As impressive as they were for their time and hardware, PS3 graphics look nowhere near as good today as those arguing of favour of them claim.

In terms of textures, shaders, effects, etc they are clearly outdated compared what the Switch has shown itself capable of.

It's fair enough to prefer the art direction of these titles to Switch's top lookers, but when it comes to performance, the specs don't lie.

pics are useless,you post the pics that make your games look the best, while find ugly pics of ps3/360 games, i can find pics that make zelda, doom and mario kart look like crap, and? i agree with you specs don't lie, multipltaform games show that switch is clearly superior, thats the only way to judge a console to another properly imo.

Well if we're agreed that the Switch has better graphics, why is this discussion still going?

i was talking about comparing exclusives to judge a power of a console, people will always have a different opinions, of whats technically more superior, and it''s impossible to prove someone wrong, as all takes is a resolution bump to 1080p, even for those games to give switch a hard time, for example DF thinks halo 4 stands up to any ps3 exclusive while many disagree, so all i'm saying it's best to judge consoles with multiplatofrm games to get a idea of there power.    

That's the thing, though. Whenever a multiplat game runs poorly on my preferred console, I'm gonna yell "Lazy port!"

I'll never lose. Nobody ever backs down, really. They'll just believe what they want and what they want is to win.

yup, the reason for majority of port being inferior  on ps3 compared to 360, because the ps3 was poorly designed hardware, spit memory pool, and weaker gpu, i don't understand how any one call it superior. naughty dog are the best developers in the world when it comes to graphics, even then Gear of war 3, Halo 4, and Forza horizon are impressive as anything on ps3, well except for uncharted 3, but like i said that a extremely talented developer.  if we look at ps4 exclusives compared to xbone, you would think ps4 is 2x more powerful easily. same thing for WII U the specs and mulitplatform games don't lie, right one it came out a developer working  told us the cpu was weaker then ps3/360, ports proved this through out the whole gen. samething right out the bat for switch, it's GPU even for games designed for ps3 like la noir is already showing 2x power, only thing i'm not so sure about is cpu, we need more games to judge that though, it's till early, of course there are bad ports, but if the machine is really superior it will run most games better, developers are not lazy like some people think.   

But it can be objectively proven that Switch is "technically more superior", since we know that 3GB of RAM is superior to <500MB and we know that Tegra X1 is superior to RSX and Xenos. Or if we use multiplatform titles as you say, FIFA and Skyrim show a substantial advantage on Switch.

Not necessarily. I mean, Doom on Switch has some performance issues, but I wouldn't call that a lazy port at all, I'd call it a high end PS4 game squeezed onto a mobile SoC, which necessitates some compromises. The term "lazy port" comes into play for me when a port clearly shows signs of being badly made even relative to its hardware, stuff like Bayonetta on PS3, or Arkham Knight on PC.

yea switch is clearly more superior. i consider wiiu/ps3/360 to be even with 360 being the best overall hardware, ports prove this, but as you can see in it's first year switch is running some of those games at 1080p with better graphics which those consoles can only dream of doing, yea of course switch is a nice leap, around 3x overall.

It's fine to use exclusives to compare what is superior.
But only if you have a firm understanding of how the visuals are presented and thus can make an intimate comparison of them, which only a few people on this forum are actually capable of doing.

Halo 4 on a technical standard can give allot of Playstation 3 exclusives a run for it's money, but I also understand where they made cutbacks to get there.

The WiiU certainly has the edge over the Playstation 3 and Xbox 360, the extra ram and GPU capabilities reinforce that. Sadly it wasn't on the market long enough to see those extra capabilities fully realized.

The Xbox 360 is certainly the better rounded hardware, considering it did release in 2005, years before the Wii U.
Microsoft simply made the right hardware choices at the right time with that console... And that paid off, same reason the Playstation 4 is dominating this generation right now.

not really, GTAV is  most technically  demanding game on 360/ps3, but you think sony exclusives are more demanding, can you for fact say i'm wrong, no you can't, there so much things going  in a game engine, that you have no idea which one is technically more demanding, it really is impossible to tell.

As for wiiu part, i disagree, GPU advantage is minuscule, and the cpu disadvantage is big, based on the ports, and the developer telling us the cpu is weaker then 360ps3 where its a problem.