510°
Submitted by NYC_Gamer 653d ago | article

Digital Foundry Face-Off:Black Ops 2: Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3?

EG:It's fair to say that Treyarch's track record in terms of cross-platform conversions is patchy at best, especially evident when the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 versions of 2010's Call of Duty: Black Ops are compared directly. Lower frame-rates, lower resolution frame buffers, and PSN's online issues gave the impression that the firm's focus had been directed towards the Xbox 360 version of the game, resulting in a sub-par experience for PS3 owners. So how does Black Ops 2 fare? (Call of Duty: Black Ops 2, PS3, Xbox 360)

« 1 2 »
NYC_Gamer  +   653d ago
Treyarch= still can't program for the PS3 after all these years
#1 (Edited 653d ago ) | Agree(51) | Disagree(8) | Report | Reply
vulcanproject  +   653d ago
880x720

Really.

Really???

When does the HD generation start again?
#1.1 (Edited 653d ago ) | Agree(39) | Disagree(4) | Report | Reply
SilentNegotiator  +   653d ago
It started long ago. Some mediocre developers just never managed to catch up.
nukeitall  +   653d ago
Tell me anyone else that has gotten an FPS with 60 fps in full HD 720p that looks better than CoD?

Just FYI: 60fps has less than half the time to render on screen what a 30 fps game has.
Voxelman  +   653d ago
@nukeitall RAGE?
Computersaysno  +   653d ago
You need to read the article nukeitall. Black Ops 2 certainly doesnt manage 60fps half of the time especially on PS3, and it isnt 1280 x 720 its 880 x 720 which is only two thirds the resolution.

Anyone else? Treyarch havent done what you said here lol
#1.1.4 (Edited 653d ago ) | Agree(18) | Disagree(0) | Report
SJPFTL  +   653d ago
Actually with that resolution they made the most crispiest looking COD according to Eurogamer. Unfortunately not for the PS3 (due to the AA)
#1.1.5 (Edited 653d ago ) | Agree(8) | Disagree(0) | Report
knowyourstuff  +   653d ago
Treyarch is such a crap developer, but really they optimized the engine for the 360, not the PS3, which is surprising that in this stage they haven't updated their engine with a dev team the size of a small country making this game. Ridiculous.
PtRoLLFacE  +   653d ago
wow i can play games on my cellphone at higher resolution that, that is just sad lol
asmith2306  +   652d ago
I bought it on release but have only had the time for a few games of Zombies. First thing I said when it loaded up was how outdated the game looks. It looks like WaW graphics. I'm on PS3 by the way.
nukeitall  +   652d ago
@Voxelman:

Rage isn't full 720p at all times, it is in fact dynamically adjusting its resolution to attempt to maintain frame rate.

Point being, nobody else has done a 60fps second game at full 720p of that caliber.

@Computersaysno:

"You need to read the article nukeitall. Black Ops 2 certainly doesnt manage 60fps half of the time especially on PS3, and it isnt 1280 x 720 its 880 x 720 which is only two thirds the resolution."

I didn't intend to mislead if that is what you got out of my comment. My point was, nobody else has gotten full 720p at 60fps on any console of the same type of game.

Despite CoD failings in graphics as many believe it is selling damn well which suggest graphics isn't that important after all!
KingKevo  +   652d ago
Check the internet and you'll be shocked how many games still use non HD resolutions and simply upscale it and still only run at 30 fps and I don't wanna go into details with mentionin AA techniques used... or not used. What I want from the next gen is games running at a native 1080p resolution with 60 fps, but I'm afraid that this might still be only a dream.
Gamer1982  +   652d ago
"Tell me anyone else that has gotten an FPS with 60 fps in full HD 720p that looks better than CoD?

Just FYI: 60fps has less than half the time to render on screen what a 30 fps game has. "

I have BO2 and it looks like MUD. It looks worse than several PS3/360 launch games. It's not wonder they get it to run at 60FPS as it has horrible graphics. Also look at the review thats not a locked 60FPS it runs at a MAX 60FPS its an average of around 48FPS.
#1.1.11 (Edited 652d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report
Blackdeath_663  +   652d ago
as far as PC gamers are concerned that was ages ago. as far as consoles are concerned only few games are true full HD developers just don't seem all that bothered about resolution and fps.
moparful99  +   652d ago
Aside from the cartoonish aesthetic with hardly any MSAA at all the multiplayer is a mess right now.. It worked perfectly the first 20 some odd hours but once the flood of players came it turned into a disaster.. You will sit in a pre game lobby and the room will be full and it will say "Finding more players to balance teams". Also you cant play TDM right now it wont launch a game at all.. Plus it's lagging soo bad and hit detection is a joke.. About to ask for my money back...
tawak  +   652d ago
does my galaxy note 2 has better resolution?
darthv72  +   653d ago
more like...
black oops they did it again. I understand there is a texture pack that can be installed on the PS3 version.

Does this help to alleviate some of these differences in quality? They dont seem to mention that in this article.
sandman224  +   653d ago
No I downloaded it and it still looks blurry. The only thing they did rite is that it's the smoothest call of duty they made for the ps3. I also have the 360 version. It's super clear and the visuals make me want to sell my ps3 copy. Take my word for it. I own both copies of the game and I know because I've tested both out on a 46" led Samsung. I didn't even have to do a side by side comparison to notice the difference. It's that noticeable.
#1.2.1 (Edited 653d ago ) | Agree(16) | Disagree(11) | Report
kupomogli  +   653d ago
@sandman224

Yeah. Talk out your ass a bit more. After framerate hits 40fps, you can't actually see visual judder or if you can it'd be very very difficult to. Anything above 40fps is still good though because it adds more to controller response.
#1.2.2 (Edited 653d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(10) | Report
andibandit  +   652d ago
@Kupmogli

Yeah. Talk out your ass a bit more. Noone mentioned "Visual judder" you just pulled that out your ass. He talks about the graphics looking blurry on the PS3, which has NOTHING to do with Framerate.
MultiConsoleGamer  +   653d ago
More like deliberately gimped version because a certain CEO is loyal to MS.
SilentNegotiator  +   653d ago
I'd brush that away as paranoia if not for the fact that COD4 ran equally well on the Ps3. And Oblivion ran fine on PS3 as well.

And now that Xbox is buying all of these party favors, these series suddenly had all of these issues.
#1.3.1 (Edited 653d ago ) | Agree(13) | Disagree(10) | Report
SJPFTL  +   653d ago
that is because Oblivion PS3 had an extra year of development than the xbox version
TheRealHeisenberg  +   653d ago
Lol, why am i not surprised that some think MS is behind this. You guys never fail to amaze with that crap. Put it on the dev, not on MS.
CryofSilence  +   653d ago
He wasn't putting this on Microsoft. He indicated it was due to Activision's CEO's inclination to Microsoft.
execution17  +   652d ago
Oblivion (PS3) was done by a different studio, kinda wish they did the Skyrim version too...
SilentNegotiator  +   652d ago
@SJPFTL

So? If they did the sensible thing and lead on the ps3 for the console versions, they wouldn't have ran into such problems.
CalvinKlein  +   653d ago
well they cant program for the xbox 360 either or they would have made a new engine by now.
not that they can't it's that they favor MS.. Always have. I know this means nothing and have no effect but Stop supporting them!.
airforcex  +   653d ago
Why would they spend more money/time on the PS3 to make it equal? It's all about $$$.
Crazyglues  +   652d ago
@ NYC_Gamer

Treyarch= doesn't give a fu*k about PS3... they just want to get it to run.. and then there done..

I don't know how many times they have to prove it to PS3 gamers before you guys get it... but, since the next Black Flops 3 is going to sell a ton of copies I guess it really doesn't matter what anyone says here..

-Because at the end of the day people are still going to keep buying it on PS3..

and every year we will have another article like this one that prove's what we already knew from day one.. Treyarch & Activision could careless how it looks on PS3, just get it to run so we can cash these checks...

you know how many games actually took the time to make sure they made a game with amazing graphics, BF3, Crysis 3, hell even Max Payne3 -Halo 4 and deserve to do those kind of numbers, 8 million on launch... -but instead it goes to the company with graphics from 2007 -hell the games today make COD BLOPS 2 look like minecraft...

(But don't say that to COD fans because it's like COD fans can't see graphics, because if you pop in MW2 guess what? Same dam Graphics.. LoL)

.____........___...____
.____||......||.......____||
||.........___||.......____||
#1.7 (Edited 652d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
The_Con-Sept  +   652d ago
@Crazyglues Comment of the article right here. No other comment in this article can beat this comment.
Syntax-Error  +   652d ago
Who gives shit?! It still looks and plays well. All the emphasis on specs mean absolutely nothing. If these numbers weren't posted, would anyone have said anything...f@#k no. Do you nerds always have to find something to complain about? They should have a nerd convention and just blow all of you up because YOU and YOUR retarded rants are what's killing the gaming industry. Demanding more for less and crying about what you receive like a child.
AlphaTauri  +   652d ago
what nukeitall is saying in a rhetorical way, is that almost none of those triple first party games from sony and microsoft run at 6o fps.
Rage does run at 60fps(sometimes) but Rage didn't look as good close up as people want to believe.
e-p-ayeaH  +   652d ago
World at War PS3 version was decent.
ILive  +   652d ago
I don't quite understand the whole 60fps thing because everything is just moving way too fast, especially while playing the multiplayer. For the campaign I would say its okay. I played Killzone 3 and 2, Battlefield, and Uncharted 3 and 2 multiplayer all in 30fps; it didn't take away from the enjoyment of the games. I played black ops on the other hand; I just couldn't play it because everything was just moving too fast for me ( I couldn't react quickly to anything). People keep buying this sh***y series, rendering them more accustomed to the way it plays. Now, they can't play anything else (even if things ten times better than COD) because it doesn't play like COD. It is ruining the game industry because many developers will try to emulated what COD doing, while potentially innovative ideas get lost in translation. Sad.
#1.10.1 (Edited 652d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report
Neonridr  +   653d ago
It will be interesting to see if the Wii U version is identical, or if they were able to change it marginally in any ways.
Blastoise  +   653d ago
Whats the PS3 version like?
I've bought it for christmas but after all this im hearing it's kinda worrying
darkride66  +   653d ago
I wouldn't worry about it. They said it was far and above how the first Black Ops was on the PS3, and I didn't have any issues playing through that game. If you enjoyed the first Black Ops on the PS3, safe to say, according to this article, you won't be disappointed with the PS3 version of Black Ops 2.

But if you've got the choice and you don't mind shelling out extra to play 100% of your games as the developer intended, it sounds like the 360 version is the version for you.
#3.1 (Edited 653d ago ) | Agree(9) | Disagree(5) | Report | Reply
Blastoise  +   653d ago
I don't have the choice. I refuse to pay for online...

Ah well, as long as its not THAT different I'll get over it

Edit: From the article

"the two console versions in terms of performance does narrow if you're mainly invested in the multiplayer side"
Sounds alright to me. And the campaign video showed the Xbox 360 version is only a tiny bit more stable than the PS3 version.
Don't really care about the graphics, used to call of dutys looking a little sharper on Xbox, I don't play for the graphics.

Seems the PS3 version isn't so bad afterall
#3.1.1 (Edited 653d ago ) | Agree(14) | Disagree(6) | Report
SOULJER   653d ago | Trolling | show
Cerbus  +   653d ago
So who is telling the truth?

Related video
2pacalypsenow  +   653d ago
i dont think they installed the texture pack on the ps3 version at digital foundry
firefly69  +   653d ago
Well the brightness of the 360 images has been ramp up!
#5.2 (Edited 653d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
GrandTheftZamboni  +   653d ago
Yeah, adjusting the brightness and contrast could be a big problem for someone whose TV is from the 60s.
#5.2.1 (Edited 653d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report
Zynga  +   653d ago
Wow! Are you serious, eurogamer has been doing these comparison with full analysis and detail unlike the random guy who posted that vid. Also xbox settings are never bright (its the other way around) and while the ps3 seems dark, really begs to differ if the video is trolling everyone.
onandonandon  +   653d ago
The PS3 version could've been 240p but people would still have flocked to buy it and rewarded Treyarch for a job badly done!!
xXtremeHDGamerXx   653d ago | Immature | show | Replies(1)
Nes_Daze  +   653d ago
I got black ops on xbox, but I got every other game on PS3...
TKCMuzzer  +   653d ago
Another comparison that serves nothing but trolls of the gaming world. Can sites please stop it, I have never purchased a game from a video comparison.
violents  +   653d ago
I kind of agree, I don't know a lot of people that maintain more that one gaming system of the same generation. I'm not going to go buy an xbox just so i can play COD with marginally better textures. So agreed, its just to flame the fires. The only thing it really shows us is who the devs are that actually have decent programmers or if they just got lazy with a peticular version.
jetlian  +   653d ago
stop whining. some of us own all the systems and we choose based off eurogamer/lot. If you have both why pay 60 for the lesser of the two?

360 has more ram than ps3 and thats a fact. Devs dont wanna spend time hearing and doing bugs if they could. Im sure they wished ps3 was a smooth so as to not waste time
violents  +   652d ago
Whose whining, i was having a conversation with someone until you showed up acting like a douche.
violents  +   653d ago
I haven't bought the last 3 Callofpoopy titles because they can't ever seem to get it right and I'm glad I've saved myself the 100plus dollars again. Now I can spend my money on something good.
faraany33k  +   653d ago
Too bad you are not part of the 30 million COD buddies. Activion CEO cant hear you from where he is standing.
WayneKerr   653d ago | Trolling | show | Replies(2)
Captain Tuttle   653d ago | Trolling | show | Replies(1)
chukamachine  +   653d ago
The 360 wins this overall.

Better framerate is less blur. But.

There is a but, because I've seen them side by side and while the 360 version does look cleaner, it's a lot closer.

They have done a filter thing for the ps3 version instead of true aa, that's the reason for the blur.

As for the engine.

It's still a very old engine that needs cpu power.

PS3 is 1 core with 6spu's.

360 is 3 cores. Hence you can straight away use 3 cores.

I very much doubt this uses spu's much. They won't rewrite that much code for an old engine.
vulcanproject  +   653d ago
Technically PC wins it. PC blows the doors off considering that the consoles only do 880 x 720 and 2 x MSAA.

1080p on PC is more than 3 times that resolution. It is preposterously low rez on console.

The gap between 360 and PS3 still shouldn't be this big, but then you know it'll sell more on 360 so they obviously concentrated more on it.
#13.1 (Edited 653d ago ) | Agree(8) | Disagree(8) | Report | Reply
onandonandon   653d ago | Trolling | show
iamgoatman  +   653d ago
@onandonandon

Translation: "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!".
wishingW3L  +   653d ago
PC does 1080p and it actually runs the game at 60 frames unlike the Xbox at 50 and the PS3 at 40-45.
#13.1.3 (Edited 653d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(3) | Report
neoMAXMLC  +   653d ago
Yeah they really need to get rid of that Post Process AA in a patch.... Some of the worst we've seen since QAA.

Also, they won't ever take advantage of the SPUs because from I recall, a developer stated that doing that causes input lag in the controls. And you know how hellbent these guys are with super crisp controller response in their Call of Duty games.

@vulcanproject

If you have the hardware then yeah the PC will destroy consoles graphically obviously. However, it still seems like this is a horribly optimized experience on PC just like the first Black Ops was.
#13.2 (Edited 653d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
vulcanproject  +   653d ago
Its allllllllllll relative.

I am not sure it is really so horribly optimised. It isn't amazingly good either but considering the report on the console versions.....

The fact is, even 1280 x 720 on PC is in reality a significant boost over what the consoles are doing here aint it? That is a low res for most PC gamers but it is nigh on 50 percent MORE resolution by just meeting HD standard.

I still doubt very much you need much of a system to do 1920 x 1080 and say 4x AA. Any decent quad + Radeon 6850 would do the job I imagine. Did on the original Black Ops.
#13.2.1 (Edited 653d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report
Jazz4108   653d ago | Trolling | show
neoMAXMLC  +   652d ago
@vulcanproject

I'm only talking from experience. Every CoD game runs at 60FPS with everything maxxed out with absolutely no problem on my PC at all. But when Black Ops multiplayer went free for one weekend on Steam, I decided to try it out. Frame rate was absolute ASS. It didn't matter what settings I had it on it was impossible to get it running at 60FPS like every other CoD including MW3 did.

@Jazz

I have a better idea. I'll keep my PS3 and 360 even though I'm the complete opposite of what you suggest. Horrible PS3 ports are very few nowadays. This year alone I've bought Max Payne 3, tried the one hour trial of Most Wanted, Assassin's Creed 3, Rock Band Unplugged and probably a couple of others that I've already forgotten about on my PS3. And if these games were any good, I would have also gotten Resident Evil 6 and MoH Warfighter. They are ALL great on the PS3. Black Ops 2 is the only game that I feel should be much much better (and it IS better than the first Black Ops at least). I'm not going to dump my PS3 and all of its amazing exclusive games just because a handful of developers completely shit on it. That's a moronic idea. Fanboys will be fanboys? Yeah... you should know.
Skate-AK  +   653d ago
I was disappointed when I went to play it in 3D and it had some kinda crazy lag to it or something.
firefly69  +   653d ago
Whats funny is that the MWF games made buy IW use the same engine but run at higher resolution than the BLACK OPS games!tHey are the two dev studios from Activision but it seems theres no exchange in knowledge between the two studios!?
brianunfried  +   653d ago
Interesting, I decided to check out some of the various rip sizes on bittorrent for fun. The XBOX rips are 8gb and the PS3 rips are 16gb. Makes no sense, something to think about.
xJumpManx  +   653d ago
look at the speed of the drive , Blue ray has more space but its slower at reading disc. Give me speed over the so called size advantage
brianunfried  +   652d ago
Blu-Ray is constant speed, DVD drives aren't, they're rated at maximum read speed and rarely reach maximum speed. Usually only when reading the outer most edge of the disc.
kopicha  +   653d ago
likely due to audio. It might be possible that there is lossless audio on PS3 version. I have tried both version from my home theatre setup. And it is very obvious and clear that PS3 version sounds a lot better. There are more packs and punches and details in the sound which make them sound like lossless audio rather than some lossy dolby digital audio. Also according to my HT system does clearly show that PS3 is running on LPCM 5.1 instead of Dolby Digital 5.1 like the 360 version. High quality Audio recordings and High Quality cinematic video recordings usually take up hell lots of space compare to the game itself. This is usually where PS3 shine due to bluray's storage.
#16.2 (Edited 653d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
CDzNutts  +   653d ago
I'm sill unsure of how relevant this is or how "much less" the performance is considering CODs are also among the highest selling game on PS3.
shivvy24  +   653d ago
TREYARCH = Laziest devs ive ever known , Outdated engine , graphics and sound !
jetpacksheep  +   652d ago
They are not lazy, they have made a great game and on PC it looks brilliant. Consoles hold this back because they have gone for 60fps over better graphics. They have a little window set by Activison to create a game which will go on to sell upwards of 50 million, talk about pressure.
shivvy24  +   652d ago
look these guys sell atleast 20mil, thats a shit load of money , there are devs out there like insomniac that sell like 1.5mil on a game and make a better looking fps in 2 years
SaffronCurse  +   653d ago
World at war was developed by Treyarch, almost identical versions for 360 and ps3.

What happened?
wishingW3L  +   653d ago
why they don't use MLAA which uses minimal resources on the PS3? In fact, I prefer to have jaggies over this blurry mess!
The_KELRaTH  +   652d ago
They should allow the user to toggle AA on or off as in BF3.
JAMurida  +   653d ago
It really is sad and quite honesty pathetic how Activision makes so much dam money from just this franchise alone and they still can't seem to invest more resources into learning the tech of the PS3 better even after all these years, and how someone like Capcom can make their games on both platforms just fine, (with probably overall less money than Activision). But even more sad is the fact that in there eyes it's not a problem since the masses are the ones lining up to buy it again and again. Of course to the small percentage it's a problem, but that's just a minority to them.
TemplarDante  +   653d ago
880 x 720 ...
W
T
F
Are we in 2012? Did I wake up in the freakin twilight zone?
Cuchendu86  +   653d ago
Hi everyone, well i have the game for both systems, i dont hold no allegiance to sny system. I got for xbox to play seriously by my self to level up, and i got for my ps3 to play with nt friends. Blops 2 is a step up from blops 1 for the ps3, but its still bad, instead of poop blops 2 is shiney poop.

It is treyarch, mw mw2 and mw3 are all nice on ps3 . Waw blops 1&2 are garbage on ps3. Ps3 version has frame rate issues, and its a mess. Im that fooll buying it every year.
Treian  +   653d ago
880 x 720. I know consoles are dated, but they aren't that dated!
Dannehkins  +   653d ago
Most popular game series of this generation and they still can't handle the PS3, even after so many years.

One of the main reasons I moved away from the PS3 to PC. Just got a little bit sick and tired of developers being lazy. Not too much of a problem these days, but it does creep up here and there.
EffectO  +   652d ago
PS3 is just not good for these type of games,I think that is pretty clear at this point.

Back in 2005 Sony fans were convinced that PS3 will run circles and circles around 360,year later PS3 was launched,dreams were shattered,fast forward to end of 2012...nothing has changed,lazy devs lazy devs

Reality is pretty bias against PS3.
The_KELRaTH  +   652d ago
Sony simply picked the wrong GPU spec. Nvidia tried to introduce that x2aa Blurvision on the PC to get an fps edge over ATI but it was slammed by all the reviewers and the mode was dropped in future GPU versions.
leogets  +   652d ago
Dnt even like cod but what in reading about ps3 version is very disappointing. My friend hs it and says isa sick game but mw3 looks way better than this... Ps3 player
The_KELRaTH  +   652d ago
Ahh but MW3 maps are much smaller and BL-Ops2 includes the option to have AI players in mp games.
kingduqc  +   652d ago
2560*1440 rocking over 100 fps all maxed..

I think it's time for next gen. Game isn't really good so anyway :/
jetpacksheep  +   652d ago
Great article, really brings to light how current gen games are actually performing. For PC players I can assure you this game looks great maxed out though.
lfclee  +   652d ago
I think this generation wasn't has good has the last generation with the ps2, game cube, xbox, we were told that every game will run at 1080p what lies and games would get better, let's hope the next generation can but i'm very optimistic it can.
#30 (Edited 652d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
« 1 2 »

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
Remember
New stories
30°

Teslagrad Heads to eShop This September, Getting PS4 Retail Version

29m ago - Teslagrad, the 2D platformer from Rain Games, is planned to hit Wii U’s digital shelves on Septem... | PC
40°

Is this the starting roster for Smash Bros. 3DS?

1h ago - An image posted in an official eShop listing may show the starting roster for the new Smash Bros. | Wii U
30°

Saturday Spending Spree: August 30th

1h ago - Gadgets and Khajiits brings you the latest and greatest deals on tech and games! | PC
20°

PAX: Star Citizen’s Procedural Generation Explored – Interview with Chris Roberts

1h ago - GamersNexus: "Today’s focus is on the recent ~$41m stretch goal established by CIG: expanded proc... | PC
Ad

Need Cash? (US Only)

Now - How would it feel to have your money struggles solved by this time tomorrow? We give fast loans from $100-$10,000+, and repayment terms up to 60 mo... | Promoted post
20°

Video Game Crafts ‘N Gear #76: Super Mario World SNES, Pikachu Army, Kirby Figures

2h ago - Video Game Crafts 'N Gear is a weekly feature wherein the spotlight is shined on the best custom-... | Culture
Related content from friends