One, I'm pretty sure I read LA pointing out they had much more knowledge of 360 than PS3 and SWTFU and Fracture where their big learning experiences.

Two, while I firmly believe (from what I've observed myself) that for the most part with common engines, tools, each console produces games that look essentially the same, it's no secret that 360 has a much easier SDK to develop with. Right or wrong Sony is used to delivering the HW and basic SDK and leaving it to developers to build out their abilities - MS made a point of delivering a better SDK to attack this as a point of weakness

Three, I'm also of the opinion that due to their respective architectures and the fact most 3D engines for consoles today are actually based on experiences / tech principles derived from years of such engines on PC, the 360 tends to have an edge with such games unless extra effort is put into the PS3 version (although this has been steadily reducing and probably by early 2009 360 and PS3 will finally be more or less at parity for such games.

Four, don't assume a developer will spend more than they feel they have too. Trophies are not mandatory yet and some developers are choosing to simply ignore them for current releases (I think they become mandatory from 2009 onwards). Use of Rumble is not mandatory, nor is use of custom soundtracks. The PS3 (if you buy a Rumble Dualshock) can support all of these but developers don't have to add them, and some won't to save money.

The game kind of interests me, it's a nice concept (manipulating terrain) but when I see it in motion and someone actually playing it, it just doesn't seem very interesting.

Most will either just use it to create a bunker to get into or a wall to shield themselves, but I'd actually like to see something inventive like raising terrain on someone so that they get crushed by the ceiling in a building or like throwing a grenade and raising the ground so it gets "delivered" to an enemy on a higher platform. I just don't see any cool things like that happening in game (intentionally).

If the PS3 version gets gimped, I won't buy it, seeing as how I only own a PS3 now (of the HD consoles).

I could care less about resolution. Which one looks better, or do they look the same? The belief that the PS3 version is inferior due to a different native resolution is an over-simplification. GTA is an example of a lower resolution PS3 game looking slightly better on the PS3.

It is interesting however that the cheaper console performs better. I could say something about money better spent on supporting developers rather than marketing buzzwords like cell, but oh well...

Maybe the framerate in the PS3 version is better.
I played the demo and never had any pause or frame drop, nothing. Perfectly smooth. There were reports however of the Xbox version having framerate issues. I guess the guys at beyond3d will clear that up as well.

But anyway, who honestly cares about this game and it's performance differences. Ps3 already proved itself with MGS4, beeing on top of the "food chain", no need to prove itself no more.

Its fracture dont think anyone would actually care...lol

^this. I don't know why devs make these games that no one really cares about then they complain about HD console budgets when in the red.

My problem is why Sony gets the shaft, but when Games are gonna look worse on 360 (Rage), the entire game is gimped! F**ck that!

How are you assuming that its an unequal experience based upon that small difference in max resolution? Have you played both the versions? Have you felt any significant difference in playability? This thread is a big FAIL