slowmo said:
The evidence of those bad screen grabs is there for all to see, it was a pretty amateur comparison. If they wanted to seriously judge texture load time then they should have done comparison including harddrive installs too. The simple fact is it was a rush job, which isn't very professional. It was just a lazy piece they put together for hits before DF come up with the goods. Fair play to them though on the hits, as it's obviously what their site needs. |
They always do things without installing to the hard drive unless its mandatory. There are many games on the PS3 that have non-mandatory installations as well, so its not PS3 bias.
It might have been for hits, but what's to say DF doesn't do it for hits either? DF has done similar stuff back with Star wars force unleashed 2 when the PS3 version didn't have some tension mapping on the forehead of the protagonist, they declared it as a slight win for the 360 textures. However in this case one of the developers themselves corrected DF (something that will never happen with LoT because they aren't as professional), and it was later on thought of as a graphical bug.
Its that small mistakes that even DF makes proves it that not always are they right, not always are LoT wrong just because they differ from DF. Usually their results are the same, with occasionaly some differences.
