^^ true,but really,there is no surprise.

The ps3`s CPU is hard to develop for,the memory is split and the GPU is an ols 7800 GTX.

Bluray is a plus,no disc swapping like the 360,but on only 2 dvd`s...it doesn`t bother me.

Many games play worse on the ps3 and well on the 360 (Fallout 3,Orange Box,etc).

This is old news.

Wasn't the PS3 lead platform for Ghostbusters ?

No, games that are made strictly for the PS3 often show similar flaws compared to PS3 ports but there isn't a convenient example to call them out for it. For example many PS3 games use 1/4 resolution particle buffers whereas the Xbox 360 games can use a full resolution particle buffer due to the ED-Ram. Examples are Killzone 2 and Motorstorm 2.

Notice how GT5 avoids the use of particles? Theres a very good reason for that.

See bolded.

The idea that PS3 games do not themselves suffer the same flaws as ports is false.

Many PS3 exclusives make do with QAA and or no AA and they aren't called out for that because theres no convenient Xbox 360 example with MSAA to compare it to.

Many PS3 exclusives have 1/4 resolution particle buffers.

Many PS3 exclusives suffer from screen tearing (Uncharted)

There even games which have been coded independantly for the PS3 which yield better framerates on the Xbox 360 version

Examples: GTA IV and Call of Duty IV.

Are the people at Rockstar idiots for asking for a compulsary install when Infamous does the same and thats a PS3 exclusive?

So the PS3 is this perfect architecture and you'd have to be incompetent not to achieve better results than the Xbox 360 in all things? Im not calling out the architectures im calling out the idea that the developers are idiots or lazy which is quite frankly false. I have zero respect for anybody who ever says the a developer is 'lazy' because its not a profession you get into if you expect to work 40 hour weeks and get home on the weekends to see your family.

Well John Carmack better get his shit together because if Rage isn't running on par with the 360 stubborn PS3 owners won't buy it. I know I won't.

Imagine, just when you get to 25% of the game you must change disk, 50% another change, 75% another change. I prefer my Blu-Ray disc than using 4 dual layer DVDs

Well the majority of multiplat games were 360 lead, so this is quite obvious.

I just gave an example that "games" is still the better choice of words. The problem is that developers haven't taken advantage of the PS3 hardware in older games even though they were lead on PS3.

It comes on 2 DL DVDs.....

That they exist. Sucker Punch could have called up Naughty Dog on the phone and aquired their streaming technology, and yet they still had an install. Uncharted is always given as a counter-example, and yet its a closed world linear game. However whenever an open world game comes out and theres a PS3 install, Uncharted is given as an example to prove the developers as lazy. Infamous is the example which validates the fact that PS3 games have installs for good reasons.

When did you imply lazyness? When you corrected Stan games ports. You wouldn't have corrected him if the word 'port' didn't have some meaning for you, and its always a negative when you say it from reading your posts in the past.

What exactly is YOUR point here?  Tomb Raider Underworld looked and ran great on the 360 and had some good (exclusive) DLC.  The 360 version was arguably the definitive version of the game.  Ghostbusters had framerate problems and noticeable inferiority in the graphics department on the PS3, which was admitted by the developer to be the lead platform.  That's pretty pathetic.  Are you referring to sales?  Because that's no way to judge--a lot of analysts believe that Underworld sold slightly better on the PS3 because PS fans hadn't gotten a title in that series in a long time.