PC "now" have better graphics than consoles, XBOX 360 and PS3 ( graphics comparison)

You know there's a reason consoles cost $250, right? They're really old. No one in their right mind would buy a computer with hardware that old in it today. It's absolutely fair to compare a typical PC (and $600 is a fair amount for one; don't forget that people actually use them for things besides games) against a console. It's a real world comparison, not some fantasy land equal cost comparison that would only prove what is known to everyone: that consoles do more with less because they are purpose-built for task. If everyone used the exact same PC, maybe, but they don't, so don't insist on silly comparisons that would be obviously stacked in one direction.

why do you have to be a farter for plugging a machine into the television?

Because besides the fact that people like to appreciate pretty things when they pass their time, the improvement of graphics and associated technology has opened doors to improved game experiences, or even new game experiences entirely. As an example, I submit to you that modern open-world games are often far more immersive, and therefore more engaging, than their predecessors. And that this can be attributed in a major way to improvement in graphics technology, which allowed for bigger, more detailed worlds and actors within them. Granted there's no direct correlation, but there's still a powerful one. Better technology makes better games possible.

Graphics, technology, and the appreciation thereof aren't a problem. Confusion between aesthetics and graphics is a problem (see: TES Oblivion, MOH Warfighter). So is the all-too-common mistake of focusing on presentation at the expense of mechanics (see: Crysis 2, Max Payne 3). The widening between the budgets of indie games and AAA titles (partly due to misguided focuses on graphics development), a gulf of millions only now starting to be bridged by efforts such as the Kickstarter movement, is a problem (see: Activision and EA's business strategies). But innovation in graphics are to be celebrated, not whined about. The awesome games of today would not have been as awesome, or in some cases even possible, without predecessors pushing the graphics frontier.

8800GTX is 5yrs old can run those at better graphics. so the console "optimization" aint soo much diff lol.

You might need glasses.

Pay attention to textures, edges, foliage and detail of objects in the distance. PC probably also has higher framerate.

At 0:33 the shadows on the face look pretty bad on the PC version but shadow quality is probably on low or medium. However, the texture quality is much better on PC in that comparison shot and the Xbox version has the background blurred a lot more and worse colours too. Other shots that clearly show the superiority of the PC version graphics-wise are at 1:41 and 2:12-2:27 (especially the ropes).

If you compare prices of a new video card, then you should use the prices of new consoles. 400 dollars for Xbox 360 in 2005 and 600 dollars for PS3 in 2006. 1000$ total. Good day.