http://ps3.ign.com/articles/860/860328p1.html

The game got a better review on the Xbox 360, here's why:

Slower framerate, and lackluster textures compared to the 360 version.

Well Im happy, Im not getting that game. I thought ubisoft said they would work hard on the ps3 version, but I guess they lied when they said it was no port.

Ubisoft talks a lot of S***

I just hope free radical shows that the PS3 can run games as well if not better than the 360. Hopefully haze suprises many graphicly.

ubisoft must hate the PS3. They lied big time

 just because it has crappy graphics in comparison to the 360 version doesn't mean it was a port. They could have built it from the ground up, but just not put as much effort into it. But none the less, it doesn't really make a difference whether it was a port or not if it is inferior.

Or they could of put as much effort into it. Or more effort but just not as much to make it equal.

It does take more effort to get an equal amount of return on the PS3 for a lot of developers afterall. The big payoff being the more effort eventually pays off into the games looking better then anything the 360 can do.

This of course being much more of a payoff when you only have 1 version to make because you just have more time to put into it.

Now if the 360 version was worse then the PS3 version you could complain they didn't put as much effort in the 360 version... but even then if the PS3 version was past what a 360 could do period you can't really complain.

ubi you are full of


see more crazy cat pics

Lets put this into context .The review says the frame rate suffers a bit more that the already suffering 360 version and that there are some odd textures worse here and there .We cant call this a shit job ,just not up to the 360 version by a slight margin .And I dont trust too much Gamespot when they do this thing of the 360 staff reviewing the PS3 version of the multiplattform games either .

@diomedes

Then if its just barely a difference the score should not be affected.