Thats not biased. Thats reality. Now bias would be if they changed the results to look better towards the PS3 when reality isnt that way.

i have played this game on my PS3 and it is not washed out like that at all.

I think these guys just aren't professional enough to realize that changing the settings on the PS3 is only half the job of getting full range RGB to work.  Their capture equipment must also support it (which it does, as evidenced by their 360 captures), and it probably has to communicate that supportness to the PS3 (which it probably doesn't, because its probably cheap equipment).

They need to do some comparisons themselves, if they honestly think they aren't getting a color-cropped image with their current setup.  I bet their full and limited range RGB captures from the PS3 look identical, and they're just too naive to realize it, or too lazy to bother checking.  They've said a lot of "washed out" and "bloom/lighting is different/bad" comments in their comparisons that they'd have to re-evaluate if they "decided" they've been doing the testing wrong, and that would hurt their rep with their 360 fans. =)

Then again, redoing all their comparisons after fixing the problem would also be a newsworthy event, so maybe they will, eventually, do it.  They get more "PS3 looks better" votes than "360 looks better" or "tie" in every comparison these days, so it might be wise of them to fix their evaluation and do it right nowadays, given that they appear to have more PS3 fans than 360 fans visiting.

You've got it wrong sorry.

The differences are very easy to explain and don't really result from a porting process at all, this game was lead on the PS3 in any case!

1. MSAA vs QAA is simply due to the 2x sample rate advantage and the extra memory bandwidth.

2. Loading times are simply due to the faster DVD-Rom on the Xbox 360 and the fact that the game isn't suited to HDD caching like with Uncharted 2 due to the fact that the player can move so quickly. If they tried a similar system it would lead to cache thrashing.

3. Tearing is due to the fact that the PS3 architecture has a more variable frame time due to the > number of cores and the Cell -> GPU programming model.

4. The lighting differences are due to the additional performance given by the Cell CPU for this task.

The game couldn't have been made exclusively for the PS3 and had these issues dropped out. If it was the same game then the same design decisions would lead you back to the same problems and the only difference is that you wouldn't have an Xbox 360 version to point out the flaws.

Didn't think I mentioned anything specific, simply that the code itself clearly runs better on 360.  The load times are obvious and I wasn't referring to that at all - simply the tearing and frame rate.

Reading up on the engine below KZ2 and U2 I do feel that an exclusive engine would be able to reduce the screen tear, etc. but it would need to be different from the basic design as it is now.  Are you sure PS3 was the lead as this seems out of alignment with the results.  Taking say Burnout Paradise as an example, if PS3 is the lead then the title normally shows a better ability to align to the PS3 architecture while porting readily to the 360.  AC2 has pretty much every hallmark of a title developed more for 360 or simultaneously for each (as with say MW2).

I agree with your points, which I think actually back up my point, as they show the areas where the current engine hits issues on PS3 architecture.

Personally, if I was coding I'd rather code for the 360 due to the design and clearer memory, GPU distinction and the better support for AA approaches.

I'll be really surprised if any multi- title ever looks totally even.  In every case I expect 360 to be slightly superior.

I wish someone made such comparision for pc version of game vs console :)
Altrough result is predictable it would be good laughter.