you already explained it dude.

"Bethesda was the only company to actually put effort"

I think this was a rather weak screenshot comparison, in reality overall the differences are much greater and to really appreciate this you will have to see the game running side by side.

http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?id=3450 (Check out the review)

However I don't think the developers significantly overhauled the game engine to get the most out of the PS3, I still think this is an excellent port overall. Probably at this point the PS3's and XBox 360's best overall game if you don't mind playing it by yourself.

Has been a worthy purchase for me!

I don't know if it's specifically the videos I'm watching or what, but it sure seems like the framerate drops quite a bit on both platforms, though especially 360 during load times.

yet the PC version still looks better, and did not had a 2year delay

 Yes, both versions show framedrops from time to time, if they redesigned the game engine to better use the SPUs there wouldn't have been any reason for framedrops. I think you will need a beefy PC to run this one in equal quality without framedrops. Still this game I prefer to play this game on a console on a large television, I only have a 17inch LCD for my PC. 

MikeB wrote:
"Yes, both versions show framedrops from time to time, if they redesigned the game engine to better use the SPUs there wouldn't have been any reason for framedrops."

I have stated things like this years before the PS3's release, I have been following Cell development for quite some time:

"If the game starts life on PS3, then man-hours per feature or costs related to asset production are comparable with industry norms", going on to suggest: "Since PS3’s Cell processor allows MORE features - better physics, more complex graphical processing, lighting or sound, etc. — there is inevitably going to be more cost in supporting those extra features. It’s not that PS3 is harder to write for, it’s just that you can do more with it."

Correctly harnessing the parallel SPU processors in the Cell chip is one of the most difficult parts of PlayStation 3 development, according to multiple sources, and the PD group at Sony weighs in on this: "SPUs are not ‘normal’ processors like the PPU. There is a trade-off between performance and versatility. A Ferrari is not the best car for a visit to Home Depot."

They also claim, pointing to the PlayStation Edge toolset as an additional help for reducing graphics pipeline complexities between SPUs and the RSX graphics chip: "Compared to PS2, the SPUs are much easier to code for. In PS2 we had some custom chips called VU0 and VU1 which were powerful, but tricky to write for."

Finally, ease of conversion between the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3 is addressed, a key part of many cross-platform games in today's market. The Sony developers note: "If your game starts on Xbox 360 you will have to re-engineer aspects of the game to run properly on PS3. This means additional effort. Some developers have been complaining about this but I don’t believe we can solve that. Xbox 360 is a different machine with good, but lower powered hardware in a different architecture. Developers have to view them as two different machines not as a common platform."

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=14326

 Thanks for your contribution.

Ultimately, and I hate to be pro-MS about it, but the primary reason Oblivion looks any bit better (and to me, it doesn't look much different except for slightly better draw distances), is due to them having an extra year to work on tweaking Oblivion to work better on the PS3.

Any game that gets extra dev time will look better, atleast in a typical sence. However, it does show that the PS3 can offer better graphics if more time is taken :)