^ no the graphics should b fine. I mean gta4 and burnout paradise r 2 examples of ps3 lead development ad they both turned out the same. The xbox can take anything the 3rd party developers put on ps3 and it's easier and more cost efficient to do it that way. The first party games r the only ones that the other system would have trouble handeling

*snore*

Pretty much every game in that list, where the difference actually matters, was an early port. On top of that, Eurogamer lists big titles like GTA4 and BioShock as being "better" on the 360, whereas most review sites have said the opposite -- in BioShock's case they generally rated the game lower because its a year old now, and because of some texturing screwups by the devs (which they were going to fix, as I recall -- they're lucky all PS3s have a HDD, IMO) ...but they still say its better than the original 360 version. I would expect the future 360 ports of 3rd-party PS3 exclusives, like Haze, to be superior to their PS3 counterparts, for the same reasons.

The actual difference between the vast majority of these games is miniscule, whether the "360 is better" or the "PS3 is better". Hasn't this topic been thrashed enough?

GTA IV is not technically as high resolution on the PS3, but most reviews have said it looks better with clearer textures/dithering. It should be at least a tie. I thought Burnout Paradise was better on the PS3 also.

Eurogamer? Why not just get your stats from XBox fanboy.com. GTA4 for example looks better on PS3 with less pop-in.

What I find lacking in other review sites is that they don't provide hard numbers.  None of them mention that PS3's version isn't officially HD (640p), or has slower framerates.  The care that Eurogamer puts into their comparisons is what attracts me,

GTA IV Framerate Tests

 Test One: Game Intro
360: 31.627fps
PS3: 26.504fps
See it on EGTV.

Test Two: Clean Getaway
360: 28.624fps
PS3: 23.989fps
See it on EGTV.

Test Three: Final Destination
360: 35.662fps
PS3: 29.523fps
See it on EGTV.

Test Four: Station Face-Off
360: 26.015fps
PS3: 25.803fps
See it on EGTV.

Test Five: Rigged to Blow
360: 26.507fps
PS3: 23.781fps
See it on EGTV.

Test Six: Ivan the Not So Terrible
360: 33.713fps
PS3: 28.313fps
See it on EGTV.

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=137829&page=4

Again, I don't say this as a fan of either console, but I find Eurogamer to have the most complete comparisons (they do mention pop-ins, just fyi).  If you know of another site that goes into as much depth, or at least tests framerates, please link it.

says who? idiots from the links you listed? I won't even bother... keep playing out your delusions.

I find eurogamer heavily biased towards the 360 after seeing some of their reviews. But having saif that I'm not suprised that early development has gone smoother for the 360 considering how it's built on the inside.

But the same happened with the ps2, it took a while before quality games came out that were as visually impressive as god of war is. The launch titles for the ps2 were pretty awefull, while the xbox launch titles included Halo 1.

i took the ps3 first since i knew it was going to last way longer.

most of the games are multiplatform anyway.

Do you guys know that Fry posted this same thing on Amazon?

http://www.amazon.com/tag/video%20games/forum/ref=cm_cd_dp_rt_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1T1DM93QU4XL1&cdThread=Tx3BC5J67CBY22E

Fry, are you a professional troll, employed by MS?  How many other sites have you posted this to?

Seems to bother you a great deal. How is he trolling when he's providing a valid link and not even giving his opinion?