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"."
either way im getting it for pc
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.
wow what the hell happened to "all versions are equal"? This is a CLEAR difference.
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?
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).
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Wow, the PlayStation 3 environment reflections look pretty bad.
Seriously. The DOF has gotta be busted on the PS3.
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!
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
I'm playing this now, its a little dissapointing compared to the first. I'm happy I got it for the 360.
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.
Well, at least it didn't take 2k a year to port Bio2
Tearing and framerate is worse on the 360. I don't think its THAT clear of a winner.
Framerate is better on 360,but screen tearing is worse,look it up.
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.
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.
Pennywise, I thought the 360 had better fps?
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%
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just started playing it, but man that makes me sad. The first one was so well conceived.
360's water and textures are miles ahead of the PS3 version.
No, not miles. Let's not get exaggerated here.
Well they're clear as day, how's that?
it's better performance vs better graphics (and faster loading).what do you choose? ;)
On a 42" screen if in "graphics" ur talking about a candle flame, I will take no screen tearing no competition at all.
Jack, so would anyone else NORMALLY until its the 360 with the tearing. I wish LoT would release these comparisons with just A and B and let everyone see it like that instead of which consoles. I am sure the vocal groups would be a mixed bag on this one.
if what you say is true then, which version of asassins creed 2 did you buy? how about all the other multi plats where ps3 had worse screen tearing than this does on the 360? i'm guessing you are full of sh1t, case closed. oh and for your other comment, installing over 4 gigs of a game and the load times are still not on par with the 360??? and of course you have a lame ass excuse for that as well, sh1t the game prolly isn't any more than 6.9 gigs total. sorry sony defense force on n4g, no matter how you want to spin this one, ps3 loses. now pardon me while i play some ps3 before i gotta go to one of my night classes, unlike the sdf, some of us work and go to school, (don't have time to defend the ps3 everyday, like you all) omg!!! they play ps3, and still say the 360 won this comparison?!?!?!? yes i know SDF, it's BLASPHEMY!!
Seriously, that's just not acceptable.... Even though i own both consoles, this issue is very annoying.
That site has proven time and time again that they can't be trusted. 1st they only compare games that either the 360 version looks better, or the games have almost no graphical difference. 2nd even though they only try to compare games that 360 looks better, the fact is they often have to skew the results to make that the case by mixing up settings in roll overs and sometimes labelling one version as the other (which they did here) On this game, notice in the side by side showing the different setting, the PS3 version looks better, and both versions have distinct characteristics that make one look different from the other. Most noticable of these traits is the "greyness" of the 360 version. And I don't mean lack of color, I mean there seems to be a grey haziness or film over the picture. But yet on the roll overs the characteristics are switched and the PS3 version looks worse and has the gray haze. They either switched the versions on the roll-overs, or they used the low settings for PS3 and high for 360 on the roll overs. It's a fact. This site can not be trusted. They are 100%, unabashed fanboys. On AvP they were proven to be liars as well with every other site having completely opposite results. Only Lens of "Truth" has the 360 version looking better. Even going all the way back to Ghostbusters, they were shown to be full of it. Not only did the developers themselves show they were lying, but Gametrailers did their own comparison and their was very little difference between the two. Far less than the difference LoT showed. I wish I could start a website, or someone else would, dedicated to showing the lies in every Lens of "Truth" comparison.
"Even going all the way back to Ghostbusters, they were shown to be full of it. Not only did the developers themselves show they were lying, but Gametrailers did their own comparison and their was very little difference between the two. Far less than the difference LoT showed." Do some research before spouting nonsense. They were 100% correct on Ghostbusters and confirmed by Arstechnica, Kotaku and Eurogamer. And for the record, which multi-platform games did they skip that looked and performed better on the PS3?
"2nd even though they only try to compare games that 360 looks better, the fact is they often have to skew the results to make that the case by mixing up settings in roll overs and sometimes labelling one version as the other (which they did here)" skew results? All your claims here are skewed. LOT proved Ghostbusters to be garbage on the PS3 and even eurogamer confirmed that forcing Activision to make a claim that they were gonna drop Sony.
I agree and disagree, the out of the box settings they insist on using make it tough to compare their shots. Because people saying better textures are FOS, its just contrast differences and playing the game water differences are minimal. The fact that the game runs smooth on a nice big tv without tearing all over the place is outweighed by a few seconds loading time!?! that is pretty stupid.
No, they were NOT correct on Ghostbusters. They made that game look FAR worse on PS3 than it did in reality. I don't care what you say someone said. Look at Lens of "Truth"'s Ghostbusters comparison, and look at it compared to the actual GameTrailers comparison. The 360 version only looked SLIGHTLY better in the REAL comparison. The Lens of "Truth" comparison had them looking like 2 different generations of games. At launch the PS3 version of GB looked worse, yes (due to a small programming hitch that made the PS3 version play at a lower resolution, with was patched a couple weeks later that made both versions identical), but nowhere NEAR as bad as LoT made it look. The GT comparison PROVES without any doubt that they were liars. And don't cite Eurogamer or Kotaku as some kind of unbiased sources. Especially when they were more than likely just using LoT's comparison as their base. GT did a real time, side by side, 1:1, video comparison, and the 360 version was only SLIGHTLY better looking even with the PS3 version only actually displaying 480p (due to that programming hitch), and in fact when it came to visual and particle effects, the PS3 version looked better. If comparisons were don post-ps3-patch, with the PS3 version displaying the proper 720p/1080i resolution, with it's nicer particle effects, the PS3 version would have looked better. All the comparisons that were done were comparing a game stuck in 480p to an upscaled 720p to 1080 game. FACT.
The differences were brutal. 2k has no excuse for this. Bio2's gfx aren't even pushing any boundaries. Cmon devs it's time to wake up and start giving PS3 some adequate ports. I'm sick of this apathy towards the PS3 when games like KZ2 UC2 and the lookers coming out this year prove what the machine can do.
The guys at Digital Foundry do the same. They made the comparison of Batman:AA demo because it was highly compressed and performed slightly better on the 360 framerate-wise. Then when the real game was released, they didn't bother with a comparison because it was widely agreed upon that the retail game performed and looked superior on the PS3! I don't know about LoT though. Generally, I don't buy multiplats, so it is meaningless to me!
No, I have found Lens of Truth to be generally very accurate with their comparisons. I have compared many of these games myself and I have always found nearly the same results as Lens of Truth. In my opinion, if anything they try their best to give points to the PS3 even when it is a slight stretch to do so.
BioShock2 - The first game that massive screen tearing doesn't matter.(As long as you cheer for the 360).
when theres flaws in the 360 version theyre minute,but let the ps3 version show a flaw n the 360 crowd holds on to it for life. To try and use against the ps3? idk its all LOL to me.
Global percent of torn frames: 2.39 Massive screen tearing? Sounds like a gross exaggeration, 14 second slower loading is huge and those sloppy PS3 visuals are just downright ugly. You would have to be an idiot to say the 360 version isn't the better version.
I'm not saying it isn't better. It's just not as much as you make it out to be. Screen tearing is ALWAYS a huge issue when it comes to PS3 games until the 360 has it worse. The loads have not bothered me. It loads at the end of the chapter. Screen tearing is all through out. 1 FPS is not a deal breaker either. Noone will even notice it. Screen tearing is clearly evident. I will never notice the textures because I will never play the other version.
You don't get it, Pennywise. Of course screen tearing is an issue when it is like Aliens vs Predator in which 23.5% of the PS3 version's frames were torn (compared to only 2.51% of the 360's frames). That is a big difference and will actually impact the visual quality of the game. But when only 2.39% of the frames are torn you are essentially almost never going to notice it. Bioshock 2 on the 360 actually has less screen tearing than the 360 version of Aliens vs Predator and I virtually never saw any screen tearing in the 360 version of that game. You guys are basically arguing about a difference of 1.97% torn frames in this example and equating it with things like the 20.99% difference found in Aliens vs Predator. It's silly. There is a huge difference of degree between the two cases.
you just saved me $60 and some change. keep up the great work.
360 does look better in their comparison. You have to remember that this is an "out of box" comparison. If you play with your settings you could make both versions look even better than this. I have it for PS3 and am very happy with how it looks and plays. Having both consoles I based my decision on which system I prefer to play online with. That and I wanted to add the platinum trophy to my collection. :D
If you watch the video, you'll see they do optimize the setting.
Am i missing something? Can I borrow you guys microscope for a sec because I hardly see much of a difference. Edit: Oh yea. I missed the last few pics the first time. I own the PS3 version and it doesn't look as bad as those pics look. Am I missing something?
You are right, they are close visually. But there are a few glaring blemishes on the PS3 version, most notably the water effects.
Just check out the candle screenshot. It's quite obvious.
These kind of comparisons are pointless. All games have their own contrast and brightness settings. Unless you adjust them accordingly then one version will look worst than the others. Im willing to bet the contrast and brightness settings are set differently for each version in these screens. I can make any game look "bad" be it on 360 and PS3 by simply messing with the brightness and contrast settings within the game. These comparisons are pointless and just another thing this gen to add to fanboy wars and make fanboys have pissing contests. Honestly they both look identical. All the 360 fanboys in here are making it seem like the PS3 version looks like a wii version or something and when in reality they look virtually indentical.
did you watch the video? In the first minute they show the differences in brightness settings.
2k should have learned their lesson. There is no more "ps3 architecture is new and hard to work with" excuse. They've had time, they've had money, they've had experience. They still came away lacking parity seen in multiplats like RE5. We all know the PS3 is a powerhouse, so seeing slights like this against it is just sad.
I didn't even watch the H2H and I knew who the winner was. This is nitpicking by this point, (I just finish watching it) these guys said they hate screen tearing, so it's interesting to see they gave the win to the 360. Come up people, these dudes are frauds and hypocrites. How can anybody take them seriously? But hey I don't play games zoom in 300%
Luckily they don't zoom in 300%. The images you see are crops of the 1280x720 captures. What is funny is that you didn't even notice how they gave the PS3 the performance win. It amazes me how people can't understand a scoring system...