In all honesty I completely agree with the score difference between the PS3\Xbox 360 reviews on this site.

I don't agree with not one single review to my memory in the past giving the Xbox 360 a higher score when it deserved it in the past. I'm talking Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising as the most recent example that has a similar situation except in the Xbox 360's favour.

E.G

Screen tearing, frame rate, texture quality, missing details. - Not the negligable difference a multiplat sometimes shows.

I couldn't give a rats arse about the scores either way but there's nothing worse than inconsistency.

Mods\Reviwers, care to comment?

What I find slightly more annoying is the low scores given to all these games, 9/10 for Dragon Age's value is plain stupid. It will take 50 hours for a bare bones playthrough of the game...

AND, the fact that the wording of the reviews are the same, if we read the PS3 review, we want to hear what the reviewer thinks about PS3 game, not about the PC game

im surprised it was better on ps3 , it was Biowares First game on PS3 i believe , and they had already had experience with Xbox360 Hardware , Maybe Blu-ray and HDD came in handy , i would really like too know how the development went on the PS3 for them , MAKES ME wonder If they were Already brewing up something for the PS3 in the past or currently that gave them Experience with it ? or are they just that damn Good ? i think so.

dragon age is cpu intensive, so it runs better on ps3 because the ps3 has a better cpu than the 360 - that's my guess.

For the bulk of games the differences are so small (actual end user experience) you will have to look hard for them and run both versions side by side (something an ordinary person wouldn't do).

One could also argue the scores in many cases would be unfair to the PS3 in comparison, as for example for many games the online aspect is critical in the provided review scores (short games like for example MW2, Halo 3, etc) and you have to pay extra on the XBox 360 to actually make use of this (and they usually don't even use dedicated servers like many PS3 exclusives). It may also be more comforting to know all PS3 retail games come supplied on scratch resistant Blu-Ray discs, this at usually similar pricing.

I think if VGChartz reviews the Orange Box it will probably get a lower score on the PS3.

All fair comments but they don't discuss the differences in score that have actually been applied in this case. You could argue that each review will see things differently but that's not really a defense and still make site look bad.

I commend the reviewer as it's a good thing for the differences to be highlighted however small they are for the increasing number of people who own both HD consoles and want to make the right choice assuming they have no preference on controller etc.

It's just a shame that this isn't done on all reviews, it just looks bad doing it on one. I find it a bit offputting when it happens with a PS3 game if I'm honest because the general rule of thumb is that muliplats are better to get on the Xbox 360 if you own both consoles. One of the only times the reverse is true....

Suddenly these minor differences warrant a different score!

So, what's it to be?

They got some external studio to help them, Edge of Reality, their logo comes out when I start the game

It would be funny if Digital Foundry came out with the Xbox 360 showing a higher framerate.

Well naz said that he only played both console version for "a few hours" .

It's clear that he as a single person can't complete the game on all platforms, but the real question is if the first hours are enough to write a whole seperate review of each console version. I guess not.

Well he got one thing wrong. The frame rate on the 360 version is better then the PS3 version, the PS3 version has better textures then the 360.