Top
280°

Lens of Truth: Borderlands Analysis

Lens of Truth writes " Lens of Truth was able to get our hands on the highly anticipated Borderlands for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. Borderlands is a first-person shooter RPG developed by Gearbox that utilizes the Unreal Engine 3. For those that love the quest-driven RPG with lots of shooting, maiming, and blowing stuff up: you won't be disappointed. Sporting a random content-generation similar to Diablo and literally millions of different weapons, there's plenty of explosions to go around. So which version of Borderlands should you bring home? Read on to find out."

Read Full Story >>
lensoftruth.com
The story is too old to be commented.
RudeSole Devil3278d ago

The Textures on the Xbox 360 look 1/2 the quality. How did the PS3 lose. I call Bull.

SWORDF1SH3278d ago

Lens of Truth comparison are always a worthwhile read.

Although to me the graphics look better on the PS3 to me, it loses at everything else like loading (even with install), less screen tear and better effects.

I also find this strange because its the 360 with the better GPU, for better graphics, and the PS3 with the better CPU, allows for more calculations and usually better effects.

Anyway Lens of Truth should be used as the default games comparison site by everybody.

Sarcasm3278d ago

"Anyway Lens of Truth should be used as the default games comparison site by everybody. "

If their site even loads up. I swear, they need to update their servers.

Saaking3278d ago

WTF? The PS3 looks incredibly better. Am I the only one who noticed this? Lens of Truth dissapoints.

raztad3278d ago

I find funny that the third staffer picked the xbox version due to better control "feeling", ie "trigger buttons feel more natural" but in the recent Tekken 6 tie, nobody recalled the clearly better PS3 control.

evildeli3278d ago

I got in with no problems.

ReviewsArePolitics3278d ago (Edited 3278d ago )

"I also find this strange because its the 360 with the better GPU,"

That's a big fat lie right there. A lot of people take it as "common knowledge", but common knowledge is usually wrong.

Does the 360 GPU beat the PS3 GPU at some operations? Yes, vertex shaders in particular. However, the PS3 GPU beats the 360 GPU in pixel shadding by a lot. I've seen a lot of 360 fanboy comparisons with made up numbers but those numbers are usually fabricated (and wrong). Furthermore, the cell processor churns out through most of the calculations needed for vertex shaders as easy as a hot chainsaw through a cube of butter to basically free most of the vertex shader load on the RSX. So basically, it's a lie that the 360 can do better graphics and that the 360 GPU can do just about anything the RSX can do.

"Common Knowledge", lol. I'm sure fanboys with no knowledge of computer architecture will come quickly with some copy pasted numbers from a Gamespot Xbox fanboy.

Edit:

They supposedly focus on the "whole" experience despite the fact that 360 has some crappy textures right there, but if they want to add other features in there (despite the fact that the PS3 version looks like it was intended to, just look at the characters FFS), such as loading times...

Why not add the fact that the 360 sounds like a jet turbine?

What about the unnecessary LIVE fees on PSN?

Does anybody care about reliability?

Why is all this a given?

Anon19743278d ago

So Wolfenstien performs much better on the PS3 but 360 has the edge visually and it's a tie. Borderlands looks better on the PS3, but the 360 has nice light bloom. Both versions have screen tear almost equal. PS3 takes a bit longer to load, probably because of the better textures. WINNER 360!

I'm starting to notice a trend with LOT's conclusions. If it's close - always give it to the 360 because, well, the PS3 has an install! Gasp! If the PS3 has the edge - that's a tie.

commodore643278d ago (Edited 3278d ago )

Settle down darkride66.

There were numerous areas where the ps3 version lagged significantly.
In fact, the reasons why the 360 won, again, were numerous and very clearly explained in the article.

Here, let me paste the summary:
----------------------------- ----------------
G R A P H I C S
Xbox 360 implements Screen Space Ambient Occlusion, sharper shadow maps, and a light bloom effect which outweigh the PlayStation 3’s occasional higher resolution textures.
P E R F O R M A N C E
Xbox 360 performed better than the PlayStation 3 by tearing much less. Although the Xbox 360 wasn’t tear-free, it was a significant improvement over the PlayStation 3’s 21%.
L O A D I N G
Xbox 360 took much less time to load, despite the PlayStation 3 having a mandatory install.
O U T C O M E
Xbox 360 has the victory with more impressive visuals, less screen tearing, and shorter load times.
----------------------------- --------------------
There you have it darkride66.
There is no need to call foul.
LOT did acknowledge occasional sharper textures on the ps3!
However, the sum total of ps3 deficits outweighed this single factor that you seem to be fixated on.

Lot backed their verdict with plenty of valid, factual observations.
There is no need for you to go around whining about bias and controversy as per usual!

If you dispensed with the fanboy goggles, you might agree that on aggregate, it is the 360, that should have won again (and did).

----------------------------- ----
edit:
Darkride66,
I just noticed that you edited your post and stated the frametear is 'almost equal'

That's a lie, darkride66.

The screentear on the ps3 is nowhere near 'almost equal'
In the LOT comparison they found that:
"PlayStation 3 Avg. Frame Tear: 21.71% / Xbox 360 Avg. Frame Tear: 13.79%"

Fact is, the PS3 frametear is significantly higher.
No ambiguity there!

Please don't lie, darkride66.

Sarcasm3278d ago

The textures are clearly better on the PS3 version, but for some reason they felt that loading times, less screen tear, and SSAO is the reason the 360 version wins.

But IMO, this is another case of "it's really nothing different" to the point where it makes or breaks the gameplay. Although I do hate screen tearing.

darkecho3278d ago

Ugh... again? How did I know that as soon as I saw a LoT article, I'd find you here arguing the same arguments as last time?

willie62893278d ago

"PlayStation 3 Avg. Frame Tear: 21.71% / Xbox 360 Avg. Frame Tear: 13.79%"

I would like to know where these numbers come from. 21 and 13 percent of what? and LOT really has the capability to measure screen tear to the second decimal?

Christopher3278d ago

Yeah, I'm confused by this in the end.

I have the PC version and it's a great looking game. From their results, the PS3 resonates more with what I've experienced on the PC and the 360 really looks faded out with light and lower level textures.

I'd go with the screen tearing route for the nicer looking game overall. The art direction in this game is great, almost too bad they ended up having such repetitive graphics for the mobs and landscapes.

Anon19743278d ago (Edited 3278d ago )

"Although the framerate was comparable between the two systems, the Xbox 360 tore less."

Trouble comprehending that?
"Framerate was comparable"

Comparable - conforming in every respect, in a comparable manner or to a comparable degree.

Now, a normal person would read that and say, oh - LOT says right there that they were pretty damn close, in fact, comparable, to each other but the 360 edged it out slightly.

You take that to mean "LIES! LIES! How dare can he quote directly from the article to make his point?! Damnable lies!"

I'll take your apology in the form of a sonnet, if you wouldn't mind. Same thing for the last time you called me a liar when I quoted directly from the LOT comparison.

evildeli3278d ago

Another LOT article where you reference either Wolfenstein or Blazblue. You should try a new angle.

commodore643277d ago (Edited 3277d ago )

Yes Darkride66

You lied.

You lied when you said
"Both versions have screen tear almost equal" (comment 1.8)

Lot found that this wasn't the case.
You lied about 'screen tear'.
I corrected you.
Screen tear was undeniably significantly higher on the ps3.

I have no idea why you are waffling about framerate, because this whole time I have been quoting you and your comment on 'screen tear', which is, incidentally also know as 'frame tear'

You seem very confused about frame-tear vs frame-rate.
The two are wholly different things.

Thus your quote
"Both versions have screen tear almost equal" (comment 1.8)
Is a lie, darkride66.

You lied, darkride66.
Either that, or you are VERY confused and should learn to pay attention to detail when you write, so as not to look like a liar.

Man up, Liar.
Stop, think.
Then, Check your own words.

Anon19743276d ago

Then, just to show what I was basing my comments on, I quoted the LOT article...exactly.

And yet I'm a liar somehow?

Watch! I'll do it again.
"Although the framerate was comparable between the two systems, the Xbox 360 tore less."

Framerate was comparable, based on LOTS own findings.
Now, personally, I've never played either version (as I'm guessing you haven't either) so I really can't say if this is the truth or not (and neither can you, you're just taking someone else's word at it) but according to LOT the framerate tear was comparable with a slight edge given to the 360.

You want to explain to me again how I interpreted that incorrectly and lied about it? Because, from where I'm standing it's you who seems to be things up. Again.

Do I have to trot out the gems of your past again via your posting history? The cavalcade of lies that you can't escape?

You know what they say about people who live in glass houses, my friend.

Now again, I'm pleading with you, let gamers talk and when you have something to contribute, by all means join us. Keep this garbage in the Open zone.

commodore643276d ago (Edited 3276d ago )

For the love of gaming, darkride66!
What is your major malfunction?
Please read this very carefully.

Didn't i just explain to you that "frametear" and "framerate"
are NOT the same?

While the article DID state that the framerate was comparable, the frameTEAR was NOT!
You misunderstood ad misquoted LOT and failed to see how you thus lied in the process.
I know you are not one for details, but honestly darkride66, I feel I am speaking to a belligerent child!

Pay attention now, son:

(I quote YOU in post 1.8)
Your quote was:
"Both versions have screen tear almost equal."

This was NEVER stated by LOT!
Yet, you say it WAS stated by LOT?
That's another lie, darkride66.

Thus you have lied TWICE.

To summarise,
First, I have shown that you lied, by directly QUOTING your original LIE!
Secondly, I have now also shown that you lied AGAIN when you asserted above that YOUR quote: "Both versions have screen tear almost equal."
(Comment 1.8) was somehow sourced from LOT, when it WASN'T.

You have now lied TWICE in the same thread and it is written for all and sundry to verify above.
You lied, yet you continue to deny that you lied, despite incontrovertible evidence.

Please stop lying, darkride66.
It is absolutely embarrassing to see you call yourself a gamer, when all you do is spread lies.

What a sad day for n4g.

Anon19743275d ago (Edited 3275d ago )

I misunderstood what LOT was talking about. You can see from LOT's own quote that they shifted gears in mid-sentance between talking about framerate and screen tears. I missed that distinction.

And then you took the high road and started yelling "Liar!"

Bravo **slow clap** Bravo.

Nice overreaction, by the way. What would N4G be without you making everyone feel so welcome in it's forums?

commodore643274d ago (Edited 3274d ago )

Darkride66.

It seems you were finally forced to acknowledge that you lied.
The problem is, you do this all the time.

You pay attention to the details ONLY when it suits the outcome of your bias. In the case of evidence to the contrary, you conveniently fudge it and lie.
What's worse is, I called you out for lying, then you lied again to save face!

All of N4g can refer to this thread and now observe this facetious, lying trait of yours.
You're not a gamer, you're a lying fanboy!

Rest assured, Liar66, I will be there to call you out each and every time you do this, as I have done in the past also.
It is really important for the N4g community to see that you are quite the liar, when it suits you.

In this instance,
You lied in your quote, then you lied about what LOT stated.
Incredibly, instead of 'manning up' and just coming clean, you attempted repeatedly to ignore the evidence and fudge the facts again.
In the comment above, you even BLAME LOT for the fact that YOUR comprehension is awry!

UNBELIEVABLE!

This blatant expose could have easily been avoided, if you had just checked the facts, like I asked you, instead of subsequently lying repeatedly.

Nevertheless, the fact you do this all the time suggests it was no accident and is an observable behaviour trait of yours.

N4g is slowly seeing you for the liar that you are, darkride66.
In fact, each time I see you lying I will call you out and refer to this, from now on, as the 'Darkride66 vaseline effect'

It makes me glad that i am able to contribute to exposing you as being a liar and will continue to do so, for the benefit of the community.

No need to thank me, the n4g community already has.
;)

+ Show (17) more repliesLast reply 3274d ago
Bigpappy3278d ago

This is the best comparison I have seen so far. Enjoy the game guys.

Raf1k13278d ago

Yeh looks great on both.
I'm waiting for my mate to pick this up so I can play it with him on PC. Co-op should be a blast. The mob difficulty and quality of loot increases with the number of people you quest with.

Looks like I'll be playing it for a while.

thetruthinator3278d ago

There is totally a difference! I own the 360 version but i am still very impressed with the textures of the ps3 version. I guess the ps3 almost always has better textures with blue ray anyway.

gotta agree with lens of truth however, long load times and prevalent screen tearing would piss me off.

RudeSole Devil3278d ago

Come on people are you blind the PS3 version wins so easy.

CernaML3278d ago (Edited 3278d ago )

Whoa whoa whoa.... The PS3 version has textures that are miles better than the 360's and yet they go after other effects just for the sake of giving the 360 version a win? Biasism at its finest (Yes I know it's not a word).

And to think... I thought these comparisons were legit for the longest time.

Anorexorcist3278d ago

For these websites to adjust their gaze and look for points to compare that are anything other than flattering to the Xbox 360.

The PS3 version of a title could feature more detailed facial expressions and smoother animations, but if the Xbox 360 version has shinier main menu screens, that is all that they'll take into consideration for the comparison.

3278d ago Replies(4)