Modern Warfare 2: PS3 and Xbox 360 HD comparison screenshots

darkride66 - 38 days 15 hours ago

Does loading time trump performance issues? Do screen tears trump AA issues? Which is more important, control issues or the time it takes a level to load?

Often times sites like LOT will do their little comparisons, but we still have no idea if they're accurate or not. Hell, Gametrailers was doing "comparisons" and was completely busted for trying to pass off PS3 games for 360 games. Or when Lens of Truth tried to say that 2 seconds difference in loading times trumped horrible control issues on the 360 and gave BlazBlue a tied score.

At the end of the day, I'll take the opinion of actual reviews I trust over pixel counters. If you pause the game, squint really hard, you'll notice a shadow on a rock in the corner is off. How does that affect the game I'm playing? Sites like IGN and Gamespot will always adjust their scores if there's serious differences between console versions, and they cover more than just the technical aspects of a game which is more useful in the long run.

Metacritic scores are far more useful then these so called "apples to apples" comparisons. I'd be informed and get my info from several sources rather than just sites that compare a fraction of available titles out there. And there's also too few of these sites to check against to see if they're right or not. Look at the Tekken 6 comparison. Digital Foundry said hands down the PS3 was the best looking versions despite a lower resolution. LOT said the 360 version was better because of load times if you didn't install on the PS3. What? Well, install the game then. Problem solved.

Or Wolfenstien had horrible frame tears on the 360 to the point the screen tore every time you fired the gun. PS3 version had an 8 second load difference between levels. Conclusion: Tie! Say what?

I just don't trust those guys.

Agree(2) | Disagree(1) | Report

commodore64 - 38 days 12 hours ago

Darkride66,

If you continue to follow me, post replies to my posts, and misquote me (like you did here http://n4g.com/RedirectToOb... ) without any reference initiating from me to you, people might think you were 'cyber-stalking' me.

AS someone who recently accused me of such behaviour, and threatened civil and legal action, you might like to tread carefully in that regard.

Threatening someone with civil and legal action seems very illogical when you are observed to be engaged in such behaviour immediately after accusing me.

The public record is no place for 'double standards of behaviour', Darkride66, especially when serious legal threats are being thrown about by you.

Please consider these facts of the public record before you make any more legal threats to me.

-------------------
On topic,

Metacritic cannot be used to make 'comparisons', because:

1. There IS NO direct comparison
2. Reviewers are independent and subjective.
3. Metacritic arbitrarily gives different weightings to each score, then averages these different weightings, thus is subjective and inaccurate in its comparable scores.

On the other hand, 'apples to apples' comparisons are very much relevant because:

1. Frametear, framerate, loading times, resolution, AA and textures are measurable and thus OBJECTIVE.
2. These measured variables can be quantified and analysed to give a verifiable, repeatable, scientific and objective result.
2. There is a direct comparison of these measured values and variability between platforms.

In these 'objective comparisons' you will find logical conclusions based on the analysis of these measureable objective variables. Most often, the games are directly comparable and demonstrably and objectively proven to run better, in some way, on one particular console.

Yet, you prefer an "arbirarily weighted subjective average" (metacritic) to base your statements on?

The mind boggles.

I have already explained this to you before, darkride66.
Come on, put on your thinking cap, my dear gaming friend, Darkride66!

Agree(0) | Disagree(4) | Report

darkride66 - 38 days 6 hours ago

I wasn't following your comments. I'm a huge fan of the series and I was interested in the comparison. In fact I have you on ignore and don't respond to your comments unless, based on your proximity to my comments, I can see that you're probably speaking directly to me.
Responding to comments civilly on a forum designed for that specific purpose hardly contravenes "cyberstalking" legislation. Quite frankly I think it would be advisable to you to not draw attention to your previous activities and abuse of this site and it's terms and conditions as it related to our most recent discussions. It doesn't need to be discussed here and only serves to detract from the general decorum of the forum. Hey, that rhymed.

And to your comments: Sure it can. Game sites routinely adjust their scores when one version of a game suffers where another one doesn't. We've seen evidence of this over and over again in review scores. You mention "Reviewers are independent and subjective," but so are these "apples to apples" comparisons that you put so much faith in, as I outlined in my examples above. If anything, these comparisons should be grouped in with any other review considering the amount of opinion that goes into the ultimate conclusions.

Certainly, things like frame tear, resolution, load times can be measured, but what standard are these sites held to? What conditions are present and how are the tests standardized? If it's all so cut and dry why is it that in these so called "apples to apples" comparisons are often at odds with each other?

And the ultimate conclusions are just as subject to opinion as any other review. When does frame rate trump frame tears? When do controller issues trump 2 seconds difference in load time? How about 3 seconds difference? If a game looks better on one system but tears all the time compared to another game that looks worse but has more solid performance, who comes out on top?

The "logical conclusions" simply don't always exist in these cases, and that brings the whole process into question.

I'll stick with the same standard the game industry itself chooses, Metacritic scores. With thousands of reviews it simply makes more sense to use these compared to your two pixel counting sites that only take into account a fraction of the factors that make a truly great gaming experience and only do this on a fraction of the games available.

Agree(3) | Disagree(2) | Report

commodore64 - 38 days 4 hours ago

Darkride66.

If you had me on ignore, then how did you read my comment?

Indeed, this thread shows that you were nowhere to be seen until I commented and then you showed up and responded to the 'apples to apples' comparison, to which ONLY I had referred.

It seems quite illogical to see you refer to my quote, while asserting that you are NOT replying to me, while asserting that you are IGNORING me.

Your public behaviour contradicts what you say on many levels.

Keep it up.... I can make use of this.
Got any more?

Agree(1) | Disagree(4) | Report

darkride66 - 37 days 19 hours ago

The posts still show up, just not in detail. It gives you the option to click "Show" to highlight a specific post but still hides the rest of them. And you just finished talking about the "apples to apples" comparisons in another thread in which you did reply directly to me. It wasn't a stretch that you were talking about it again based on the replies to you, and given that it's obviously on your mind.

Again, I personally don't think those comparisons are very useful, but don't knock you for using them yourself. That's your personal choice. Just don't pretend that they represent some kind of indisputable facts. Like I mentioned before - maybe a disclaimer like "according to Eurogamer" so other gamers don't get confused about the matter.

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report

ozps3 - 38 days 22 hours ago

Its has been proven many times with cold hard facts and evidence that PS3 is better (much better) than XBox360.

Agree(3) | Disagree(9) | Report

ReBurn - 38 days 22 hours ago

There haven't been any "cold hard facts" about which console is better. Just fanboy bias and what you choose to believe. Both consoles have incredible gaming experiences that shouldn't be missed.

Agree(7) | Disagree(5) | Report

gamingisnotacrime - 38 days 21 hours ago

then if that is not enough then
Heavenly Sword
MGS4
GT5
KZ2
U2
Motorstorm

My point is that any PS3 issue falls on the developer's hands, the PS3 is way more than capable of topping the 360. Is not my opinion, the Games speak for themselves

Agree(2) | Disagree(5) | Report

Shadow Haze501 - 39 days ago

Yea its sad Xbox LIVE only plays Call of Duty like hell. Its a nooby franchise but fun anyways.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

tatotiburon - 39 days ago

when sony release their psn statistics, then you can talk about what xbox 360 gamers play on line...COD4 is always fighting the lead with halo, gears of war, COD5, GTAIV and other for the most played game on XBL...good thing major nelson every week show us the XBL status....but sony?

Agree(3) | Disagree(6) | Report

stewgart - 38 days 22 hours ago

you know mate, I don't think its something to boast about. It just shows how low brow the xbox live community really is. It doesn't take a genious to recognise far superior games than CoD and Halo.

Agree(3) | Disagree(3) | Report

ReBurn - 38 days 22 hours ago

The main types of games that people play online are FPS games, because those games are typically geared toward that purpose. That doesn't make the 360 community "lowbrow" as you call it, unless all of those folks playing Resistance 2 are also lowbrow.

What games on PS3 offer a superior online experience that doesn't involve the same gameplay aspects as the ones you mentioned?

Agree(3) | Disagree(2) | Report

stewgart - 38 days 22 hours ago

Halo and CoD4 on the 360 probably had more players on it than when killzone2 launched on the ps3, I think I remember reading something like that. I mean come on, its pretty sad how that many people can be into such mediocre shooters. I don't think any other game on the 360 has sold well apart from the overrated shooters. Some multiplats are already doing better on ps3 and don't give me crap about how the US=the world on this...

Agree(2) | Disagree(3) | Report

ReBurn - 38 days 22 hours ago

But you didn't answer my question. The mechanics of Killzone 2 and the mechanics of Halo and COD4 aren't so different to justify saying that 360 offers a lowbrow experience. Exactly the same kind of gamer would be drawn to Killzone 2 and Halo.

Agree(3) | Disagree(2) | Report

DirtyLary - 38 days 20 hours ago

COD and HALO , maybe some GOW. All those 360 players and they have such a limited game selection for quality mulitplayer.

Glad I own both consoles.

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

thewhoopimen - 38 days 20 hours ago

Though I don't like how you put it (since I do like CODs), I do have to agree both COD4 and Halo3 cater to the lowest denominator. They are arcadey run around shooters with very little deep gameplay/tactical mechanics. But that's the fun of it.

On the otherhand, when you are dealing with cheap whiny teens and pre-teens... who run around like mad chickens shooting every which way and that... it kind of takes the fun out of it.

No loss though for me :) I can always play UC2, Kz2, warkhawk, Socom2 ,MGS4 etc. (AND MAG!!!!!)

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

ifhd - 38 days 23 hours ago

I think people will buy the PS3version over the 360 version because of PSN/Controller/Trophies. Not because of some screenshots from websites that don't know what the f they are doing.

Agree(4) | Disagree(9) | Report

Briefcase Joe - 38 days 23 hours ago

These websites don't know what the fvck they are doing. If something is "washed out," then I can change the damn settings on my TV. It's pretty f-ing easy.

Agree(1) | Disagree(3) | Report

ozps3 - 38 days 22 hours ago

I think people with PS3 and Xbox360 will naturally buy the PS3 version. I mean how would you feel if you bought the 360 version and your 360 RROD while you were playing MW2, I mean how SICK would you feel ? Your 360 is off for repairs and you can't play MW2 while your perfectly working PS3 sits there and you thinking why oh why did i buy the 360 version. Would be a very sick feeling.

I mean who in their right mind would buy a 360 version over a PS3 version of a multiplat game when the failure of a 360 is according to last official stastics is almost 53% !!!!

Agree(1) | Disagree(8) | Report

Gobuz - 39 days ago

Yea. Infinity Ward have done a good job, they look almost identical.

The PS3 Textures are better in some area and the snow areas look softer though. But like your going to sit there and analyse everything.

Agree(1) | Disagree(5) | Report

omegaortega - 39 days ago

It prolly has 2xAA, but with a very low sub-HD resolution.

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

OpenGL - 38 days 23 hours ago

Call of Duty 4, World at War, and Modern Warfare 2 all run at 1024x600 with 2xAA on both the Xbox 360 and PS3.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Nik - 38 days 23 hours ago

The first pic in the website shows ps3 ver of the game's background shows more, yet the overall look is kinda pale...

Conclusion: both version (gfx) suck in diff ways.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

omegaortega - 39 days ago

There is a bit more going on in the 360 version. It seems like IW really nailed the snow effect on 360, especially in time to show off at E3 and then worked to replicate it best as possible on PS3.

Now 360 is my least favorite system, but either way it seems they focused on the 360 ver for the snow effects.

Let's hope this doesn't apply to ALL effects throughout the game lol.

Edit: Disagrees? Don't be so butt-hurt fanboys, I said a BIT more going on, there is barely a difference.

Agree(3) | Disagree(9) | Report

thereapersson - 39 days ago

That is the real issue at hand here. I've been playing a lot more PC games as of late, and I was really tempted to buy the PC version -- that is, until I learned of what they did to royally screw it over.

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

redsquad - 38 days 20 hours ago

If you're so stunned to find an 'opinion' on an 'opinion' forum, you really should find another site to visit.

Agree(4) | Disagree(1) | Report

AliTheBrit19 - 38 days 17 hours ago

360 Version for me

Superior Online, Superior Visuals, Exclusive DLC and knowing that I've had my 360 a year and never had a problem nor had a overheating problem

WIN

But hey, enjoy SETTLING for free crappy PSN multiplayer, speaks about how much you're worth I guess ;) hahaha

Agree(2) | Disagree(10) | Report

CernaML - 38 days 12 hours ago

After seeing the footage of MW2 on the PS3, I noticed that they have made incredible improvements for the multiplayer portion of the game compared to Call of Duty 4. There is hardly anything superior about XBL now. The only thing it has over the PSN is Party chat but even that is being blocked!
Better visuals? Call of Duty 4 looked exactly the same on both consoles and these screenshots are hardly comparable since most of them aren't even in the same position. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't have RGB set to full. There IS a difference. I noticed it once while playing the Uncharted 2 beta back in June. It made things look very washed out when set to limited.

Exclusive DLC? How is it exclusive when it will eventually come to the PS3? Oh you payed $10 before the PS3 owners could, how special you must feel. Your bias will always make you look like a fool. But whatever, do what you must to justify your purchase.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

likedamaster - 38 days 19 hours ago

Agreed. Now loosen up fanboys, it's just a game.

Agree(1) | Disagree(4) | Report

ambientFLIER - 38 days 17 hours ago

You're an idiot. Please show me a PS2 game that looked like MW2, or even COD4...

Agree(0) | Disagree(6) | Report

ajkla92 - 38 days ago

MGS3 and Black had those kind of graphics. so stfu you idiot.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

CernaML - 38 days 12 hours ago

Considering most of the other screenshots aren't in the same position, I bet that screenshot was taken in two completely different parts of that mountain as well. By comparing two screenshots that actually WERE in the same spot, the textures were exactly the same.

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

Tito08 - 37 days 8 hours ago

why don't u go play the game on the PS3, n see if it looks washed out, cause I got it, saw it for both, look the same and not washed out, n please, don't tell me u wanna buy the game for it because the ice look shinier than the other, just ridiculous!!!!

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Tito08 - 37 days 8 hours ago

I used to work at a game shop too, most of the problems I had to deal with came from the 360, that piece of junk system... Lets say, I recieve 4 PS3 for repair, but nothing compared to 18 360s!!!!

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

the_peoples_champ - 38 days 14 hours ago

watch this and comment.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

Scotty056 - 38 days 14 hours ago

Exactly. This guy gets it. Xbox rushed the sh1tbox 360 out, because they would have had NO CHANCE to succeed if the PS3 would have come out first. Sony took their time and put out a better quality console.

Thanks for posting that, it sums my point up fairly well.

Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report

Tito08 - 38 days 12 hours ago

I got it on PS3, its not bad at all, I'm not even the type that buy a game because version A has a prettier tree than version B, nobody should care about vibrant colors, or that Version A has pink hair and version B has black hair... All that matters is that MW2 runs smooth on it, trust me, I have it!!!!

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Tito08 - 38 days 12 hours ago

I got it on PS3, is worth gettin, I haven't seen it on 360, but I don't think the difference is that huge of a deal, the game runs smooth 1080p, no installs, just insert ur disc and play all u want!!!!

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

ZBlacktt - 38 days 6 hours ago

I hope you are kidding around????? LOL, if you think these screens are legit that is.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report