I had a longer post but it got eaten (my fault) so I'll make this quick.
The games are what is important at the end of the day, not the hardware. The hardware can be fun to discuss (I enjoy it a lot!) but making Objective Statements about graphic performance is usually just, wrong. Usually makes the speaker look like they think higher of themselves than they should too, frankly. I usually see the worst arguments around the 5th generation of consoles and, as far as graphical quality goes, I really don't see how one can argue in good faith one above the other outside of subjective preferences.
If one does not like how a game looks or how games look on a console, or especially if something just does not cooperate with your body, that's very valid. I've gotten some BAD 3D sickness trying to play some games, it sucks. If you think all old 3D games look bad, that's fine too! It's purely the presenting things as objective that I see and gets right up me bum.
On top of all that, a hardware is just a medium in which software flows through anyway. Modern tech demos have proven that, given enough time and effort, they can all do very technically impressive things that they never did back in the day. Or a different way to look at that, they just runs games and a game relies on it's artistic vision just as much as it's technical competence; it needs BOTH to be a very good game.
I think the only objective way to compare video game consoles is, since they're a consumer product, their sales and profits generated. Even then, it's easy to point to business decisions having way more of an impact than the technical merits of the hardware did. Hello Sega Saturn.