Multiplatform titles are not really the way to compare, since as we all know (well, you don't seem to know, but you're the obvious minority so I won't take you into the account, shall I) those games don't receive the treatment needed to make use of the PS3 architecture. When the games are developed for a system first, then ported (as is the case in most situations) then the original system will have a better performing version.
You're basically saying the PS3 isn't a more capable system than the 360 because developers just don't want to put the energy and money into taking the extra step to use the PS3's more intricate architecture. While when we see developers who are indeed using it (Naughty Dog, Guerrila, Santa Monica and recently, Square-Enix with Final Fantasy XIII) the 360 just can't keep up.
Now how is it objective to dismiss the most technically impressive games from this gen into the account?
And how is it more fair to compare 2 versions of a game that didn't share the same treatment?
I don't give a damn about multiplatform games. I mentioned the Gears of War series as a benchmark for the 360 (as the UE3 is arguably optimised for the PC and 360 architecture), and could also throw a FPS like Halo3 or ODST into the mix to put head to head with Killzone 2.
Objectivity, fine. Just remove your blindfold.
