Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 comparison between Xbox 360 and Playstation 3.
Modern Warfare 2: HD Comparison PS3 vs. Xbox 360 from "Takedown" added [Update] PS3 settings: Full RGB and Superwhite ;)
... and into the fire
Wow I hope these are fake. COD4 on PS3 and 360 were identical, so why would these be real ?? Then again I don't have a 360 so its PS3 version for me regardless.
So did they have all the correct settings enabled on the PS3 version? How about super white and other options. This story is pathetic and needs to be reported. Go back over their Forza3 stuff they did and look at the crap pics they pump out. If it is true then I expect to be seeing loads of : "Why the PS3 version needs to be fixed" "5 ways to make the PS3 version better" "Has IW raped the PS3 community on purpose" "10 ways to make the PS3 version better" Then Hiphop gamer will jump in on it, then VALVE will laff and say they told you so and then a random amount of comments will be applied to the said stories. Lets just face the fact that MW2 is running the same game engine and as such this game could have been just DLC for COD4, in reality it is only new maps and a few differing weapons. I wish someone sensible would come along to show a "REAL" comparison, lens of truth maybe or even a reader who has capabilities to do so... make sure you have the settings correct on PS3 via HDMI etc.... thanks.
Yeah, I wonder what technique they are using to record the shots? There was a game once (I can't remember what it is for the life of me) that I saw compared on some game website, and to make the comparison even, they didn't use HDMI on the PS3; they used component video cables, because the 360 had component. I wish I could remember what game it was, but I am not making this stuff up. I couldn't believe it when I read it...
"So did they have all the correct settings enabled on the PS3 version? How about super white and other options."
Super white does make it look a bit better, but Full Range RGB only has a good effect if you're using a monitor and not a TV. On TV's it burns out all the colors. I forgot to turn it off while playing Uncharted 2, and I couldn't find where to go because the exit was a hallway I couldn't even see because of the RGB crap, it was so dark it looked like a shadow in the corner.
I never thought I would say Gears of War 2's graphics are superior to another big-budget game's. It seems like they forgot to put "modern" graphics in "Modern" Warfare 2. IW themselves said the ONLY difference between the CoD4 engine and the MW2 engine is the addition of streaming textures to the MW2 engine, BUT on the box of CoD4 it says that game included streaming textures so how they adding something "new" to the engine if it's already there? MW2 looks GREAT... for a 2007 game but this is 2009 and games are HD. If IGN gives MW2 a 9 or higher in the Graphics category, I'm never visiting their site again!
Damage control will be here in 5 4 3 2............
this game looks worse than I thought :/
Damage control? For what?
to be honest screenshots do not do this game any justice. ive seen it running in motion in all its 60fps glory and it looks freakin incredible definately up there with the best of them
I'd say the X360 versions looks better, but somehow I don't think those pics do justice to the PS3 version.
I've read that the game looks identical on both consoles, so I'm calling Shinanigans on those pics.
If your buying MW2, buy it for the console you own (Obviously), and if you own both the X360 & PS3, buy it for the console that you play online the most with. Simple!
i see next to no difference in the versions apart from the snow level where the contrast looks a little high on one of the two. What this has shown me though is that this game is pretty ugly =[
This is a crap comparison because they use different pictures. Heck in one shot the ps3 version is zoomed in and the 360 zoomed out lol. SHow me some identical screens not this junk.
360 version looks a little better, I'll wait for better comparison pics though, but in the first pic you can clearly see that the guy is more detailed on the 360 version. lol, at the sony extremists talking the adjusting the settings, thats just changing one blurry color for another.
I can do it too with Tekken 6
the graphics look like crap on both consoles so who cares? some of those environments look like PS2 quality nevermind 07. only noobs and followers will spend $60 on this rehashed P.O.S.
I'll wait for a lens of truth camparo... they seem to do it the fairest.
yes people, it looks average by todays standards in screenshots but MW has always looked fantastic in motion. I'm not a CoD fan, but I hate it when people overly critisize graphics these days. The critics should be forced to play ET on the Atari, that'll sort 'em out.
Wow, those graphics are horrible. It's just not even close to attractive to look at. I don't know what the non-snowy levels look like, but these shots miserable. The two versions look pretty much identical to me -- neither one looks even remotely decent.
They look virtually identical to me, with the only noticeable difference being that the 360 pics have a higher contrast, which would normally be more related to tv settings anyway.
PS3 version looks washed out, while the 360 version is sharper. The last images makes the PS3 version look better, but look at it in HD, and both version are a funky mess. Jaggies on the lockers in the PS3, and shadows look like their made of squares on the 360. This is exactly why Battlefield is getting all this grand hype and praise. Step it up IW in 2011.
WTF are all of you are expecting? not even xbox owners can be happy with this crap, look like a f*cking slightly improvement of MW!!!! I said It from the begining, MW2 is in reality more like MW1.5
Where's the wii version??
that they still aren't taking advantage of the PS3. The level of detail is simply not up to par. Apart from the bizarre gamma difference, the PS3 version appears to have a little more detail here and there (wall textures, ice-picks handles, screws on the ice-picks). However, it's not consistent and probably due the screenshots not being exact. Having said that they have a clever lighting engine that uses some really wise short-cuts that takes a trained eye to spot. Frankly, I think most games waste too much horsepower on precision and accuracy in lighting. The COD series has been a notable exception. I also applaud them for dropping resolution to maintain frame-rate.
Developers have demonstrated this in tests on Beyond3d. Frankly, it's disappointing that they haven't refined the graphics. Given the leap we saw from Uncharted 1 to Uncharted 2, one would expect that after all these years we'd see a similar improvement in COD. Then again, sometimes people don't notice improvements. Ratchet, another 60fps game, has made massive improvements (mostly in terms of on-screen action, alpha blending, etc...) but received little or no credit. Their engine outputs near CGI quality visuals. They've decided that they want to drop framerate to double things like texture detail and shaders. No doubt it's to make the game even shinier but how shiny is shiny enough? Digital Foundry has a really well written article on this. If you can, Approve it because everyone should read it. http://www.n4g.com/NewsPend...
...the game is THAT UGLY! Don't use snowy environment as an excuse! Just look at the interior shots and bland interior textures. The computer, desk, and wall look like we jumped 5 years backward in technology.
People, remember that CoD:MW2 runs at 60FPS and that's a big part of the game graphics that you just can't see through screen-shots. I already saw the game in person and it looks beautiful. Another thing things is that the draw distance is almost as good as Uncharted 2 and the environments are huge. The game looks simply spectacular. I'm even thinking on buying the game this month instead of Uncharted 2. BTW, the version I saw was from the PS3.
overall looks like crap no matter what it's on. BFBC2 FTW!!!!!
Xbox 360 is the clear victor, as usual.
This is a comment of one of those people who run the site: "Die Bilder der PS3 wurden leider falsch gegrabbt, tut uns leid. Am Montag gibt es neue. Dadurch
ändern sich keine Details etc., sondern der verwaschene Eindruck."
This means: "We're sorry but the pics from the PS 3 have been made the wrong way. We'll correct this on monday. That will not change the details in the pictures but that washed out look." Can't translate better. Sorry!
No doubt it looks better on the PC - but we've been downgraded to nod dedicated servers.
You guys should wait for the GT comparison or lens of truth before making a final judgement
Wasn't it just last month they posted a NFS comparison where on the speedometer dials, with the PS3 version it was blurred so bad you couldn't read the numbers, and several other sites posted screen shots where it was clear that wasn't the case? I'm not saying these pics are fake, I frankly don't know, but it wouldn't be the first time these guys have posted questionable comparisons.
Yep...well they are both equally generic
...here I come!
SO is this "REAL" comparison your waiting for when the PS3 is better than the 360? Any time the 360 and PS3 look similar its just heresy RIGHT? Dolt.
best first post EVER! good day to you sir
And no, it's not a multiplatform game.
It starts with a U
Um they are exactly the same. Those screen shots arent taken at the exact same time.... they are close but could be about a second between the screen grabs, which means in the PS3 screenies a frosty wind could have swept across the screen. Probably 1 of the best ports ive seen for a game recently.
How many accounts do you have?
I can care less about what system does what: I'll be sure to pick up my used copy of MW2 before the end of the year.
i don't get it, what's the big deal? they look exactly the same to me except for the ps3's brighter contrast and that can be fixed from a tv's handy dandy twiddly knobs. am i missing something?
That's the 2nd site that Shows that the PS3 version is more Pale.
But it isn't on all the shots now, is it? For example the one where you're inside with digi scope is much brighter and clearer on the PS3 version-there's even more detail in it's textures.
At a guess these guys have some issues with svreen capture or worse-som,e problems understanding TV setings!
To be fair, the screenshots are rarely exactly the same, thus a comparison is difficult. We'll have to wait for the 'apples-to-apples' comparisons, where they measure framerate, frametear, loading times, textures, AA, and resolution to make definitive judgements. Anything else is just not detailed enough.
Just because the PS3 version looks brighter and has different black levels than the 360 version, doesn't mean it's worse. In general, it appears that most PS3 titles have brighter black levels than their 360 counterparts; at this point, I would have to assume that this is an intentional trait of the PS3's video output, and that the PS3 version is probably actually the more ACCURATE in terms of proper image calibration and reproduction, especially when viewed on a television. An image/output that is properly calibrated for the television is going to look too bright when viewed on a PC monitor; that's simply the results of differences between a PC monitor and a television. Remember, we're talking about a reference-level Blu-ray and media player here; it's a finely-tuned piece of hardware that aims to offer some of the best image quality you can get in a home-theater. Sony wasn't going to get something like black levels WRONG on a flagship home-theater product like this. Yes, the crushed blacks of the 360 screenshots might look very contrasty and dynamic at first glance to you, especially when viewed on a PC monitor, but that doesn't mean it's accurate colorwise; crushing the blacks also tends to mean that you lose a lot of details in the darker regions of the image.
a great way to hide the lack of HDR. It also has other benefits. Samsung TV's crush blacks as well. When you see a Sony and Samsung side by side you'll notice that the Samsung appears to have more contrast even when you're comparing identical panels (Samsung and Sony are often made in the same factory). However, when you look closely at the image you'll notice that things that are grey or a dark color on the Sony are completely blacked out on the Samsung. So Samsung sacrificed detail and accuracy for faked contrast. A lot of people fall for it because it's flashy and eye-catching even though it's actually an inferior image.
Brightness or contrast differences should be looked at dubiously, since it may be down to RGB settings. Yes i know it sounds like a tired arguement but still lol
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
sad but true
ZOMG!!! IZ TRU!!!1 teh PS3 version is not dark azz teh 360 version!!11 and and andd.... teh PS3 version haz NOT HALO!!111
That to make these comparisons one has to stop the game,take a High res image of teh screen, zoom in, and analyse it at an almost pixel by pixel level ....
And this is while comparing one machine which has 3 processor cores and another which has 8?
So an 8 core super computer can't out perform a less powerfull machine ...
HAHAHAH - BIGGEST FAIL EVER = Sony poo station ..
Cry droids ... utlimolo/juuken/nelson/morgain fail has tissues for you ... they're all the same user
so this ends being an upscale comparison right ?
Look the same to me, only difference maybe a slight colour variance which was also found in the original COD4. I'm sure some of you will have a vastly different opinion to I though.
Day 1 PS3 purchase, I don't care! This game will be fun as hell.
ps3 is better then 360. 360 is better then the ps3. My toy is better then your toy. Grow the hell up!
Its has been proven many times with cold hard facts and evidence that PS3 is better (much better) than XBox360.
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.
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
wow is this real or they just fu%&$ up the brightness setting of the ps3 version?... anyway xbox 360 version for me, XBL have the biggest COD community