Well if Bioware claim they haven't reached the limit for the 360, why did they downgrade Dragon Age: Origins for it?
And if you read what Criterion actually are saying they aren't commenting on hardware but just you can keep on making games for it even if hardware limits are reached.

Lazy devs? Don't argue what hasn't been mentioned.
The cell simply is far more powerful than the 360 CPU. There are no two ways about it, and the Cell can do more than the 360 CPU.
The PS3 doesn't have a 7600. Stop trying to argue about something you clearly know almost nothing about. The RSX engine is based on 7000 architecture but still has 32 pipelines, and the rendering abilities of the Cell allow the PS3 to churn out better graphics on exclusive titles that actually use the SPU's.
So GPU vs GPU the 360 wins, but as no benchmarking tools for the Cell exisits, that's not the graphical battle over with as the Cell can take a lot of the workload off the RSX, unlike the 360 CPU. This is how Uncharted 2, God of War etc can kick out great graphics.

A tricore processor was hardly the best out there when it was made, and 512MB ram was still very low. And no permanent HDD and still DVD's? Yeah, that's dated.

Since when were you an electronic analyst? The Cell was originally planned to do everything. So should the GPU offload to the Cell? YES otherwise you have a lot of wasted power. What other tasks should it be doing?! Uncharted 1 ran mainly on the PPE and none of the SPUs were used. A bad design? No offence but you sound like a silly kid trying to criticise a design you clearly don't understand.

"It can smarted up the appearance a lot."  I'll decipher that and presume you mean it helps. Well it does, but 2x is still hideously low has very little results to the image, while giving a performance hit. At 720p which isn't a great  resolution to begin with, you need at least 4x AA to make a difference.
I never asked for ingame ME2 shots  - I simply said the shots shown weren't great. And they aren't. There is no feild of depth effect, the AA is okay, clearly low polycount as theres a lot of bump mapping going on and so on. You are the one insisting on ingame shots for some reason. And GT prologue is over 3 years old. Really think the graphics haven't been changed since then?
Why can't a non-exclusive have the best graphics on a console? Because it has to be made for a plethora of other systems and not perfectly optimised for one. This means the console won't have 100% optimised power behind the game due to architeture.

I'm not putting the 360 down and stop protecting it like an insecure 15 year old trying to justify his choice for a present. Fact is the 360 has pro's and con's and as this moment in time it seems to be that it is weaker than the PS3. By how much you can't measure, but it's what the games at this moment are showing. Doesn't mean it won't have great games on, or better looking games in the future. And ME2 graphically looks okay, but how can you really expect a game that's recommended to be played on a 4 year old GPU to be top notch?

Different game. Probably different team working on it. If DA is so downgraded then how come bioware was able to make ME2 look soo much better than DA?

So I can't argue points now? You've been bringing up anything you want to but I can't? You do like telling people what they can and cant use or say but don't like living up to those restrictions yourself.

The cell is more powerful but is that enough? Does that mean the 360 CPU isn't up to the job it was designed for? Nope. The cold hard fact is the RSX isn't up to the job as well as the Xenos and the cell HAS to take over. that can't be ideal but does show how good teh cell is.

So a tri-core it's not up to the job, well 6 hardware threads available, because?

"The CPU cores (there are three) are the highest frequency PowerPC cores currently available, running at 3.2GHz." Dated? You should read this http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/power/library/pa-fpfxbox/ or anything on the Xenon. It was hardly dated when released."Shippy doesn't believe that Microsoft yet knew that Sony had the PlayStation 3 in the works -- but liked what it saw in the PowerPC technology that was now possible thanks to design principles partly researched for Cell. "The initial tech that we built -- yes, it was paid for through the Sony-Toshiba-IBM Design Center, and was developed for the Cell chip," says Shippy."
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3904/processing_the_truth_an_interview_.php?page=2

512MB of ram is low? I agree it should have been at 1GB like in the PS3... oh wait how much does the PS3 have? Unless your point is there are aspects about all the consoles that were dated then I agree but you should say that. If you are now nitpicking the 360 then I suggest you stop.

So the AA is ok now? It was nonexistant before? I'm instistng on ingame because you used a promotional shot to show how the graphics in ME2 suck. Also no motion blur? No depth of field? So Bioware decided to remove them from the sequel? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCFOVvtPSlY go to 1:09 As for motion blur I'm sure thats in there. once we get some footage of sheapard running whilst in combat you'll see.

So now you think there will be better looking games coming out for it in the future? But you'd been desperately trying to claim it's 100% maxed out as say EA. Which is it? Maxed out or not? No AA or some? Now as for the Low poly count. I'm thinking you need your eyes checked or maybe you turn of youtube and get a 360 with ME2 and tell me it's low ploy.

Your explanation for why multiplats can never look as good as exclusives is fanboy nonsense. If the engine is powerful and capable enough there is no reason why it can't have the best looking games running from it. Why can't it be tweaked for each machine? How well a game looks and plays is down to the engine running it. It's not b3yond the realms of possibility.

Because the game is recommended for a certain gpu doesn't mean that it will look the best on that  gpu. Crysis had a recommended GPU but it sure as hell didn't run with everything at ultra settings on it. Doom3 had a recommended but it was a while before you could get a rig that played it at full whack perfectly. The recommended system requirements are a guide line to so you have a decent idea as to how well the game will play on you PC not stating if you meet these requirements the game will run at 1900x1200 on ultra at 60fps.

Please stop putting the 360 down with nonsense or just stick to the PS boards where you can rag on it with like minded "fans" You constant want to assert that the 360 is "weaker" than the ps3. Why? what does it mean to you? It seems the one defending like a 15yo is you with these constant knocks on the 360.

Different game. Probably different team working on it. If DA is so downgraded then how come bioware was able to make ME2 look soo much better than DA?

So I can't argue points now? You've been bringing up anything you want to but I can't? You do like telling people what they can and cant use or say but don't like living up to those restrictions yourself.

The cell is more powerful but is that enough? Does that mean the 360 CPU isn't up to the job it was designed for? Nope. The cold hard fact is the RSX isn't up to the job as well as the Xenos and the cell HAS to take over. that can't be ideal but does show how good teh cell is.

So a tri-core it's not up to the job, well 6 hardware threads available, because?

"The CPU cores (there are three) are the highest frequency PowerPC cores currently available, running at 3.2GHz." Dated? You should read this http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/power/library/pa-fpfxbox/ or anything on the Xenon. It was hardly dated when released."Shippy doesn't believe that Microsoft yet knew that Sony had the PlayStation 3 in the works -- but liked what it saw in the PowerPC technology that was now possible thanks to design principles partly researched for Cell. "The initial tech that we built -- yes, it was paid for through the Sony-Toshiba-IBM Design Center, and was developed for the Cell chip," says Shippy."
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3904/processing_the_truth_an_interview_.php?page=2

512MB of ram is low? I agree it should have been at 1GB like in the PS3... oh wait how much does the PS3 have? Unless your point is there are aspects about all the consoles that were dated then I agree but you should say that. If you are now nitpicking the 360 then I suggest you stop.

So the AA is ok now? It was nonexistant before? I'm instistng on ingame because you used a promotional shot to show how the graphics in ME2 suck. Also no motion blur? No depth of field? So Bioware decided to remove them from the sequel? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCFOVvtPSlY go to 1:09 As for motion blur I'm sure thats in there. once we get some footage of sheapard running whilst in combat you'll see.

So now you think there will be better looking games coming out for it in the future? But you'd been desperately trying to claim it's 100% maxed out as say EA. Which is it? Maxed out or not? No AA or some? Now as for the Low poly count. I'm thinking you need your eyes checked or maybe you turn of youtube and get a 360 with ME2 and tell me it's low ploy.

Your explanation for why multiplats can never look as good as exclusives is fanboy nonsense. If the engine is powerful and capable enough there is no reason why it can't have the best looking games running from it. Why can't it be tweaked for each machine? How well a game looks and plays is down to the engine running it. It's not b3yond the realms of possibility.

Because the game is recommended for a certain gpu doesn't mean that it will look the best on that  gpu. Crysis had a recommended GPU but it sure as hell didn't run with everything at ultra settings on it. Doom3 had a recommended but it was a while before you could get a rig that played it at full whack perfectly. The recommended system requirements are a guide line to so you have a decent idea as to how well the game will play on you PC not stating if you meet these requirements the game will run at 1900x1200 on ultra at 60fps.

Please stop putting the 360 down with nonsense or just stick to the PS boards where you can rag on it with like minded "fans" You constant want to assert that the 360 is "weaker" than the ps3. Why? what does it mean to you? It seems the one defending like a 15yo is you with these constant knocks on the 360.

But that's not what they said. They said Uncharted 2 was not only the best looking game on any console, but that it had no equal (the best of the best these days).

Seeing as they also gave Uncharted 2 a 10/10 for graphics, and Mass Effect a 9.5, I think they're telling you which they think looks better. Not only that, but Uncharted 2 has a 4-page review and a second opinion review. Like I said before selnor, it doesn't matter either way, but you have been claiming what they meant without anything solid and without knowing for sure..

No, it has nothing to do with PS3>360, at least not from me. It's just that, like you said, it's speculation. Difference is, you're running with it like it's absolute, but then when other people run with their theory as an absolute, you peg them as wrong/ridiculous.

Either side could be right or wrong. Bottomline is, those who are disagreeing with you raise one good point IMO, if they meant what you say they meant, why wouldn't they have just said 'best looking game on consoles'? And remember, I'm not personally said you're wrong for sure, you may not be. I'm just telling you to consider the other side, you COULD be.

I understand. But I find it hard to believe they would be that vague without meaning competition as all other games. If they were being precise, surely they would have stated 360 precisely? Competition includes all consoles does it not? They said best visual experience to date about Gears 2 for example. So would that mean on 360? Or everything? Whereas with Forza 3 they said best on 360. So I cant see it being anything other than all games competition.