Lens of Truth Head2Head: Battlefield 3 Analysis (PS3 & Xbox 360)

Lens of Truth writes: Welcome back for another exciting Head2Head! This week we will be taking a look at the game that has been said to be going for the title of “Graphics King” for some time now — Battlefield 3. Since the very beginning DICE has been boasting about how great this game is going to look, but the question on every one’s mind is whether or not the consoles can handle it. Well the time has finally come and we have looked long and hard into the third installment of the Battlefield series to find out which version handles the game best...

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
RudeSole Devil2373d ago

Finally we find out which console version is better. I Kinda figured the PS3 version would win!

crxss2373d ago (Edited 2373d ago )

I ended up switching my preorder from PS3 to 360 due to lens's previous comparison. Still, i'm content with my decision since I prefer 360's triggers and the load times are faster with the game being installed (don't know why they didn't compare load times with the game installed). I will greatly miss the "post processing" effects that the ps3 version has but I'll enjoy the faster load times (with the game installed plus i have like 200 gb still free on my hdd) and the slightly lower screen tearing.

But the most important issue here is the MULTIPLAYER. where the eff is the multilayer comparison? The single player was just decent but where Battlefield 3 really shines is the multiplayer. I don't think there's any "post processing" effects in MP and I bet the graphics are dumbed down on both to boost performance. Kinda disappointed that LoT didn't compare their MP aspects (their beta comparison isn't good enough).

BakedGoods2373d ago (Edited 2373d ago )

I'm sorry, but really? 2 seconds of extra load time and 2% additional screen tearing? Those are more important than an ENTIRE RANGE OF POST-PROCESSING EFFECTS?

I mean, think about it: it would take 150 load screens to save you 5 minutes. That's approximately 50 hours worth of multiplayer games (one load per game, and assuming each game lasts 20 minutes). So basically, you'd prefer to save 5 minutes of loading time every 50 hours of gameplay instead of experiencing a slew of next-gen graphical enchantments.

Don't get me wrong, I love my 360, but your comment sounds more like you're trying to justify purchasing the 360 version after the fact.

crxss2373d ago


Who said two seconds of extra load times? Thats without having the game installed. Installing the game shaves off a lot of loading time, in other games at least :\ . I'm not trying to justify my purchase but rather stating the pros of each side. Btw have you ever played the MP? There's plenty of loading screens. And honestly the post processing effects are just in the singleplayer it seems, that's not why people get this game (I at least got it for the MP).

I love my PS3 but not really for FPS games (I blame the hours i put into the Halo series). I prefer 360's triggers. My PS3 will get plenty of love early November for U3 and Skyrim.

achmetha2372d ago

I switched to ps3 cause the 360 beta sucked and matchmaking never worked.

rlm412372d ago

If someone wants to experience the "slew of next-gen graphical enchantments", they would indeed be getting it on PC where it is miles and miles better.

Buy it on what console you prefer and where your friends are at. Lens of truth means squat.

DaTruth2372d ago (Edited 2372d ago )

Your saying if a person already had a PS3 and a 360, they would go out and spend $700-$1000 to play one game! Because there's nothing my PC(with 512MB ram and integrated graphics) could enhance graphically in the game unless I plan to play it at 1fps! If I had a 360, I wouldn't even buy a PS3 at $250 for one game!

I'm sure a person would just buy the better of the two versions for the platforms they have!

ApplEaglElephant2372d ago

and trying to justify 360 version.

sorry but PS3 version wins this comparison and that is what i am going to go with.

frostypants2372d ago (Edited 2372d ago )

Nobody here, if either the 360 version or PS3 version was put in front of them, could tell which version they were playing. They are 99.99% identical, especially in multiplayer. Play where your friends are.

morganfell2372d ago

All I remember from their previous comparison was being attacked relentlessly because I stated their work was wholly unreliable. Oh how the tides have turned. It is laughable watching my previous accusers attack LOT.

LOT were untruthfu....scratch that...they LIED in the past and instead of making a statement promising to correct matters and perform more objectively they verbally assaulted people in the community for calling out the facts.

Since they still do not provide complete comparison info (a diagram is insufficient considering the amount of missing data) and have yet to make a public statement regarding their actions, gamers are better off avoiding them and their findings.

So they pick one game over the other. They have a 50% chance of being right. It isn't rocket science.

Unlike last time, they now determine the PS3 version is better. Who cares? I stand by my previous judgements. Avoid LOT at all costs. The only way they will learn to do right by the community is through the pain of watching their webhits go into the toilet and advertisers write them off.

Then perhaps they will rid themselves of an agenda, come clean, promote all comparison data with a furor, and service the gaming community instead of manipulating findings in order to generate hits.

AngryTypingGuy2372d ago

So now the PS3 version is deemed better. That's good to know since I will be going with that version. Either version looks amazing though!

MaxXAttaxX2372d ago (Edited 2372d ago )

Except for all these effects, lol

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 2372d ago
ATi_Elite2372d ago

if you scroll down about a quarter of the way to the night scene with the white car on the right side.......rollover the picture kinda makes the white car bounce like it has hydraulics!

ArthurLee2372d ago

lolol i just did that... That's funny bro

2372d ago Replies(3)
Gamer30002372d ago Show
TheBossMan2372d ago

Not to brag, but...

"On the contrary, I don't understand them knocking the textures of the PS3 version when it's obviously apparent that it has a motion blur (depth of field) effect that the 360 variant lacks entirely. If I remember correctly, this feature on games such as Enslaved was only present on the 360 version and the LoT staff was raving about it and deducting PS3 graphics points because of it, while here they seem to be hypocritically backtracking and just propping up the 360 if and whenever possible.

Motion / DOF effects on 360 = Advantage for special effects

Motion / DOF effects on PS3 = Disadvantage for poor textures

That's bullshit."

Called this sh!t like three days ago.


All the xbots were going crazy and I was there, defending our collective honor. Disagree with my prediction now you clowns, disagree now!

anticooper2372d ago

the ps3 version looks better,but there is no big difference,just liked all the other headtohead articles from lot.Getting it for ps3 but only because all my friend game on ps3,not because of this article. Peace:-)

Darth_Bane792372d ago

Lens of Turd strikes again!!!

Persistantthug2372d ago

if I was playing.

But still, the the PS3 is the better version hands down because 1 scratch resistant BLURAY > 2 SCRATCH PRONE dvds.

Trivial pixel differences aside, the BluRay being better than DVD will be true until the end of time.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 2372d ago
Tempjf2373d ago

Xbox is missing some major effects... Nice job Dice you guys did a great job on the consoles.. NOT!

Jayjayff2373d ago

the streaming of the texture is killing to me it seems that bad company 2 perform much better and with less flaws which is very disappointed considering i got the unlimited edition. I always hate when games seem to downgrade after a sequel... (consider i am playing on console so it might be almost flawless in pc it is not the same story consoles.) The overall look it very bland and if anyone dares to say it look on par with any exclusive then sir you must be outright lying but i am here for the big maps and vehicles so i guess this will have to do.

tudors2373d ago

@Tempjf All I can see it has missing is motion blur, the PS3 uses it a lot of the time, I don't see this as a big deal personally.

Kurt Russell2372d ago

I'm enjoying the game on console...

Lior2373d ago

The PS3 version has better lighting and motion blur but performance runs very very slightly better on 360 but you can't see it when u are playing so overall I would get the ps3 version as its only on 1 disc, it has better visuals (not a big difference though) and a lot of 360 owners haven't got the space to install the HD texture pack so ya.....

jeseth2373d ago

Wouldn't the lighting and motion blur factor in to the game's "performance"?

Its funny when people make totally hypocritical statements.

Lior2373d ago

Ya I meant performance as in loading in textures but obviously some peeps don't understand what performance in games mean

Kleptic2372d ago

but it still tore more frames?...

whatever...the game is fine on both...just funny how all the Xbox sites where saying 'the PS3's lighting looks a little closer to the PC version, but it tears frames noticeably more often'...when in reality, it tears less...albeit both are a little bad in this area...

either way...finally played thunder run on the campaign...awesome...

Ju2372d ago

Well, obviously, if you do "more" it taxes the HW - slightly - more. But yet, performance is basically the same. I'd say, PC's lightning engine for a slight performance penalty (what are we talking here? 1ms frame time?) is a fair trade, IMO.

xPhearR3dx2373d ago

"a lot of 360 owners haven't got the space to install the HD texture pack so ya....."

It's 1.5GB, demos are bigger than that. A more accurate statement would be, a lot of 360 overs don't have the room to fully install both discs and the texture pack.

WitWolfy2373d ago

I have a 250Gb so im not worried about space, but seeing the PS3 compared to 360 seriously made me want the PS3 version more. But all my friends will be playing this on 360!


xPhearR3dx2373d ago


It's honestly not that big of a difference. I don't like how blurry the PS3 version gets either. I'm happy with my purchase.

DlocDaBudSmoka2372d ago

how are demos on 360 bigger than 1.5gb? isnt the xlive file size limit 2gb? i think someone is talking out of their ass.

theEx1Le2372d ago

@DlocDaBudSmoka, there is a whole space in between 1.5gb and 2gb ya know. Seems like you need to lay off the bud. Although i thought that was only for arcade games.

OT: Got the ps3 version and as always happy with it due to more friends being on ps3. These comparisons are pointless, i can't believe people may actually base their purchase on them.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2372d ago
crxss2373d ago

I actually have 200+ gb on my 360 hdd and only like 10 gb on my ps3. 120 gb is too small when almost every game requires a large chunk for that dang game data utility folder. Then again I only have like 7 360 games and double that on PS3 :/

CloseSecond2373d ago

How do the final MP visuals compare to those in the beta?

kikizoo2373d ago Show
+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2372d ago
Joe Bomb2373d ago ShowReplies(1)
Ju2371d ago (Edited 2371d ago )

I just played it up to Paris in campaign and can't see it tear. MP is OK, but not really outstanding, IMO. I might as well trade it in of UC3...not as good as I thought it would be.