Top
240°

Lens of Truth: BioShock 2 Analysis

Lens of Truth writes, "The Lens of Truth team had the opportunity to drill into BioShock 2 to find out which is better. Read on to find out which version is definitively labeled "Big Daddy"."

Read Full Story >>
lensoftruth.com
The story is too old to be commented.
thabigboss2805d ago

either way im getting it for pc

mynd2805d ago

What interests me the most is the "fallen is babylon" screen.
No fuzzy wuzzy image like that other website posted.
Seems to me we can pretty much dismiss that "other" website, they seem to screw stuff up all the time.

Blaze9292805d ago

wow what the hell happened to "all versions are equal"? This is a CLEAR difference.

Harry_Manback2805d ago (Edited 2805d ago )

Is that the RROD in the second pic?

I kid, I KID!!

The 360 version does seem to have the edge here but no biggie.

Edit: Whoa! The lower 3 pics clearly show a big difference. What the hell went wrong here?

Bigpappy2805d ago

Anyone seeing a difference here is nikpicking. Lens of truth do great work. The numbers and the visuals show very little difference (As even as a port could get).

BlackTar1872805d ago

but the water on the 360 looks amazing compared to the ps3. I give the winner to the 360 just for that reason.

again most of this stuff you will not notice while playing its only loser who sit there and are like OMGZZZZ

but 360 wins to me.

darthv722805d ago

I wonder if sometimes these comparison sites ever purposely mix up the screens to see if people even notice.

I see so much about having the ps3 set to certain settings for hdmi and yet I dont even really mess with those on mine. I don't even think the 360 has advanced hdmi settings to adjust...or does it?

StanLee2805d ago (Edited 2805d ago )

One thing about the XBox 360 version; I think the better frame rate is the reason for the screen tearing as in the case of Darksiders, the game's framerate may not be locked. But again, just wait for Digital Foundry's comparison as they do a much better and much more comprehensive comparison.

DaTruth2805d ago

They waited for the textures to load in both versions this time? Because in the last comparison where PS3 won, they apparently didn't wait for the textures to load on the 360 version!

I will wait for the comparison from the site that always favours my console of choice!/s

OGharryjoysticks2805d ago

Is it performance or graphics, or both?

Screen tearing is something that is visible and rather annoying so it should actually matter more in a graphic evaluation.

If that doesn't make sense to you then you probably don't mind looking at it since it's not like slowdown where your game performance is actually effected.

Corepred42805d ago

i'm usually a fan of lens of truth's review but i didn't like this one. it wasn't really there fault though since they do out of the box review. hopefully we find a review that matches each consoles brightness/darkness. sometimes being darker hides things. not saying the 360 version is hiding anything, but i would just like a better comparison. lol i'm still laughing at those robot candles on the ps3. come on i thought developers would be over the hump by now. oh well. i'll prob gamefly it to see if the ps3 version really is that blurry.

IdleLeeSiuLung2805d ago (Edited 2805d ago )

The article never mentioned this, but it looks so blurry to me. Odd considering the resolution is the same. Maybe it is in the picture taking?

It seems like the blurriness should dwarf all the other issues.... Anyone else seeing it.

starchild2805d ago

Ok so the differences are that the 360 has shorter load times, better looking water effects, higher resolution textures in some parts, better ripple animations, very slightly higher frames per second (28.40 vs 29.52), very slightly more screen tearing (.42 vs 2.39), no mandatory install, and a sharper clearer look overall. The 360 version wins this one hands down.

dirthurts2805d ago

Yeah I see that too...I'm not sure why that would be. Like you said they are said to be at the same resolution. The only two possible reasons would be either the PS3 is actually a lower res than stated, or the PS3 versions doesn't support upscaling.

ProjectVulcan2805d ago (Edited 2805d ago )

The gap between them is miniscule in relative terms. As much aggrieved as i am at how the PC port does not take much advantage of the platform, it blows the console version away on all the aspects tested here, and i dont mean only on a massively expensive gaming PC...If you only have a console, dont make such a fuss about tiny differences. Enjoy the game

+ Show (11) more repliesLast reply 2805d ago
junk-3d2805d ago

Wow, the PlayStation 3 environment reflections look pretty bad.

darkecho2805d ago

Seriously. The DOF has gotta be busted on the PS3.

Sm0k3y_Bac0n2805d ago

Wow. The PS3 screen shots look REALLY bad next to the 360 ones. Surely it cant be that bad?? Those candle flames are square. WTF!

commodore642805d ago (Edited 2804d ago )

I agree.

Surely the ps3 version can't look THAT bad?
Did LOT make a mistake?

The PS3 ground textures are blurry as hell, the PS3 candle flames are blocky, the PS3 AA is nonexistant, and it takes MUCH longer to load (Even with mandatory install).

The only edge the ps3 has in this game is 2.3% less frametear, but even that is probably due to the slower ps3 framerate.

2010? ... check.
Inferior ps3 multiplat? ... check

Shogun Master2805d ago

I'm playing this now, its a little dissapointing compared to the first. I'm happy I got it for the 360.

The Maxx2805d ago

Wow clear difference. The 360 version is much better. I thought after all the lashings 2K took over the crappy Bioshock 1 port, they would have had the games closer in graphics and performance. Oh well.

evildeli2805d ago

Well, at least it didn't take 2k a year to port Bio2

Pennywise2805d ago

Tearing and framerate is worse on the 360. I don't think its THAT clear of a winner.

Shaman2805d ago

Framerate is better on 360,but screen tearing is worse,look it up.

lowcarb2805d ago

I don't think there's a huge difference but the 360 version does look better.If PS3 version is having a hard time keeping up one should wonder why they gimped the 360 version to keep both looking fairly similar.

Pennywise2805d ago (Edited 2805d ago )

It's 1 FRAME PER SECOND better. ONE. Hardly a clear winner there.

Yes, the 360 gives us 1 more frame per second, but 5% more screen tearing.

I am playing it on the PS3. This all really doesn't matter.

testerg352805d ago

Pennywise, I thought the 360 had better fps?

Sm0k3y_Bac0n2805d ago (Edited 2805d ago )

Have you not seen the screen shots Penny? 360 looks a lot better from these. And apart from the first clip the screen tearing is pretty much the same.

I think I'll have to play the game before i judge. I find it hard top believe there could be this muchx difference between the two versions.

And Penny. The difference between the average frame tearing from this evidence is less than 1%

junk-3d2805d ago

If it weren't from the long load times on the PS3 it would have caused a tie. It really is unacceptable to have a 4gb install and still have longer loading times. That is almost half the size of the game!

Antan2805d ago

You would notice the screen tear more than you would notice such a small difference in framerate. Aside from that, looks to be the usual UE3 syndrome between the 2.

^^Lowcarb^^Going by your logic, im assuming the 360 was holding back the PC version as the texture detail on the PC is nigh on the same? Screen resolutions aside. Your knowledge of game development is suspect at best.

Shaman2805d ago

Ok it has 1 frame per sec better but YOU said it has worse frame rate so thats why I said that,screen tearing is worthless to me because its 2 % but better textures and water reflections sure matter.

Pennywise2805d ago

OK, I agree. With the install size the loading should be LOWER. PS3 loses there.

But the difference of textures is not something that would bother me being I am only playing one version. Screen tearing WOULD bother me and I couldnt ignore it just because of better textures and water.

I just feel like the tearing is being forgiven because of the console it is on.

IdleLeeSiuLung2805d ago

Screen tearing is an issue and so is low texture resolution.

Both can be pretty annoying, and I would rather take low resolution texture rather than screen tearing. With that said, the screen tearing is so minimal that in this case I would rather take the screen tearing over the lower resolution texture.

The Maxx2805d ago

Here we go again...the media's biased....Give it a rest already. If you are so upset thinking there is some kind of conspiracy in the western media, then stop reading the western media and look elsewhere.

starchild2805d ago

From Penywise's comment: "Tearing and framerate is worse on the 360. I don't think its THAT clear of a winner."

Give me a break. The difference in screen tearing is so minuscule as to be nearly insignificant.

In the Aliens vs Predator comparison it was found that the PS3 version had 23.5% of its frames torn, while the 360 version only had 2.51% of its frames torn. That is a huge difference, yet we still had people say they didn't see any tearing in the PS3 version (I certainly did though). If some people didn't even notice the PS3 version of AvP tearing 23.5% of the time there is no way in the world that people are going really take issue with a 1.97% difference in Bioshock 2.

The differences in clarity, textures and water quality on the other hand will be noticeable the entire game. Having to wait for longer load times throughout the game will also be noticeable.

Let's be honest here, the 360 version is clearly the better looking game.

+ Show (11) more repliesLast reply 2805d ago
stealyrface2805d ago

I just finished it last night and overall it was a big let down. Nothing that made the ORIGInAL what it was returned. Hopefully a patch will be released for the PS3.

jaidek2805d ago

Just started playing it, but man that makes me sad. The first one was so well conceived.