This is what i got from that article:

''Still, I'll save you the suspense and tell you both versions are getting the same score for graphics because the overall package is solid on each platform.''

PS: Bioshock LEADs on 360 - But graphically superior on PS3

Nothing to see here >_>

I dont care how they look on either, I do beleive I am getting this game, as sson as I am done with F.E.A.R. 2

According to this the PS3 native res is sub HD
http://www.gamezine.co.uk/news/ghostbusters-ps3-960-by-540-360-720p-$1304198.htm
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1304369&postcount=594

960 x 540 QAA confirmed

Apparently

Not surprising, virtually every developer worth their salt has said 360 can handle ports much better than PS3, in this case leading on PS3 has resulted in a significantly superior 360 game. Same as Assassins Creed and Virtua Fighter 5 and Mirrors Edge.

Only that Assassin's Creed and Mirror's Edge are superior on PS3.

ITS a CONSPIRACY!!!!

LOL

because as much as I love this game, the PS3 rendition is a mocking shadow of the Xbox 360 version.

...

While the 360 game drops the odd frame here and there, by and large it's refreshing at a steady 30fps. Not so with PS3 where even the most basic action on-screen sends the refresh rate tumbling dramatically.

...

The fact that this ambition doesn't extend to offering the same quality experience to PlayStation 3 owners is bitterly disappointing.

so...Just to ask, just because Faith is missing a patch of dirt on her hand, this automatically makes the game unplayable?

Don't know why people give so much air time to something so unimportant.

I think it's the tumbling frame rate thats the problem not the bit of dirt.