You need to understand the architecture of the Cell vs the Xenos to understand. The Cell is getting better support now while the 360 has a more unified architecture and is PC-like. This is why the PS3 had inferior looking games and 360 still looks to same or better than the PS3. Of course the same could be said because all consoles, esp at launch look bad--need to learn from dev prototypes and the learning curve on new stuff.

If you were going for a platform with the best graphics, there's that one other you forgot to mention. You know, the one that really can run games at/over 1080p.

You make me sad.

I'm sorry, but I have to ask. Other than DirectX, what makes the 360 PC-like?

I think both platforms are pretty much equal. At least, I haven't seen anything that blows me away and say "wow, this is something the competition could never achieve."

That said, this thread won't end well.

@ Total war--The basis of XNA platform. The dev is extremely similar.

The ony reason why PS3 exclusives are "better looking" is because they can't be ported to 360 for comparisons sake.

Hence the argument is beyond faulty...

HAHAHA 1,2,3 go attack each other, kill the enemy, Cell processor, Gears 2, Killzone2, yes this is going to be fun... but not very nice

That's not really the answer I was expecting as XNA may make it easier to cross-develop on Windows OSes and Xbox360 but it doesn't make the 360 and PC similar to each other.

They are fairly equal. The 360 has more ease of development and an extra year to help developers, but the PS3 has some really advanced hardware inside it. The 360's GPU has a unified pipeline, which means that although it doesn't have as much peak performance of the PS3, it does have more efficiency and thus gets higher to that peak performance than the PS3.