You should remember to add a source.

OT: Hardly a night and day difference, but I suppose this makes the PS3 version the one to get. Even so, you can't trust a few screenshots for a general graphics analysis. Mazinger even took back the 'foliage' shot, because he said it was premature to start judging without more material. You still have more important bits to consider, like framerate, and finding neutral shots of the game. We have no idea of knowing if these shots were specifically chosen because they are in the high end of what the 360 version can output (I wouldn't normally be suspicious of something like that, but seeing as SE already "screwed up" once, they haven't really garnered my trust on this). Adding insult to injury, Mazinger said the PS3 shots were from the demo, so the visual quality should have gone up on the PS3 version (however slight it might be).

@ binary solo

"I have my doubts that the 360 shots are totally legit. Esp that one of the girl. Her hair looks so grainy at the ends it almost looks like a scan of a magazine photo of a screen shot. It's also got he slightly washed out look of a picture scan."

That is in the PS3 too. It's because the hair is being created using alpha-to-coverage, which is a method for rendering transparent textures without as big a performance penalty as doing it in a better looking way. Both GT5 and Forza 3 use the same method for maintaining their 60 FPS.

This...a million times this. I'm buying the game on PS3, but the differences being pointed out here are so small I really don't think they will matter. I can see why people bring them up, considering this is pretty much done with every multiplatform game nowadays, but if a person only owns a 360 this should not bother them AT ALL.

Actually, the 360 version is a port. And it shows.