Yeah, it's not that it's captured at a lower res for ps3. Come up with something new. In retrospect though for both's sake, these don't even detail the reasoning for the differences. Gamespot is fail at deep explination. For example, they make it look like the ps3 versions actually have lower resolutions (aside MW2, that is factual due to the gun not being at enough angle). I KNOW my ps3 demo of BM:AA didn't have the gaurd emblem look like this up close and the 360 version I seen head on had no real difference you could care about upclose. You see also that the PS3 version is smoother and less grainy, a sign of merely a closer mip map distance. This is only a sign of the team's imperfection with the other version's parameters. They make MIP MAPPING and ANISOTROPIC TAP on low (which if PS3 can do for Oblivion and other high taxing games...) look like it's merely a lower resolution overall. These differences are bullcrap and not worth noting about. Back when, these sites would shoot stuck up people like this down for putting close judgement towards a console's "weaknesses" on little stuff like this and then what about the gameplay. Realy, it doesn't need to be compared as if it weren't able to be seen without side by side comparison anyhow, why are they ripped away from the "better console and experience". I don't care if it's not the point and "good intensions were ment", just more console war bullcrap it starts and more fuel to the fire as I see with comments. EDIT: Just to list one more thing..look at Dirt2. 360 has better texture resolution but lightly so? Nope, with every resolution drop, you have 4 texels become 1. This means the differences are going to be the same as in MW2 as it only needs a drop to the previous res, a 2048x2048 to becoming a 1024x1024 for example. What did I see was a sharper looking overal screen.