I can't see any images, and only read the 1st page...

Were the shots really that bad?

When i first saw them they were pixels.

Well we know the in game cinematics, CG and sound will be better on PS3. The actual gameplay graphics will be closer. If Square had spread it over 4 discs the 360 may have had better quality CG (compared to what it has now). I mean check out Halo Wars, the CG on that is insane quality. Still good thing I have a PS3 for times like these lol.

Tbh though, I'm looking more forward to Alan Wake...and that looks better

Who gives a fuck about HD as long as it's widescreen?

I play the Wii and I deal with crappy resolution. Get over it.

Decide for yourself

^

O__o
Why does the PS3 version suddenly look worse in the last comparison?
Im mean, the buldings are much sharper in the 360 version. (i know its darker but somehow i like it better)

This game got Bayonetta'd.

I'm beginning to wonder if this was Square's plan all along. Release a rushed port on 360, let Microsoft market it like mad, guaranteeing it'll sell at least moderately well regardless, and make a bunch of easy money with little to no work involved.

Meristation's weighing in on this as well. Below are some battle shots.

That screen is from the April 2009 demo, I couldn't find a 720p feed of the final game to capture it with, that's why the character on the left of the screen is different in both shots, plus the lip-synching would be different. It's not really meant to highlight the flaws in the PS3 version, but show how the 360 compares and it does seem a little better then the 2009 demo, which is good.

And another

I almost feel sad for MS marketing this game as a exclusive..

PS3 version definitely looks alot better. But everyone will enjoy this game! :)