would have easily better graphics than killzone 3 if this would be their second or third ps3 and 360 game.

and if this would be the case no one would say it could be much better on ps3 without the 360 because no one would say that the undisputed graphics king could be much better.

Yes you are,  you compared them by bringing up PCs in a thread about consoles, and by bringing up the stats for the latest and greatest computer parts.  So spare me your BS.

And PC gamers coming into console graphics threads bragging about what PCs can do are like spoiled little brats saying how much better they have it than everyone else and screaming for attention.  

Its funny you bring up cars in you other comparison,  because the price difference is astronomical for your comparison. Almost similar to Gaming PCs and console price differences.   But anyone with a brain would know that with even a fraction of the difference in cost of the cars being sunk into a Camaro or a Mustang would make it far faster than the Ferrari. 

Good post... COD4 and MW2 run like butter due to the awesome frame rate. They look very good to excellent in my books on every platform despite the "sub hd" resolution.

playstation website runs damage control

news at 11

i agree with IGN, Gametrailers, CVG that Crysis 2 easily looks better than every PS3 exclusive, even the hoorrid PS3 crysis 2

lol I don't have to spare you any BS as its my opinion...infact I can't tell if you can't read and comprehend properly or are jsut having a bad day and feel like arguing. My whole point here is that consoles are equal in their capabilities and not that PC is superior.You just decided to nitpick on one of the points I used to illustrate that.

I for one will be playing and completeling crysis 2 on 360 cause thats where my freinds are playing it and this is more important to me than having it running on 3 screens in 5000x1080 resolutions.