Lens of Truth: Head2Head - Star Wars - The Force Unleashed II Demo Screenshot Comparison

Lens of Truth writes "Welcome back to another electrifying screenshot comparison of the newly released demo, Star Wars: The Force Unleashed II. Yesterday the Xbox Live and PlayStation Network added this game to the demo queue, and we here at the Lens of Truth wasted no time. While most of you were asleep, we were wide awake Unleashing havoc on both versions to expose the differences we found between these two titans. So grab your coffee, sit back, and enjoy!"

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
MrMccormo3700d ago

Oh Lens of Truth, the VGChartz of game comparisons.

VGChartS3700d ago

you mean the best site for these things?

ConanOBrien3700d ago (Edited 3700d ago )

LoT loves the PS3..

Jaces3700d ago

Well I have to admit that the X....oh wait, it's comparing demos.


ExplosionSauce3700d ago (Edited 3700d ago )

It was never about them loving the PS3.
It's more about them having the tendency of telling it how it is. Though I can't imagine the final version being that much different from this demo.

I still do find Lens of Truth more credible than VGchartz, in my personal opinion.

[EDIT] I did notice they're using component cables for both systems though. They could have used HDMI for both systems... unless 1.3 really makes a difference compared to 1.2 (?)

ingiomar3700d ago (Edited 3700d ago )

Because the 360 version is Superior..Again

HolyOrangeCows3700d ago

They're almost identical.

Get your Microsoft issued indoor-Kudo sun glasses off.

westy5523700d ago

I dont know if you checked but from what they are saying they used component for ps3 and HDMI for 360, 360 looks slightly sharper in pictures but why wouldn't they use hdmi on both?? Even though people think HDMI shouldn't make any difference it defiantly does on the ps3.

JasonPC360PS3Wii3700d ago

Then why not just use HDMI on the 360 too? Oh... thats right because the result would be the same.

westy5523700d ago (Edited 3700d ago )

I wasnt saying that it would make a difference I was simple saying it most likely would. I just think for comparisons sake they should use HDMI vs HDMI thats all.

But im sure as you said the outcome would be the same, no need to get defensive just find it weird why they use component over HDMI.

Moonboots3700d ago

"Get your Microsoft issued indoor-Kudo sun glasses off. "

I just had to login to say I lol'd on that one.

Who really cares how the demos compare? Why not wait for the retail?

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3700d ago
MiloGarret3700d ago

Oh MrMccormo, one of many idiots on n4g.

Eiffel3700d ago

I actually love Lens Of Truth, only site I know that breaks down comparisons to the bare bone.

Lekumkee3700d ago

*Lensoftruth - Note: Star Wars: The Force Unleashed II was captured in 720p using component cables for both systems.

LMAO!! lensoftruth once again sabotages the PS3 version to make it seem the Xbox is on par with PS3 version. Why don't they capture these games in HDMI in 1080p and see the real results. Lol!! 720p in component cables... give me a break, who the f*ck plays games in HD using component cables?

raztad3700d ago

Yeah, I'm very surprised they use components for video capturing. Is component supposed to be better quality than HDMI?

MorganX3700d ago

Component HD is equal or better (deeper blacks, richer colors, mostly individual preference) than HDMI.

They may use it becasue of their capture device. Additionally, component HD is probalby still more prevalent than HDMI at the moment, especially with Surround Sound. HDMI receivers still have a a lot of sales to make to catch up to component receivers/use.

raztad3700d ago

I have a hard time believing that analog > digital. Their equipment to be component only sounds a lot more likely.

archemides5183700d ago (Edited 3700d ago )

morganx u couldn't be more wrong. i'm surprised if you're even fooling yourself

come on everybody let's switch back to analog from digital for the generational loss, and who wants a pure digital to digital source anyway!

i'm sure you probably think watching movies that somebody recorded off the screen with a camcorder is better than watching a film scan or direct digital conversion, cuz it "smooths it out" too

CimmerianDrake3700d ago

I heard that, because of HDCP, you can't capture gameplay in 1080p with HDMI cables. I could be wrong though. Gametrailers used that as an excuse many times though.

jack_burt0n3700d ago

they are just amateurs they rely on people donating games to them to test, its not like they will have dev units setup to do comparisons with hdmi, which gametrailers does actually have.

MorganX3700d ago (Edited 3700d ago )

HDMI is not becoming the standard because it produces richer colors than component. There are many other technical efficiencies and capabilities is provides becuase it is digital. But producing richer colors is not one of them.

Think about that the next time you have to remind someone to turn on Full (RGB).

Using component cables is not going to be the "cause" of an inferior picture. If the PS3 has a problem with producing a quality HD image using analog input (your notion) it is is a problem with the PS3, (not) the inability to generate a rich picture using analog signals.

I understand fanboys lack the mental capacity to reason, so I really don't give a shit but I thought I'd answer you anyway.

lexington3700d ago Show
athlon7703700d ago (Edited 3700d ago )

article nicely written informing the mis-informed on Component -vs- HDMI (DVI)

And yes Morgan, the PS3 is designed to use the HDMI interface and the deep color is disabled by default because 4 years ago very few TV's supported the format. And it does make a huge difference!

And another good reference:


"Ok let’s start by answering the important question for most people. What do I need to watch HDTV? It is a simple question, but the answer is not so simple. The confusion is caused by the fact that Component cables can carry an HDTV signal. However most devices do not output HD quality signals to the Component output. Therefore technically the answer is no you do not require HDMI cables to watch HDTV, Component video cables are capable of carrying an HD signal if available, however the reality is that most likely you will require a HDMI cable or an HDMI to Component Adapter (more on adapters/converters below) for your device to output HD quality signals."

Oh, and another, wow the internet is so full of great info...


"The upshot of this article--in case you're not inclined to read all the details--is that it's very hard to predict whether an HDMI connection will produce a better or worse image than an analog component video connection. There will often be significant differences between the digital and the analog signals, but those differences are not inherent in the connection type and instead depend upon the characteristics of the source device (e.g., your DVD player) and the display device (e.g., your TV set). Why that is, however, requires a bit more discussion."

Soul Train3700d ago

Great point seeing on how the PS3 has better color in the comparison. WTF, Try again.

athlon7703700d ago (Edited 3700d ago )

The PS3 only applies the Deep Color (Full RGB) option to HDMI output only. And it was Morgans comment above is the reason why that was included.

It is also my belief that LOT specifically chose the componant connections to keep everything as close as possible to both systems.

The main problem is, as Morgan also states, is that Componant and HDMI connections are very simular in output at a given range (720p for instance) and that any issues with quality are an issue with the device (PS3) and not the cable.

The real issue is the best picture from the PS3 will be obtained with a HDMI output with Deep Color enabled. The 360 was originally designed using componant connections so it has the best output using those connections, remember the 360 did not originaly have HDMI or 1080p output those were added after the PS3 came out!

I guess the point I am trying to make is that it is quite possible the PS3's screen shots are so fuzzy is because they are using Componant connections instead of HDMI. But no Soul Train, I was not refering that the screen shots we just looked at would have been better if Deep Color was that is an HDMI only option, meerly explaining to Morgan why Deep Color is disabled by default.

IHateYouFanboys3700d ago

@Lekumkee: "Why don't they capture these games in HDMI in 1080p and see the real results"

why would they capture it in 1080p when the games native resolution is 720p?

the 360 version has better texture detail, and slightly better AA, but apart from that theres not much difference.

Hallmark Moment3700d ago (Edited 3700d ago )

The PS3 version is fuzzy because it's inferior. RGB is color range for video like games and PC and nothing more. RGB has nothing to do with, inferior contrast, inferior lighting, inferior effects and sharpness. HDMI output enhances both the PS3 and the 360 vs component output RLMAO You say PS3 is designed for HDMI and the 360 is not? As if the 360 looks best over COMPONENT and not HDMI LOWL!!!!!!!!

And yes the 360 will allow 1080p with component with specifically designed HDTV's like Samsung sets. The light Sabers look like crap with the PS3 version the fat fuzzy bars are ugly.

If you knew anything about color you would know the PS3 version looks pale in some place and exaggerated in others is because the lack of colors. Like a cheap HDTV able to support millions of color vs a HDTV that supports billions. The one that supports millions might seem exaggerated making people think it has more color.

JasonPC360PS3Wii3700d ago (Edited 3700d ago )

PS3 fan... Why don't they use HDMI on the PS3 so we can win one?

360 Fan... uh... the 360 also has HDMI so we could use it on both.

PS3 Fan... BS! whatever RROD RROD!

On topic all and joking aside the differences between the two are very very small. So, if you're a Star Wars fan just enjoy the freaking game.

karl3700d ago

lol.. u guys are retarded

the game will get the same score on both system..

and it will be just as fun...

linko18-19903700d ago

i do my HD tv broke down not too long ago. and it sucks bcuz now i struggle looking for snipers on multiplayer games like Halo and call of duty but i gotta say God of war 3 looks amazing even without the HDMI :D

wlchrbandit3700d ago (Edited 3700d ago )

As far as I know, there aren't many, if any, HD recorders that use HDMI. They are likely to be using the Hauppauge HD PVR, it's the most widely used, and uses component cables.

EDIT: @IHateYouFanboys The 360s AA is terrible, jaggy edges everywhere. It does have better textures though, but it's not too noticeable. Looks great on both.

athlon7703699d ago

Did you ever take the wrong train track with my comment. I want you to take a deep breath for me please, good now hold it, hold it, good, now exhale.

If you would actually READ the links I submitted, you would understand, well at least a rational person would understand, that BOTH Component and HDMI connections are equal up to 1080i. The Component connection is not ment to carry 1080p signals and as stated by someone else I think the PS3 actually blocks that as a selection. (I don't know about that one, as I have always used the HDMI connection). And that depending on the HARDWARE supplying the signal (i.e. the PS3, 360, DVR, Satalite Receiver) will depend on how the output looks.

"The PS3 version is fuzzy because it's inferior. RGB is color range for video like games and PC and nothing more. RGB has nothing to do with, inferior contrast, inferior lighting, inferior effects and sharpness. HDMI output enhances both the PS3 and the 360 vs component output RLMAO You say PS3 is designed for HDMI and the 360 is not? As if the 360 looks best over COMPONENT and not HDMI LOWL!!!!!!!!"

Wow you are just, wow, I am at a loss for words. You totally went off with your own direction didn't you. I would try to explain what is actually happening, but people like you are only interested in spreading FUD. And yes the 360 does look better over Component. Think about it instead of just spouting your mouth off and you might get a clue.

"And yes the 360 will allow 1080p with component with specifically designed HDTV's like Samsung sets. The light Sabers look like crap with the PS3 version the fat fuzzy bars are ugly."

I agree, some TV sets are better than others. As for the lighting of the weapons, well that is a personal preference there, personaly I like the PS3's showing of color saturation over the 360's.

"If you knew anything about color you would know the PS3 version looks pale in some place and exaggerated in others is because the lack of colors. Like a cheap HDTV able to support millions of color vs a HDTV that supports billions. The one that supports millions might seem exaggerated making people think it has more color."

You could not be more wrong with what you just stated. Sorry to break it to you but the PS3 does support 36bit color depth (billions of colors) the 360 however has the very issue you are trying to pin on Sony's creation. Tell ya what, you up for an experiment? Load up your favorite FPS, and take a close look at the sky. that is called "banding" and is caused by another term "dithering", sorry if these are big words for you but you try to act smart, I am hopeing you can keep up...these are tell tell signs that the system is using a limited color pallet. But you are pulling the path of this conversation away from why we are talk about the game and its visuals...of a DEMO! Get a life, BOTH screen scans look great and yes I will give the nod to the 360 for textures, but the 360 has always had better textures in multiplats.

athlon7703699d ago

Actually LOT explains the what and why...

"To all questioning our video captures:
Everything you see on this site is a direct capture. We do not film a TV. All of our videos are captured at the source level with a Blackmagic Intensity Pro capture card. Meaning we go directly from the PS3/Xbox 360 to the capture card. We capture via component at 720p (1280×720). We are unable to capture HDMI as the PS3 has HDCP (High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection) on the output. What you see is what the system outputs directly with no color correction or contrast/brightness adjustments. We do not capture at 1080 then scale down to 720 like so many other gaming sites (doing this naturally anti-aliases the image which is a false representation of the game). There is no “calibration” to be done, what you see is what you get. We understand that the images will not match the unique viewing experience you will have in your home. This is impossible due to various television brands and personal color, contrast, brightness and sharpness settings."

+ Show (16) more repliesLast reply 3699d ago
ATi_Elite3700d ago

Why would these morons use component versus a HDMI cable?

Oh never mind seeing how neither system can output a AAA game in 1080p anyway

but both versions do look very good. I would love to see the rain scene run in real time as that would be an awesome comparison of system power.

mittwaffen3700d ago

Does any comparison use HDMI? I dont think you can split it properly due to that lame shit.

Why are people nerd raging, they both use analog, so its even on that ground. Wont make a big difference between the two.

niceguywii603700d ago (Edited 3700d ago )

Sweet baby Jesus the fanboys are crashing the site. The site wont finish loading and it freezes my pointer for everything else when I click on the link.

muDD3700d ago

That statement is BS! and so is the notion that the Lens of Truth is some how sabotaging the ps3 to make it look inferior... You cultmembers are sick... whenever a multiplat game looks inferior on the ps3, you fools always want to blame the DEVS... that excuse is old now, and sony has provided all of the needed tools for dev teams to work with.

ALL I HAVE TO SAY IS LOOK AT RED DEAD RE! The 360 is the superior version.

I dare one of you sony cultmemebers to say that RockStar does not understand the PS3... and that they are not a very good Dev team.

The truth is, no matter how much u hate to hear it, the PS3 is not superior over the 360. PERIOD!

DXM13700d ago

Actually PS3 is superior. Many times Multiplats look better on 360 (no one is arguing that), but PS3 exclusive games look better than 360 exclusives. My best friend has a 360, and we play often either at my house (Ps3) or his (360), and the differences are clear. If you buy many multiplats, then 360 may be the way to go for you, but if you only play exclusives, PS3 is the better choice.

iceman063700d ago

It's not about the devs not understanding the PS3 architecture so much as it is about having the time to maximize the code for the things that the PS3 can do the best. None of the multiplatform devs have that extra time, and financial resources to exploit the PS3. It doesn't matter how strong the developer. If they don't have the time and money, then the 360 will probably ALWAYS look a little better. That's fanboy nonsense or name calling. It's just the state of the industry at this point.

Jaces3700d ago

sooo PS3 exclusives are tens time better looking than all multiplats and yet you believe the 360 is superior because they have the slightest advantage with me make sense of that, I believe your fanboy logic is flawed.

stonecold33700d ago

game on 360 comes any where near uncharted speak up because we all know mult games dont take advantage of system both version got to be equal these developers are lazy cant even take advantage of ps3 at all

muDD3699d ago (Edited 3699d ago )

I have the PS3 and most of their exclusives. The only game that may be graphically better than any xbox exclusives is KZ2 (graphically they did a Great job), but it plays like shyt, it is washed out by its use of only 3 colors, AND IT TOOK NEARLY 5 YEARS TO DEVELOP. 5 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!! And at the end of the day, it is overrated graphically. The other exclusives are subjective. So, if any DEV team is given 5 YEARS to develop a game, a talented team will be able to utilize the time to exploit the power of either system. It took Epic 2 years to develop GeOW 3, and that game looks better than any current PS3 exclusive, including kz2.

There are only 2 ps3 exclusives that look better that multiplat games, and they are kz2 and uc2, and that's it... So calm down fanboi, not all ps3 exclusives look better than multiplat.

You sony cultmembers prove my point by calling devs "LAZY" because your system produced the inferior product.

Jaces3699d ago

How long did Too Human take to develop? Oh yea, 10 years and it still played and looked like crap. :)

KZ3 only took about 3 years and it's already shaping up to be one of the better looking games. I'm sorry but Gears is the only game that comes close to being in any competition with a PS3 exclusive. Alan wake was pretty but not what fanboys made it out to be (trust me I've played and beat it).

If you wouldn't mind I'd like a list of multiplats that look better than exclusives cause they all looked pretty mediocre to me. And you've yet to explain how a multiplat game PROVES that one system is better than the other when said system has a far superior exclusive?

It's all up to the devs not the game system to provide an equally running game on both platforms. One having grass does not make it the better console.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3699d ago
tatotiburon3700d ago

once again xbox 360 version wins

zeddy3700d ago

it pisses me of too but the 360 version is superior, so get your head out of your fanboy asses and stop maoning at each other and starting moaning at the lazy devs.

mastiffchild3699d ago

No big difference. No optimal capture method for either system. Another game dsigned to be as similar as possible on both systems and push neither and yet people want to argue over what it says about PS360? It says nothing except the fact multis don't even try to push the two consoles because they're too scared of losing half their market. Simple-LoT and DF are pointless and when they start comparing sodding demos in a way which negates a lot of the on board effects on t5he consoles it gets even more stupid than having to use programs to find tearing. Someone save me from this nonsense.

In the whole of this generation I've only ever found the Orange Box on PS3 was poor enough to make me switch to 360(and way from my favoured controller)and since then nothing has as the differences are just so negligable or produced using dodgy methods.

PR0X13699d ago

so it looks ps3 did not lose AGAIN.

Let's talk hdmi lmao.

Just fyi the ps3 cannot upscale to 1080p. Just look at all these comparisons. It shows 360 can handle 1080p when ps3 only can get 720p. If you don't believe me look at some of the games at lensoftruth website.

+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 3699d ago
RudeSole Devil3700d ago

Looks fun can't wait to play it.

Cryptech3700d ago

The demos was actually one of the best demos I've played in years. So SicK!!!1

SuperSaiyan43700d ago

360 version clearly looks better with better textures, detail, lighting and effects. In most places the 360 version looks like a different game to the PS3 version in how much more detailed it looks like that motion blur image.

3700d ago Replies(2)
raztad3700d ago

[email protected]"Huge difference"

That is not true. Judging by those screens there is only a couple of slightly sharper textures in the xbox version.

divideby03700d ago

huge diff... lmao... keep staring and looking for the hugh diffs.

I do like the PS3 light saber better.. just like the glow.. that to me is the biggest diff. in the pixs... yea keep looking at ground textures in the stills...psst game is in motion and you wont see a diff

likedamaster3700d ago

Raztad is right, not that huge but noticeable. Looks like they both play equally as good.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3700d ago
Fishy Fingers3700d ago (Edited 3700d ago )

Not much in it really, 360 probably has the slight edge. Looks nice on either though. Shame there's no PC demo.

CantHaveOpinionsHere3700d ago (Edited 3700d ago )

this may not be the case with this games but in general the xbox 360 is the multiplat king as of now. They both look good btw but the xbox 360 pic look a little better. Who cares anyway tho right

ImmortalLegend3700d ago

Yeah, PS3 fanboys can go on and on about exclusives, but multiplats do exist and most of the time run better on the xbox 360. I just so happen to enjoy a lot of multiplats more so than I do exclusives, but hey, that's just me.

Armyntt3700d ago

I agree with you to an extent. I enjoy all my games regardless of the platform im playing them on.

MisterAV3700d ago (Edited 3700d ago )

but most multi have a pc version and you can play the best there and most of the good games are ps3 at least in my opinion (uc2, infamous, god of war, LBP,...)

also on the PS3 THIS game runs with some kind of 60fps (a better effect than on 360), see digital foundry
in the same article also talk about MLAA, read

Baka-akaB3700d ago

true , but if it was the concern everyone would be playing them on pc .

The general world doesnt care and buy it on their owned system or prefered systems ... unelss a game really have an issue on a particular platform ...

People just love that argument , but when you need the two version side to side to notice a difference , how is there truly any ?

But obviously trolls from both sides do play with two set of hdtv and consoles side by side

ape0073700d ago (Edited 3700d ago )

on xbox 360 (and of course the exclusives), ps3 just for exclusives and few multiplats like Fifa

that's the perfect equilibrium

anyway games looks good on both. happy gaming

RudeSole Devil3700d ago

most of the time, but than games like Castlevania: Lords of Shadow are better on PS3.

jack_burt0n3700d ago

yeah castlevania and vanquish are both alot better on ps3.

so how do you explain that!? just plain denial lol

LeonVesper3700d ago

With the PS3 as the lead console during development, it makes the multi-platform visual quality on par with one another, so there isn't any startling discrepancies between the consoles when the game is released. jack_burt0n isn't exactly right, but has a valid point worded incorrectly.

If developers spent the time to develop their titles on the PS3 than the 360, everyone who plays multi-platforms is better off. The first problem is simply the architecture. Once the architecture is understood, then the developer is responsible for the quality. But in the end of the day, would a few minor graphical gripes come in the way of gameplay and storytelling? Which is more important in the long run?

Eiffel3699d ago

Maybe because they were both developed on the PS3..?

360 to PS3 ports never fair well, generally PS3 to 360 ports both lead to be slightly balanced.

Gago3700d ago

RE5, red dead redemption, COD4, MW2, Dead rising 2, lost planet, fallout 3, bayonetta, DMC4, assassins creed, soul calibur iv, ect