Bioshock looks better on PS3. I made this thread so people know that Eurogamers opinion is in the Minority.

Their "opinion" is based on fact.

Resolution is not opinion.
Framerate is not opinion.
Whether a game has anti aliasing is not an opinion.

I don't own either 360 or PS3 and don't plan on getting either, but from looking at comparisons, I can say without a doubt that Eurogamer does the most rigorous testing of any comparison site on the web.

The sources you cite for PS3's supreriority - those are definitely opinion.

 If Wii fit had a better framerate the Super Mario Galaxy would it be your opinion that Wii Fit was a better looking game?

People are comparing which console has better graphics by looking at the game who has the best graphics on the console. We all watch Killzone 2 vs. Gears 2 comprasion and we all know now that Killzone 2 looks better. And no, we cant compare MGS4 on PS3 and MGS4 on 360, because 360 CAN'T stand MGS4. Oh, and you think all those 19 rounds on eurogamer are won by 360?

Bioshock does look better on the PS3 minutely, but still better.  So we have different views on which version looks better.  Why is that?  It's because in reality it's usually a give-and-take if not one is clearly better.  And people show too much insecurity when different opinions are voiced.  As long as it can be intelligently discussed with respect where shouldn't be any problems, right?

Yes, Eurogamer clearly has an agenda they push. For example with regard to GTA IV they compared the cinematics which on the PS3 was claimed to be 24 FPS (like holywood movies) and on the 360 30 FPS. Who is even going to notice this?

The differences between 360 lead games and their PS3 ports are very minimal (which is not surprising considering the technical differences, despite the PS3 is more powerful). Even with the worst early ports which used very little of the PS3's resources they weren't as if you were playing the Wii or PS2 version.

99% of the games are nearly equal with both versions showing stronger and weaker points, it's not like developers have twice the amount of enemies on screen compared to the other version or anything major like that. Mostly it's just a different color scheme, with one version looking a little clearer but with more aliasing issues and the other a little more blurry, one a bit darker or vice versa. Minor stuff like that many would only really notice when put next to each other. but using a different HDTV screen or minor changes in TV settings will often have a bigger impact.

But most agree the most impressive and best looking games are on the PS3 already, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Metal Gear Solid 4 and Killzone 2 are some real eyecatchers and the gap will IMO get bigger as time goes on.

I stopped trusting eurogamer after they threw a white filter over RE5 PS3. I took a look at all comparison trailers at gametrailers and things were far different: (whisper it if you dare) PS3 version did look better.

Doesn't matter because it's not about the numbers.  It's about the effects of the number on the eyes and in the mind of the gamer.  And from my standpoint for instance GTA PS3 looks better that GTA 360 with the number still being the same.  So it still boils down to opinion.  Respect it.

wow never knew that about gta4 on the 360

Also the weaker 360 to PS3 ports are usually also the least demanding and impressive high definition games on the market. More effort with regard to PS3 adaptations seem to be implemented by developers of higher profile titles compared to less significant ones, but still at least all the 3rd party games which sold well on the 360 get PS3 ports eventually and the differences aren't really that noticeable.