guess so.. btw are you a mod?

Whoops. Forgot that its been a while. I just remembered it being the worst PC control scheme ever. 

Did someone mention that the 360 version has 25 reviews - while the PS3 version has 14 reviews? I'm guessing this will be enough to explain any statistical differences between the versions.

 Oh don't play stupid.  Your pathetic because your looking simply at what's shown rather than looking deeper into it.  The fact of the matter is 360 has had more reviews which means more chances to drop.  While PS3 has most likely only retained the good reviewers and yet to get to the harsher ones.

I'm saying nothing bad about the PS3 at all.  I'm saying something bad about your damned lack of indepth thinking towards looking at this.  That is what's pathetic.  Just as pathetic as people after 8 reviews and Bioshock was 99% saying how this is going to pass OOT for #1 spot.  I mean seriously people thinking is a gift.  Use it sometimes. 

 Yep I did.

It scored higher cuz Teh GrAfix 1!!!!11!, let's ignore the more reviews and essentially same score....

Do you have any links to pictures of the game running in native 1920x1080?  (it might be kind of hard to verify this, because they'd need to be gigantic in order to prove it)

I'm not trying to be contentious or anything....I just don't see how the PS3 could pull off 1920x1080 with a game of that detail without massive slowdown (i.e., worse than what Lair has) 

If you heard somewhere that the game does run in 1080p, it probably runs in the a-tad-more-pixels-than-720p 960x1080 (vs. 1920x1080). 

Again, the PS3 has fewer quality FPS than the 360, so an otherwise identical game would score higher on the system with fewer like games to compare.

BTW, when I saw the Gametrailers comparison video, I noticed the 360 version has slightly, slightly more details (such as yellow lines on some roads), while the PS3 has slightly, slightly, sharper colors on some models.

In other words, graphics are too similar to be relevant to the reviews, just to the fanboys.

Liar. I find when people really aren't interested, they are direct about it (such as saying "Okay, whatever. Can we move on?"). Pretending you are falling asleep is usually used when a point is made that can't be countered, and rather than admit that, they lie that the conversation is getting boring. 

As previously mentioned, as far as shooters go the PC is a totally different world from any console, especially when you consider things like mods and the sheer versatility of the mouse and keyboard. 

Generally speaking a PC shooter has to be something really unique anymore to be even considered awesome, it's really nothing more than saturation (we've been bombarded with generic/run of the mill/semi-good FPS since Rise of the Triad), which will happen on consoles eventually.  

I know it's only .1%, but think about it in terms of what gamers are getting compared to what they have. If you have a console with 100 FPS you're bound to be a lot more discerning and critical than if you only have 2 or 3. You just know the genre better and can judge it against other shooters.

A good example of this is Halo 2 for the PC, it essentially bombed, but not because of graphics or GFW (rofl): the bulk of the complaints were the pacing, level design, weapons, generic world, and multiplayer layout.  It's not that it's bad on its own or as a console shooter, but when you have 1,000 FPS to review a month it really doesn't stack up or stand out beyond a score of average. 

As far RE4 on PC, yes it sucked standard but you're not stuck with the scheme. There's player made mods that add mouse control and make it a ton better. 

As far as console controls being better debate, the second I see someone on a console do a 180 wrist flick headshot/rocket juggle while strafe jumping I'll change my mind  

(see also: Vo0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aI2TaJIlfH4 )

(also Metroid Prime 3 controls are incredible, best console controls ever--so far)