i believe it is called Drop shadowing. Fake shadows on textures. Easily made with photoshop.

wrong. I have the 360 version and everything has a darker feel to it and it was even touched on in the Eurogamer comparison. Which by the way, paints a more accurate picture of the game than any other comparison BY FAR. In the comparison, they said that while the PS3 version tries to retain everything from the PC version, the 360 version did a better job of downsizing the game so as to not impact game performance. I wholeheartedly agree with that. While I am a bit envious of how well the PS3 version looks, the game is simply more stable on the 360 version. That's all I really ask for in console releases. That they don't have to sacrifice framerate for better visuals (even when there can be a place for better visuals)

With the PS2 and PS1, this was commonplace. Devs normally sacrificed framerates for much better visuals when obviously could have been down sized accordingly for better performance. One doesn't need to look any farther than Shadow of the Colossus. The game features amazing graphics, it's truly a generation too early but the framerates are absolutely horrid. To many gamers that care about non-choppy gameplay, it's unplayable.

Thanks to the much superior Eurogamer comparison, I now have a much better picture between the two versions that most people just refuse to acknowledge (mostly on the 360 side of course, as I see most 360 fanboys here in full force simplying saying 360 is better, ps3 is worse, 8.5 and all that crap w/o no real debate)

360 Pros:

Fluid framerate. While it drops at times (when it does, it can be pretty bad, the last sequence in particular is pretty bad on the framerate but then again there's a lot going on)

Anti-Aliasing. The 360 version obviously supports AA and it shows. The picture looks beautiful from the distance and even at some points, up close as well.

360 Cons:

Contrast: The 360 version is too dark. At times it can get very annoying as it shouldn't be that dark. Assassin's creed at least on my display looks how lighted areas should look, and Silent Hill Homecoming is a better indication of how darks should look. 360 version was just too dark all across the board.

Texture Detail: This version obviously has the least best of all the versions texture detail and it's apparent when comparing the screenshots. If you're not a fanboy and have eyes, then you'll obviously see more effects on the PS3/PC version while the 360 version is completely missing the detail. It doesn't exactly make me feel good that it's not on the level that I see on the other verisons but at least it runs great yeah?

PS3 Pros:

Texture Detail: The texture detail on the PS3 version is superior. No question about it. If you really want to see a difference then head on over to Eurogamer's 720p gallery and click the buttons to switch between the versions. You'll see how PS3 and PC are more closer to each other in textures and effects but on the 360 version it looks darker, less detailed and no effects at all.

PS3 Cons:

Framerate: The framerate is not constant on the PS3. Mostly due to the fact that the PS3 is actually pushing it's power to make everything so polished. I've had games like FO3 PS3 on the PC. I know what it means and feels like to have a good looking game hindered by unstable framerate. However PC's are able to change these settings, and PS3 isn't. That's a shame. If the PS3 version were able to drop a few of its features for performance I'm sure it'd be equal to the 360 version.

Anti-Aliasing: The PS3 version doesn't have it. At least not on the level that the 360 does. It doesn't really bother me too much but it's one of the differences you can recognize off the bat. I've always played games with no AA though, I'm mostly console gamer so coming from the PS2 generation, I've played a ton of non-AA games and my PC's were never able to do it, so this isn't a big deal. The 360 verison is the version I have, however, and I'm glad that AA is there.