So who’s telling the truth? With the recent release of the anticipated Mass Effect 2 demo on the Playstation 3, comparison sites Lens of Truth and Digital Foundry seem to find themselves at odds over performance of the PS3 demo versus the 360 retail code.
Recently Bioware unleashed the demo of their RGP masterpiece, Mass Effect 2, on the Playstation 3. As Mass Effect 2 had previously been an Xbox 360 exclusive title, its launch on Sony’s platform peaked gamers’ interests. Both Sony fans who had never experienced a Mass Effect title on the Xbox 360 or the PC, and those who had already played Mass Effect 2 but wondered what might be in store for PS3 owners eagerly awaited information regarding any differences between versions.
After posting this article it was brought to our attention that the versions compared on each site were both demos, not demo versus retail code. We have updated the article accordingly. The article itself otherwise remains unchanged.
Update 2: Shawn from Lens of Truth graciously took the time to respond to questions regarding the discrepancies between theirs and Digital Foundry's frame rate assessment. The entire response can be found in the comments section of the article.
LoT just got owned.
Wow Lens of Truth is an absolute disgrace...
"Lens of Truth was quick to post comparative screenshots and it seemed obvious from their comparison that in certain scenes the 360 version of the game seemed to have a graphical edge over the PS3 demo. Lens of Truth staff concluded that “Xbox 360 version still looks to have the graphical advantage,” and suggested that perhaps the PlayStation3 demo was an older build. Over at Digital Foundry, gamers were treated to a side by side video comparison of the two versions. In stark contrast to LOT’s screen shot gallery, the PS3 video posted on Digital Foundry clearly showed superior textures, lighting effects and reflections not seen on the 360 version. Forum posters suggested that Lens of Truth was “cherry picking” their screenshot comparisons. These comments were quickly erased from LOT’s forums by moderators."
"While both sites noticed more screen tearing in the PS3 demo version, there was a huge discrepancy in the analyses of frames per second on each version. LOT concluded that, “the PlayStation 3’s frame rate appeared un-locked allowing for sporadic frame rate spikes and dips, especially while in-game. On the contrary, the Xbox 360 version had the frame rate locked down at 30 frames a second in most cases.” Digital Foundry found that the PS3 version and 360 retail versions both seemed to hover around the 30 fps mark; they also observed, however, that the PS3 demo code often jumped to a much higher to 38 – 44 fps, while the 360 retail code routinely dropped below 30 fps to low twenties during in-game cut scenes. Digital Foundry noted, “There are many instances in the game that drop down to the lower frame-rate, especially in the cut-scenes,” while in the PS3 demo code, “a great many of the drops to 20FPS in the cut-scenes appear to have been ironed out, running nicely at the default 30FPS.” Considering LOT’s article was titled “frame rate analysis,” more focus seems to be on screen tears then actual frame rate."
and the best part of all...
"Did Lens of Truth simply conclude that this level of detail was not worth mentioning? Forum users again asked the same question on LOT’s forums and again found their comments not only moderated, but their accounts permanently banned. "
I'll never read another LoT comparison ever again, they don't deserve the hits!!
the truth about all this pixel counting is that the ps3 is the most powerful console to date and with exclusive games like uncharted 2 killzone 2, heavy rain, gran turismo 5, god of war 3, metal gear solid 4, ratchet acit, resistance 2, little big planet and others which are unmatched then its no doubt the ps3 is superior.
the majority of the gaming media will negate the superiority of the ps3s power by scoring ps3 exclusives technological achievements on the same level of multiplatform or other console exclusive games when the ps3 exclusives are clearly of higher and better quality. halo 3 or reach isnt comparable to killzone 2 on a technological level. fun factor is all subjective by the player so i wont even try to talk about which is more fun. nothing is really comparable to majority of the top ps3 exclusives but because the majority of the gaming media are biased or payed off, gamers cant get the truth unless they are wise enough to see it themselves.
all one has to do is play a few move games and play a few kinect games then research the scores of each product and games from the top gaming sites. or better yet just play the games on each consoles, especially the exclusives and see who has the higher quality exclusives. my point is not to say which console is better but to have players form their own conclusions about which is better.
trying to pixel count in order to chant which console is more powerful is the silliest thing ive ever seen and is akin to the idea of driving a nissan gtr and a mustang gt down a pit lane together where there is a speed limit so theyll be driving the same speed but out on the track where there isnt a speed limit the nissan gtr will destroy the mustang. multiplatform games are often times mediocre to a lot of core gamers and the games are made to be equal or close to equal so pixel counting in order to claim some misguided victory is null. look at the games where developers arent restricted to make degradation or cutbacks in order to match the common denominator, look at the exclusive games.
.
I was saying before that the PS3 version looked better (I have the 360 version) when this was first brought up, and couldn't believe that anyone could disagree, check my past comments.
I'm baffled that people thought the 360 version looked better, it's like fanboyism actually blinded them.
LOT is officially a 360 fanboy site.