It isnt a technical powerhouse. there are flaws in the design. they made so much noise about the cell buut theres so much more to it.

God or War (and God of War 2) may be the best looking PS2 game but the Gamecube and XBox produced launch games which surpassed everything the PS2 ever produce as far as technical measures go.

Most late generation improvements in the visual apearance of games comes from a full understanding of the limitations of the system, mainly from artists who are experienced in not wasting 'resources' create 'ideal' assets for the platform in question. As an example of what I am talking about, back in the day when Unreal Tournament was popular it had a massive mod community; if I remember correctly, an average (to bad) character model would be in the 800 to 1200 polygon range with a texture that was 256x256 , a good model looked (essentially) the same at took 400 to 600 polygons and had a texture that was 128x128.

Early in a generation most modelers and texture artists are working with dramatically higher levels of resources and tend to waste them from lack of understanding ... by their third project they have learned to waste far less resources creating assets which means that you can either have better looking assets or more assets on screen.

God of war 2 looks better then anything the GC had, the same goes with Shadow of the colossus. The Gc was weak last gen, just like the PS2 compared to the xbox.

I have to disagree Starfox Adventures looked great last gen. excellent effects. Especially grass and fur.

 True, the PS2 was much more powerful than the GC.

Well Moore's law is true I bet Microsoft and Nintendo due come out with superior hardware than the PS3 in another 5 years or so. Not to much Nintendo but Microsoft is.

Why must you lie ...

I don't want to call you a moron, but who tells such an obvious lie in a place where most people know what you are saying is not true?

 How could Sony fans put so much importance on graphics now with the PS3 if the PS2 didn't have the best graphics of its generation too? Sony fans would be hypocrites to change their tune just for the PS3.

AND SONY FANS ARE NOT HYPOCRITES!!! 

MAJOR TROLL.

you look stupid now.

in terms of power and capabilities it went:

 Xbox

Gamecube

PS2.

US Release Dates:

 nes - 1985
snes - 1991
N64 - 1996
GC - 2001
Wii - 2006

PS - 1995
PS2 - 2000
PS3 - 2006

MS - 1986
GEN - 1989
SAT - 1995
DC - 1999

As you can see the industry standard has been right around 5 years.  360 came 4 years after the XBox.  If this was an attack on MS (which it was not) It was an attack on themselves as well.  The message at the time was that this would be Sony's 'newest' console for more than the typical 5 years.  That was pre release of course, so the plan may have changed (hence the question in my first post)

 As for GoW 2 for PS2, that is highly irrelevant, as the PS3 WAS released and Sony's development and marketing focus is on the PS3.  There is no dancing around this any more.  The fact of the matter is that Sony presented the PS3 as being Sony's console for longer than the typical span. CAN they do that and have a succesful PS3? Will it hurt them in the long run?  Will they stick by the plan?

I would guess all ideas of 'sitting out' the next itteration is completely out the window now for Sony, as their shareholders are probably none too happy.

This is not an attack on Sony, so please don't be so deffensive, its just a questioning of their pre-release plans and as to whether they are feasable now.