fine, I'll bite.
because the summary in the RDR was literally
the game, by their own words was a great purchase on the PS3 (given the greatness of the game)
but
yes it's been said a number of times in here "but PS3 had lower frame rate, and lower resolution". Ok, that's true. But at the same time, we see the XBONE version of GTAV having less detail. Smaller difference than RDR? Absolutely. But then again, why is it "this version is objectively better, buy it" but then GTAV "this version is objectively better. make your own choice."
the standard of the RDR article would seem to be "even though both versions are good in their own right, buy the better", yet the standard for GTAV is "even though both versions are good in their own right, buy the one you want", even though the conclusion of the lesser version of both is "your enjoyment of the game won't be impacted"
the level of "how much better/worse" is a moving target, absolutely. But in the case of one being objectively better than the other, shouldn't they be recommending the objectively better one each time?