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."

[RudeSole Devil]

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

[SWORDF1SH]

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.

[Sarcasm]

"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.

[Knghtz]

Agreed

[Saaking]

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

[raztad]

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.

[evildeli]

I got in with no problems.

[ReviewsArePolitics]

"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?

[Anon1974]

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.

[commodore64]

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.

[Sarcasm]

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.

[darkecho]

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?

[willie6289]

"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?

[Christopher]

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.

[Anon1974]

"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.

[evildeli]

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

[commodore64]

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.

[Anon1974]

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.

[commodore64]

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.

[Anon1974]

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?

[commodore64]

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.
;)

[Bigpappy]

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

[Raf1k1]

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.

[thetruthinator]

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 Devil]

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

[CernaML]

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.

[Anorexorcist]

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.

[Feral Gamer]

Well, I think the visuals in the PS3 version are just fine. I haven't noticed problems while playing.

In the first pic, the PS3 version has better looking shadows on the face, sleeves, and arms.

Second pic the 360 has better lighting.

Overall the PS3 has sharper textures. The lighting doesn't make that big of a deal unless you analyze the screen shots.

[XboxGirl]

Are you blind the Xbox 360 Looked way better, watch the video.

[Alcon Caper]

@ feral gamer

this is why you're not qualified to have a professional opinion

[cereal_killa]

XboxGirl and Alcon Caper I think the both of you have been wearing wenis wagons fanboy goggles again

http://www.wallpapergate.co...

both games look exactly the same Lens of fail is just as much of joke as Metajoke and every dumba$$ fanboy on this site.

[Kleptic]

its UE3 isn't it?...just like Batman AA; the ps3 version lacks the SSAO, but in turn gives slightly better textures and lighting at times...but its more or less moot...

the PS3 usually screams at lighting compared to the 360, and is generally more capable at complex lighting systems simply because of the cpu's ability to take up some of the overhead...the 360 usually shines at texture clarity and AA...but the PS3 lacking bloom effects is strange...but then again this is UE3, which the ps3 was never all that awesome at running...even though the tech is older than both consoles pretty much...and VERY dated looking...

all I am getting at is that this comparison seems backwards from the norm...the 360 having 'better' lighting, and the PS3 having 'better' textures is not normal...even though both are always pretty similar between the 2 consoles in multiplat games like this...

[Ju]

"seems backwards from the norm" ... agreed.

And the "general consensus" (from the opinionators) is that, if so, the 360 wins. But this time, 360 still wins, even though its somehow reversed. Strange.

[Alcon Caper]

The PS3 clearly looks sharper, although that's probably the only 1up they have, and with AA on, it's no question that the 360 wins again.

[ElementX]

Funny, the article doesn't mention the 360 version having AA. Plus look at the second pic. The black part under the barrel of the 360 pic is jaggy but looks more smooth on the PS3 pic.

Look at comparison 6. See the jagged cables running across on both versions?

[Foxgod]

Its comparisons like this that make me feel relieved that i play multi's on pc.

[Ninji]

PS3: 84
Xbox 360: 83

PS3 version is the superior version obviously. It doesn't matter what broken lens those fanboys are looking through.

[chrisulloa]

Hm, PS3 version got 23 critic reviews and 360 version got 45 critic reviews. LOL, god you PS3 fantards are so stupid sometimes.

[Relientk77]

I cannot wait to play this

and "Sporting a random content-generation similar to Diablo"

is my kind of game, I love Diablo 1 and 2

[RememberThe357]

The story isn't very deep, but it does get interesting at the end.

I just finished it, and I plan on playing it over and over again. I freakin love loot.

[Eiffel]

It's cell shaded. I have trouble finding much difference.

[omimasum]

i think i might need my vaseline and lotions for this game

[gamingisnotacrime]

Is the game visuals ruining the fun?
Did any of you notice any problem with visuals before coming to N4G and reading this article?
Is the screen tearing a serious issue? Frame rate?

Thx in advance

[omimasum]

no, the announciation of the physical deamining test does not tear the vaseline hence the solid frame rate for the lotion in my hand

[BlackTar187]

And i dont notice anything. I never do i have to freeze frame to notice and even then its so small i dont care i say that 100% of these things are BS if your purchase hinges on 10% more screen tearing you live a boring life and i fell sorry for you.

I buy games based on my friends list of the system not little OMG you see that the shadow on his head is not mathmaticlly correct on ps3 woot woot Superior version on console______ .

Its all bs these things are made for people who have never dated etc. call me mean for poking fun but come on i come in here to laugh at the hate being thrown around and everyone once in awhile respond to someone liek you who seems to know that this stuff is BS to the fullest

Game on

[PimpHandHappy]

a website based on something like comparing games down to the pixel is a website that has nothing good to say

they would never get hits

btw
they will not get mine
EVER

[HDgamer]

In my professional opinion, fanboys really love comparisons more than real gamers.

[omimasum]

hence the vaseline

[evildeli]

I would think a real gamer would have both consoles and might want to know which console is performing better. I think a fanboy would be those who bring up a PC in a ps3 verse xbox comparison.

[Saaking]

The 360 version looks like sh1t yet it wins? Seems Lens of Truth is not so truthful.

[AliTheBrit19]

Yes, the PS3 has the edge graphics wise, but 360 seems to have better performance.

But it is odd they awarded the graphics to the 360 version

[-Mezzo-]

What A Bull Crap Analysis, (Although the framerate was comparable between the two systems, the Xbox 360 tore less. Overall we gave this win to the Xbox 360.) what the *F* is this Sh*T, such a Fanboy website.

[McErono]

got a dl copy for the box and a retail copy for the ps3.

free online play, almost same performance, way better textures but a missing bloom effect that is present only in one daytime = winner ps3 imo

[chanto23]

is how far devs have come with the unreal engine on the PS3...i remember the days when an unreal engine game on the PS3 spelled DISASTER!!!...great job Gearbox

[evildeli]

I gotta disagree on this comparison. The Ps3 looks far better.

[peeps]

it certainly suffers badly with framerates though. i own the ps3 version and my housemate the 360. graphically i wouldn't say there was much of a difference at a glance and so it's certainly worth playing on either console but he didn't get too many drops in framerate. for me, particulary when using the corosive weapons the framerate would grind to a halt.

the article does imply that it's very one sided however which i would disagree on

[shutupandplay]

360 not only looks better, it has a flawless online experience, poor ps3 players get the shaft again, and they know it with less than 1/3 the sales of the 360 version. P L A Y B 3 H I N D

[-Mezzo-]

Shut up and play your Multi-Platform in the dark corner, while be rock out with our (____ Out) playing the best exclusives known to mankind.

[Shadow Man]

LMAO!! K MENZZO!

[CryWolf]

Clearly the PS3 version of borderlands looks incredibly superior.

[SuperStrokey1123]

Dont forget that the texture loading is faster on the ps3 too, not so fast on the 360. Not a big deal to me but certainly something that should be mentioned.

[P33OnUAndHopeUDie]

I have not seen the ps3 version of this game, but have seen the 360 version, so I cant comment on what shadow looks better. But what I can say is this is a fun game no matter what system you play it on... that is unless it comes out on the wii.

But to me graphics are good but game play is always better... remember Barbies Horse Adventure, (pukes at the thought of it) they were the best graphics for it's time, but the game play was horrible.

[Henry Cain]

Im looking at this and the PS3 version has more detail than the 360 version.

[CobraKai]

If it was the other way with the 360 having the better textures and the ps3 with the SSAO/bloom, I think they would still give the win to the 360.

Can anyone really tell a game has SSAO?

[Anon1974]

Given some of the questionable conclusions they've come to in the past, every time I see another comparison they do I'm left wondering "Is this going to be a legit one, or is it going to be another one where I'm left scratching my head wondering how they came to the conclusion they did given their own statements?"

In this case, again there seems to be a discrepancy.

In the comparison of NFS shift, the 360 was slightly sharper due to the blur effect used on the PS3, even though they say the PS3 had better visual tweaks and lighting effects. "Light seemed to wrap around trees and cars more realistically" Even though "While both versions looked really close to one another in terms with graphics and performance," they gave the graphics win to the 360.

Now we have the same thing on Borderlands, but with the roles reversed. PS3 had higher res textures and looked sharper, but they liked the 360 versions lighting and shadows. They gave the 360 the win for graphics because they felt "Xbox 360 were more CPU-intensive and harder to pull off."

So, the 360 gets the win because the lighting was harder to do then higher res textures? Out of curiosity, says who?

It's just interesting to me to see how much opinion goes into these type of comparisons. You might be able to measure screen tears and resolution, but when it comes down to deciding if those are trumped by load time, or control issues for example - it's all really subjective.

Edit: Not sure why this posted way down here. I even tried to repost above, clicking on the thread I wanted. Oh well.

[Kiroe]

A few things. First it is easy to see how they came to the conclusion of the Xbox 360 winning on graphics. When compared feature to feature, the PS3 lost. If you read the article they say:

"On one hand, the PlayStation 3 had a few sharper, higher resolution textures than the Xbox 360. On the other hand, the Xbox 360 toted some impressive effects that the PlayStation 3 lacked, such as Screen Space Ambient Occlusion (SSAO), sharper shadow maps, and a pretty sweet-looking light bloom effect during certain times of the day."

So right there in that sentence the PS3 wins one and loses three. Whereas the Xbox 360 loses one and wins three. I mean, this is "next-gen" and these missing features aren't so easily over looked.

And since when is load times subjective. It is kind of hard to screw up hitting a stop watch. I didn't realize time had become subjective...good to know.

As for NFS, it seems they deemed them close enough visually because all effects were present, it was just the PS3 version had more dramatic bloom. It wasn't completely missing like Borderlands. Being that they were so close it all came down to the quincunx antialiasing, which made the visuals blurry.

Anyways, who says they are the end all be all deciding factor? Use the facts, look at the images, watch the video and decide for yourself.

But as far as I am concerned if you do not own both systems you really have no business commenting(which I know darkride66 has both from previous statements).

[Ju]

After the recent reports LOT has lost it completely in my book. The added opinions just strengthen my impression, that those measures are in fact just that: personal opinions, and not an objective evaluation put into a report.

[evildeli]

Borderlands simply rocks. No comparison there!

[Pootangpie]

@ReviewsArePolitics apperantly your retarded and has been stated by carmack and crytek and many others the GPU in the 360 is way better then RSX

[asyouburn]

they say the 360 has better bloom, but ps3 has better textures, and somehow 360 wins. i really dont care which one wins, and congrats on 360 owners for another win (what is that, like 26?) but i dont know about you guys, but you only notice bloom when your looking toward a light source, but textures cover just about everything in the game. it would look better until you swiveled the camera away from light source as you. . . you know. . . looked at the REST OF THE GAME.

[evildeli]

lol. True the entire game has textures, and you only notice the bloom every once and a while, but the ps3 was also missing shadows.

[asyouburn]

yeah thats all i could think about when i read the comparison. this game looks awesome no matter what system you get it on. just when you get to the last boss, everyone make sure you have that screen space ambient occlusion leveled up all the way, i hear it makes the game super a awesome

[Thoreau]

the ps3 version looked better...