All I really have seemed to hear in this thread is

BAWWWWWWWW

Both systems are relatively equal, when you take the sum of the parts and average them together.

Both have 512 MB ram (With the Xbox 360 having more usable ram due to features like online friends lists being included in the Xbox 360 ram totals whilst the PS3s are not)

The Xbox 360 has more functional bandwidth for the GPU as it uses ED-Ram for the frame buffer and as a consequence also excels with a high fillrate, alpha blend, particles and MSAA can be done at twice the sampling rate and it doesn't have to read back into main memory so therefore uses less ram.

The Cell can do a lot triangle culling etc/tessellation functions, the Xbox 360 has a hardware tessellator.

ETC... I really don't feel like listing them all.

KZ2 and any other multi disc games can be put on the 360...just do a HDD install, but leave some things on one disc to save on disc space...that's the hidden dagger against brd...it's a WHOLE heck of alot cheaper to add mroe HDD space on future consoles, and save on the cost of brd...I can envision the next xbox having a 500GB HDD and making at leas t a partial disc install mando for bigger games...

Can KZ2 be done on 360...easy!

Cause they fixed it,cause it was broken imo.

I wasn't talking about it being easy in the way of it being easy or hard for programmers either.   I don't think tons of games are going to come along and simply demolish KZ2 in terms of graphics.   The 360 is almost 4 years old, with hardware that was easy to reach near maximum potential on.   I don't see 'one' game in the 360's pipeline coming up that looks remotely as impressive as KZ2 looks.   When we get actual 360 screenshots of Alan Wake?  Maybe.    

Graphics don't drastically change that much (Especially the older the system is).  Sure the 360 might have some games that look a little better than they currently do but to actually surpass KZ2?  I don't think that will be an easy feat and I'm not so sure it will even be really 'easily' evident if a developer manages to do so.

I can't believe that there are really people out there whole think you spell maxed out,  maxxed out. That's how we do it in 'English'.  It is kind of sad really.   

Facts

- 360 is a year older than the PS3.  (Almost 4 years old total).

- PS3 despite being younger, holds what many would consider the best graphics in a console game.

- 360 was notoriously 'easier' to develop for and has been from day one. 

- PS3 was notoriously 'harder' to develop for and has been from day one.

- Most of the 'gains' you see in terms of video game development /graphics over the progression of it's life cycle is generally due to becoming more familiar/comfortable with the hardware. By about four years in?  You're damn well comfortable with the hardware. 

- One could expect to have 'more' gains on a system in which you really just recently started feeling comfortable with over a system who you were very comfortable with a hell of a lot earlier.

Facts

-Xbox 360 GPU is more powerful

-Kojami said he maxed out PS3 with MGS4

-360 was easy to dev for compared to PS3 yes

At the end of the day Gears 2 can have twice the graphics as KZ2 but no split screen.

It stopped being sad a few years back; around the end of 2006 to be precise, and became pathetic. Or don't you remember....the 360 will never ever have a game that looked better then Gears of War one?

So what is making this arguement any different then that one? Oh, and some holes in your logic here....

- 360 is a year older than the PS3.  (Almost 4 years old total). It turned 3 years old just a few months back.

- PS3 despite being younger, holds what many would consider the best graphics in a game.  Wrong. Crysis. But thats not what I'm debating. Don't forget though, Gears of War was a champion in graphics for a loooong time.

- 360 was notoriously 'easier' to develop for and has been from day one. That never meant it was easy to develope for in the first place. Every console this gen has been harder to develope for then the past gen, and the PS2 especially was difficult last gen. With such logic, it will still be a few years to come before the 360 is maxed out, and the many  years before the PS3 is maxed out.

- PS3 was notoriously 'harder' to develop for and has been from day one. Look up.

- Most of the 'gains' you see in terms of video game development /graphics over the progression of it's life cycle is generally due to becoming more familiar/comfortable with the hardware. By about four years in?  You're damn well comfortable with the hardware. Look up again.

- One could expect to have 'more' gains on a system in which you really just recently started feeling comfortable with over a system who you were very comfortable with a hell of a lot earlier Yes they could. this makes me think your trying to get me to say "oh the 360 will always have better graphics then PS3" which is not and what I won't say. Stop trying to turn this into a PS3 vs. 360 argument. Its an argument about games that will pass Killzone 2 in graphics on 360.

You want Alan Wake screenshots? Can't say I have those, but heres the newest trailer, which isnt even new. With Alan Wake having pretty much NO details so far, its more then safe to assume this will only get better, long before its release. Don't forget to claim its the PC version though, this arguement wouldn't be complete without that.

http://xbox360.ign.com/dor/objects/743608/remedy-project-next-gen-title/videos/AlanWake_Cinematic_102108.html

 It wasn´t supposed to be discussing this only, there are other parts more interesting in the article but no one seems to care about anything then who will win this pissing contest that isn´t winnable at this point.

If one of the 2 systems is soooo much better then the other we won´t be able to judge untill the end of generation and it will be decided by the games that have made it out and not on systemspecs.

Lol.  Atleast we're talking on a factual basis. 

I played it for 6+ hours mix of online and offline before the first patch, never experienced a delay in controls.