YES! Tony Hawk is a half ass graphical effort. I'm sure they would disagree too. Just like EA would say that their sorry ass ports from PS2 took FULL advantage of the xbox hardware. Now if you believe that load of BS, then you sir, are a moron. Some games are just known to be graphically lazy and Tony Hawk is just one of them. They, like EA, have used the same fugly engine with no upgrades for some time. So, I believe it would be unfair to say, "hey look at Tony Hawk on the 360 compared to Killzone 2". Sony only showed a game they KNEW looked good, but I guarantee if Tony Hawk was in video form for PS3, it would look exactly the same as it does for 360. Now, once again, did you see Gears of War running? That is a pretty game, just as pretty as Killzone 2 and it's running on an ALPHA devkit. Do you know what is in the alpha devkit??? Ghost Recon 3 also looked really good, once again, ALPHA devkit.
Sooo, in conclusion, yes some games are half ass efforts and that will remain the same on BOTH systems. Also, don't compare a game that is crap to one we all know looks good. That's like saying the xbox is ONLY capable of Constantine when we've all seen DOOM 3. Lastly, where the hell is m_hael? I know some of these specs by Sony are just totally mindboggling on where they came up with them. Can you give us some more realistic specs for BOTH systems to be fair?