I remember, vividly, that the reviews said that while the PS3 version of Bioshock looked good, the overall package still looked better on the 360.

http://www.lensoftruth.com/?p=3614

They agree. The PS3 version, while good looking, doesn't look as the 360 version. There's one from Digital Foundry as well, I'll find it. The point is, just because ME2 is a late port to PS3 doesn't mean it was guaranteed to look better than the 360 version (which was a misconception early in the thread).

As for Oblivion, I remember it was claimed that the PS3 version had crisper textures (which it did) and a smoother framerate (which I can't comment on as I don't remember). But aliasing seemed smoother on the 360.

The pertenant bit of the article is this:

"The engine has been reworked to utilize the PlayStation 3's technology, so if you look closely you might notice the blacker blacks and crisper textures, but you'll probably just think it looks sharp and bright. Placing both versions side by side shows off how much better the PS3 version looks during cutscenes, but during normal gameplay it isn't leaps and bounds better than the Xbox 360."

Bioware obviously did the right thing and put some effort into optimising for the PS3. Which of course set them up well for producing a multiplat ME3 with equal (roughly) production values on the consoles. We know it can be done with high quality games.

Quality devs are quality devs. Yes the game should be somewhat better looking  given the extra time, but it requires a developer dedicated to quality to actually make sure it happens. It also means PS3 owners are more likely to buy the game knowing it's a high quality port.

Remember Oblivion and Bioshock?  When the port is released about a year later, that tends to happen.  When the versions are released side by side, things tend to go a little differently.  The game looking better on PS3 is definitely a good thing but the draw of ME is the story and the choices.  Show me a video where the story is better on PS3 and I'll buy  it again.

soooo....me2 ps3 is a port of me2 x360...meaning...same game with....what? THE SAME STORY!

so, tell me, how the fuck would a port of the SAME GAME with THE SAME STORY have a better story?

this is soooo stupid....asking for A BETTER STORY for a port of a game on another console which is the same game with the SAME FREAKING STORY....

Doesn't surprise me, late port is late...

This is nothing we haven't seen before.

Comic book???haha

Mass Effect 3 engine on Mass Effect 2???haha

All the DLC for free???haha

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say to me here...  Your second point exactly reinforces what I was saying, that they've had more time to work on it so it's not unusual that it would look better.  Your first and third points have nothing at all to do with the thread, the discussion, or my post...

The bottom line here is that PS3 users get a better version of a great game with more content which makes the price worth it.  Also, PS3 users have PLENTY of other quality games to keep them busy until that time comes.  You get the best of all worlds here.  Besides, not every Xbox 360 users who want to experence Mass Effect 2 has experenced it, yet.  They're late to the party, too.  But so what?

Sorry, but the better version is still PC/360. Mass Effect 1 is NOT on PS3. Not even some comic can make up for that fact. 360/PC have over 200 combonations of things that the player did that affect their game in ME2. To me that feature alone is >>>>>>>>> slightly better graphics and three pieces of dlc.