When Fallout 3 was first released, I made a decision based on gaming journalism to purchase the 360 version instead of the PS3 version (I had both). Not long afterward, I decided to sell my entire 360 setup and I purchased the PS3 version (got a sweet deal from Meijer - $30 for the limited edition and this was still in '08, they had it on clearance). I popped in the disc and prepared for the worst, but was pleasantly surprised to find it was the same game. One thing I noticed that almost no reviewers commented on was that everything was shiny where on the 360 it was all flat (kinda fixed now for 360, more on that in a bit). I didn't have any problem with the framerate either, it dropped in pretty much the same spots as the 360 version but was a little choppier without screen tearing (vsync enabled on PS3). Were the reviewers wrong? Biased? Maybe just angry at the initial lack of trophies and DLC? Or maybe some of the issues in review copies were fixed with the first patch. I don't know, but you can't believe everything you read and for that I'm sure they lost quite a few PS3 sales.

The above items aside, most reviews mentioned that there is a lack of anti-aliasing in the PS3 version which is noticeable mainly in the background. This is something I noticed where the 360 version has an edge. Now despite the fact that digital foundry swears the 360 version uses 4xAA, I have to disagree because the foreground objects are just as jaggy on 360 as they are on PS3 (comparison screenshots here - http://www.eurogamer.net/gallery.php?game_id=7685&article_id=285447 ). What gives? Well some time after I got the PS3 version, I got a sweet gaming PC and picked up the PC version of FO3. One thing I noticed was that on high/ultra settings transparency multisampling is checked by default. On low resolutions, there is a dithered checkerboard outline on everything, even in the distance. This is exactly why the 360 version looks "anti-aliased", look at the comparison pics. I am now doubting it is anti-aliased at all because it certainly doesn't look like it in the foreground. The dithering doesn't look bad, but it doesn't end there. It also dithers particle effects and creates artifacts. As a result the 360 version is less gory than the PS3 version due to a flawed way transparency is handled. You can reproduce this on the PC version by ticking it on and off in the launcher (comparison pics here - http://forums.guru3d.com/showpost.php?p=2922314&postcount=889 ). Grass looks better with the dithering though, but it's kinda not worth the artifacts. Luckily you can turn it off and use your display driver's control panel to force a similar transparency effect without the artifacts. The 360 version also had lower resolution textures and as a result the programmers have lowered the gamma making everything much darker (and forcing the use of pip boy light at times) to mask it. For some reason, this led to many reviews saying it had better shadows despite there being no environment shadows! It does have a better object draw distance than the PS3 version though. Specular lighting was missing until it was added to a degree in a later patch, although not everything is affected like in the PS3 version - http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/89927-New-Fallout-3-Patch-Offers-Surprise-360-Visual-Upgrade

Finally, the 360 version appears to have no anisotropic filtering while the PS3 version does. Check out the ground in the comparison shots, it's much blurrier in the distance on the 360 version similar to that console's version of Oblivion. So how come gaming journalists ignored these items? In the end, both versions of the game are designed around the hardware strengths and weaknesses of each platform and are currently both about equals in different ways. One is not superior to the other. Then there is the GOTY edition which can crash on all platforms (including PC) when approaching a "hook" to another data file (like the UFO in the capital wasteland) which is another story, but all editions are affected. Sorry for the long post, but I guess I just wanted to say don't always believe what you read when making a game purchase. See for yourself, gaming journalists do not always know what they are talking about (especially digital foundry)

One last thing regarding people that don't know what they're talking about. Check out the PC performance setting review of FO3 here: http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,665387/Fallout-3-Graphics-settings-compared/News/

The reviewer mentions that medium settings have weaker textures than high settings and looks 'washy'. The texture settings are identical on medium and high though! Medium turns off AF by default, but turning it on in modern hardware has minimal to no performance penalty (practically free) so maybe that's what he saw.

re:AA, the 360 has a chip dedicated entirely to Anti Aliasing. 4xAA is effectively free.

Correct, it does have and embedded DRAM framebuffer which also includes logic allowing for effects like AA at very little performance cost (called 'intelligent memory'). FO3 definitely has transparency AA for the background as I mentioned, so it is being used to some degree. Foreground stuff is still jaggy though. I read all the time about the eDRAM allowing nearly free AA but it must not be entirely free because not all games use it (Halo games don't use it for example)