I noticed that the biggest difference between the two is the gamma correction. The contrast is smoother on the XBox and it allows you to see more detail in dark settings. However... in lighter settings, it washes out white areas that might have subtle textures. However, since these images are from an identical output, it's easily corrected by just adjusting your TV. Really depends on your preference. The only other difference I noticed is the aliasing. XBox has a slightly granier outline to shapes and shadows. PS3 tends to smooth these out a bit. The difference is smoother lines look "prettier", but give up sharpness. The XBox images are definitely sharper, but also a bit more pixelated. My preference: ...has nothing to do with the graphics. They both look nearly identical and I'd go blind trying to pick them apart. I say if you like the game lineup and features of one system over another, go ahead and get it. I wouldn't worry about the graphics.

Honestly, I agree with all of the above, but the current lineup of games is my primary deterrent. Why should I shell out $599 when I fancy none of the available games. I'd more readily pay $249 for a Wii since I can think of more than a few games I like (i.e.: Zelda) that are available for the system. Sony gave its customer base a false start by launching the system before it was prepared to support it with a decent lineup. The PS3 will just have to redeem itself with future games. The promise of Metal Gear Solid 4 and... hopefully... a new Gran Turismo are enough to catch my attention, but not pressing me to reach for my wallet just yet. I just keep in mind how the GameCube's library of games leaned toward the juvenile market and bide my time to see who comes out on top. I'm still content with my PS2