The game isn't worth it anyway, just put it out of its misery Capcom.

Why do you guys trust a post by Leo J? In the review it states nothing about the PS3 version looking inferior. It states the PS3 runs worse. It has framerate drops and pauses. Nothing in the review states it is worse. Leo stop trying to make it seem like the world is out against the PS3. I've already commented about you doing this in another thread and you created a thread to try to do it again. If you want to read the review yourself here is the link. http://ps3.ign.com/articles/108/1088085p1.html Second paragraph talks about the 360 and PS3 versions.
P.S. The game got a 6 on the 360 and a 5.5 on the PS3. Why are we even wasting time on this game that obviously is not good.

In what sense are framerate drops NOT a graphics issue? The only two aspect of graphics that I care about are having a solid framerate and decent draw distance

Well as soon as there's a big explosion, like the fireball on that first big enemy, the PS3 frame rate drops to about 4. For a game all about big explosions and large enemies, that seems a bit off-putting. Plus, if you look at the PS3 video, the character model looks great, but when you look at the way the characters blend into the environment, the 360 one looks like a cohesive picture. Watch again and look at how the PS3 version looks like beautifully animated characters popped out from the environment. They don't feel a part of the scene, but rather placed onto a lovely painting. Lots of digital animation feels that way sometimes - like the old hand-drawn cartoons where you could easily tell the static backgrounds from the moveable animations because the colors were different/brighter.

I'd say the video actually backs their argument fairly well, if you ask me.

Plus the review said he had moments where the action stopped "for several moments" leading to deaths or almost deaths. This is a problem. it's not that it looks less pretty but that it interferes with gameplay. Frame rates differing between 30 and 60? Not the hugest deal. Frame rates differing from 30 to 10? or lower? Huge deal.

Unless you have the two side-by-side, you're never going to notice the difference anyway. So just grab a copy if you like the game and go play.

Leo created this thread to make it seem IGN was bias towards the 360 and that they state that asthetically the PS3 graphics are worse than the 360 when they mention nothing about that. They mention framerate. Framerate is a performance issue, not a graphical issue in the sene that Leo tried to make it sound.

whether or not there is a bias all this proves is Lost Planet wont reach Capcoms sales goals

Framerate is considered a part of graphics by all reviewers I can think of. IGN certainly consider framerate to be a graphics issue, as do our own VGChartz reviews. Graphics encompasses the following things

Artistic merit - in which Little King's Story does well

Technical merit - things like resolution, explosion effects and the like come under here - GT5 and Metal Gear Solid 4 are good examples of this

Performance issues - Framerate, jaggies, poor draw distance

Failure in any one of these warrants a decreased score in the graphics section. You of course can consider framerate to not be a graphics issue, but then you will have misunderstandings when reading reviews, as you have misunderstood IGN and Leo-j in this thread. I don't know if you've noticed, but this is probably the first time I have ever stuck up for Leo-j :P I'm not defending his point in order to try to help him troll a console. I am defending him because what he is saying agrees with conventional definitions

however the fact being, if I recall most reviewers Gamespy, Here, IGN, Gamespot, Games Radar... for FFXIII those reviewers said even though it was 576P on xbox it did not detract from the gameplay and recieved an equal score... etc, whereas this does because framerate detracts from gameplay  in a lot of people's opinion, the score the score was dropped in this case.

I'm not saying it's correct, but a lot of revieweres did it, atleast the ones that I go to. Also Bayonetta had the problem as this apparently does and was rated the same way. However, like you said graphics should be reflective of both performance, technical and artistic. But, a lot of review sites tend to not follow that rule... which is a problem with their reviewers.

So you're saying that it's fair that the PS3 version of LP2 got a lower score and that the 360 version of FFXIII didn't because framerate is more important than graphics? (that isn't a rhetorical question by the way, I'm just checking that I understood you)

In which case, I would say that that is completely a matter of personal opinion. I agree that framerate is more important for me, but for many others it is not. Which is why I stated that all that this event shows is that reviews are subjective.

that changes neither of the facts that framerate is considered a graphics issue by all major reviewers, nor the fact that Leo-j raised this point because he perceived inconsistency in the review system, rather than as a way to troll

Dunno what sites your referring to but if you take Meta, then almost all the sites give both versions the same score, the only reason meta for this crap of a game is higher on the box is cuz of official xbox mags keep giving it good scores, nothing else

Heck even IGN Uk gave the same score

This is usual IGN BS, the biase they have against PS3 and Wii are just so apparent now it's not even funny....honestly all their journal articles of late sound like someone lost their period or something bla bla bla whine whine bla bla no wonder most of the staff is leaving