Digital Foundry and Lens of Truth square off over Mass Effect 2 PS3 Demo

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.


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.

Read Full Story >>
Oculus Quest Giveaway! Click Here to Enter
The story is too old to be commented.
rroded3247d ago (Edited 3247d ago )

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

captain-obvious3247d ago (Edited 3247d ago )

i don't know who to trust
but what i do know is
i played the demo today on my PS3
and it looks really good for a multiplat game

velocitygamer3247d ago


The only people left to trust these days are the gamers. Proessional gaming sites has been busted by lower classed websites.

ScentlessApprentice73247d ago (Edited 3247d ago )

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.

BattleAxe3247d ago

I've never trusted Lense of Truth. Almost everytime they compare screenshots, they crank up the brightness and of course i'm sure they don't use Full RGB on the PS3 version.

SnuggleBandit3247d ago

WOW. Simply wow.

I think VGChartz and Lens of Truth should merge.

NewMonday3247d ago

"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"

they can't handle the truth

HolyOrangeCows3247d ago (Edited 3247d ago )

LOT always cherry-picks what they post to show a large favor to the 360 version, even when there are almost none or they're more or less identical.

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?

GWAVE3247d ago

Anyone who has seen Lens of "Truth"s comparisons over the past 12-18 months already knows to not trust them.

NinjaAssassin3247d ago

smgamers themselves are full of crap. There is no difference in detail between the two versions. This guy should know that if he actually downloaded and played both versions himself. Instead he comes off as another fanboy.

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.

ThanatosDMC3247d ago

I stopped liking Lens of Truth after that way too biased article towards the 360 when the PS3 looks so much better.

el zorro3247d ago

The ps3 version does not look better. Anybody who has played both demos knows that.

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."

This site ( is the one lying, not Digital Foundry or Lens of Truth.

IcarusOne3247d ago

I'm no expert, but I thought the PS3 demo played worse than the 360 full game with screen tearing and an overall darker, more contrasty tone.

Diva3247d ago (Edited 3247d ago )

Sorry boys, Lens of Truth has never let me down before. They were right about this one too. I was hoping to get ME2 for my PS3 but let's just say the PS3 demo put me off that idea real quick. It's not like it is horrible or anything but if you already have the 360 version like I do there is really no point. It looks and runs worse on the PS3. Well, mostly runs worse. Graphics per se are mostly the same.

badz1493247d ago

lens of cake!....and the cake is a LIE!

kneon3247d ago (Edited 3247d ago )

I'm not sure who is right in this particular situation but LOT are not always biased in favor of the 360.

Oner3247d ago (Edited 3247d ago )

This is nothing new to those who are mature enough to see & understand what has been happening since the PS3's launch. Mass media misinformation, false/half/missing truth, blatantly clear bias in scoring/reviewing and so on.

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.

Kevin ButIer3247d ago

Lol fail, is fun how after Bioware itself confirmed a better version many of us found reliable what LOT said and showed, ill open my blog: Blog of Truth, as convincing as it title sounds.

ProjectVulcan3247d ago (Edited 3247d ago )

PS3 and 360 traded blows overall by my eye, and the differences can also be put down to personal preference, one may like 360's lighting scheme better than PS3's or vice versa. Even under intense scrutiny the result is not absolute, the sort of close scrutiny no one actually employs when playing games....

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.

doa7663246d ago

I played ME2 on the 360 and then played the demo on PS3

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)

Anon19743246d ago Show
UNLOADEAD3246d ago

I knew Lens of liars comparison was BS. Go read my past comments.

IcarusOne3246d ago

doa says: "on 360 the main game is split on two discs and it really breaks the ilussion of a universe you can freely explore"

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.

+ Show (23) more repliesLast reply 3246d ago
Grenadan3247d ago (Edited 3247d ago )

because fanboy rant article said so

Hoje03083247d ago

Wait, so now Digital Foundry are fanboys just because they offer articles based on logic? The fanboy site is the one that censors their forums.

FrankMcSpank3247d ago (Edited 3247d ago )

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?

3247d ago
StanLee3247d ago (Edited 3247d ago )

It's funny but Digital Foundry usually get's ripped on for being XBox 360 fanboys since the majority of their faceoffs seem to favor the XBox 360. Eurogamer has long been considered an XBox 360 fansite and Digital Foundry was seen to be toeing the company line. ( . . . see poster Frank McSpank's comment above) I don't have a problem with Digital Foundry's findings. I've always supported them and think they have the most concise, accurate and fair comparisons. What I have a problem with is Digital Foundry all of a sudden being a PS3 fanboy's best friend. Fanboys only seem to support the rational only when it's inline when their own opinions.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3247d ago

After playing Mass Effect 2 on PC, I learned 3 undeniable facts...

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!

Gamer1123247d ago (Edited 3247d ago )

The ps3 version is the best
Edit: now thats something you dont see everyday on n4g, i said ps3 version is the best and i get disagrees lol.

Kakihara3247d ago

Having played the demo for this game on both PC and PS3 I do have to say the PC version looked much much better. However, I never bought it on PC since I hate playing games on my PC and I will probably end up picking it up for the PS3 when I'm done with LBP2 and Dead space 2. Still, I'm not incredibly excited for this game even though I enjoyed the first one on my 360 before I got the RROD.

....Now, I sit back and wait for the heads of PC/PS3/360 fanboys to explode from confusion.

Focker4203247d ago (Edited 3247d ago )


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.

ufo8mycat3247d ago

"1) The best Version of Mass effect 2 is on PC..."

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 :)

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3247d ago
gypsygib3247d ago (Edited 3247d ago )

The people that really got owned were the ones who agreed, some people really are blind sheep in human's clothing.

I really don't know what to say, people were actually brainwashed..easily. This does not bode well for the underlying principles of democracy.

Kalipekona3247d ago

you must of been brainwashed yourself. the 360 version looked better. i played it just today and it does not look as good as the 360 one on close ups of characters and it runs way worse than the 360 one.

sobekflakmonkey3247d ago

Yeah i always knew there was something up with LoT, quite simply theyre comparisons are messed up.

Tinasumsum3247d ago

Sounds like PlayStation damage control. LOT isn't the only party doing tests the comparisons where done by lots of people.

AKS3247d ago (Edited 3247d ago )

LoT is a bit of a joke. Their GT5 v. Forza 3 comparison was one of the most shady I'd ever seen. They quite clearly cherry picked the areas that Forza 3 was more impressive and ignored everything else. It was like they hardly tried to hide what they were doing.

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!

AKS3247d ago

Half of the people who read my post disagree with me? I didn't think I said anything that was especially controversial in that post. LoT supporters? Digital Foundry haters? Or some sort of console war shenanigans? I didn't say anything especially negative about anything except Lens of Truth and I guess the Bayonetta port, which is just due to some poor planning that was completely corrected in Vanquish.

CoLD FiRE3247d ago

You didn't praise the PS3 and mentioned Bayonetta, that's why you got disagrees. :\

AKS3247d ago

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.

Spenok3247d ago

When havent they in the past? Lol

trash_post3247d ago

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.

CWMR3247d ago

I spent several hours comparing the two versions for myself on my Sony HDTV and Lens of Truth were essentially correct with their comparison.

-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.

CWMR3247d ago

-The hexagonal pattern on Miranda's outfit looked a little flatter in the PS3 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.

Grenadan3247d ago

DF states:

“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”.

Bull5hifT3247d ago


Lykon3247d ago

LOL this is hilarious , I for one hate the amount of news space taken up by these pathetic comparisons so to see one comparison site owned by another WTF ! comparison wars LOL you couldn't make it up. jesus wept

Vherostar3247d ago

Taken from article
" 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.

Bozzio3247d ago

I always thought there was something fishy about LOT. After I read this article I went through their galleries and found some pictures that prove they're lying. The yellow lines are suppose to show tears but I don't see any in these images. Who knows how long it takes for them to delete the evidence, but as far as I'm concerned LOT is done.

Bozzio3247d ago

I found another image in their gallery thats suppose to show a tear. What a shame. Darkride needs to dig deeper than ME2. LOT has been getting away with this for some time now.

Tinasumsum3246d ago (Edited 3246d ago )

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.

+ Show (14) more repliesLast reply 3246d ago
Focker4203247d ago (Edited 3247d ago )

Wow Lens of Truth is an absolute disgrace...

"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!!

3247d ago Replies(1)
3247d ago
Dylantalon13247d ago (Edited 3247d ago )

the truth about all this pixel counting is that the ps3 is the most powerful console to date and with exclusive games like uncharted 2 killzone 2, heavy rain, gran turismo 5, god of war 3, metal gear solid 4, ratchet acit, resistance 2, little big planet and others which are unmatched then its no doubt the ps3 is superior.

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.

gypsygib3247d ago

I was saying before that the PS3 version looked better (I have the 360 version) when this was first brought up, and couldn't believe that anyone could disagree, check my past comments.

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.

Rainstorm813247d ago

I said the same and ive completed ME2 twice on 360.....the PS3 just looks better.....

NinjaAssassin3247d ago

gypsygib, could you please explain. Because they look basically the same on my tv. The 360 version looked better in some ways and the PS3 looked better in ways, but it was all very subtle differences.