I read the article and to my "untrained" aka regular gamer eyes the quality on the 360 was very good except for the hair and some detailed objects had a slight loss of quality.
The article did come off as very biased as all it did was rip on the 360 version and many readers would have come off with the impression that the 360 was significantly worse, even though it looks very sharp and runs well on the 360.
Using words like "poor", "disappointing" and "amateurish" sound pretty damning to me. While it may seem that way to people who count pixels all day, nobody else will have a problem with it.
The good thing about the article was it was quite in-depth but it was poorly written and worded for a gaming journalist and it's no wonder people are calling it inflammatory and fanboyish.
(from a 360 and PS3 owner)
The article did come off as very biased as all it did was rip on the 360 version and many readers would have come off with the impression that the 360 was significantly worse, even though it looks very sharp and runs well on the 360.
Using words like "poor", "disappointing" and "amateurish" sound pretty damning to me. While it may seem that way to people who count pixels all day, nobody else will have a problem with it.
The good thing about the article was it was quite in-depth but it was poorly written and worded for a gaming journalist and it's no wonder people are calling it inflammatory and fanboyish.
(from a 360 and PS3 owner)
