@ Lord Flashheart
Yes, most 360 ports aren't on the technical level of recent and upcoming PS3 exclusives yet. But I don't think it matters much, there probably are quite a few mullti-platform PS3/360 owners out there, yet we often see better software sales on the PS3 taking a look at a purchases per month of ownership ratio.
Of course there often has been a lot of turmoil amongst vivid 360 fans regarding expectable porting issues (like for example early Atari ST to Amiga ports). But the PS3 owners I know rather look at the top games like God of War 3, Uncharted 2, Gran Turismo 5, etc. The multi-platform games are usually as good as identical (as game review results also underline).
Basically a storm in a glass of water usually.
As for your question, I refer to my Bioshock comment.
Not really. But I was more referring to what can be done technically, it's possible to lock a game to 30 FPS and optimise for that. Issues can arise while porting games however, like a few early Atari ST game ports ran a little slower on the Amiga than intended due to porting issues, but of course the Amiga ran circles around the ST technically regarding such games.
LOL

Why do I prefer Bioshock on the PS3 vs the PC version? This is a game designed first and foremost for the PC/360. I don't think super high levels of AA will matter that much, AA like in games such as Killzone 2 and Uncharted is already great, I don't think there's much need for higher resolutions neither (especially in combination of low quality assets like is often the case often due to devs optimizing for DVD storage), etc.
I think what matters most is delivering a solid experience. Instead of great resolution vs super great resolution (especially in combination with identical assets) is < than better assets and true game design changing elements like be able to produce more game complexity, more onscreen acitivity, etc. For example a simple example, I think Bejeweled 2 looks better in 640p than Tetris does rendered in 1080p+.








