omg, I KNEW bethesda would screw up

I'm not a graphics whore, and I really don't care if its SLIGHTLY different.

however, everyone was saying what a good dev Bethesda is....but unfortunetly, it looks they aren't good enough to make the game equal on all platforms

The thing was that theres again one more multiplat that is better on X360. Where are all the multiplats that are better on PS3? Shouldn't all multiplats be better on OH SO MIGHTY PS3, because it IS SO FRIGGIN INCREDIBLE?

(Wasn't today capslock day?)

And Heavy Rain? Hah, when you render only one room of course you will get better graphics. And resistance 2, haha... Anyway try to stick with games that are there already! I am tired of this "this&that game will be much better, oh btw they come out 2010.". If games that doesn't exists yet are only thing you got, you really don't have anything.

Bethesda hates Sony. We know that already. That's why the PS3 never got DLC for Oblivion. That's why Fallout 3 has no trophies. They think they're doing us a great favour by letting any form of their legendary game on our unworthy console and we should be grateful for all that we have.

I swear they're partly owned by Microsoft.

Graphics are better on 360 because devs spend more time on 360 versions. That is why PS3 exclusives always look 10x better than multiplats.

Just look at Burnout: Paradise. They worked on PS3 more than 360 and see the graphics difference.

i am quite impressive how with more space 25gb vs 8gb they can't get textures wrong =_=.

It has nothing to do with disc space.  The game was designed for a 9MB DVD, not for a 25-50GB BD.  The issue is that the XBox360 can have more than 256MB dedicated to textures in memory, whereas the PS3 cannot, unless you want to jump through some hoops.

If you write your game to use 300MB of texture memory, you either need to have some additional code in your PS3 rendering routines to handle that (which could cause some framerate issues), or you just need to cut down some textures.  I think the latter is usually preferable and more cost effective, and obviously so does Bethesda.

On the other hand, if you design your game around having 256MB of texture memory, and to utilize 6 vector-math-devouring SPUs for animations and fancy vertex calculations to assist the GPU, you can do some pretty cool stuff that the 360 cannot achieve -- but then you'd be authoring your game exclusively for the PS3, and it wouldn't make an easy transition to the 360 (easy... meaning it would be impossible without a framerate hit)...

Unless you're making a PS3 exclusive, its probably more effective to go crossplatform and make the PS3 version suffer a little, unless you have a little horsepower to spare for the texture swapping with main memory.  This is pretty much the classic "PS3 exclusives are better" vs "X360 crossplats are better" situation.

When you do see a PS3 crossplatform game that outperforms the 360 version, its because that game is bottlenecked by something the PS3 is more effective at than the 360 -- i.e. animations, vertex stuff, etc.  If the reverse is true, its almost always a texture memory thing.

That description may be a little technical, but I hope it makes sense.

both have 512mb memory though the way to access it difference, i recently learning low level programming, i tend to agree its saving cost hammering the ps3 port.

They are lead programming on the weaker/more successful system and porting to the more powerful, just like last generation. I THINK, as in my opinion, if they lead programmed on the PS3 they couldn't port the games down to fit in the 360's parameters. The way it stands now, the 360 is in more homes, therefore, that is where they start with programming. If the PS3 was more popular and sold more games, that is where the games would start from, it doesn't have a thing to do with ease of use with the dev kits.

the ps3 arcitecture is completely different from the 360, no dlc support or trophies, which are very unfortunate, we got a crap port of such a mind blowing epic.

I don't believe that anymore. Back when PS3 was new it was hard to develop for.

I think Activision proved if you put in the effort in the result is the same on PS3 and 360. By that i'm referring to CoD4 being just as good on both consoles.