"
The reason the PS2 lacks AA is because AA requires processing power. If the PS2 were to attempt to render any of it's higher-end games with added AA, it's framerate would keel over and die. I further believe you have no idea what you are talking about because you claim AA does not make digitally rendered images look better. The following chart is borrowed from the AA's wikipedia page.
(a)(b)(c)Figure 1

(a) is no AA, (b) is with AA, and (c) is with a different AA. If you honestly believe (b) or (c) are in some way ""blurry"", then I agree you are entitled to your own opinion. If you do not find (b) and (c) to be blurry at all, but less Jagged, then you realize the importance of this effect. You would then realize that AA does not cause your video quality to be blurry, but it is more likely that your TV is causing the blurryness. I know this because TVs are already too blurry for my personal preference. The PS2 does not actually need AA. It is not ment for use with an HD TV. However, if you were to use a PS2 with an HD TV, you would realize the presence of massive jaggies in comparison to the xbox's picture quality. Just incase you did not know, you compare screenshots by seeing how they would look on the highest quality screen, prefferedly the same screen unit. You do not compare them by putting them on an old tv from the 1980s. A 1980s TV would make the PS2's graphics look far more competitive with the xbox's graphics. However, an HD TV would not. I have not  made any false statements as far as I know. I assume that was directed at the AA bust. The reason I said the PS2 lacked AA is not because it could not do it, but because it does not do it. That last statement is sort of like saying a low end Dell computer is more powerful than a super computer because it has sold 100x as many units. This is not about grabbing ilrelevent facts such as sales to divert the fact that you're wrong and can't prove otherwise, this is about how the xbox is more powerful than the PS2 and the screenshots are clear evidence. ""I never said PS2 is more powerful."" is what you said. ""Xbox is not more powerful then PS2"" is the arguement. The architectures being different does not make it unfair to compare them. You can easily compare them with performance tests. The xbox excels farther at it's target goal than the PS2, therefor it is more powerful. Is there an arguement to that? Does the PS2's 6.2 GFLOPS (relative to the xbox's 2.9 GFLOPS) suddenly make the PS2 more powerful? Does a meaningless benchmark magicly make the PS2 better at doing something that the xbox is actually better at doing? No it does not. The xbox consistantly exhibits better performance, therefor it is nothing but logical to say it is more powerful."