This analysis makes sense, although I guess it's not clear if it uses final code.
ME1 was a bit flaky on the 360 (and PC) and there was the sense of Bioware getting to grips with the Unreal engine and - as is usual - struggling a bit to get the results out of it Epic can (but few others manage).
ME2 was much better, although it did have a few issues. But the codework for ME2 was almost certainly 360/PC centric and would have formed a poor base for PS3.
Therefore Bioware seem to have taken the novel - and sensible - approach of developing a better version of their Unreal engine for ME3 and using it as the foundation for the PS3.
However, this is the Unreal engine we're talking about, which simply works better - or rather easier - on the 360. I'll bet that ME3 on 360 remains a bit better than ME3 on PS3, while with the transition of ME2 assets to the new engine for ME2 on PS3 we've got a decent - almost certainly better than porting ME2 codebase directly to PS3 - version, and one which here and there - thanks to the newer engine - does look a bit better. However... clearly a few concessions were made too, with the result some stuff's better, most is the same and a few elements are a little worse (PS3 vs 360).
I think Bioware have taken the right approach and it's one that probably gave the PS3 the best result sensibly possible starting with a title that would likely have made for a poor direct port.
Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...
