I do get annoyed with reviewers always reviewing multiplats on 360, especially things like review on the run (tv show) who don't always mention the game is on ps3 too, I mean MS does enough of that multiplat seeming exclusive bullshit with their advertising, as for the whole thing most are identical some look slightly better about 5 cases that override controller preference and thats about it 

He has got a point though, some games are better on PS3 (like Castlevania) yet the PS3 version get equal score on both consoles from gamespot for example. Then look at Bayonetta and it gets 1 whole point more on 360. I know that they do play both versions but seriously; with most games the PS3 review feels rushed. This is only common from western reviewers though primarily UK and US reviewers.

I also heard that PS3 version of Castlevania looks better, so i will buy that.

It's not about what version of the game is better in reviews, not as long as the experience is essentially the same. Castlevania can get the same score for both platforms if it's the same experience (even with slight graphical differences), but the graphics in Bayonetta (PS3) were so bad that they affected the experience. When it makes a difference with the experience you get when playing the game, it's worth detracting from the score. If it doesn't affect the experience, no reason to hurt the score over it.

Castlevania has game effecting frame rate drop issues on the 360, so there goes your argument 

It's not whether they affect the game, everything affects the game. It's whether it affects the experience, and if it doesn't, the score doesn't need to be different. So my argument is intact, as neither of us have played the game and can judge this ourselves, we only know that journalists will drop the score if the experience suffers because of these issues (as seen with Bayonetta), and as they haven't, the experience is probably pretty much the same on either platform.

No it really isn't from what I read the 360 version practically freezes every time you use a certain move, how does that not effect the experience? 

I haven't read up on it to be honest, but I expect reviewers to reflect issues in their scores. If these framerate drops do affect the experience really badly, then I would expect that to be reflected. We can't know this for sure until we get our hands on the game ourselves, which is why we have to rely on reviewers for now. 

So, if the reviewers are dumb as shit and don't want to put the score down because of complete and utter loyalty to the 360, I will gladly change my opinion about this when we get the game in our hands to try out, but I really hope that that is not the case. I would much rather assume that all these reviewers have some integrity, and wait until we can prove their scores to be an utter mess, than assume that their scores are a total mess, and totally discredit these reviewers before we play the game ourselves.

It also seems to me that in many instance reviewers will play one version (either 360/PC/PS3) and then copy and paste their reviews. The most recent example I can think of is R.U.S.E., where PS3 Move control, arent reviewed. It should be, its more then a minor difference in graphic or frame per second. I dont mean it should have a better score if it doesnt help the gameplay. Simply that you should talk about it since its part of the product.

Reviewers, if they want to be trustable and professional, will have to adapt and adjust the reviews from version to version, particularly with Kinect and Move implementation.

If we took tech into more account reviews scores would all be really low. With the exception of games like FFXIII and Dead Space, which have 0 screen tearing and near perfect frame rates.

I'm probably about to repeat what most have already pointed out but multiplat games still to this day tend to took and run better on the 360. So really it's 2005-2010...so far. It's most likely to stay that way (Dead Rising 2 is better looking and running on 360 as is Enslaved). I haven't seen a H2H of Castlevania: LOTS (have you?) so can't comment but the review I read on Eurogamer was of the PS3 version and they mentioned frame rate issues. As for Darksiders, the issue was screen tearing which was resolved with a patch which capped the frame rate and hence reduced screen tear which in turn brought it in line withthe PS3 version. Split Second ran better on 360 with less screen tear, better post processing effects and better overall frame rate but slightly higher res on PS3 (which was 720p) so what's your point?

Perhaps you should try reading your reviews elsewhere. Eurogamer tend to review the better version and most websites point out differences and even deduct scores from inferior versions (see Bayonetta and Orange Box on for example). Also there are dedicated H2H websites such as Digital Foundy and (the inferior imo) Lens of Truth which deal with differences and offer opinions on which is the better version.

Truth of the matter is the mostly small differences won't affect review scores.