On Microsoft's system, Sleeping Dogs adopts a native 1200x720 presentation, with an 80-pixel horizontal upscale to 720p, while on the PS3 we're looking at a much lower 1152x640, which has more severe implications with regards to overall image quality. Anti-aliasing on both consoles is a post-process, most likely provided by NVIDIA's popular FXAA solution, although we find that the PS3 uses a more aggressive edge-detect algorithm in order to smooth over the additional jaggies created by the heavy upscale.
While the 360 game gives a passable impression of a native 720p presentation, it looks significantly blurrier on the PS3: the combination of the much heavier upscaling and a stronger FXAA solution covering the final image in a veil of softness. Finer texture details that are visible on both platforms are smoothed over and edges feature a distinct softness that is regularly apparent with anti-aliased sub-HD games. Specular highlights are also subdued on the PS3 due to the stronger edge-detection being employed, although this doesn't come across as a particular downside given that the characters can look a little too shiny in some scenes on the 360.
Aside from the obvious resolution differences, it is clear that the PS3 version is missing some of the more intricate texture details found on the 360, a situation not helped by the more aggressive FXAA implementation. Additionally, we also find that normal maps feature less distinctive bumps and ripples, leading to the affected surfaces looking a touch blockier in nature. The reason for this is that lower resolution artwork is used on many objects throughout the game, thus resulting in visible detail loss, while normal maps appear to be using a different, more lossy compression scheme which creates artifacts on surfaces which use the effect - the Xenos GPU has access to improved texture compression technology compared to RSX, which may explain this.
80°
10°
40°
70°
Ad 
10°
10°
20°
0°
10°
30°
I remember despite the strong reviews, you'd think the Orange Box back in the day was unplayable on the PS3 given the way people were talking about it. I skipped it but ended up saying "What the hell" and picked it up eventually on my PS3 for $15, and it was awesome! Same thing happened with Ghostbusters. Everyone was harping on how terrible the PS3 version was, but I tried it and had a blast.
These articles might make a difference to you if you have both a PS3 and 360 but I can't see the use in them. Watching that comparison video, if they weren't telling me what was different between the two, I'd never be able to tell you. In one scene, I guy fell through a glass pane and there was added blood particles on the PS3 version that wasn't there on the 360 version. That was the only thing I could tell you was different about the two versions.
I'd hardly call this a half assed port, and that doesn't seem to be the conclusion DF came to either. Anyway, I pity the gamer that would skip playing a game based on these type of pixel counting articles. If it really mattered to you, you'd be playing on a high end gaming PC anyway.
Remember, a man who never eats pork bun is never a whole man.
just like i bought darksiders 2 for 360.
i could have easily bought both for the opposite, or both for the same consoles. pointless comparisons lead to stupid fights.
That's like a child who crave pizza, but because his slice had one less pepperoni than the other kids, he tosses it back in childish protest, crosses his arms and pouts.
My GTX 260 isn't exactly a powerhouse but it's nice having a pretty high frame rate even if it means playing this game on medium settings...
Water not being as detailed on ps3 is a bug as is in pc version. Sure will be fixed.
There is a fair bit of tearing in both PS3/360 VERSIONS.
PC Version seems to need a fair bit of grunt.
I think the game will be a winner whatever version you buy.