I expect this to be the best looking game on console since Gears of War.

Right - and that's also why console gamers, even with mouse and keyboard, won't be able to compete with PC gamers on the same game because PC gamers aren't limited by their hardware - unlike console players.

dbl post

 I actually think it looks better than Gears of War.

Perhaps, but I don't see a 1080p/60FPS console player with mouse and keyboard being at much of a disadvantage.  1080p is greater than 1600x1200.  We'll see if FPSs get to that, but 720p isn't bad either.

I think around 100 FPS the human eye can't really distinguish the difference anyways once the frames are raised. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

In any case, I am really anticipating this game. I really like what Factor 5 is trying to do with it, and I like several of their older games. I think this will be more than a game, and more like an aesthetic experience.

1600x1200 is not as great as 1080p, but you'd be mistaken to think that upping the resolution from 1600x1200=1,920,000 pixels to 1920x1080=2,073,600 pixels will decrease 260fps to something even remotely as low as 60fps.

And right - I am not aware of any console FPS that renders at 1080p@60fps that also pushes the amount of detail that the same game on a PC would be able to handle (I seriously don't know of any console FPSs with those characteristics - if you do, please let me know). 

PC hardware can be upgraded any time. It's the biggest asset and the biggest curse same time. No1 optimizes games for PC  - software propels hardware sale. Most of games should have much lower recommended hardware specification. If you are lucky enough to stay in this race - good for you. You own the most sophisticated gaming machine on earth (pretty narrow selection of  games though IMHO). Let's face the truth - only handful of PC gamers owns truly high-end machines. Right now PS3 is much more powerful than average PC (10 times?) while Wii is much weaker. This situation will change during upcoming years but right now PS3 provides the best experience not only for $500 price tag. 

You are wrong.  Even at framerates around 120, you can still notice the frames.

The reason for this isn't that 60fps isn't enough. Actually, if you think about it, 24fps is enough, as that's what PAL TV transmits.

However, it's the technique that matters. Freeze-frame any movie on an action sequence and you will always notice that the still frame is very blurred. This is intentional, and allows movies to get by with just 24fps.

On a video game, however, when you pause (the equivalent to freeze-frame) everything is still razor-sharp. This is because games traditionally haven't got around to process full-screen motion blur. In these situations, you will be able to notice the choppiness. It's not nearly as choppy, but it still is, simply because it lacks this motion blurring effect which is natural with cameras.

There is hope, however, that frame rates will be a non-issue in the future, as the increasing complexity of game engines are starting to incorporate these motion-blurring features.

I actually have a video of this effect but can't find it - I'll try to dig it up later today - but you can definitely see the individual frames of even high framerates. 

Of course game devs optimize games for PCs!

That's why the same game can be played across a plethora of configurations. That's why games like Crysis (or Half-Life2 and Doom 3) engines are designed to handle rigs ranging from 2-3 years old to rigs that aren't even on market today.

I don't see why you consider playing games on a PC to be a hardware upgrade "race". I normally only upgrade once a year on performance parts (CPU, GPU) -  what I upgrade much more is with storage, but this is normal, given a PC's inherent usage.

If you are talking about a narrow range of games: Go to the ESRB and check the games for all consoles vs the number of games available on the PC alone. The PC has about the same number of titles - around 6,500 - compared to consoles, which number close to 7,000 - but keeping in mind it's the total number of consoles, both past and present!

If you want to face the truth, there is a healthy PC performance market; otherwise, why would companies like Dell purchase companies like Alienware if it didn't make business sense? Why is it that boutique vendors like Voodoo can get away with selling computer right that cost north of 17,000USD, yet can get away with it - and survive as a company? Why is it that computer parts keep on getting faster and faster while maintaining the same price points? It's because people do buy these parts, and Nvidia laughs all the way to the bank, and AMD buys out ATI so they can continue one-upping each other in performance.

And about th PS3 being 10x faster than an average PC: I'm sorry, but I beg to differ. I can't see how a PS3 can provide me with the tools I need to work, for instance. I don't see how I could multitask Photoshop CS2, Firefox with 15 tabs open, Dreamweaver, Illustrator, Powerpoint, Office (Word and Powerpoint) and Lotus Notes all on at the same time, with a PS3 with equal speed, let alone faster.