Try our new beta!Click here
Submitted by I-Pod 2283d ago | screenshot

Modern Warfare 2: PS3 and Xbox 360 HD comparison screenshots

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 comparison between Xbox 360 and Playstation 3. (Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, PS3, Xbox 360)

Update Modern Warfare 2: HD Comparison PS3 vs. Xbox 360 from "Takedown" added [Update] PS3 settings: Full RGB and Superwhite ;)

« 1 2 3 4 5 »
The Meerkat  +   2284d ago
Flame on!
alphakennybody  +   2284d ago
out of the frying pan...
... and into the fire
#1.2 (Edited 2284d ago ) | Agree(8) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
ape007  +   2284d ago
Mindboggle  +   2284d ago
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.
komp  +   2283d ago
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....

thereapersson  +   2283d ago
@ Komp
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...
STONEY4  +   2283d ago
"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.
Xbox Avatars Shoe  +   2283d ago
That was HD?
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!
#1.8 (Edited 2283d ago ) | Agree(21) | Disagree(8) | Report | Reply
The Creep  +   2283d ago
Damage control will be here in 5 4 3 2............
Milky  +   2283d ago
this game looks worse than I thought :/
#1.10 (Edited 2283d ago ) | Agree(12) | Disagree(4) | Report | Reply
thereapersson  +   2283d ago
@ Creep
Damage control? For what?
The Creep  +   2283d ago
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
FreeMonk  +   2283d ago
From those pics,
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!
Hoolock  +   2283d ago
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 =[
lowcarb  +   2283d ago
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.
skagrerrrr  +   2283d ago
looks like
JokesOnYou  +   2283d ago
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.

Triella  +   2283d ago
Hey look...
I can do it too with Tekken 6

Related image(s)
#1.18 (Edited 2283d ago ) | Agree(11) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Consoldtobots  +   2283d ago
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.
DocEvil  +   2283d ago
I'll wait for a lens of truth camparo... they seem to do it the fairest.
#1.20 (Edited 2283d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(8) | Report | Reply
table  +   2283d ago
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.
callahan09  +   2283d ago
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.
OgTheClever  +   2283d ago
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.
ABizzel1  +   2283d ago
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.
sikbeta  +   2283d ago
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
ThanatosDMC  +   2283d ago
Where's the wii version??
aliveinboston  +   2283d ago
A bit disappointing
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.
#1.27 (Edited 2283d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(3) | Report | Reply
aliveinboston  +   2283d ago
The PS3's black levels are actually more accurate
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.
jjohan35  +   2283d ago
Don't care which looks better/worse when...
...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.
#1.29 (Edited 2283d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
Bodyboarder_VGamer  +   2283d ago
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.
#1.30 (Edited 2283d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(5) | Report | Reply
11 360s and counting  +   2283d ago
The game....
overall looks like crap no matter what it's on. BFBC2 FTW!!!!!
WenisWagon  +   2283d ago
Xbox 360 is the clear victor, as usual.
RumbleFish  +   2283d ago
Wait a minute!
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!
#1.33 (Edited 2283d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
mcslick101  +   2283d ago
No doubt it looks better on the PC - but we've been downgraded to nod dedicated servers.
Jeromejones  +   2283d ago
You guys should wait for the GT comparison or lens of truth before making a final judgement
Anon1974  +   2283d ago
Isn't this the same site that had faked the NFS comparisons.
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.
LastDance  +   2283d ago
Yep...well they are both equally generic
pixelsword  +   2283d ago
Battlefield, Bad Company 2... I come!
mega BIG time  +   2283d ago
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.
bozebo  +   2283d ago
you win
best first post EVER!

good day to you sir
aaron5829  +   2283d ago
I've seen better snow, better indoor graphics..
And no, it's not a multiplatform game.

It starts with a U

JonnyBadfinger  +   2283d ago
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.
Amp  +   2283d ago
How many accounts do you have?
Tru_Blu  +   2282d ago
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.
cyberwaffles  +   2282d ago
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?
Natsu X FairyTail  +   2284d ago
That's the 2nd site that Shows that the PS3 version is more Pale.
mastiffchild  +   2283d ago
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!
commodore64  +   2283d ago
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.
#2.2 (Edited 2283d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(5) | Report | Reply
Statix  +   2283d ago
Black level outputs = intentional
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.
#2.3 (Edited 2283d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
aliveinboston  +   2283d ago
Crushing blacks is also
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.
#2.4 (Edited 2283d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(4) | Report | Reply
Jeromejones  +   2283d ago
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
Anon1974  +   2283d ago
But that's the problem, even with the so called "apples to apples" comparisons, those are just as skewed by opinion as reviews are.
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.
commodore64  +   2283d ago

If you continue to follow me, post replies to my posts, and misquote me (like you did here ) 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!
#2.7 (Edited 2283d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(4) | Report | Reply
Anon1974  +   2283d ago
Ok then, Commodore.
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.
#2.8 (Edited 2283d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
commodore64  +   2283d ago

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?
#2.9 (Edited 2283d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(4) | Report | Reply
Anon1974  +   2282d ago
Don't you have anyone on ignore?
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.
#2.10 (Edited 2282d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
OWNED   2284d ago | Spam
PISSIO  +   2284d ago
sad but true
54percent  +   2283d ago
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
4point7BillionLoss  +   2278d ago
What funny is
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
napoleon_ist  +   2284d ago
is this game HD anyway? sure you do remember all previous CODs were upscaled SD...
so this ends being an upscale comparison right ?
Fishy Fingers  +   2284d ago
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.
knifefight  +   2283d ago
ElementX  +   2283d ago
Day 1 PS3 purchase, I don't care! This game will be fun as hell.
#8 (Edited 2283d ago ) | Agree(12) | Disagree(9) | Report | Reply
militant07   2283d ago | Spam
bigboss911   2283d ago | Spam
militant07   2283d ago | Spam
DirtyLary   2283d ago | Spam
Parapraxis   2283d ago | Spam
Jeromejones   2283d ago | Spam
DirtyLary   2283d ago | Spam
Jeromejones   2283d ago | Spam
DirtyLary   2283d ago | Spam
Jeromejones   2283d ago | Spam
kbexp  +   2283d ago
ps3 is better then 360. 360 is better then the ps3.
My toy is better then your toy.
Grow the hell up!
ozps3  +   2283d ago
Its has been proven many times with cold hard facts and evidence that PS3 is better (much better) than XBox360.
ReBurn  +   2283d 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.
#9.2 (Edited 2283d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(5) | Report | Reply
Xbox Avatars Shoe   2283d ago | Spam
loser   2283d ago | Spam
gamingisnotacrime  +   2283d ago
Uncharted 1! vs anything else
then if that is not enough then
Heavenly Sword

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
tatotiburon  +   2283d ago
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
Shadow Haze501  +   2283d ago
Yea its sad Xbox LIVE only plays Call of Duty like hell. Its a nooby franchise but fun anyways.
tatotiburon  +   2283d 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?
table  +   2283d 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.
#10.3 (Edited 2283d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(3) | Report | Reply
ReBurn  +   2283d 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?
#10.4 (Edited 2283d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
table  +   2283d 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...
#10.5 (Edited 2283d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(3) | Report | Reply
ReBurn  +   2283d 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.
DirtyLary  +   2283d 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.
thewhoopimen  +   2283d 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!!!!!)
thor  +   2283d ago
The only noticable difference you can ever see in these comparisons could be eliminated by changing the contrast settings on your TV... I recently saw a GoW2 comparison PS2 vs PS3 - guess what the PS3 version looked more "washed out"... I think that goes to show that it's simply the contrast settings that cause it to look like that - I mean that's what we mean by "washed out" in the first place; low contrast.
Briefcase Joe  +   2283d ago
I think people will buy the 360 version over the PS3 version because of Live/Controller/Achievements. Not because of some screenshots from websites that don't know what the f they are doing.
ifhd  +   2283d 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.
Briefcase Joe  +   2283d ago
@the dumbasses that disagreed with me...
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.
#12.2 (Edited 2283d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(3) | Report | Reply
ozps3  +   2283d 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% !!!!
Gobuz  +   2283d ago
The snow parts do look more realistic on the PS3, the Xbox 360 looks far too clear to be in a snow storm. The PS3 version has that softness to it and looks more believable.
The Creep  +   2283d ago
@ Gobuz

not lool with you but lool at you =)
LynyrdSkynyrd  +   2283d ago
"The PS3 version has that softness to it and looks more believable"

Lets take a look at image number 5.

By "softness" do you mean blurry-as-hell?

Here we go. Im gonna get 100 thumb downs of course EVEN THOUGH IM RIGHT.
talltony  +   2283d ago
What looks better?
CernaML  +   2283d ago
PS3 looks much better in that pic. Then again they aren't really the same. Comparisons like these aren't very reliable.
ninjagoat  +   2283d ago
PS3 version has trophys. Plus thats obvious the settings contrast etc have been f**ked around wuth. Just look at the first screen every single texture is in place. The rest the screenshots are to random to compare. Im sorry but some people can be right wankers putting this type of garbage up.
Troll-without-Bridge  +   2283d ago
The ps3 version looks better
If you notice the snow area in the pictures there is much more detail, whereas the 360 version has a "covering" gloom.

Also on the second picture you don't see any light effects on the 360 version, specially on the wood panels.
The Creep  +   2283d ago

not lmfao with you but lmfao at you ;)
LynyrdSkynyrd  +   2283d ago
Ok then you keep thinking that while you look at the "amazing" effects of image number 5.
maverick1191  +   2283d ago
some of the pics aren't even identical so its a pointless comparison they look near identical on some pics but the ps3 has better shadows but it looks just a tid bit pale

dont care anyway as long as it plays fine im ok

getting ps3 version all my mates are so
Gobuz  +   2283d 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.
Rocco Siffredi  +   2283d ago
Iam waiting for the midget SIR KEN KUTARAGI and his comment

"KZ2 and Uncharted2 wins"

lol, this retard!

Back to topic... has the WORST COMPARISONS EVER. Did ya look on their site on the uncharted1 vs. 2 comparison?? There was nearly NO differnce!

Forget that site.

Anyways, the 360 version is the superior one.
thereapersson  +   2283d ago

Nevermind, I found the HD link right below the screenshot.

edit 2:

I wonder why the PS3 screen caps are so damn pale? I've never played any PS3 games that looked that washed out.

edit 3:

Are they using any AA in either version? I saw jaggies in both screenshots. I wonder if the game even runs at an HD resolution?
#18 (Edited 2283d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
omegaortega  +   2283d ago
It prolly has 2xAA, but with a very low sub-HD resolution.
OpenGL  +   2283d 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.
Rocco Siffredi  +   2283d ago
The author of the comparison already wrote down in the comments that some of the screenshots where wrong placed and wrong named (PS3 <> 360)

I think the whased out pics should be the PS3 ones.
Nik  +   2283d 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.
#19.1 (Edited 2283d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
marcindpol  +   2283d ago
it is not washed out!, if it would then the graphics would not be sharp! as they are now, it is just the TV settings, probably brightness!

PlayStation rulez
omegaortega  +   2283d ago
Don't fool yourself
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.
#20.1 (Edited 2283d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(9) | Report | Reply
Habylab  +   2283d ago
I have a PS3 and would say the 360 version looks slightly better, sadly. Sigh, they don't put any effort in. Graphics look pretty bad anyway to be honest, really really needs to be HD now!
Ronwilcox42  +   2283d ago
Dosnt look any diff to me these comparisons are a waste of time. I've got both consoles but deft getting ps3 version cos I refuse to be ripped of by Microsoft
omegaortega  +   2283d ago
Yeah yeah
PS3 vs 360 who cares.

It saddens me what they did with the PC version.

Might as well get it on console now, sad.
thereapersson  +   2283d 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.
MGOelite  +   2283d ago
some pics look better on 360 (number 1) and some look better on ps3 (number 7). ill wait for gts video comparision
timestoby  +   2283d ago
well,as long as the ps3 version doesnt have bad jaggies everywhere lol
Bigaddygun  +   2283d ago
PS3 and 360 look to have quite a lot of jaggies. And they also look quite blurry. However we will never really know which version is better until we compare the console versions to the PC version and see which console is the closest to the PC version. Even with all the bad stuff on the PC version, the graphics will be far better than the console versions.
Bazookajoe_83  +   2283d ago
They look pretty much the same
Some contrast diffrence.
thereapersson  +   2283d ago
This comparison is useless!
Comparisons are dumb, but if they must happen, I'd like to see a site that retains some sort of technical credibility. I'll wait for Lens of Truth or Digital Foundry to compare this one.
Halo3 MLG Pro  +   2283d ago
Ladies and Gentlemen, what we have here is the biggest multi-platform game of 2009 and it's clearly better on the 360. :)

*FLAME ON* for incoming excuses and foul replies...
kingboy  +   2283d ago
you can have this i'll take Battlefield any day cheers
OmarJA  +   2283d ago
*Sigh* resorting to multi-platform games again.
DirtyLary  +   2283d ago
Poor ignorant Halo fanbio. Remove the 360 nuts from your chin.
#28.3 (Edited 2283d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
skip2mylou  +   2283d ago
nah what we have here is the biggest 360 fanboy ever
GR8 1  +   2283d ago
I've got the game and some of the missions blew me away, the graphics on some parts are the best i've ever seen.
talltony  +   2283d ago
well thanks for letting everyone know once again
that you dont own a ps3. :)
Psycho_Mantis  +   2283d ago
HOLY CRAP! They are.... THE SAME!

Wow! Oh good golly jee wiz! Now i have to question the person who has wasted his internets just to post this crap when no one will ever care i **** you not. -_-
« 1 2 3 4 5 »

Add comment

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

Review: Pokemon Rumble World (Nintendo 3DS) | Digitally Downloaded

11h ago - DD: Alternatively, you skipped past the free-to-play game, which means you are either unaware it... | 3DS

The Witness Review – Life Is One Giant Puzzle | WCCFtech

11h ago - WCCFt: The Witness is an excellent puzzle game, featuring many complex yet fair puzzles, a great... | PC

Track the Release Date for PlayStation VR

Now - Sony is yet to reveal the exact release date for PlayStation VR. Start tracking it now using | Promoted post

Review: Act It Out! A Game of Charades (Sony PlayStation 4) | Digitally Downloaded

11h ago - DD: I think this developer has an awful lot of latent talent within it, and it’ll be one to watc... | PS4

Review: Inside My Radio (Sony PlayStation 4) | Digitally Downloaded

11h ago - DD: As a rhythm game fan, I have to say that Inside My Radio left me disappointed. It might have... | PS4

Review: Etrian Odyssey 2 Untold: The Fafnir Knight (Nintendo 3DS) | Digitally Downloaded

11h ago - DD: And that goes back to my original point; Etrian Odyssey is the 100 foot gorilla of the dunge... | 3DS