If graphics mattered to most people we would be talking in PC forums :D

Actually, I have been converted from the "PS3 has better graphics" camp.

I actually think the ATI card is pretty awesome now, and really, I think the graphics on the consoles are really not that much different, with slight nods to each console in different games.

Haven't we had this discussion many times before?

Lastly, who wrote this article....? I thought we were supposed to supply a crediting link to the author/website who wrote it?

Graphics was never the deciding factor. So it doesn't matter.

Eurogamer still has this 360 PS3 multiplatform game comparison going on, I usually cannot tell any difference.

I haven't seen anything on the PS3 graphic-wise that I didn't think the 360 could have handled.

I've also haven't seen anything that justifies the price premium that consumers have to pay for the PS3.  With a console that much more expensive and coming out a year later there shouldn't be any debate at all about which one has or will have the better looking games.  The fact that many multi-platform titles look better on 360 and that Gears of War 2 is being argued as the most technically impressive console game of the year really says a lot about the PS3 and its failure to live up to its price.

The only great looking ps3 game is uncharted. PS3' graphical superiority is in the mind of sony fanboys , the same fanboys that bashed Jaffe who said that GOW2 was the best looking game of 2008

The differences are/will be so minor that the majority of consumers out there won't notice at all! While I do want better graphics, I can't say that Soul Caliber on the recent HD consoles are that much better than what I saw on the Dreamcast a few years back. So yes, some of the big heavy hitters are going to be impressive, they still feel like minor incremental updates rather than "OMG look at that graphics!" experience. If graphics really mattered to the mass then we wouldn't have MS and Sony fighting for a distant 2nd place today and the DS wouldn't be leaving the PSP in the dust like the way it is.

Your having a laugh right? In what way ahead? Games and technically? To either of them, complete bull. I owned all three and they all had similar graphical capability with the PS2 being last imo. Xbox first ahead of Gamecube (check out Soul Calibur 2 as an example). Games wise the PS2 ruled overall. So many quality games came out for it over it's lifetime, more than the GC.

In fact I remember the PS2 RE4 comparing very favourably to the GC version. Yes GC version obviously looked better (being the lead platform it should), but it still looked really good on the PS2 especially considering it was a port and a GC graphical showpiece.

Graphics do matter of course, otherwise we wouldnt need an ongoing improvement in graphics over time. But people are not aware of two aspects:

a) Superior Graphics are born out of "desire" not "necessity". Gameplay on the other hand is a necessity. So a game with super graphics but bad gameplay will definitely fail. However, What we see as desire today becomes necessity after some time. You wouldnt mind wii graphics now, because they are giving you the necessary level of graphics but ps1 graphics would be a big turn-off, as they are below whatever is perceived as necessary. In a few years, we'll get used to ps3/360 level of graphics and wii kinda graphics will be a big turn off. So gameplay perception changes little or slowly while graphics are changing more rapidly and incrementally (easier to perceive and less arguable), so its shifting over time. You can think liken this to the technological progress, computers/cell phones were fancy devices when they were invented, now all are a necessity in daily life (so how much you cared about having them has changed dramatically).


b) People are usually impartial in their judgements and quite succesfull at fooling themselves. PS3 has superior hardware than 360 as conceptually accepted, though with many problems, which does not necessarily lead to superior graphics. Based on two claims, Cell is superior than 360 processor, and 360 dvd isn't sufficient like bluray, people forget that Xbox was clearly superior than PS2 and didnt have many of the problems that PS3 has now (like programming difficulty and cost of development), and PS1 had many Multi-disc games like FF7 (one of the earliest titles!). Somehow PS1 or PS2's weaknesses were never the issue!

The graphics are so close anyway that unless you compare them side to side you would have a hard time knowing which is better.

xbox 360 top end games are still going to almost match the pinnacle of PS3's power, the differences are so small that the argument is useless.

Graphics dont matter a whole lot to me. They make the game more enjoyable I suppose, but it isnt the deciding factor. Gameplay is far more important.