bad example there... a lot of early Mario Galaxy pics have bad aliasing...it's not like that now though...

What is up with people using older games as an example of the gameplay over graphics theory? It doesn't even apply to today because those games were what the graphics were at that time period. Take Half-Life for example, the graphics are terrible by today's standards, but that's how games looked at the time. Heck, didn't Half-Life have some of the best graphics at the time, hence the 5-10 minute long train ride that functioned as a tech demo?

@ HappySqurriel

God of War 2 is awesome, but especially because of the whole game design and very impressive boss fights. The graphics are impressive for a game system released in the year 2000.

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/17394.html

If God of War 2 would have been a PS3 only game running in SD resolution unmodified the game would have scored much lower. To give you an example in the past some c64 games scored higher than the Amiga versions because the reviewers were more impressed by what the developers were able to push out of the c64 despite that the Amiga version offered much better graphics, more on screen action and much better graphics. Mario Galaxy doesn't look that impressive for a game developed for a game system released in 2006.

IMO this thread regarding the PS3's power doesn't solely regard graphics, it regards game complexity in general.

For example obviously the Nintendo DS (I like very much), PS2 or Nintendo Wii isn't powerful enough for a game like Lair. 

when will people realise that the reason devs aren't maximising the cell is because it is too damn expensive?

@ mr-money

Why? I think it will just take time. In due time developing companies will aim higher and improve on their game engines based on what they've learned from previous experiences. I can already see a big jump with regard to Ratchet and Clank Future and the already impressive Resistance: Fall of Man in terms of tapping the PS3's power.

Of course developing a simple game is cheaper than developing a more complex game. In the 80s devs teams often consisted of 4-10 people bringing a game on the market within a half year timespan. Today we see development teams with over 100 people working for years on their projects. There's still room and potential for smaller scale projects on the high end consoles though and they can tap a good deal of PS3 performance, Super Stardust available on the Playstation Network rocks!

 You don't get it do you. Take a crappy game from 2007 that you havent played yet, and take a good game from 1992 that you havent played yet. You would probably enjoy the older game better.

You can't compare a game you played 3 years ago to a game you havent played, obviously the game you havent played yet wins. I mean take someone who has never played a videogame before and let them play through Chrono Trigger, GTA 3, Goldeneye, Super Mario Sunshine, and Tetris. Sunshine has the best graphics by far, therefore it will be by far the most enjoyable game for them? 

Clearly you don't own a handheld.  Some of the best games I have ever played were 2D, and I'll take Goldeneye over Killzone 1 anyday.

Graphics will always be a "Wow" factor but never a critical one in determining game or console success in the long run. While the PS3 is somewhat unique in this generation in that it just came off of a powerful predicessor, all past generations have shown us Graphically supperior consoles, for one reason or another, have always been outpaced by the weaker. This doesn't mean a console has to be graphically inferior to succeed, just that ones who are typically can outpace their juggernaught competitors. The winner will always be someone who can improve gaming and expand the market, not the one who just improves graphics.

Generation 1
Winner: Atari Pong
Better Graphics: APF TV-Fun, Coleco Telstar

Why Atari Pong won: While not the first, it was the signiture and more recognized home console that kicked off the home electronic "Video Game" craze of the 70s and despite being graphically inferior to later clone products it accessability not only in terms of gameplay but purchaseability made it very desireable. It was the Atari's Pong's accessability to the consumer that made it a success.

Generation 2
Winner: Atari 2600
Better Graphics: Mattel Intellivision

Why Atari 2600 won: Atari 2600 was the one console that tried to excel in a larger library and longer term investment during the chaotic second generation when most electronic comapnies were just creating flash in the pan product with a handful of games to cash in on the craze. Atari's higher quality games (by contrast) and larger library made it a must have while other consoles, even those with better graphics just couldn't compete with its appeal as people were already seeing through the fad. Even the Atari 5200 couldn't pick up where this whirlwind of a console left off and remained but a foot note in its predicessor's wake. The Atari 2600 was a success because it offered a longer term investment in gaming setting itself apart from the short term fad by featuring a large library of higher quality games.

Generation 3
Winner: NES
Better Graphics: Sega Master System, Commodore 64 GS

Why NES won: The NES was not just the first console of the HD 8-bit era, but brought with it refreshing new angles on advertising video game products and their appeal. Following Atari's example, Nintendo featured a massive library of games that were all exclusives by contractual obligation and revolutionized gaming with what is considered by most to be the first true video game controller. Another innovation was the use of a D-Pad for this controller instead of a Joystick which greatly improved gameplay. The NES was a success because it revolutionized gameplay and featured a massive library of stictly exclusive games.

Generation 4
Winner: SNES
Better Graphics: Neo Geo, CD-I, Commodore Amiga CD TV

Why SNES won: SNES, as the successor to the NES, had a great head start, but with staunch competition from the Genesis is struggled much more than its predicessor. In the end though, innovative improvements to the controller and a massive game library would serve Nintendo well once again.

Generation 5
Winner: PlayStation
Better Graphics: N64

Why the PlayStation won: While Nintendo continued on in their time tested formula of continually innovating the controller and supporting a massive game library, Sony cut them off at the pass creating for themselves a larger game library with a cheaper format and cheaper development. By supporting what everyone agreed would be the future of gaming (disc format) and featuring potential for pre-rendered cut scenes, the PlayStation was more than able to compensate for its lack of comparable ingame graphics. In the end, while more expensive as a console, the games were far cheaper making the PlayStation, even in its awkward early stages, too irresistable an alternative to a gaming juggernaught many had grown tired of. Ultimately Nintendo cut it self off by holding itself to too high a standard (PS3) and valuing "quality" over quanity (PS3). In the end despite lagging behind in controller innovations the PlayStation won because it had more and cheaper fans.

Generation 6
Winner: PlayStation 2
Better Graphics: Gamecube, Xbox

Why the PlayStation 2 Won: The PlayStation 2 was not the graphical juggernaught of its era either but revolutionized the concept of long term gaming by featuring Reverse Compatibility, allowing it to play PlayStation Games in addition to PlayStation 2 games. The DVD drive also made it an attractive option for an era when DVD players had yet to be common in every household. The PS2 was a success because it had a ready made game library ready for it in the form of the PS's library which allowed it a smooth transition and unimpeded domination of third party exclusivity. 

Generation 7
...

While the generation is still undecided, the Wii is by far the cheapest (in terms of hardware and software), revolutionized the controller beyond any leap in the past, expanded the appeal of video game consoles to never before seen demographics, is the only console at this point to actually turn a profit on hardware sales, features true 100% reverse compatibility, has an ever-growing online library of non reverse compatible games, and is fast becomming the console with the most games as its not only the cheapest to develop for but the fastest to develop for (Playstation anyone?). The Wii is the recipe for success by most previous standards which have decided generational winners.