http://www.smgamers.com/?p=3443

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.

Bioware had commented that the PS3 version of Mass Effect 2 would be the “definitive” version of their title.  “One of the first things you’re going to see is improved graphics,” game producer Jesse Houston said in a recent podcast.  So when the PS3 version of the Mass Effect 2 demo was released it took no time at all for sites to start running side by side comparisons of the demo PS3 code versus the retail version of the 360 Mass Effect 2 release.  Two sites known for their head to head comparisons stepped up to the plate to compare the two; however, their findings seem to contradict.

Lens of Truth and Eurogamer site Digital Foundry have long provided curious gamers a look at how games comparatively stack up on the Playstation 3 versus the Xbox 360, but they often find themselves at odds with each other’s findings; the demo of Mass Effect 2 was no exception.  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 erased from LOT’s forums by moderators according to some posters.

With so many examples of the PS3's lighting use in the demo, odd that LOT couldn't find a single example to compare.

LOT: "Xbox 360 version still looks to have the graphical advantage."

One of LOT's comparison images where they concluded a graphically superior 360 version.

Next up, LOT’s frame rate analysis: again, cracks between LOT’s findings and Digital Foundry’s analysis showed something amiss.  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.

Did Lens of Truth simply conclude that this 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.  N4G user Achemki claims to be one of the affected users banned for asking Lens of Truth staff to explain the differences.  “In my opinion, one shouldn’t say Lens of TRUTH if you have no interest in telling the WHOLE truth…Don’t write a big comparison about frame rates then suspiciously leave out the BIG cut-scene frame rate difference the next. “

When both web sites purport to be measuring the same things, these types of discrepancies simply shouldn’t happen if their analyser software is operating correctly; yet this is not the first time Lens of Truth findings have been at odds with comparisons done on other sites.  Their recommendations based on their findings have been drawn into question in the past.  For example, gamers raised their eyebrows when LOT claimed that an arguably game-breaking control problem present in the 360 version of fighting game Blaz Blu due to the 360’s controller was less problematic than the few seconds slower load time found in the PS3 version of the same title.

Whichever site is correct in this matter of PS3 demo code versus 360 retail code, one truth remains: if game sites who make it their business to compare software can’t reach a consensus on performance using frame analysing software, chances are gamers aren’t going to notice a difference either.

great read got the demo downloaded along with DS2 and LBP2 havent played them yet though busy with U2's multiplayer and there 4X cash week

got me thinking maybe there should be a square off between vgc and npd or MC or the other tracking sites

If 360 version some how looks better, the ps3 one is using the new version for the game, it shouldnt look (the 360 vers) better.

Frow what I have read it is like the Half Life 2's remake of the original on the disk. It just doesnt make sense why 360 would look better.

Nice read. Thanks for the post.

is that really ME3's engine from bioware?  , doesn't seem so to be honest.

Interesting.

Well the PC version was the best one when it released in January last year. The PC version will remain the best version when the PS3 version releases this year. Most people who truly care for such differences already got it on the PC. Therefore the actual difference between the games is pretty much irrelevant when comparing the console versions.

However onto the LOT / DF debate, I would say that Digital Foundry has a better technical depth and therefore ought to be considered the most trustworthy of the two. In image analysis they are the NPD and LOT are the Vgchartz, both are viable but NPD/DF are considered to be closer to the final word.

Lens of Truth is fake page. There are all fake images. They are just lying

Digital Foundry is more trustful.

I sort of looks like Bioware just rearranged shadows for their Mass Effect 3 "Engine"...

Miranda looks creepy as hell on the PS3 unfortunatly

I'm more inclined to take Digital Foundry's results at face value, just based on past history.

While I have looked at Lens of Truth's comparisons in the past, their conclusions often seem more subjective and subject to the personal bias of the reviewer doing the write up. Normally, that's fine for a review, but when a review is supposedly based upon hard objective performance numbers, then I have a problem.

When comparison reviews start messing up the data samples (publishing the wrong screen shots for the wrong version of a game, screen shots with the wrong video settings, etc.) then I kind of have to take any future conclusions from the site with a grain of salt, effectively defeating the point of a site specializing in reviews based upon objective comparisons.

Anyway, I find myself inclined to skip future Lens of Truth reviews when it comes to choosing which version of a game to buy.

I buy most of my multiplats on PC anyway, but there were games like Bayonetta, Enslaved and FFXIII this year so naturally there are still a fair amount of big titles that don't even show up on PC at all (or extremely late).

I find the way in which DF presents its findings to be more credible than LOT. I'd also like to hear definitive word about what Bioware did to port the Demo to PS3. Whether they used the ME3 engine, or whether they did a more standard port.

It appears, due to some things looking better on PS3, that they must have used an upgraded engine for the demo because it's unlikely the engine used for ME2 on PC/360 would lead to PS3 looking better in any situations. That being the case, PS3 ME2 being made on the ME3 engine but only being arguably better looking (at best) than the 360 version, and slightly worse looking (at worst) means PS3 version of ME3 might look a bit rough compared to 360 version of ME3.

I am absolutely getting ME2 on PS3, and I hope it sells well enough for Bioware to know that going multiplat was the right call for this franchise. Getting a slew of GOTY's will help PS3 sales I hope. It certainly gives it good marketing material for PS3. And because it's on PC they don't even need to mention 360 in the PS3 ads talking about it's GOTYness: "The 2010 PC game of the year comes to PS3, with exclusive new material..."; "In the face of such great PC franchises such as Civ V and Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty, Mass Effect 2 emerged as the best game of 2010, and now it's coming to PS3..."