The context is that one is going to be a year old when the other one is released, and look just as good (if not better) than it. Heck, MGS4 looks great, but so does GeoW. The point is, Katarugi hurt himself when he called the 360 the Xbox 1.5 because then that would make the PS3 the PS2.5. The initial promise was a generation beyond the 360 (Killzone prerender), but that's clearly just hype and lies.
Um, surely the context is that we simply don't have a graphical watershed to compare? As they, er, said right in the article, it's an early title and not necessarily representative. It's like taking, say, any of the release-day EA titles alone as a marker, when they looked utter ****e and in some cases actually worse than their Xbox equivalents. For example, look at this older story;
http://games.kikizo.com/news/200602/065_p1.asp (
"The hands-on evidence is beginning to mount up. We're talking about a machine barely superior to Xbox 360 - not by any significant margin. It's certainly obvious this machine is not "twice" as powerful as 360, let alone a generational leap ahead. But the gap could become bigger: "Realistically, as libraries and experience with both machines grow, I think the PS3 will start showing things the 360 will choke at," offers the source. "But Sony will have to make available to us libraries and new routines for that to happen - something they've been severely lacking at so far."").
Same as Kameo and Perfect Dark are/were jazzed up Gamecube games. At least wait unitl E3 (or more than one preview) until launching your bish-bash0bosh campaing, you'll still have more than a few months to post screenshots.
EDIT; anyways, surely we all know Kuragi is a bit of an arrogant ****? I mean, it's the same for all these head honchos, and you'd be an idiot to take anything the lead businessmen at Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft as being anything beyond PR spin.
Furthermore, when you have games like GRAW coming out now, there isn't any reason for the casual consumer to wait for the PS3.
Um, price drops? 360 games run at £10-25 more than any others, and the likes of GRAW and er, that boxing one, don't actually offer anything beyond very nice graphics (the scores I've seen for it have been positive 8/10 types, but not verging into the killer app status as it has beautiful graphics but not all that much innovation and, according to one review I read this morning, poor AI and little beyond move commands for tactics). And the consumer, IMO is less and less interested in fancy graphics, because they don't trust them - we've all seen the pre-rendered video on game adverts after all.
Plus the 360 simply isn't worth it's current price, even if you can find the thing in stores; it's 2 or 3 times the price of current-gen console
bundles, with a smaller library and, of course, more expensive games. Perversely, the 360 can't really take off until it has competition, because at the moment it's in that exclusive expsnive hardware bracket occupied by stuff like 50" TVs and top-range hifis.
EDIT; for example, take PCs. Now we have 64-bit chips running in pairs at 3GHz plus, why do people still buy slower/older ones? Why do people buy a 7500 Geforce when they can have a 7900? why buy a Fiat when you can buy a Ferrari instead? Why doesn't everyone have a 14" LCD HDTV in their bedroom rather than a creaky cheap one?
