Sorry if my fan goggles are blinding me but let's compare

PS3 leadplatform game = Good port to 360, nearly identical performance

360 leadplatform game = poor port to PS3 and launch delays...

Now I'm confused.. are developers using the PS3 as lead console because its better? or because they know the 360 can handle anything on the PS3?

Seriously why choose the stronger console as lead when a) the 360 technically shouldn't be able to handle any games that uses TH3 c3LL, and b) the console is in last place?

Shhhh....First rule of being a PS3 owner, don't question the power of TH3 c3LL.

Second rule of being a PS3 owner, don't question the power of TH3 c3LL.

Third rule of being a PS3 owner, don't... oh wait.. ;-p

I ask myself the same question lots of times, I personally dont think the ps3 is that much more powerful than the xbox 360 in terms of graphics.

Good we all know the ps3 is better so its good 3rd parties are actually using some of the power. most devs say tops ps3 has only used 30-40% whereas xbox is close to breaking....so lets see it and i think killzone will show us i hope....

the thing is... in 2009, ps3 graphics are gonna start to look better than 360.

its a virtual tie or 360 is better looking right now.

fixed for the truth my friend.

 It's not that the 360 can handle it better, it's just easier to port to. Burnout paradise isn't using space consuming textures (a pro on blu-ray), it's probably not using un-compressed sound (another goody about blu-ray), not displaying thousands of things on screen (good thing about cell) etc etc etc. Burnout is a max (or damn close to I'd say) quality title on the 360 compared to what else is out there, but it doesn't look anywhere near as good as say GT5, Killzone 2, or Hell even Ratchet and Clank. 

It's not that multi-plats are going to be much better on the PS3 because they all have a coherent weakness, they have to play to both formats weaknesses. It just happens to me much easier to port from the PS3. As we know the PS3 uses 1 core and 7 SPE's, meaning that the one core has to tell all the SPE's to do a specific function, when optimized, you can get exceptional performance. Now when porting to the 360 (which uses 3 cores) it's cpu setup doesn't need specific direction, so it can take the pre-programed PS3 data and just run it using the core setup, whereas going the opposite direction fails because you can't take 3 easy to program cores and tell 1 core to just find a way to get the information to the 7 SPE's that need to be pre-programed. It's definitely true that you can get way more performance out of the PS3's setup (as proof by number crunching capabilities), but it's definitely harder (for now) to set up.

So in a sense I'll agree that the 360 is a much easier system to port to because it's using 3 general purpose cores as compared to 1 core and 7 road workers. Not that it's supperior in any way, shape, or form. 

Some of you folks have funny logic.

This shows how versatile the 360 architecture is. It can handle a game built initially on the PS3 with minor differences, and the game will sell more on the 360 due to userbase. Sounds like more porting in the future...

From owning both I can safely say this statement is full of Sh*t. In my opinion Gears of war still has the highest texture detail on the 360, and that game is short as hell >_>; Mass Effect attempted better, and look where it put them (frame drops, texture lags, insane loading times). I've seen so many repeat textures and the likes on 360 exclusives it's not even funny. Im sadly willing to say Ratchet and Clank and Uncharted are better looking than any 360 exclusive I've seen. And we have the "major players" hitting in 08. In terms of graphics the PS3 just has more room for pointlessly high textures. It's comparable, but PS3 takes the lead. After playing Uncharted, the 360 has no graphical equal.