Lens of Truth - Split/Second Head2Head

Lens of Truth writes, "In this Head2Head, the Lens of Truth takes a look at Split/Second, the racing game with big explosions (think Burnout, but with more destruction). Powered by Play N Trade Oviedo, Fl., this super-fast paced racer explodes across both consoles for a ride worthy of tweeting home about. So buckle up and watch the video. Then read on for an in-depth analysis."

[Strange_Evil]

Good to see PS3 winning... Would have bought this if it weren't for Modnation Racers.

[ShinMaster]

I remember the same thing happening with Burnout Paradise.

[360 man]

WOW 20% torn frames

[Information Minister]

That's 19% torn frames for the PS3 version actually. And the Xbox 360 version still manages to produce 6% torn frames, even rendering at 672p versus the PS3's native 720p.

Maybe you should go back to DF's comparison. They somehow found a way to spin it in favor of the 360... Like they always do.

[deadpoole]

You know what ... there was time when I was biased ... but then I bought the other half and now I can say that PS3 and Xbox 360 ... both of em has got their strong points. Multiplat are preferred on Xbox 360 and Exclusives are for PS3. Good thing is that PS3 is getting now lot more good, detailed and graphically awesome exclusives when compared to launch games.

I wish either of these console release native 1080p games (no 2D or small area game). I prefer games having vast draw distance and lot of action stuff happening around you with brilliant soundeffects (like Battlefield Bad Company 2) over resolution anyday.

[sak500]

@deadpoole

" wish either of these console release native 1080p games (no 2D or small area game)."

I highly doubt either of the current gen console can pull off BC2 in full HD @ 60fps or for that matter any open world high res games. Both techs are limited in hardware in one form or another. Imagine squeezing in hires textures in just 256mb of ps3's split memory or 512 of shared of 360 which is also being used for o/s and actual game.

We all were brought into HD era by Sony and MS but they really lied to us when they said that there games would be in 1080p. We are now finding out that in reality most games are 720 or even sub HD, but still we owe it to these 2 companies to helped push most of us to ditch our CRT TVs to buy HD or Full HD TVs.

Maybe next gen consoles can pull even 1080P 3D games who knows.

[evildeli]

Agreed. I feel jipped for believing this gen was gonna be true HD not sub.

[shadow2797]

720p is HD. X360 and PS3 are HD consoles, and most games are HD games. Sony and MS didn't lie, you just misinterpreted.

[sak500]

@shadow2797

Did you missed out the part where i said they lied about 1080P? This had more to do with sony downplaying 360's 720P HD gaming and saying that ps3 can do most games in "FULL HD" which is 1080p not 720p. I dont care if games are in 720p back in 2k5 as i had just bought a 50" 1080i TV for gaming on 360 but 5 years down the road i picked up another 50" 1080P plasma which really shows difference between 720p and 1080p movies. Anyway to cut it short both consoles are underpowered to product 1080p games let alone games in 3D with details on par with BC2.

[IHateYouFanboys]

@sak500: THEY didnt lie about 1080p - Sony lied about 1080p. they were the ones that said all the PS3 games would be in 1080p running at 60fps. actually, they even went so far as to say they would be running in dual 1080p at 200fps.

microsoft on the other hand only ever said 720p. they then added 1080p through a patch BEFORE the PS3 had even been released, but didnt say anything about all games being in native 1080p.

'Full HD' is a Sony-coined term that they use to make dumb consumers think that all the other HD tvs arent in fact HD, when they are. if your average stupid consumer is looking at buying a tv, and one says 'HD' and the other says 'Full HD', theyre inclined to think 'so the first one isnt full HD? the second one must be better' - when in fact theyre both exactly the same. chalk a win up to sonys marketing crew in that case.

Sony lied about the power of their console, no doubt. microsoft said nothing about 1080p, yet youre saying they lied? how do you lie when you dont even mention it?

[seij555]

Multiplats are for my PC, they are cheaper and they look better.

[Sea_Man]

Dude digital foundry did the demo not the full game! I'm sure you've made so many games to realize that a demo is not the final game. But nice try!

[OneSneakyMofo]

Who are you talking to?

[evildeli]

maybe he's jumping on the fanboy wagon early :)

[OGharryjoysticks]

But I hate screen tearing. I mean I really really really hate screen tearing more than anything in the world of video games. I hate it even more than slowdown. And for this reason I have to say 360 wins. But had there not been practically double the ammount of tear on PS3 I would have said PS3 was the winner hands down

[deadheadfred]

It looks like they made up the analysis part. In their gallery the line graph shows the fps going as high as 60, but the counter is 30. Then if you watch the video, before each clip you can see the graph change. You can see fluctuations coming, then "pop" solid line. What gives? Makes me wonder what else is fake.

Anyways, DF has already confirmed this game runs at 30fps.

[Sea_Man]

DFdid the comparison on a demo!! Wow!! I bet you think nothing is done to a game once the demo is released..? Oh yeah where did they say that the game ran @ 60fps? I'm pretty sure if you watched the video the at the end of the analysis they showed both ran at 30FPS.

[evildeli]

Hey look, a relevant comment towards DF. But I agree with you. DF did their's on a demo, not the full version.

[deadheadfred]

All I am saying is that this video/gallery has mismatched data and the data in the video has been falsified.

As for DF, like always they did both the demo and the final product.

Demo (10/05/10): http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...

Retail (09/06/10): http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...

[RudeSole Devil]

believe half of what you see and nothing of what you read. Judge for yourself and then decide. But honestly Lens of Truth rollovers speak volumes, and after looking at those rollovers and watching their video the PlayStation 3 just looked better to me. One more thing, Digital Foundry admits the PlayStation 3 version runs at a HD resolution were as the Xbox 360 isn't even considered HD quality. All I'm saying is even though the PlayStation 3 version may have screen tore more in all reality shouldn't performance been considered a tied knowing the PlayStation 3 version is rendering all its assets in 720p resolution?

[Sea_Man]

So your saying that both the LOT and DF concluded that both games run at 30fps? I confused how is that falsified data?? Watching the video at the end it says "Global Average FPS" ps3 and Xbox 30.00!! Another thing, the "popping" happens right before a clip ends and a new clip starts, could that possibly be just clip transition noise? Hey maybe that noise was never including in their conclusion. Either way it doesn't matter because the LOT's final conclusion was both systems ran @30 fps! I;m done here going to play some Alan Wake!!

[hazylazysusan]

The game looks like fun on either system. Each system has it's stronger points, but in this one, honestly, it looks too close to call.

[orange-skittle]

#1-Who cares if they did the test off a demo. The demo was tested on both consoles

#2-Yes the PS3 had sharper images and was more refined, but does it matter with a game this fast paced? None of you saw any of this once you were playing. Shit was happening too damn fast.

#3-The fact that the PS3 has a mandatory install that prohibits you from playing if you don't have the space is bad enough. That has always been my complaint with the system. I had to buy a TB HDD because of that. The updates and installs take forever too. You have to wait 8 minutes before you can play just to save 7 seconds. How is that a PLUS when you can install full on 360 by option?

#4-Screen tearing ruins any game. Slowdown is second. The PS3 version suffers more on both.

#5-If looking at pretty stills makes you pick a winner, then try looking at Uncharted 2's stills compared to Dark Sector. Dark Sector's stills look beautiful, but we know how that turned out

Bottom Line-The PS3 looks better, but the 360 can handle the speed and I prefer the controller. I like the 360's triggers compared to the PS3's tabs. This game moves too fast to deal with popups, tears, and slowdowns. I dont have time to slow down and look at the scenery. I could give a rats ass if you disagree with "my opinion." This is a fanboy site to begin with, so I knew what I was up against when going against the grain. Fact is, I don't suck d!ck for bubbles

[clarkdef]

Man I hate the trigger on both the 360 and the PS3, I prefer just to hold A or X to accel. I hate shooting with triggers too lol, thats why I use a ps2 controller on the PS3 now.

[Boody-Bandit]

Well, what do you suck d!ck for?

On topic:
I rented SS for both consoles. The screen tearing is barely noticeable on the PS3 and I didn't notice any slowdown while playing the game. Even when I collapsed the damn or water tower I didn't see any. Both versions play great. Like most multiplatform titles their differences are miniscule at best.

If you prefer the 360 controller than chances are you will always prefer multiplatform titles on the 360. As long as performance issues don't effect gameplay I don't see a reason for comparison articles at all.

I can't remember the last multiplatform game that had such severe performance issues that gameplay was an issue because of them. I especially don't understand why they warrant so much attention from N4G members. Most multiplatform titles I rent or purchase for both consoles. It's just how I roll. :)

Just got done Assassin's Creed II on both consoles and now I am going to play Blur on both. <-- I have an addiction.

[clarkdef]

You can suck my d1ck anytime

[boodybandit]

I have played a ton of multiplatform games on both systems and the differences are next to non existant any more. Some things are better on one and some on the other. It all comes down to which controller you prefer or if you have a killer sound system it's hard to pass up the PS3 version.

[ZombieAutopsy]

Your number 3 is kinda stupid, i install all my 360 games on my Hdd because ive had numerous dvd-drive failures and had to go buy a bigger harddrive because of it...does that now mean all my 360 games are worse because of it???

This game wasnt really that great though, i'd take Blur over it any day of the week.

[boodybandit]

It's makes the unit quiter, takes the stress off the console, runs cooler and sometimes it helps with the games performance. I noticed when I installed Assassin's Creed it loaded faster between areas and missions. I played the first half of the game not installed but then installed it. There is definitely a difference.

I played Split Second on the PS3 and the 360 version is on it's way from GameFly right now. It's a fun game but I agree with you and prefer Blur overall.

[lightningsax]

"Our analysis concluded that both games ran at around 30 seconds per frame..."

Wow. That's a very slow game. One frame sits there for 30 seconds before the next one pops up? That's, like... slower than the framerate to Ocarina of Time!

Gotta love it when typos lead to some pretty funny ideas.

[xino]

These guys are retarded and would not stop posting their trash!

WOW, 7sec difference in load time. As if you can't survive extra 7sec.

You are playing a game, would you care about zooming in to see how the polygons are not AA.