U2 & GT5 use even a lot of expensive features for a close hardware, I don't understood you r criticism
Games that are praised to hell and back for looking good, Don't....
I remember walking into my local game store and seeing 2 workers just staring at GT5 running saying how real it looked, I then looked at it and said to them 'That looks terrible'
I think the problem is that console players only focus on certain parts of a game/engine and not on the product as a whole.
Uncharted 2 for example gets praised a lot for it's texture work which in places is damn impressive but as a whole it's not very good, It's spoiled by the lack of texture filtering and as I said above they look god awful at certain angles but yet no one comments on it.
Gran Turismo 5, The game looks half decent in replay mode but when playing the actual game it looks terrible, The shimmering is atrocious the back ground detail is poor (
STILL 2D trees ) but again no one mentions it.
Now Kill Zone 3, Has very good textures but more importantly,
VARIED textures amd not just a copy and paste of the same textures like most games do, It has very nice image quality thanks to an extremely well implemented MLAA and appears to have some form of texture filtering.
Nothing in Kill Zone 3 looks out of place, Everything looks well together as a whole. Guerilla haven't just concentrated on one particular graphical effect and raged on about it, they've equally spread there time on the entire game which 99% developers don't do.
Motorstorm - 'Look at our dynamic mud deformation' The rest of the game looks sub-standard.
If someone released that Kill Zone 3 screen shot claiming it was a PC game I would of believed them, Which is testament to Guerilla as it's not very often a console game can graphically be passed off as a high end PC game.