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.
Update
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.
50°
70°
30°
40°
Ad 
80°
10°
10°
20°
10°
10°
lol not like anyone whos been around doesnt know it already but lense has always tried to tip the scales in the lessor consoles favour. cant blame em tho what else does the 360 have?
trying to edit out the members who spoke out about it is pure desperation. but much like wikileaks you cant put the genie back in the bottle XD
but what i do know is
i played the demo today on my PS3
and it looks really good for a multiplat game
The only people left to trust these days are the gamers. Proessional gaming sites has been busted by lower classed websites.
and I would have no qualms about its technical performance. I played it on the Xbox 360, but I never purchased the DLC content made available for it. So I guess it may be the better deal made available for it on the Playstation 3.
I think VGChartz and Lens of Truth should merge.
they can't handle the truth
They made a big deal about the Ps3 version's frame rate, but during gameplay it only seemed to dip a few frames, while its spikes were actually significant changes (up to 15 additional fps). The averages were about the same, but the Ps3's "sporadic frame rate" had MUCH more significant positives than negatives.
What do YOU notice more? An occasional frame drop of 2-4fps or an occasional increase of 15fps?
The only difference is the lighting sources have been kind of messed with. Aside from that it was only down to how each version runs. The 360 version runs smoother than the PS3 version.
Besides, Digital Foundry didn't say the PS3 version looked better. They noted some minor differences between the two, but they weren't all favorable for the PS3.
"In other areas of the game, we see effects that have clearly been toned down in their transition across to PlayStation 3, dropping to a lower resolution or operating at a reduced precision level. A good example of this is seen right at the beginning of the game, with a more artifact-ridden cosmic backdrop behind Miranda as she talks with the Illusive Man."
"In addition to that particular shader effect, Jacob's initial biotic effect showcase also appears to be rendered using a lower-precision effect than the Xbox 360 version of the game. The very, very subtle motion blur that kicks in when Shepard is running also appears to be absent on PS3"
"None of these changes are much of a big deal in the greater scheme of things, but it illustrates the original point we made that Mass Effect 2 is more different than definitive, something we'll come back to a bit later."
http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...
This site (smgamers.com) is the one lying, not Digital Foundry or Lens of Truth.
lens of cake!....and the cake is a LIE!
http://www.youtube.com/watc...
I have been saying it for the longest, when "VS" comparisons show only cherry picked still images as their "proof" it is an improper view piece. You play a game in motion and that is the LARGER part of how a "VS" comparison should be done.
Now it's fine to show still images, but to hand pick ones that fit an undeniable bias makes it not credible in any way. It's really no different to how VGChartz skews and purports things to their baseless agenda.
LOT's cover has been blown and they have lost what little credibility they managed to hold on to. Their articles, reviews & pieces should be labeled as rumor from now on just like VGC.
Either side you stand what you have is a fantastic game which shares very similar characteristics graphically the average joe gamer wouldn't be able to choose between very easily. Doesn't really matter which version you choose, both are perfectly playable.
The only people that can sit knowing they have the visually superior version with any certainty are PC gamers.
at first glance the demo looks exactly the same as the 360, but since I played ME2 on 360 months ago I compared it side by side myself (I have the PS3 on one HDMI connection and the 360 on the other)
and they look similar, but if you go back on foward between versions during dialog sequences the detail on the faces and shadows is clearly superior on the PS3, it's undeniable, backgrounds also look cleaner on PS3 and it seems to load a lot faster
in general the PS3 versions looks better, also I really prefer to have everything on one disc (main game and expansions)
on 360 the main game is split on two discs and it really breaks the ilussion of a universe you can freely explore (it never occured to me before but maybe that's the reason why FF13 was so linear)
Couldn't agree less. It's true you have to switch discs, but you can still travel freely throughout the universe, revisiting old planets and locations whenever you want.
because fanboy rant article said so
yeah dude Digital Foundry gave the PS3 lots of crap for a long time. Eurogamer websites have been very rough on PS3. This isn't a rant, this is fact. LoT got caught in a lie, you want to support liars?
1) The best Version of Mass effect 2 is on PC...
2) The best RPG on the PS3 next year will be...As it has been, Valkyra Cronicles, Hands down!
3)The best game coming out next month will be Little Big Planet 2, followed by Dead space, and for the idiots with too much money to burn and who want to wait 18 days to play a 60 dollar game thats 4 bucks on steam right now... Mass Effect 2!
Edit: now thats something you dont see everyday on n4g, i said ps3 version is the best and i get disagrees lol.
....Now, I sit back and wait for the heads of PC/PS3/360 fanboys to explode from confusion.
Its because us PS3 gamers aren't stupid. We know that the PC is better (as far as graphics are concerned). Trying to compare a current top of the line PC vs. our 4 year old console would be kinda stupid. 4 years is an extremely long time as far as technology goes, and its obvious the PC constantly gets more advanced. We aren't ignorant idiots like this other group I know.
Incorrect. Gameplay > Graphics
The best GRAPHICAL version is on PC.
The best gameplay experience though is on 360 version.
I remember playing ME1 on PC first then 360. Didn't like the PC version at all, but loved the 360 version. Better gameplay and immersion experience.
Theres a reason I get my TPS (anything other then RTS) on my PS3/360, instead of my PC.
Great in owning all platforms :)
I really don't know what to say, people were actually brainwashed..easily. This does not bode well for the underlying principles of democracy.
Digital Foundry usually provides pretty decent comparisons, and they seem to genuinely enjoy discussing the technologies developers employ in each game.
I personally don't use these comparisons very often unless there's a substantial difference between versions a la Bayonetta. If there's a PC version of a multiplatform game, I'll usually get that one, but not always.
Oh, and regarding ME2, I have it on PC, so I won't be buying the console versions, but I tried out both of the ME2 demos. It looked like the PS3 version had a slightly higher frame rate and maybe just a bit better textures, but there was occasional tearing. Overall, they were actually pretty close. Someone would have to be nuts to pass on this game if you had only a PS3 or only a 360. It's a terrific game on whatever platform you have, although if you have a PC definitely get that version. It looks and runs great; I just came out of a game of ME2 a few minutes ago. I'm around 2/3 through an Insanity run. Infiltrator sniping with a mouse plus Reave is BEASTLY. Free headshot when Reave stuns them!
That's unbelievable. So just mentioning the title Bayonetta gets you trashed here? I probably spend less than 5% of my gaming time on the 360 currently. Most of the time I play PS3 and PC. I have also been a big fan of Clover/ Platinum before there even was a PS3. Well, at least I have an idea of what's going on now. I was puzzled as to what people could be disagreeing about, as I was pretty neutral in my post with the exception of attacking LoT.
The author of this TRASH article is CLEARY DESPERATE for hits. He's had a enormous hard-on for LOT forever. If he read anything instead of making stuff up to get hits to his flatlining blog site he would have read that LOT used the demo of both versions of ME2, Not retail vs demo, like the idiot author said. And they don't even have a Forum anymore to delete comments so WTF is he talking about? Its like a 13 year old fan boy wrote this. Trying to make a site look bad with blatant lies is pathetic and shows true character. smgamers, LMAO!
Congrats to the author on lying to make up a BS article for traffic. Way to "cherry pick" sentences too, dusch bag. Your site won't have a bigger story in 2011, and that's the SAD TRUTH.
-Right off the bat the PS3 version was a little darker and colors looked slightly more saturated, but by dropping the brightness down one notch in the setting menu it made the 360 versions slightly darker than the PS3 version and colors looked pretty close to the PS3 version, maybe just a little more saturated.
-Specular lighting at first seemed better on the 360 version in the beginning where you first start the demo because Shepard had specular highlights and lit-up areas on his back that were missing in the PS3 version. However, later I saw areas where the PS3 version showed specular lighting in different spots. What I came to realize is that the lighting sources have been moved around a bit and therefor the resulting specular lighting on the characters was different between the two builds.
-The 360 version seemed to have slighty fewer jaggies in some places, but overall they were fairly close in terms of aliasing.
-Fire effects in the destroyed Normandy looked more real and convincing in the 360 version. It could be that they were higher resolution. The flames moved with more fluidity and were of a higher quality on the 360.
-Shadows, such as when Shepard first wakes up on the table, look more sharply delineated on the PS3 version, but the jaggies are therefor a little more pronounced. The 360 version's shadows in this cut scene are a little fuzzier around the edges. Which approach is better is debatable. In any case, the character shadows during actual gameplay seem to be essentially identical.
-After you get your gun and the med bay doors blow open the developers added a few chunks of burning debris (two on the ceiling and one on the floor) to the PS3 version that are not present on the 360 version. (Not that significant but just an interesting little note).
-The general frame rate was consistently smoother in the 360 version. When panning the camera the PS3 version suffered from hitching and stuttering. I randomly stopped in the same place on both versions and panned the camera and the PS3 version would not move smoothly through the full 360 degrees of motion. It would always stutter and hitch. The 360 version was very smooth in comparison.
-Now, aside from the hitching I could easily tell that the PS3 version would sometimes speed up to above 30fps. The problem is, the frame rate actually goes up and down very quickly and drastically, in the span of a few milliseconds or seconds, which gives a stuttering effect to the game. The second half of the PS3 demo did seem to get a little better in this respect, but it still felt significantly more choppy than the 360 build.
-Some light sources showed a bit more bloom on the PS3 (for example, the lights above the spot where you first use the rocket launcher on the drones that burst through the doors down below you). This is an artistic difference and neither version looked better or worse in this regard. A subtle difference in any case.
-In some places the 360 version showed slightly better texture detail on faces during dialog sections. You can see this in many of the screenshots. It's not a night and day difference, but it's there.
-Miranda's face in most scenes looked much better in the 360 version than the PS3 version. The shadows were overly aggressive on Miranda's face in the PS3 version. The shadows were more balanced and natural looking in the 360 version.
-One interesting thing I noticed was that there was a difference in the sound of voices in the scene where you first run into Miranda (after she shoots the guy that betrayed you). The 360 version had room acoustics or reverberation that made the voices sound like they were in a room-like environment. The PS3 version sounded totally flat in this spot. Nevertheless, I kept paying attention and other areas in the PS3 version did show room acoustics affecting the voices. I don't know if this was a bug or if it will always be like that in that spot, but it was worth mentioning.
Due to the better shadows, somewhat better texture detail on faces, the more stable frame rate, and the lack of screen tearing I felt the 360 version had a clear upper hand. Not that the PS3 version is a horrible port or a bad looking game. Not at all.
I think Bioware did a pretty good job all things said. It will be great for those who only own a PS3 who would like to play this masterpiece. That said, I still feel that if you have both consoles and haven't played the game yet the 360 version is the way to go.
“Based on the demo code released last night, our conclusion is that the PS3 version of Mass Effect 2 is different as opposed to definitive, and while nobody is likely to be disappointed with the game, a direct comparison with the Xbox 360 version suggests that while some elements are improved, others have been downgraded”
Kotaku states:
“Mass Effect 3 is landing on the PlayStation 3 a year after the 360 and PC versions. So does it look better? The short answer is “no”. The long answer is “it’s complicated”.
" Forum posters suggested that Lens of Truth was “cherry picking” their screenshot comparisons. "
Absolutely bang on it's not the first time I seen them do this either to give 360 the win. It's obvious they have gone bias over the years.
Related image(s)
Related image(s)
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."
Sure so credible... LOL they don't even know what they're talking about and they expect everybody to throw away what they already know? the 360 version is better end of story.
"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 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.
Related image(s)
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.
I'd discard both LoT and DF everytime anyway .
Either the difference are so minimal in games that you'd "need" sites and comparisons like that to get who's the best , rendering it useless ... or it's so apparent that you dont need them either way .
Some people need to get some clue and stop pretending they play with both consoles with the same games on two set of identical hdtvs side by side , for it to matter than much .
"Lens of truth simply said the 360 version looks better and the sheep agreed. The PS3 version looks better in terms of color and shadows but Sheppard is more wrinkled in 360 making the textures look better (but it could be the 360 Sheppard is more evil in the comparison).
IMO PS3 looks better, I'm confused that so many people agree with lens and make excuses for PS3s when it doesn't need it - look at the Jacob pics and shadows, it's noticeably better on PS3 IMO.
Maybe it's the computer screen I'm looking on but it looks better on PS3."
I got twice as many 'disagrees' than 'agrees'!
The fact you say that people are sheep to say that they look the same is bullcrap. All that comment accomplished is to make look like an ignorant jerk. So you can take your opinion and shove it. You are the blind one.
At the very least , i'd still slap both for bothering to compare demos for hits
If you don't want to have to get off your ass to switch discs then the PS3 version is the one to get 'cause as far as I can see.. The game being on ONE blu-ray disk is the only advantage it has over the X360 version.
The PS3 demo has screen-tearing issues, frame rate is a little unstable, & there are lots of jaggies.. especially on the character creation screen, around Shepherd's head.
@ disagree fairy: I'm not trolling.. Just tellin' the truth.
Embarrassing.
"strange they couldn't fight lighting examples to compare" :D:D:D Because they CHOSE NOT TO!
Also the "screenshot where LoT say 360 is graphically superior. . .erm are they taking the piss? . . .there was no electricity or anything in the 360 version. . just the piece of equipment.
How about we wait until next year
then we can see both final games
I Just Can't wait to play this game in my 60GB PS3 SOON VERY SOON!
It's sad that the biggest PS3 fanboy on N4G has his one little site to spread even more propaganda.
The PS3 can easy match the PC grafichs but NOT RESOLUTION and 60 FPS that's all folks.
What i see like games like GOW 3 or Killzone 3 and the potential of Uncharted 3, PS3 kick the most PC games in their butt becouse i see no single game that match Killzone 2 qua lighting/visual/physics and more importent the war zone where everything going on the screen.
GOW3 never seen on the PC as in GOW 3 the scale/grafichs/visual and the lighting. And one more thing the amount of enemy.
And if you came up games like Crysis, i know but Crysis laks the visual/ligting the warzone where every thing going on the screen the most part are fail in Crysis.
God of War 3 looks great but the environments are almost completely static.
If this is indeed true, LOT loses its credibility in a major way. This has always been a question of mine, who checks the checkers? Well, this time the checkers got checked, and it brings a grin to my face as LOT scrambles to come up with an excuse. My guess is that they will ignore this. Darkride66, you did a GREAT job on this article.
Now my question is, how many are left? How many dishonest biased sites are out there misinforming the public on a daily basis? How many have conflicted interests, taking advertising money in one hand, while writing a review with the other hand? If we keep this up(exposing the liars behind the curtain), all that will be left is small gaming sites and user reviews.
As it stands currently, User reviews are much more professional than "Professional" reviews. The passion for gaming has left the majors. It is all about politics-for-cash, goodie bags and free consoles that bribe and sway review scores to a group who is out of touch with the everyday gamer that has to pay $60 for that title that just received a favorable fake score.
Some major sites have no honor, have lost their integrity, are biased, and constantly change the rules for review scores on a case by case basis. Majors can no longer be trusted, too many are run by fanboys with agendas and have sold their souls, and they poison the spirit of gaming with hateful lies and misdirection.
It is a shame, but don't be surprised when you catch more sites with their pants down. IGN, VGChartz, Lens of Truth, and others have lost their way and it wouldn't hurt me one bit if they found their way out of gaming completely.
Happy Freaking New Year.
Funny thing is, I actually had significantly more agrees than disagrees before they broke out the perma-ban slap-gif, which only served to slap themselves.
If anything good comes out of this, hopefully it's that people will come to expect more quality assurance from the sites soapboxing about quality assurance.
Digital Foundry/Eurogamer has technical analysis' (GT5 for example) that are just so thorough, intricate and comprehensive that it's getting harder for "other sites" to try and spin things, especially after the fact. They really try to accentuate the positives for all versions and it's not just a sensationalist 'VS' editorial with strategic edits. They don't decide for you whether or not cutscenes matter. They show you everything and the kitchen sink.
Darkride66 is trying to destroy Lens of Truth's reputation because he doesn't like comparison sites period. He hates them because they show the truth that the PS3 versions of multiplatform games are often inferior. Believe me, he hates Digital Foundry just as much, but he knows going after them is even harder.
What's sad is he didn't support any of his claims in this article yet the PS3 fanbase on N4G lap it up like the drones they are.
I've played both versions of the demo. They look almost exactly the same once you set the brightness the same, but the 360 version runs better. The PS3 version stutters as you pan the camera around and it has quite a bit of screen tearing.
Darkride has always hated LOT, he can try to bring them down but it will never happen. He is also feeding right into the ps3 fanboys on n4g that are just happy to be awake past midnight. smgamer is waste of webspace and this is a completley worthless article.
The truth is that at the end of the day he will still own a $hitty little website that no one cars about.