They have for a long time already.  Put aside HDR and the endless stream of worrying about what is more pretty, what do those graphics actually allow?

GT5's graphics bring nothing to the table compared to GT3 or GT4. Yeah it looks prettier but it's the same game. MW2 is in the same boat: what exactly do the graphics allow it to do that hasn't been done since 1998? Teeny tiny maps, guns, grenades, 20 or so players max. Hello, vehicles, are you there?

I won't bother posting pictures but go google image search ArmA 2 and X3 Terran Conflict and show me a game on any console that's capable of generating a game world that huge and detailed with that kind of draw distance.  In terms of graphics being pretty PC still wins, but in terms of what graphics can do for gameplay consoles are about 10 years behind the times.

You can load up a game with lots of brown and bloom but if it's 2001 gameplay and 2001 simplicity it's inferior to what's going on on PCs.  Show me the console equivalent to X3 Terran Conflict or ArmA 2 on one of the HD twins.  Do consoles even have an equivalent to Battlefield 2 yet?

Graphics aren't just who can make the coolest looking water effects. If the graphics are not doing their part to futher gameplay it's just technological masturbation.

I can't disagree more. I have Arma 2, and it's buggy as hell, if you disagree you are a liar, simple as that. Not to mention that ARMA 2 is still based off the original Operation flashpoint engine, and is basicly just a much better graphical version of that game.  As for GT5 not bringing anything new to the table compared to GT3 or GT4, how about 100% accurate car models, that look identical to their real life counter-parts, how about THE BEST (by a long shot) interior views, and interior modeling that has never been in a previous GT, 16 cars per race, i mean i could go on, but the simple fact is you are not a great fan of the game so you simply don't know that much about it and it shows.  You are clearly a PC fan and again, that shows.. I just wish some people would try and show alittle less bias.  If any platform is LACKING in graphics adding to gameplay it is the PC, honestly i can't think of a single game on PC that hasn't simply just upped the textures, and polygons, etc in a game.... The PC just follows what consoles do...

The problem nowadays for pc's is that games on consoles sell a lot more than on pc's. Therefore a lot of the games now are first made for a 360/ps3 and then, well not litterally ported, but only get a small bump in graphics, textures, polygons etc. Maybe in a year or so the difference between the hardware of console and pc's get's too big and more games will be produced seperately for consoles and pc's. And the difference in graphics will be bigger and bigger. Just like the OP said with Half-life 2 on xbox and pc.
On a side note: pc games are made for 1080P and higher, while console games (in general) are only made for 720P which safes a lot of CPU. So sitting a couple of metres in front of a TV get's the "same" picture as only sitting 50 cm in front of your screen from your pc, while the resolution is much higher in pc games.

The reason why PC games are/were stuck at Direct X 9 levels is simply because developers like to see either or both an improvement in performance or an obvious improvement in I.Q. for the same level of performance. Direct X 10 doesn't show much improvement except on really heavy graphical workloads on some monsterous cards (57xx+). Direct X 10.1/11 are what Direct X 10 should have been before Nvidias veto took out all the best bits to allow their simple but monsterous Direct X 9 based G80 (8800gtx) reign.

Direct X 11 is going to be implemented quite quickly because its easy to implement and it gives people either improved performance or noticeably better I.Q. and either way is a win. Also Win 6x (Vista / 7) adoption is close to tipping over to the majority vs Windows 5x (2000 / XP).

ask yourself how many games on the PS3 and 360 support 1920 x 1200 at 60 FPS.

do I have to answer myself?

just keep the answer in your head for the time being

Again, with GT4 vs 5 they only thing you've brought up are graphics details.  I never said I wasn't a GT fan by the way, I'm just saying it hasn't advanced beyond graphics. As far as PCs following what consoles do, that's never been the case. This glut of multiplayer shooters on consoles happened back in the late 90s on PCs so that's a pretty clear case of consoles being behind PCs by about 10 years. Maybe in another 10 years consoles will discover MMOs.

And if you can't think of a single game on PC that did more than just upping textures then you're not thinking very hard. 

Or the obscene resolutions supported by Eyefinity.

Do we really need better PC graphics than what it is now? ....no not really.