No one here is claiming that Metal Gear Solid 4 has better graphics than Crysis Warhead...I mean, anyone with half a brain and slightly decent eye sight can see that. However, I'm not sure why so many people are getting up in arms about this when both Giant Bomb and Gamespot clearly told us why MGS4 won the graphics award.
Now, I admit GS was just asking for trouble when they called their award "Best Techincal Graphics", but Giant Bomb did nothing of the sort, which means they aren't just taking the those aspects of a games visual appeal into consideration. I haven't even played Crysis Warhead and I would never say MGS4 has better technical graphics, but I have played MGS4 and it's a visual assault on the eyes. Every bit of it's visual presentation is meticulously detailed and it's obvious there was a lot of work and love put into every corner of the world. Remember Act III when you are shadowing the resistance? It looks nowhere near as good as Crysis Warhead, but the style and graphics are crafted together so harmoniously it just looks amazing.
Crysis Warhead pretty much had no limits on what it can do, while on the other hand Kojima and his team were working with the limited hardware of the PS3. This may not seem like it should be taken into consideration, but I just bet it was. It's not surprising Crytek was able to push such impressive visuals out in a PC game, but what Kojima Productions did using the limited hardware they were forced to work with is almost just as impressive.
So stop whining, especially the MGS4 haters, and see reason. The game deserved the award when you take more into consideration than just raw graphical power.
TreyoftheDead
you are so right, I couldn't said it better myself. 
Log in to comment