I have it for PC and its one of the least demanding games of the year. I cant imagine it looking any different on any system.

While these screens can be pretty hard to see what the real "huge" difference is. to me I kinda like the slightly less BOLD outline of everything that the 360 offers, but I can see how some gamers might like the darker lines found in the ps3 version.. to each their own. Lighting effects look sweet too. :)

on all but two of those screen shots the graphics were much much clearer on the ps3

the obvious one was the close up of the character face.....

makes me lol

and cheaper thanks to steam

the are pretty much the same textures are abit better on the ps3 maybe because this time it's not hurt by quincux antialiasing, and blu ray lets developer not compress textures so much.

the game looks ugly on both systems...

I love how people can read that and only see what they want to see.

They use screenshots as a tool to attempt to highlight some of the graphical differences but in the end it's a comparison of the games graphics as a whole, not game screenshots. Differences in lighting, SSAO, the shadow maps and screen tearing are factors that are going to be much more evident in moving images and they are all the factors that counted against the PS3. So does the PS3 version take a better screen shot with it's occasionally sharper textures? Maybe, but we don't play a screenshot.

I haven't played the game, I am only going by the article but if you can read that whole article, understand the terms they use and come to conclusion that they gave the 360 the nod because of better loading times alone, i'd suggest you need to read the article again.

I'll still pass on the blurry textures. And its not "a few" textures, either. If its blurry on one weapon or character, its blurry on them all -- FPS weapon textures and character textures are some of the largest textures in ANY FPS game (because they are seen ALL the time.. they're, you know, important) -- and GearBox has made a few, so I'm sure they know this.

Or do you suppose they went out of their way to make a few models/textures buggy, and specifically in the 360 version?

I can agree with the concepts of "SSAO is nice", and "Higher rez shadowmaps are nice" (I bet that's where the 360 version spent its texture memory... probably because the PS3 had more horsepower to spare to process/blur lower quality dynamic shadow renders, so the memory could be spent on texture memory somewhere else). I'll still take a decent looking gun and character to look at over those niceties, any day. If you're going to cut texture quality... don't do it on the weapon in a FPS game -- the one thing you look at ALL the time.

I think my comments are pretty representative of a LOT of people's opinions on the subject, which is probably why the article has so many inflammatory comments. I believe GearBox's choices, in this regard, were kinda poor on the 360, although perhaps the SSAO, etc. was just plain easier/possible to do on the 360, and, probably because someone in charge at GearBox prefers fancy lighting over high rez textures, they just chose to lose close-up detail so they could have it.

I'll bet the 360 and PS3 (sub)teams simply chose the options that best suited the platform they were working on and, frankly, the outcome is going to appeal in different ways to different people.

Lens of Truth should have realized this. They actually declare "ties" a lot of the time, which is unusual for a site which does comparisons. Apparently the reviewer's opinion got in the way of what probably would have been another "tie", if it were done as an honest public poll. It makes their article, and their entire comparison series, look like a joke to anyone who prefers good texture resolution to subtle lighting effects, because this article is takes an opinionated stance on some aspects of rendering which are not easily agreed upon by most people -- its not like they're discussing any interesting framerate or resolution differences, for example.

By the time you get to nitpicking in a comparison (which is what SSAO and minor tearing issues would be, IMO), the result should probably be "a tie". Texture resolution on characters and FPS weapons don't qualify as nitpicking in my book, they are serious complaints, so I still have to say the article has it completely backwards.  

I do, however, realize that's my opinion, and not "the truth".  Therein lies the fault with the Lens-of-Opinion article. They're wearing opinionated blinders.

Am I the only one who tend to feel that these comparisons actually detract from game enjoyment instead of adding to it?

I mean its fine to warn people of a really bad port, but these days what these comparisons mostly do is point you in the direction of a minor detail you would never have noticed without these articles. So instead of just enjoying the game on your
platform of choice you easily end up focusing on that tiny issue. Always end up hating myself when I click into one of these articles.

I like bloom effect but in cell-shade game like this i choose better texture over bloom effect.

lens of truth comparisons go into very much detail.

but thier conclusions are pathetic, even though ps3 might have better textures both versions still look and play the same.

the problem with LOT is.... they always claim buy this one over that one based of mainly nickpicks.