I have read too many posts about console graphics that only look at the qualitative numbers of graphics in a game. So i felt a need to give my perspective on video game graphics.
Firstly people who say xbox has better graphics are technically correct. However when playing a fast paced game does it really matter? Who can honestly tell the difference between a model made up of 1000 polygons and anther made from 2000 or 3000 polygons when that model is running by at a simulated 20 or 50 feet, faster than you can get your mouse cursor over it.
I don't think the xbox graphics are so much better that it is the only console to get.
A true gamer with integrity can look at a game and see it for its fun. I sense a lot of people in website forums have a mentality of " that game was good but it would have been the best game ever if those models had twice as many polygons"
It does not take processing power to make a game great, it is the content and the engine.
Graphics processing is important but i submit to you that HALO would have been a great game using Half-Life/quake II engine.
I personnally have'nt seen HALO played, I hear it is amazing, it has revolutionary game play that is genius, take away the "top-notch graphics, is it still absolutely amazing?
We have all played games that were crappy looking , but we did'nt know it at the time.
My room mate plays wolfenstein and medal of honour. Graphically I have to look closely to see that the models and surroundings are better than FPS from 2 or 3 years ago.
If you have to analyze a scene for more than 1 second to decide if its a game running on xbox or ps2. Then graphics power of the console should not be your only decision in buying a console.
I just listened to a favorite mp3 song at 192 kbps, i'd been listening to it for the last year at 128 kbps. Dang, i wasted my last year listening to a crappy song!, its amazing now!