Wait, that picure someone posted was supposed the show how much better the 360 looked than the PS2? They looked almost identical!
Agreed. The difference in polygon count is minimal. The biggest difference I see is in the textures, and though they are better on Xbox 360, it's not all that impressive to overlay a better flat image over the same 3D shape. Increase the polygon count AND have better textures and then I'll be impressed.
Also, as Mark said - being better than PS2 is not a big deal. Who cares? PS2's graphics capabilities suck. That PS2 shot doesn't even show what the system is capable of. (See MGS3 as Leon mentioned.) A better comparison would be the game on Xbox vs. the game on Xbox 360.
I played Call of Duty 2 at Wal-Mart two days ago. The game was a lot of fun. The controller seemed utterly average to me - functional, comfortable, but absolutely uninspiring. The graphics were impressive, but they didn't WOW me at all. The way Microsoft hyped the "jump" in graphics power between Xbox and Xbox 360 I would have expected a lot more than this. Several people have pointed out that PC's have been doing this for years. Though PC hardware has for a long time been ahead of console power, I still would have expected the Xbox 360 to perform better than I saw in the fifteen minutes I played it.
Of course, all of this is based on fifteen minutes of play, so I could be off. Then again, it took all of three seconds for my brain to explode when I turned on a Sega Dreamcast for the first time, because I was so blown away by the graphics. I'm utterly unimpressed by Xbox 360. More of the same old stuff with higher resolution and better textures. Yee haw.