“but on the whole it is the PS3 game which appears to be the more pristine of the two, even if it isn’t quite as strong in terms of overall performance”
^Tie(one positive, one negative)

Interestingly you cut this quote short, and conclude a tie. “on the whole” indicates that overall , its is “more pristine”, so is more refined as a product. Compare this to the second part of that quote u use to command a tie, which is” even if it isn’t quite as strong in terms of overall performance – a relatively minor blip we’ll discuss later”. Note the use of “relatively minor” here, indicating that , it wasn’t significant enough to affect it “overall” , “being more pristine”.

^ ps3 win, their conclusion, not mine .

You also conveniently separate out performance aspects from the 360 win into lighting, frame rate and screen tear, whilst lumping Af which added “clarity” and “depth” to the image, “Better filtered textures lead to a more detailed overall presentation “ into one category(clarity is different to detail). These points are not all the same at all. Add less texture loading issues into equation and thats four there. We could reduce frame rate, and screen tear down to one point, performance, and lighting and motion blur down to another point , maybe visual effects, giving 360 only two points in its favour. See how this worked in your favour your way?

What your argument also doesn’t factor in, is that the “blips” in framerate, are just that , blips, whilst the lighting bugs, are just that, bugs, and screen tear is deemed not “ enough to negatively colour the experience in an overly meaningful way. Screen tearing is noticeable in places, but at the same time it isn’t a massive issue, due in part to the dark nature of the game”, and they say also that “while the odd dips in frame-rate don’t tend to occur in any key action scenes where it would noticeably affect on your enjoyment of the game.

In contrast they feel that “So far then, PS3 has the edge visually. Despite some odd lighting issues and more aggressive LODs during the cut-scenes, there are obvious benefits in other areas which have more of a visible impact on the graphical quality of the game. Better filtered textures lead to a more detailed overall presentation for one, while the lack of unsightly object pop-in during gameplay adds a greater degree of consistency to things in general. The 360′s plus points – camera-based motion blur and a more consistent lighting scheme – are far more subtle in their appearance in comparison, and have less of an overall impact on the look of the game.” And “The gap between the gamma output on both systems also tends to accentuate the strength of the various shadows on the 360 in some scenes, hiding environmental detail in some scenes on the odd occasion.”

Clearly not all points are of equal importance, so simply totting them up, doesn’t give an accurate depiction of whole picture, which as we know they concluded “As for which version you should go for given the choice: both come recommended, each having its own plus points and minor issues. The additional texture clarity due to the use of better filtering on the PS3, along with improved assets streaming perhaps has more of a noticeable impact than the motion blur or the lighting advantages on 360. Performance however, favours Microsoft’s console, although the differences in this respect didn’t negatively affect the gameplay at all on PS3. In the final analysis, we find that the two are very close overall, but in the end the PS3 version comes across as being the slightly better of the two by a small margin. “
So clearly they felt that overall, the ps3 had slightly more in its favour, thus a ps3 win, but only slightly lol