Modern Warfare 2 graphics close to photorealism with downsampling

The guys at PCGH show screenshots of Modern Warfare 2, originally screenshotted in 3.360 x 1.200 with so-called downsampling LCD techniques (essentially you force the LCD to use a higher internal resolution and then output it at the native res). The outcome is spectacular according to PCGH as jaggies are not visible anymore and the pictures come close to photorealism.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Nambassa3155d ago

The shots look impressive but nowhere near photo-realism.
The graphics still can't hold a candle to Crysis, Killzone 2 or Uncharted 2.

JsonHenry3155d ago

I think STALKER: Call of Pripyat in DX11 is about the best looking I have seen to date it terms of lighting/environment looking photo realistic at high resolutions.

nycredude3155d ago (Edited 3155d ago )

Lately N4g has gotten me thinking about a question I saw a long time ago. "Does too much video games make you stupid?"

To which I say, one needs only spend some time on N4g to find the answer to that, and unfortunately I have to say... a resounding YES!

Edit: This isn't entirely based on this one article, it's just an observation of mine. On topic, though Even the pc version of MW2 on high settings would never in a million years be mistaken for Real life. This is s joke.

Maddens Raiders3155d ago this is what photorealism is? wow, I guess this is why it got a 10 in graphics.

Uncharted 2 never stood a chance. /sarc

Trebius3155d ago

But come on...

Lets be real here...

You really think thats even CLOSE to photo-realism?

Im just glad i'm not the only one that disagrees...

PS3PCFTW3155d ago

they should hype the 3.5 hour campaign.

edgeofblade3155d ago (Edited 3155d ago )

Once again, people confuse framerate and fidelity. Honestly, I prefer framerate. I like it smooth, minimal tearing, and 60 frames per second minimum. After that, I want it to be in HD, at any level as long as it's 720p or higher. And after THAT, I want high-rez textures and mapping. (For example, Goldeneye 007 is an unplayable mess, since it chugs at like 15 FPS inconsistently.)

But we should not confuse framerate with photo realism. When you get down to it, the textures and facial animation in MW2, in particular, are not all that photo realistic.

All that being said, I think 60 frames consistent is more important to visuals than textures or even HD. I'm the kind of person who buys TV's with dejudder (120Hz) processing because I like my movies to be buttery smooth. That should be hailed as the next jump beyond HD, not gimmicky 3DTV. And in this day and age, if our game machines are so advanced, why can't we deliver this framerate on every game?

In short, I think this guy should care more about the game in motion, but yes, I think more games should look like MW2.

And yes, MW2 "holds a candle" to all those PS3 games because those PS3 games don't maintain a consistent 60 FPS, unless it's a PC.

PinkUni3155d ago

just saw a video on it right now

and it really doesn't look that good, honestly it reminds me of cod4 on the overall layout

maybe the texturing is realistic but when you look at it like a screenshot in the layout of the game it doesn't look very advanced in realism

you should take a look at "The Last Guardian" for ps3

the little boy may look all that realistic but the creature is far more advanced then anything i've seen on a pc game

DiffusionE3155d ago

WHOA! Don't try to divert the topic. We're talking about "photo-realistic graphics", which MW2 is nowhere near achieving. Frame-rates are not the issue here.

"...I think more games should look like MW2."

lol....if Crysis 2 looks anything like MW2, Crytek better be prepared for a civil war.

Anyway, more games are gonna look like MW2. Games like MW3, MW4, MW5, MW6, MW7, MW8 and MW9 will all still look like MW2, so don't worry.

nycredude3155d ago (Edited 3155d ago )


I agree with you that framerate is very important and achieving 60 fps is no small feat, even on today's hardware, but I wouldn't sacrafice resolution AND texture quality to achieve it, which is clearly what COD MW2 does!

I would much rather have 30 fps, high def, and hig quality textures! Think Uncharted 2 and you'll know what I mean. Imaging MW2 with UC2 graphics!

And don't forget Killzone 2, which I think is more of a technical marvel than UC2.

Information Minister3155d ago (Edited 3155d ago )

Sorry edgeofblade but it looks like you don't have a clue about what you're talking about. In fact you are contradicting yourself. First you claim that "we should not confuse framerate with photo realism", but then you say "60 frames consistent is more important to visuals than textures or even HD". So which is it?

Perhaps you should look for the word "photorealism" on a good dictionary. You will see that frame rate has nothing to do with it. And I have no idea where you got that from, but I know exactly WHY you said that MW2 is visually comparable to those acclaimed PS3 exclusives. Maybe you should just stick to Halo.

By the way, this is a little off topic, but did you guys realize that the PS3 version of MW2 defaults to 1080p (upscaled obviously) if you've got your system connected to a full HD set? That's interesting considering that COD4 would only do that if you removed the 720p option and forced the game to run in 1080p.

Elaine Benes3155d ago

Are retarded.


Hellsvacancy3155d ago

They r photo realistic cant u c, there photo realistic pics of game, not photo realistic pics of summin real

U want photo realism look at GT5

kevoncox3155d ago

Modern Warfare looks better than Killzone 2. It's easy to create an Alien world with nothing in it than to create a realistic modern day enviroment. I believe the character models to be better looking and the enviroments to be more life like. I have a ps3 and killzone 2 and it has been surpassed.

IdleLeeSiuLung3155d ago (Edited 3155d ago )

I think edgeofblade meant that a locked high frame rate at 60fps ensure smooth viewing experience i.e. affecting what you see on the screen, just not in the "photorealism" sense, but in the animation sense. In my opinion both are visual though.

I agree with edge of blade on the preference on higher frame rate as opposed to higher resolution. After all, I like to have my games be responsive and I know of quite a few games that in my book fail because they are just chugging along.

Can I say Mass Effect and Heavenly Sword!

ColdFire3155d ago

Aside from many games, particularly Crysis and Shattered Horizon, looking way better than MW2. What they have done looks basically the same as just putting AA on.

(I run MW2 with maxed AA, supersampleing, Full HD, 60fps)

cleanhealthy123155d ago

"Does too much video games make you stupid?"

looks like they got you.

beardpapa3155d ago

Ugh.... photorealism? Sorry but no. You want photorealism? Try crysis. MW2 graphics come no where close to Crysis.

MNicholas3155d ago

The process of rendering at a much higher resolution than the display resolution is called super-sampling not down-sampling.

Down-sampling is just one step in the process of displaying super-sampled images.

In any case, the images aren't particularly mind-blowing.

maxbyte3155d ago

hallelujah brother! GT5 = photorealism.
To others: people, quit fighting over this. It is so obvious. The poster is an AI and has never seen real life. Hence such a gross misrepresentation of what would a photo realistic screen shot look like.

BWS19823155d ago (Edited 3155d ago )

shots look sharp, but they're not realistic, there's not enough geometry, it's too saturated, and the textures are still off...and it still doesn't match Crysis.

Edge of Blade, you're diluting the conversation just because you hate PS3. Stop. You call GoldenEye unplayable just because of sporadic frame dips? You're being sensationalist. How is anyone to take you seriously?

+ Show (19) more repliesLast reply 3155d ago
St03155d ago

These guys obviously haven't played Uncharted 2

Nihilism3155d ago

UC2 photo realism???

It looks good for a console game, but seriously, what the hell are you smoking

BYE3155d ago (Edited 3155d ago )

You haven't played Uncharted 2, did you?

It looks way better, especially the animations, environments and lightning effects.

JsonHenry3155d ago

While UC2 does look the best that I have ever witnessed on a console... NOWHERE NEAR CLOSE TO PHOTOREALISM. Seriously, look at the textures, LOW REZ just like every other console game. Certainly the best looking low rez textures to date, but still low rez no matter how you slice it.

Nihilism3155d ago (Edited 3155d ago )

"it looks way better"

What are you on about, I never said mw2 looks good. 99% of games look better than mw2. But the point of discussion is PHOTOREALISM, which are effects and environments that could pass for real life images. As many others have stated, there are only 2 games that can claim that. Hint: they are not console games.

When playing a game with massive amounts of aliasing and low res textures like uc2, you are very aware that you are playing a game, don't overstate it.

FantasyStar3155d ago

I'm with dchalfont.

UC2 looks very good and is probably the best-looking console game on the market right now. But UC2 is anything, but photorealistic.


uncharted to looks way better then MW2 yes !.... but it does not look photo real in the slightest.

Great Graphics don't necessarily mean = photo real.

killzone also looks amazing, but not photo real at all. its more to do with art style and colour palate.

and before anyone asks, yes I have played both killzone 2 and uncharted 2. I agree they are the best looking games on console for many reason, but they don't look photo real at all.

if you want an example of photo real graphics lets talk about GT5

raztad3155d ago (Edited 3155d ago )

St0 didnt say UC2 was photo realistic.


Uc2 has some low textures here and there, but the way you say it sounds like UC2 got low textures everywhere. This is the first time I see someone saying a low texture game can produce gorgeous visuals.

Nihilism3155d ago (Edited 3155d ago )

I'll put it to vote. Which of the two looks more realistic, lol



St0's response to this article (check the title for reference), saying 'they obviously haven't seen uc2', suggesting that he thinks uc2 is MORE photorealistic than mw2....when they are both no-where near.

FragMnTagM3155d ago

Crysis obviously looks a hell of a lot better. Uncharted 2 is definitely no slouch when it comes to graphics for a console game, but it cannot touch Crysis in the photorealistic department.

Check this vid out, I think it looks even better than the link you posted.

HowarthsNJ3155d ago (Edited 3155d ago )

...and are not designed to be photo-realistic. Why compare?

DiffusionE3155d ago

Exactly. Why compare? But St0 actually did compare it to photo-realism. That is why dchalfont gave his reply. No need to be a fanboy here. Everyone knows UC2 looks much better than MW2.

raztad3155d ago (Edited 3155d ago )


I dont understand it that way. St0 just may be saying that MW2 dont even look as good as UC2, let alone to be photorealistic

GamerSciz3155d ago (Edited 3155d ago )

I haven't seen a whole lot more real than that.

Also as far as UC2 in-engine looking photo real, well...

edgeofblade3155d ago

Why do people keep holding UC2 up as the new benchmark? I saw nothing photo-realistic. It looks good, same as any other random hyped PS3 game, but if you want to say photo-realistic, you suddenly opened up a whole new world of critical analysis.

Want to look back at what has been called photo realistic in the past? Need for Speed: Most Wanted. Half-Life 2. Gears of War. Oblivion. Looking back, don't those statements look silly now? What do you think we will say in hindsight in five years about UC2?

GamerSciz3155d ago (Edited 3155d ago )

In probably less than a year we will be saying "Enter game here" is photorealistic. We are just saying which ones are closest as of right now. I mean "good graphics" does not necessarily mean photoreal. Check this out...

That's amazing graphics but not necessarily photoreal. But if we truly want to see what is the most photorealistic in the scheme of things...I say this is...

JayD-1K3155d ago

GT5 for photo realism. the developers put a lot of time into making the cars look and respond like real cars.

nycredude3155d ago

"Want to look back at what has been called photo realistic in the past? Need for Speed: Most Wanted. Half-Life 2. Gears of War. Oblivion. Looking back, don't those statements look silly now? What do you think we will say in hindsight in five years about UC2?"

In all honesty, why wait? Just look at the first uncharted, two years and change later and it still holds up well and beats most games now. I am pretty sure UC2 will be the same.

As for these shots being photorealistic, umm no. There is only one shot that could be even remotely considered photorealistic and it's the prison shot from the heli, adn that is stretching it. GT5 is the only game that comes close.

ape0073155d ago

wrote a nearly perfect comment

explains the difference between high specs and art style in good way

bubble up man

BWS19823155d ago (Edited 3155d ago )

the visual fidelity of something is partly related to art style and palette/saturation, so I agree with Dark Witness as well. UC2 is the prettiest console game, rivaling most (I say most) of what PC's can do as far as "sheer beauty"...but "photo-realism" is something else, and isn't the same always. GT5 shots I've seen come close to photo realism, mainly with the cars (not always the environments). UC2 is a little too bright to be "real" and KZ2 is actually closer because its darker. But I don't think ND were going for "photo realism" and I love it the way it is, it doesn't have to look "real", just jaw dropping, and it grabs that by the balls. UC2 excels in animation though, flawlessly.

This is coming from someone who has been to years of study in the art form (BFA in Media arts and animation) and done professional work, so yes, I know what I'm talking about. The saturation and style of UC2 and to the same extent, KZ2 are both keeping them from being "real" looking. But that wasn't the goal I'm sure, as the games are still stellar and beyond pretty. Heavy Rain's models (and rigging systems for animation) are astonishing, but still look fake. Even Crysis often still lacks the geometry/vertices in some spots (but definitely not textures/lighting) to be realistic enough, but it's probably the closest on PC's I've seen, though I haven't seen "everything" I suppose. I'm just going off my own exposures, that's all.

We're getting closer and closer, but nothing I've ever seen in a game was mistook for a real photo, maybe that's because of the critical scrutiny I as an artist have had to develop, but the closest I've seen has not been in a game, it was in renders from Maya or 3DS Max by professionals. With games there are physics and animation and frame rates to be concerned with for starters, not to mention user interface, AI, particle systems, etc...

+ Show (16) more repliesLast reply 3155d ago
theEnemy3155d ago (Edited 3155d ago )


Crysis is.

Edit: I forgot about another game:

(Go figure)

mastiffchild3155d ago

Look people this is all Bullsh1t, totally bollox. NO game approaches ANYTHING like photorealism and we're YEARS away fromanything dloing so which makes this whole argument pointless, imo.

Crysis is still the most technically advanced attempt at creating human models and backdrops that fit the cill but anyone imagining that it gets near photo realism is off their head. U1 and U2 don't even try for it-ND use over saturated , almost cartooby colours to evoke the over saturated feel of older, matniee action flicks, Killzone2 has some great lighting, particle and physics effects but is an imagining of a war on an alien world-it doesn't really try to be realistic in a meaningful way but rather adds touches of it to create some verisimilitude of a "real" world to engance immersion-like a whole bunch of games do including MW2 and, ultimately, like Crysis does too as we're not near powerful enough tech to render photo realistic graphics yet-or at least not enough to produce an interactive game running at a playable framerate. Nowehere near it, imo.

GT5 is a good example of a dev really going for a realistic feel and I think it's maionly because they don't need to model loads of human models or spend too much time on the backgrounds as they're fizzing past(the close up textures anyway) in game and further away stuff is easier to pull off as "real" just as car models are a whole lot more simple than human models to get looking like a photo. Yes, my mum and my kids(and even me at times) mistake GT5 footage for TC coverage of motor racing but even then would we if the two were running side by side? I doubt it-which isn't to down[play how well PD have done at all but meant to illustrate that we just aren't quite there yet even when the subject is a more simple to render model like a car is. However, overall it's certainly the game that comes closest to really looking like what it's representing onscreen and is very impressive to see.

Mainly, though, games don't really even try to be photo realistic in the ultimate sense-I doubt Crytek would even say they attempted it with Crysis even if it's the closest game we have to doing so right now. I truly don't believe that the complicated models and backgrounds of the game, impressive tugh they are ever come close to the true meaning of photo realism. Thing is we use the phrase to describe many different things which aren't all actually involved with it. We get the smoopth animations that feel lifelike in U2, or we get the convincing colours used in conjuction with amazing physics in Crysis even the incedibly clever and real FEELING lighting and particle effects in KZ2 but nothing you could strictly call photo realistic-not to me.

Think about the arguments over how close R&C gets to pixar film quality in game, yes? Personally I don't think it's reallyclose but it does approach it a lot more closely than any game does real life style graphics. Heavy Rain has some great looking moments where for a split second it does look like live actors in a film but even then it can't keep it up AND films aren't real anyway, are they? IMO MW2(even these messed with screens)looks mothing like photo realism and it's possibly best we just use the phrase to describe the games with a more realistic LOOK to them for now-the kind of look that while it takes a lot of tech to get right (and IS impressive), the kind of look that the Wii can't really do at all well but also a lokk that's still, even in GT5 with it's easier subject matter, is a long way off being anything like true photo realism. So, yes, use it for games that try to add moments, pieces of realism to our experience but don't yet be fooled into thinking we're very close to it really happening.

I think it's true that while many guffawed when it was suggested that aCiT was near to Pixar they'd be mistaken in thinking it wasn't WAY, WAY closer to it than any game is to photo realism. We don't get it on console and we don't get it on PC and, really, it's no loss at all as we play games to get away from real life-I'd rather a slightly righter or exaggerated gameworld than a verbatim representation of the Somme or whatever myself. We're surrounded by the real world every day and while it's a place of amazing beauty and mystery even then games have more freedom to take us places formerly only available within the minds of the imaginative folk of this world. I think we can deal with "super" real for now, no? There's plenty of wet, miserable reality outside my window right now and it makes the lush vistas of Crysis, the cel shaded badlands of Borderlands lor the colouful universe of Halo(or Ratchet)much more interesting to be honest. And who wants a photo realistic Mario anyway! Games will always be a bigger, badder and over the top place to play compared to the real world even when the tech does arrive to convince us that we're playing in a real world enviroment but as that time is still a way off can't we drop the arguments over his one -at least til a game comes along that even attempts it seriously?

MajesticBeast3155d ago

Some textures in this game can be found in a ps2 game.

theEnemy3155d ago

Look at the f'ing car models.

Oh and the immovable chess board. :D