Actually the article states that they wrote Tekken 6 for an arcade machine which had an architecture very similar to the PS3, and that in writing the game, they used some animation techniques (and probably multiple render targets, which the PS3 is good with) which required full utilization of the SPEs.
This makes a lot of sense, since animation, and its good algorithmic buddy, vertex skinning, are highly intensive, embarrassingly parallel operations which would stand to benefit hugely from the SPEs' mathematical muscle. If Tekken is all about character detail, and animation detail (I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and say it is), then it makes sense that animation+skinning might be a pretty spendy part of their game pipeline.
In other words, they wrote the game around rendering concepts that required something that the PS3 could provide, but the X360 cannot, despite its GPU awesomeness.
He's not saying anything regarding the two consoles, with regards to saying "one is better than the other" -- he stating that their particular application relies upon a strength which the PS3 provides in spades, and that it's difficult to produce results of similar quality on the 360, at 60 fps. You could take that to mean that he thinks the 360 is an inferior game console -- but that's not what he's saying at all. He's saying that his game is, by nature, very animation/math-oriented, and one of the consoles has an easier time with that particular stage of the game pipeline.
Basically he's saying something akin to "PS3 is way better with Folding@Home than the 360 is". Yep. He's right. There's not really any argument here, unless you put words in his mouth, and then you're really just arguing with shadows.
