They said Tekken 6 had lower load times for the 360, other sites have said it looks slightly better on the PS3 though. LOT are legit enough.

Trollboy... have you even read the LOT of MW2?

"The win was marginal with slightly better visuals, quicker loading times and a higher average fps on the Xbox 360. As stated before, you will not be disappointed with either version of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2."

significantly=/= marginal

So essentially you're not taking this Lens of Truth thing seriously, even though they provide screenshots becuase CGI Quality told you they're wrong and you consider that a confirmation?

Hey CGI look, you have a follower. If you get a few more, you can start a cult. In CGI Quality We Trust!

No they're full of awesomeness.
It's not their fault that you just look at the result and don't read their articles.

Everything I've seen so far was very professional and completely unbiased.

I think their articles, as well as Digital Foundry's articles are interesting, but they haven't convinced me to buy one version over the other. I prefer to play my games on the PS3 if possible, so unless something is seriously wrong with that version I buy it. To say that one version "wins" is a bit unprofessional, but I tend to ignore that aspect of their reviews. At the end of the day, the only service they really provide is to stoke the fanboy fires.

Obviously you did not READ the LOT article and just looked at the screens shots.  Right at the top of the article they say..

“…the real decision comes down to which version your friends are getting.”

“It is our job to report the differences, no matter how small, present the data and determine a victor.”

So what were the small differences? 

1. 360 has glare/bloom, PS3 does not
2. 360 has softer dynamic shadows
3. 360 has a higher FPS
4. Load times are better on 360

Again, READ the article it clearly stated in the article the outcome.

"The win was marginal with slightly better visuals, quicker loading times and a higher average fps on the Xbox 360. As stated before, you will not be disappointed with either version of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2."

Case Closed, move on and enjoy MW2 on either system

Their articles seem perfectly balanced to me and they always back up their statements with hard evidence not just some still screenshots cherry picked to make either version look better or worse. Seems to me this thread is more about the insecurity of some people unwilling to accept that the 360 can still produce slightly better performance on multiplatform titles. We all know why this occurs as its a conversation thats done to death in every LOT article posted.

I would never change my buying decision based off these articles anyway unless the game in question had really obvious deficiencies (Ghostbusters for example).

My comments were addressed to the guy putting total faith in your word while not having his own hands on time with the games while denouncing a source that puts a hell of a lot of work into their analysis. He's the odd duck, not you.

Well I think they do take negligible differences and turn them into significant points of difference. A 12 sec loading time vs a 15 sec loading time is something they need to identify as fact, but that difference is insignificant in the grand scheme of things, so it should be a tie breaker rather than a point in one or other system's favour from the outset. A 10 sec difference in loading time on the other hand is something to score the lower system down on from the outset.

Same with frame rate and screen tears. An average 55 fps vs an average 50 fps is indiscernable to the player's eye. 10% screen tears vs 15% is a negligible, basically statistically insignificant, difference. But 55fps vs. 28fps and 10% tears vs 30% tears is significant because they are discernable differences for the player.

That's the problem with turning quantitative data into a qualitative outcome. Full disclosure of facts is important for a site like LoT's credibility, but what is also importaant for credibility is to put the facts into its proper context and state whether certain facts are meaningful in a real world setting.

At this point in LoT's life I would look at whether it would serve to apply a perception margin to each parameter and count differences that fall within the perception margin as a practical tie. If the end result is a tie the practical ties can be assessed to determine the technical winner.

From my reading of the MW2 LoT it would seem the 360 achieved (according to them) at least one technical win that rose the the level of player perception difference. So 360 got the outright win. But some parameters should have been presented as practical ties between the systems rather than outright wins for the 360. The one thing that stood out in my mind was the mentioning of the bloom effect on the 360, this seems to be something that they thought gave the 360 version a perceptable aesthetic edge. But for the rest of the LoT analysis it seemed like they were both talking up negligible differences to make sure they had a clear winner in each parameter, and then talking down those same differences at the end to emphasise that the end result is a lot closer then the all green table at the end would indicate.

so, you were permabanned and decided to create another acount.  Sounds good.

OT: The article doesn't seem to imply any kind of drastic differences.  I think you are blowing this way out of proportion.