No but the terrible comparison of screenshots they posted makes them pretty amateur, they actually started the entire conversations regarding the 360 supposedly having inferior textures because they were unable to spot a screen grab they took before a texture had finished loading.  I agree that such a issue would be up for debate in a performance comaprison but not in a supposed fidelity comparison.  There are plenty of other shots too that seem to be taken mid frame in there that detract form the visual quality too. 

They are amateurs at the end of the day, that's not necessarily a bad thing as they at least offer people something for free.

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.

Well looking at those videos side by side I have to say the whole Xbox 360 looking better is a bunch of horse shit. Both games look the exact same. So the PS3s frame rate is a little lower. I'd take frame rate drops of screen tearing anyday. Also for people saying Lensoftruth are amateurs and yadda yadda yadda. If Digital Foundary comes back with simular results will yous call them amateurs too. Its rediculous folks. If framerate drops and screen tearing was a big issue to yous then buy a dam PC that can handle Crysis 2. You can get the game to run between 60-120 frames per second with no screen tearing. Lol and yes IGN has been exposed with this one. Now all I'm waiting on is a PS3 multiplayer analisis before deciding on getting this game. The PS3 version inferior to the 360 version my ass.

If the results were to end up the same i would accept it and move on, simples.

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.

1.Bu bu but IGN said teh xbawx is teh better grafix!

2.Funny how LOT is no longer "trusted" but back when they did a comparison with the demo showing ps3 version inferior I didn't see 360 fans complain AHAHAHAHAH!

3. 0% screen tearing for ps3 or slight higher frame on 360..........wow xbawx is so superior.

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. 

The more hilarious part is the huge number of posts from Sony fans who have dissed them even more when other comparisons of multiplats didn't go their way.  You can't have it both ways.

Apparently, I've underestimated the importance of Crysis 2.  A key battle in the console wars hinges on who gets the better version of this game!  I wonder how many people are actually gonna buy this game, though.