Yes, I did play resistance between my roomate and I we have all three systems.
And, no where in my post do I say I personally think PS3 has bad AI....  so im not going to get in an argument about that.

Like I said, it doesn't matter whether it can or not... it lost a game because of ____ (insert whatever you believe here... I just used what the developers of the game said). 

Who cares , I like killiong mindless bots all day long :P

Now seriously , I think even the PS2 had proven that it can handle nearly perfect AI , than the PS3 can deffinatly do batter . Othervise who would want as good AI as human oponents now seriously :?

Whats more likely by Sony when asked this question whether it's true or not?

"They're lieing!"  or "They're right we suck!"

What sony says on the matter doesn't matter.  What matters is what the other programmers say.

People are no longer entitled to an opinion.

In the fanboy handbook, it clearly states that anyone who disagrees is a liar.

Seeing that they have an exclusive agreement with Microsoft, is that much different than a PS3 exclusive developer such as Naughty Dog saying that Uncharted can't be done on the 360?

I personally think that the Ubisoft guy who said that quickly ran home to his mailbox to pull out his freshly written check before the ink dried.

AI is really more dependant on the coding than the hardware, IMO. The whole point of the other thread was that AI was easier to code for the X360 than the PS3.

Lets say good AI is a vertical cliff face. The PS3 is a rope. The X360 is a knotted rope. They'll both get you up the cliff, one's just easier to use.

Basically the employee just stated that AI on the PS3 will never be an issue. An example of supurb AI will be heavenly sword.

He didn't say that the PS3 had worse AI then the 360. But he was stamping out any chance of people believing that the AI on the PS3 was in any way poor.

ubi sucks, they just do.

You need competent programmers to get results out of the PS3.

I would say it's BS.

Taking into account the fact that EA owns now 15.37 % of the share capital of UbiSoft which gives it 24.86% of voting power, and because of a statutory provision the voting power is actually doubled. This means in short that EA has now a decision-maker majority in Ubisoft of 49.72%.

EA has threaten UBI of a buyout, without having to spell things out, saying that they don't intend to place their people on the board of directors but they could do it if they want to increase their share capital (which mean they can absorb the company at any given time). And since EA is clearly owned by MS ... who do you think pulls the strings ?

Don't you think it's pretty strange that less that a week after this announcement, UBI suddenly makes this statement ? All the people that think a responsive AI has only something to do with the power of the CPU is totaly wrong it's all a matter of coding. So this statement only proves two things : 1. Either Ubisoft's programmers are very lazy people, or 2. Someone is talking BS for a darker purpose.

This is the French site where I fetched the information : http://www.boursier.com/vals/FR/ubisoft-les-statuts-de-l-editeur-propulsent-electronic-arts-au-quart-des-droits-de-vote-news-246505,5447.htm