Some people usually forget that the better game is not only about the graphics, but about the whole experience. For example, additional content, framerates, bugs etc.. One might have better graphics, but runs a bit worse, and vice versa.. Until now, the X360 has the best balance in maintaining graphics/performance/quality on multiplats compared to the PS3 games..

resident evil 5 had self shadowing etc on 360. so on a literal basis it was better than ps3 version. but guess what both games were still the same, can anyone give me proof on why i should hav got 360 version?

these comparisons are pathetic if games play the same, 360 usually has lead dev as its the cheapest option 4 devs.

Micro-differences. Leaves me speechless that people use them as ammunition in the console wars.

Well if you care about having the best possible graphics and performance you would take notice of these comparisons.  But most people don't care and will never notice the difference.  Even though RE5 has self shadowing on the 360, most PS3 owners will not miss it ( or the fact it has a lower frame rate ) and will have the same experience as 360 owners.  Vise Versa for other games.

I miss the old days when there really was a big difference.  Say Genesis vs SNES. Amiga Vs Atari ST. NES vs Master System. Playstation vs Saturn.  Those were good comparisons.  Multiplatform games on the PS3 and 360 are too much alike.

go 360!!!

I know something similar to that.. Gametrailers compared Burnout Paradise Grid PS3 and its 360 counterpart in a video.. And the "PS3 version" had 360 buttons on its screen lol

Nope, that would be GRID.

OT: This thread is pointless. I don't even see a difference between all the multiplatform games. But that just goes to show how elitist the HD era made us.

*Flamesuit on*