Just so ya know, the bulk of my post was directed to the TC.

At anyrate if its from eurogamer im not gonna even bother since they've been known to be false more then half the time.

see the games in ps3 are great and the graphics is great also but not as much as the 360 ( for now ) ... Killzone 2 is the last chance for sony to proof that the ps3 is better in graphics but for now the 360 have the upper hand .. but again i tell u the games in ps3 is the great ..  i ignored GOW 2 just to play Resistance 2 in the ps3 because its a great game & shouldnt be missed.

^Insted of this whole monologue, you could just give him two facts:

1. Killzone 2
2. John Carmack: PS3 has the edge in power.

Until I see something other than GeOW2 being 360 pushing the 360, then PS3 Takes it. Us PS3 fans have to argue over what PS3 Exclusive looks better (MGS4, Uncharted, GT5). More to add in that list in 2009. Doesn't that tell you something

All of the below is in my personal opinion...

By the 360's point of view... (Not including PS3 exlcusives)

It would go someting like... (In terms of graphics and Res)

Star Ocean 4 >>>>>>>> GeOW2 > GeOW1 > Mass Effect >  Left 4 Dead > IU > Tales of Vesperia.

By a PS3's Standpoint (Not including 360 Exclusives)

Final Fantasy Versus XIII >>>>>>> Heavy Rain >> Killzone 2 > Uncharted > MGS4 > R2 > LBP > VC.

Though that might change of course, we have to see some of these games put next to each on its maximum Res be it 720p to 1080.

numbers mean jack. actual performance in games is what counts.

and until the 360 can produce something as beautiful as gt5, i'll always believe the ps3 is more powerful.

I found that a quite interesting read. It was easy to follow too. Good job you provided links too.

Yeah, sorry as you can clearly see im biased in favor of Versus XIII in many aspects. :P

Comparing two different games on two platforms to determine which platform is better is largely meaningless. There are so many variables that can make a difference such as developer capability and resources, approach, game-style requirements, etc. Also, what looks really incredible to one person might not look as great to the next, depending on personal preferences--some like artistic/manga style graphics, some like depth-of-field effects, some prefer higher photo-realism, etc.

Even comparing the same game on two different consoles isn't terribly reliable as a developer/publisher may have different levels of experience with each platform, or throw more resources at one or the other (I think EA has demonstrated this sufficiently).

In the end, using subjective measurements such as "how good something looks" will never prove anything conclusively regarding system capability or performance.

One final note... while I respect John Carmack a great deal, I wouldn't say he's unbiased. If you've ever heard him give a presentation, then you know the guy definitely has strong opinions.

I'd hate to be the moderator having to read this thread... Or maybe I'd love it!

We need a Brian Ashcraft-like guy/gal here who is not be afraid to swing the banhammer around liberally. I kid, the mods here do a great job (This place remains much less vile than most other gaming forums).

On topic: As many have already pointed out, just using these numbers are rather misleading. However, the most pertinent question that needs to be asked here is: Who cares?