I do think that Sony needs to take a little bit of heat for making a system that runs off of a processer that may be a little too complex. It's not even necessarily that every developer is lazy. What they do have is a limited amount of assets to work with, and may have gone too high just making the game on the lead platfrom (which, when you think about it, it's always first done on a PC), then they have to use a skeleton crew working on a skeleton budget to port it, and can't afford to hire out Naughty Dog who knows how to use the processor. I don't think that "lazy developers" are as common as fanboys would like to think.

I don't agree with the lazy development argument either. In some cases...yes...in others...no. It's dependent on not only the developers, but their skill, their engine, the hardware and ease of use, and budget (etc. im sure). In this case, i doubt it's because of "lazy developers" they put ALOT of effort into this game, so why not on both versions? In my opionion it's the PS3 hardware being "difficult" or not as easy to use for this Sega team as the Xbox 360. We've seen it time and time again. Not every developer is Naughty Dog, or Insomiac, and can deliver on the PS3 without a hitch, also they are multiplats that have their base on the PC, and ported to each system, then teaked for the specific consoles. It's well known the Xbox 360 is basically the PC, and the PS3 is different, so...smoother port for the 360...lesser for the PS3. Basically i'm saying the lazy developer argument in this case isn't warranted in my opinion, and i think it's becoming a crutch for PS3 fans to not accept the system typically doesn't do well with ports from PC, and is harder to develop for than the Xbox 360. Hopefully a patch will be applied soon, and developers will learn how to do certain games multiplat more effectively on the PS3 hardware.

For companies to only have "limited assets/resources" everytime it comes to PS3 development.....they sure have put out a lot of PS3 games this generation.

I mean, if these companies were so crippled by "limited assets", why would Valkyria Chronicles be exclusive? Why was The Club equal on both platforms? Why is Yakuza 3, Kenzan, and 4 exclusive to PS3? Resonance of Fate? AvP? Alpha Protocol? Hell, the first game they made for this generation of consoles was Virtua Fighter 5, and that was PS3 exclusive at the time of release. If Sega was so broke, and their assets are so limited....why are they even making PS3 games???!!!!

/sarcasm

I seen the first 2 chapters of the PS3 version played on a stream. The only issue I saw was that the game had to load for almost everything and the load times would take 3 - 4 minutes every time you die.

damn good post...owned

I'm sick of all the games getting 9s in general. 90% of the 9 9.0+ rated games I have played this gen have sucked 9 times more than games I've played for more than 9 hours in 2009.

Nine.

This late in the generation, there's absolutely no excuse for bad ports like this.

Everyone calling the difference in scores crap needs to shut up, play both versions, and then they might have an opinion worth listening to.

So are you saying it's pointless to look at reviews then?

Why should I spend the money to play both versions rather than just read the words of the reviewer that has played both versions?  It's obvious that one is better than the other, that's all this is about. 

I agree that arguing between a 0.1-0.3 difference isn't worthwhile, but this is a 1.3 point different which is significant enough to worry.

No, I am saying the opposite. The reviewer has spent much more time with both versions of the game than anyone here has and yet some people are calling foul without playing both versions. I'll trust a reviewer (who interestingly enough is on IGN's PS3 team) over anybody here who hasn't played the game yet.