Campaign is pretty close (as campaign has been made consoles in mind) but the real difference lies in multiplayer like DF analysis pointed out:

''In truth, the comparison is rather skewed. By limiting ourselves to the campaign - at 720p resolution no less - we are seeing a range of scenes designed to look good on console, and not really allowing the PC to "breathe" with its support for higher frame-rates and resolutions. That said, the video is running at one-third speed and it's immediately obvious how much smoother the overall experience is. If we were able to show the games running in exact like-for-like situations on multiplayer, the difference would be that much more pronounced.''

Regardless it's great that it looks good on all platforms.

They were worse before. They have improved a lot imo over the time and are pretty fair nowadays. For eg they didn't pick on GT 5 that much in the forza comparison where they could have picked a lot of unnecessary flaws in that game.

They have started to overall not make a huge fuss over the small differences in the multiplatform games nowadays.

if you finding bias in a digital foundry article then well....i dunno. There articles are about as non bias as you can get when you comparing multiplat games. I find their articles to be well written and almost entirely from a "factual" point of view, very seldom they add their own opinions.  In fact way too much times, they give the ps3 the benefit of the doubt when its usually the inferior version.

Compare these guys to lens of truth who are blatantly PS3 bias... huge difference.

The info has always been non-biased. Its the writing and the results people talk about. People who have been reading their articles since the last couple of years know what pezus is talking about.

I also think you might have quoted the wrong person? Not sure.

Most of the maps are small, the flags all in a straight line too.  Old BF maps were massive and always gave several options where to head between bases, BF3 is just back and forth over the same ground on all but about three conquest maps.  Rush maps are just bottleneck slaughter fests, at best maybe 2-3 maps have one set of objectives that is good design, but usually horrible designed bottlenecks before or after.  Too many maps are infantry focused, speaking of which...

Vehicles are all nerfed hard, infantry dominates everything.  Adding things like foregrips to guns completely removes recoil and there is little to no skill involved in aiming.  The high damage they gave the game is like CoD, only unlike COD there isn't cover everywhere but instead large open spaces where anyone tring to cross dies in an instant if spotted, speaking of spotting they now added the CoD radar when you fire a weapon so after a while everyones gonna be running about with silencers and foregrips, probably a x4 scope or so to snipe with every gun in the game.