Mate if you didn't read your own post, the PS3 according to Carmack is more powerful than the 360. This clearly isn't because of the GPU so then why is it more powerful?

And bull saying that ME2 is the best looking game this generation. As I've said, it runs perfectly on the 8800GT, so please, how can such a good game graphically run on such an old GPU so well? And in no way has a single ME2 screenshot beaten Uncharted 2 graphics if you bother to look at the textures, lighting and post processing effects - ME2 doesn't even have field of depth. But you have yet to show why the screenshots I provided (from the video you linked no less) are incorrect in my observations. You're the one saying i'm looking silly, yet the benchmarks are saying you are worshipping a game which runs at 60fps on a 4 year old GPU. Please explain that one as you flat-out believe not a single console game surpasses the graphics seen in Call of Juarez, a 4 year old game.

Forget your stupid PC graphics card. Uncharted 2 would know doubt run on an older PC graphcis card if it was a PC game.

It also depends on the game engine and how it's been designeed to work with Hardware. We know UE3 is very efficient. Probably the most efficient Engine whilst using resources extremely well. Thats why it still looks amazing now. So, you haven't played ME2, yet loads of peple that have think it looks amzing, best of gen or there with the top runners.

Also saying what you said about Call Of Juarez was rediculous. You and I both know it doesnt work like that. If you base good graphics by waht PC graphics card you need, then you have alot to learn. As for my post. No I didnt say Carmack said PS3 was more powerful. I used PS3 as an example. Because Rage is said to be better than anyhthing currently on PS3. Carmack actually said in Raw processing power of CPU PS3 and 360 are virtually the same. It's the RSX is a bit slower than GPU on 360. I know you'll spin that somehow. But for him to say that midway through 2009 isnt some wierd comment. PS3 has been around for the last 3 years to buy. So they have probably had dev kits for PS3 for over 4 years.

Forget your stupid graphics card? Wait, if you don't like it, ignore it?? And no, U2 would most likely not run on the 8800GT is you compare the complexities of the soft shadows and post processing effects as well as god rays - effects seen in much more demanding PC titles.

UE3 is efficient because it is simplistic. Have generally low textures for the surrounding, while some detailed textures for some characters. ME2 also uses the trick of having strong shadowing in many scenes which helps effects such as bump mapping. Well gamespot mentioned nothing about the graphics being good, but said the art direction was good.

As I'm debating the technical side of things you have yet to show a screenshot which can be seen to be comparible to Uncharted 2. ME2 seems to have very few post-processing effects and far worse shadowing and AA.

And graphics do work like that...But you seem to be someone who doesn't look at the small details and so doesn't notice if what you are seeing is either good graphics or 'good' graphics e.g. bump mapping with clever lighting. Cal of Juarez has HDR, god rays etc - go run the benchmark if you don't believe me. And in raw processing power that's BS as the PS3 has almost 1 TFlop more than the 360, with the CPU having over 100GFlops more alone. Plus if the CPUs are virtually the same and the GPU is weaker in the PS3, then how come the PS3 is more powerful? Think about it.

But back to my point, you've yet to show any screenshot which can be compared to Uncharted 2 and you won't be able to find any, mainly because ME2 has no field of depth and poor soft shadows, with little AA. How you can then say it's graphics are better I don't know. Please, enlighten me as to exactly  how the graphics are better. Saying they just are is just trolling at this point.

The whole point is the PS3 is 'NOT' more powerful. Only Sony and it's first party devs have said it is. well known devs with no faveouritism say something quite different. And IMO, the screenshots I have seen of late look better than the Uncharted 2 ones. So I and other reviewers will never agree with you.

just a note. as you know (if you dont know, its ur problem), you can put graphics processing on the cell. Saboteur is just an example how it can be done.
so, PS3, yes its more powerfull. Easiear? No, but, no pain, no gain :)

And John Carmack, the guy before you said you'd trust over any Sony developer. So now that he has said it, in a post by you no less, why you not believing him? Or is it more of a case that you don't want to?

No, show how ME2 screenshots are better. This isn't artistic meret but the tech side of the engine, please show me how the soft shadows are better, how the AA is better and how there are many better post processing effects. You can choose to say you prefer ME2's graphic style, but you are wrong in saying it is more demanding than U2 and therefore the best graphics seen on a console.

If it's so obvious, why can't you show the amazing graphics off in two or three screenshots? Plus you still have yet to comment on what I pointed out on the screenshots I posted with how the soft shadows have a clear boundary, with very simple environment textures with low poly count and low AA, and of course, no field of depth. 

EDIT: Just read what CGI said, and I think I'll go with what the guy who has played the actual game in motion has to say about it rather than debating screenshots.

well dude, while you're looking at screens and running your fingers off here, CGI just dropped and set the record straight and I believe him. And when you find a better looking 360 game than a high-ranked PS3 exclusive, you let me know and we'll talk of power. I couldn't care less about power, I judge during actual play not by "screenshots", if the 360 is as powerful as whatever you want to compare it to, let the developers show it. No show, no power.

*sigh* ok hopefully this'll be the last time i respond to you as you are very dense. I was replying to your statement (I think I said that) about the ram being low (yep I did, and several times as well) and you was not technical at all (couldn't twist facts to suit your arggument) you said nothing about speed (only when i tripped you up again did you move the goalpost) only the short comment involving size.

or can you show me where in youroriginal statement did you mention speed?

edit: I know you don't like quoting actual statements to back your comments. You prefer to go of on a tangent and close the gate to the path we was previously on.

"You was not technical"

And I think that sums up the kind of intellectual superman I am conversing with. You clearly don't understand RAM if you think speed & size are seperate & not part of the overall performance of the RAM. Go learn about it rather than showing a total lack of understanding.

Sony have said it, Carmack has said it: the PS3 is more powerful than the 360. Now please, accept this fact and move on with your little life.

lol i wonder how Crysis 2 will look on the Ps3 or Xbox 360...