I don't think that you are arguing against it, but just to clear things up for those that may get the wrong impression from your post, the xbox was superior to the PS2 in practically every way. You won't find a single competent developer that will argue otherwise.  Now that we have that cleared, the reason why a PS2 game can look better than an xbox game is because more effort was put into the PS2. It's that simple. If the same effort had been put into the xbox game, it would have looked more amazing. There is no secret PS2 trump card or anything, it is just effort.

 I couldnt aggree more!

Although the PS3 is more powerful than the Xbox 360, Killzone 2 is a result of effort, not because of that power. Sure, it helped, but had that much effort been put into an Xbox 360 game, then it would have looked amazing as well. Sony wanted to have one game that tried to match the hype it had so it sank a lot of money into it. 

 I also totally agree with that. The same kind of effort would make a 360 game comparable well. Maybe better on some aspects and worse on some other but definitely comparable.

.... 

@ssj12

Fact 2 :  This is indeed true. Sony has ALWAYS over-promised and under delivered. Toy Story graphics on PS2? Toy Story graphics on PS3? No. 2 Teraflop powerhouse? No. 3 gigabit ports and the ability to act as a router? No. 1.8 Teraflop GPU? No. I watched in horror as the PS3 went from the powerhouse Sony promised into the pitiful (by comparison) machine it is now. Still more powerful than the 360, but pitiful compared to what Sony promised.

Fact 4: You are also incorrect here. There is no such claim. It is an accepted industry fact that the PS3's data transfer times average out to be slower than the Xbox 360s. 

Fact 5: Also incorrect. The PS3 has more potential power than the Xbox 360. This is not myth, it is a fact. However, how much power will actually be extracted it another story. Give a developer 10 years and they will extract more power out of the PS3 with every game. So this is indeed true.

Fact 6: A lot of developers use XDR ram to store video textures since the PS3's GPU ram is not enough, something which slows down XDR a lot. And "a few mb" is actually a lot. Don't try to underplay it, it is one of the PS3's biggest weaknesses against the Xbox 360. This is another reason why the PS3 requires game installs. The Xbox 360 can hold more of the game in memory while the PS3 has to copy it and load it from the hard drive because loading it from the disc would be too slow. Slow read speeds + low memory = required use of hard drive.

Fact 7: You are passing your bias and unlikely opinion as fact. Nice try, but no. So far, the numbers point in the other direction.

Thanks for nice defence and clearing out my points :) I do agree with all...  

 Fact 2 - He was talking about the games in his comment, I hit back with games. I didnt even say anything about the technical side did I? nope.

Well, I actually was talking about both aspects. So He had a good point, which I agree.

Fact 7 - Goto Chartz than Hardware from launch. Compare current week PS3 is on versus the week the 360 had in its life. Also look at the fact that the PS3 is 50 weeks younger than the 360. Fluctuating gaps due to price drops before the holiday season does not make a sturdy ground to predict the future. What will happen if Sony drops the PS3 $100 this holiday and outsells the 360?

Comparing from launch is not always such a good idea. There are several reasons. When 360 was first launched, many people were sceptical and they wanted to wait until ps3 and wii were released, and then decide. When ps3 was released, people were already given all thats available, and the new generation had fully begun. Also Microsoft or Sony wouldnt care about "from launch sales", but current sales and we're not living in the past. They price their consoles with whats happening now. This is why 360 didnt get a price cut before 2008. The important thing about sales is the yearly gap, meaning which console is selling more each current year. So far, ps3 hasnt sold more than 360 in any year and the gap is increasing.

umm.. no. Just no. The Dreamcast was stronger than the PS2. The Genesis was stronger than the NES/Atari.

umm.. no. Just no. The Dreamcast was stronger than the PS2. The Genesis was stronger than the NES/Atari.

What freedquaker and the others have posted it true, the PS2 was more powerful than the Dreamcast. One of the only advantages the Dreamcas had over the PS2 was its ability to do tile based deferred rendering, and even that was just to make up for its horrible fillrate. And like I've already states, the Genesis was not more powerful than the NES. The genesis had a more powerful CPU than the NES but everything else was subpar. 

ssj12, I understand that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even if it goes against an opinion shared by others. However, there is no arguing this. This is fact. If you think the Gensis/Dreamcast games look better, than that is a matter of personal preference. Don't drag technology into it.

ssj12 said:

So pretty much its similar to the PS3 versus 360 now. PS3 has a stronger processor but weaker GPU. Thats exactly what I thought but thanks for backing up what I thought. I do know that the GSX, PS2's GPU, follows a very interesting design that doesnt act like a normal GPU does making it stronger than some GPUs of that time.

Still wasnt it also the same way with the Dreamcast? Stronger processor weaker GPU, thought it was how it was.

Also where is the Saturn in this? Stronger than the SNES or weaker, this I forget.

And why? I have a pretty damn good understand of technology, just not older console hardware past minor things I have read. I do understand the GC, Wii, PS3, and 360 pretty damn well.

 You have your generations off by one for the Sega systems. Saturn was more powerful than the SNES, and PS1 as I recall. The Dreamcast has a weaker GPU, and lower RAM. The CPU clock speed is slightly lower, but it is a 128-bit processor. The PS3 and 360 are much much closer in terms of tech specs.

ssj12 said:

Genesis vs NES

Saturn vs SNES & PS1

Dreamcast vs N64 & PS2 & Xbox

I'm correct. As Saturn was released in 1995 if I remember correctly. Genesis was like what... 4 - 5 years before it. Dreamcast was like 1998?