By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
slowmo on 23 March 2011
Edit Thread
mantlepiecek said:
slowmo said:
mantlepiecek said:

They did the same thing with homefront but they do it to show the texture loading time.

They aren't that amateur. Just not as professional as Digitalfoundry, but DF only gives their opinions on face-off whereas these guys try to make it a little objective.

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.

Interesting you should note a developers intervention when a lot of casual observers picked up on the texture problem who aren't in the least bit graphics professionals in this instance.  That's not remotely the same thing imo.

I never implied a PS3 bias for not doing the mandatory installation by the way but it's pretty obvious that shot wouldn't have appeared that way with a HDD installation.  My point is that if they wanted a fair comparison it should show both consoles in their best light for stills and discarded the obivous technically flawed shots.  If they wanted to bring up some performance issue then they could use that shot in their full diagnosis later, not as some quick glimpse between the systems.  I'm pretty sure they probably didn't even note the issue in their haste to get the pics up.  As I said by the way, that wasn't the only screen shot they posted that looked frankly crap and unrepresentative of the final product.