Lens of Truth: Call of Duty - Modern Warfare 2 Analysis

Lens of Truth writes, "...the Lens of Truth got its hands on one of the most anticipated games this year. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. If you are in the market for this game, sit back and get your trigger finger ready because this is one war you're not going to want to miss! Hooraah!"

Read Full Story >>
Oculus Quest Giveaway! Click Here to Enter
The story is too old to be commented.
Sea_Man3724d ago

I've been waiting for this one!!

YLOD Service Tech3724d ago

The PS3 version looks washed out. Seems to be a typical problem for most multiplatform games.

Sea_Man3724d ago

My money goes to PS3. The differences are too minor to even care!

IcyJoker1873724d ago

Since the differences are so minor, PS3 for me.

SL1M DADDY3724d ago (Edited 3724d ago )

Try using the right settings on the game there guys. If you want the real comparison, go to

At least they use the settings provided by the PS3 to make sure the game looks as though it would on your TV and not so washed out. LoT is getting unnecessary these days.

The other thing they don't tell you is that if you are going to play this on the 360 for the next two years the cost to you for the game will be 160 bucks instead of the PS3 version being only 60 bucks.

See what I did there? I thought so.

StanLee3724d ago

Just wait for Digital Foundry's comparison. They're the most legit.

YLOD Service Tech3724d ago (Edited 3724d ago )

After a second look, the PS3 version seems to have lower res texture as well.

In light of this, I'll be getting the 360 version for sure.

Carlton Banks3724d ago

lol Who cares what you think, your name is YLOD Service Tech, an obvious 360 fanboy.

3724d ago
junk-3d3724d ago

Funny thing is that they don't judge based on the color differences, as that can be fixed with in game settings. Everything is judge with straight out of the box settings so they are on equal playing field. Don't hate because Infinity Ward jacked the default settings up on the PS3.

Color differences aside, the Xbox 360 version is the winner, but not by much.

Anon19743724d ago (Edited 3724d ago )

We really know nothing about them and quite often their conclusions defy logic. Anyone check out the conclusions they made for Wolfenstein, Tekken6 or BlazBlue?
With Wolfenstein they said the 360 version tore almost every time you took a shot. The PS3 version had 8 seconds more load time between levels. Tie. Really? A tie?
BlazBlue was identical almost in every way according to LOT except they expressed maddening frustrations with the 360's controls. Tie again. Really?
Or Tekken 6. Both games nearly identical. PS3 version had slower load times unless you install on the hard drive and then the difference is 0-1.7 seconds. Winner! 360. Come on, guys? Can you really declare one version superior when the difference is 1.7 seconds of load time?

And the problem is, almost no one does these type of comparisons so there's no one to compare LOT's findings against. Eurogamer does these from time to time, but that's Eurogamer. They're partnered up with Microsoft in business matters and have a proven pro-360 and anti-PS3 bias. You really can't take their word for it because they're clearly compromised. IGN does head to head's every now and then, but they only do a fraction of games, much like LOT.

I think I'll stick with Metacritic scores and reviewers I trust rather then these comparisons. If IGN says they're practically identical and get the same score, that's good enough for me. And Metacritic gives you an average of thousands of professional reviews. I think that's far more useful then these type of questionable comparisons. Besides, the gaming industry itself uses Metacritic as a measure. If it's good enough for them, it should be good enough for the rest of us.

Edit Below: Actually, I don't know what they said. I can't get into their site to see what the comparison was. It's really irrelevant to my point though. Doesn't matter if they said the PS3 or 360 version were better, my point was I simply don't trust these guys.

Funny how so many are quick to criticize me personally but can't be bothered to actually address my points. Am I to assume you have no counter arguments?

Sea_Man3724d ago

That was funny!! God you look like such a baby!! Did you read the article? It's funny how 2/3 guys that worte the Head 2 Head are buying the PS3 version. Play that violin!!

evildeli3724d ago

blah blah blah, blazblue, wolfenstein, blah blah blah. Move on Dark.

shazui1233724d ago

this game looks worse than I thought, definitely no killzone 2 in the looks department :( looks like another biased LOT review to me also, whats with the contrast settings? cynamite did it the same, why cant LOT? oh i forgot, tekken 6 and blazblue, shows theyre a bit biased really doesnt it?

facelike3724d ago

Funny, the 360 won according to the site, but 2 of the 3 staff members from the site bought it on PS3 instead of the 360.

SL1M DADDY3724d ago

"Funny thing is that they don't judge based on the color differences, as that can be fixed with in game settings. Everything is judge with straight out of the box settings so they are on equal playing field. Don't hate because Infinity Ward jacked the default settings up on the PS3."

Then you agree with me. Good to see. You, by your own admission have agreed that Lens of Truth is no longer necessary and that they admittedly do not allow for their audience to see the game as it could be on both consoles but rather what the games default is. So the games with slight tweaks of the console (perfectly permitted by anybody that can play the game) would in fact look identical and thus proves that LoT is full of douche-baggery and only tries to paint the 360 in the better light. Thanks for the admission of fanboyism on LoT's part.

Bubbles_Kitty_Cat3724d ago (Edited 3724d ago )

Wow, you can really tell that the "lensoftruth" guys must get a TON of hate mail from PS3 fans.

Seriously, most of the article reads like an apology for pointing out that the 360 version is superior.
I understand why they are walking on eggshells, but it is rather tough to read after a while.

It's a shame that people take videogames so seriously that sites like lensoftruth can't speak openly and frankly about which version is better.

But, I'm sure they are getting tired of the death threats. lol

DelbertGrady3724d ago

This article must be false and biased since the PS3 version didn't come out on top.

Or could it be that most of you commenting in here are biased towards the PS3 and just can't accept it? Impossible!

Anon19743724d ago

Soda said "This article must be false and biased since the PS3 version didn't come out on top."

It has nothing to do with bias and everything to do with LOT's results being questionable. With so many questionable conclusions reached by LOT in the past, how can you trust a site like this on anything?

kws10653724d ago

if it's true. The site is really lame. They write the article just for hit, not considering user purchase.

O2_Addict3724d ago

They're both equally ugly.

LiquifiedArt3724d ago

More stable and all around better.

One of the reason I dont buy multi-platform games that don't fully utilize the hardware. I might not buy this now. So dissapointing.

Anon19743724d ago

When games are this close, I'll always buy the version that runs on reliable hardware and doesn't charge me extra fees to play the game like the developers intended it to be played, online.

I really can't get over why so many people accept this. When I buy a game, I expect to be able to play 100% of that game, not half the game until I shell out extra money to Microsoft for subscription fees. It amazes me to this day that so many people fell for this cash grab when there were viable alternatives on the PC and PS3 for free. I paid for XBL for two years before, because of another dead 360, I was forced to get my gaming fix on my PS3 and finally wised up to the fact that really, all that matters is being able to play online. Both do it, one charges for it. Nothing else really matters.

I know I'll probably get flamed for this, but it's just my opinion. Lots of people feel justified in paying Microsoft extra to play their games. I'm just not one of them.

3724d ago
slayorofgods3724d ago

Well, I guess that some people need to disillusion themselves somehow when their gaming console has a poor line up.

ABizzel13724d ago

Ha, I called it. That goes to show the 4 people who disagreed with me. The PS3 version looked washed out, but you have to read why. There was no Full RGB, when it was turned on and using HDMI, the PS3 version looked a lot better.

3724d ago
Statix3724d ago (Edited 3724d ago )

In the following screenshot comparison, you can plainly see that the PS3 version features more detailed texture quality on some surfaces (note the metal stove on the right side of the screen, revealing significantly sharper texture detail on the PS3).

This screenshot also shows an instance where the bloom/overbright effect is actually slightly more prominent and visible on the PS3 version; we know the effect is there on both platforms, but there might be variation between them in terms of where they are prominent and visible.

I personally do not have the game yet, but based on the many comparison screenshots I have witnessed, it would appear to me that this particular comparison by Lens of Truth is somewhat flawed and shortchanging the PS3 version.

Again, here's the link to the screenshot:

vhero3724d ago

you guys should look at a better comparison site rather than lens of truth who have proven time and time again they are a bunch of 360 fanboys. If you use ps3 with all its abilitys which obviously ps3 gamers will be doing they both look so near identical theres no telling the differnce but no that wouldn't make the 360 look good eh?

IdleLeeSiuLung3724d ago (Edited 3724d ago )

a) better colors
b) glare/bloom effects
c) better shadows
d) better frame rates!
e) better load times

Doesn't justify a win for the 360, I don't know what will?

If anything the better frame rates alone should justify the 360 win since they are so similar anyhow.

Statix3724d ago (Edited 3724d ago )

ALSO: Here's another screenshot comparison showing BETTER, more prominent BLOOM/OVERBRIGHT/GLOW effects on the PS3 version:

Not to mention that the Lens of Truth staff mentions the "smoother shadows" of the 360 version, but neglects to mention that the PS3 version's shadows appear to be slightly more well defined and detailed, albeit more jaggedy because of the lesser filtering.

The more I see other screenshot comparisons from other sites, the more I arrive to the conclusion that this particular comparison by Lens of Truth is flawed in some form or fashion.

Tempjf3724d ago

God I can't wait for Digital Foundry's comparisons to come out. It's gonna confirm the LOT's comparison and make you look like the cumtart that you are..

When it happens I be sure to let you and vhero know how wrong you guys were and how right the LOT was....

QuackPot3724d ago

Don't read these stupid multiplat comparisons. They only perpetuate fanboyism.

Fact is, most developers know how to program both consoles properly now and the only excuse for any crappy or poorer versions of a multiplat is a lazy developer.

So don't read these flame bait comparison posts.

Statix3724d ago (Edited 3724d ago )

Why don't you take a look at my screenshot proof, and respond to them in a logical manner, point by point? Rather than resort to namecalling, proving yourself to be an overly emotion fanboy with a biased agenda.

I guess debating with facts and logic has never been a strong suit of Xbox fans. They don't seem like the smartest kids around.

I also find it comical that 360 fans such as yourself pretend like graphics don't matter at all, when it comes to graphical powerhouses like Uncharted 2 and Killzone 2--"Graphics don't matter, gameplay does," right? Yet when it comes to Modern Warfare 2 and other multiplatform releases, you Xbox fans are splitting hairs and arguing over the SLIGHTEST graphical differences, like slightly better shadow filtering, or a few frames of framerate difference.

Tempjf3724d ago (Edited 3724d ago )

so you took those screen shots your self? That means that is your site. All that web site show is images no article to support his images. On the other hand LOT explaines why.

All I am saying is I have the game like many of you do and it looks exceptionally like what they show on the LOT site. Of course at it's default settings. Regardless, I'm telling you, wait till Digital Foundry does his comparison then well see..

EDIT: Oh and yes I am a fanboy, never said I wasn't!

Statix3724d ago

It's not my website.

You say that the website just offers screenshots without "explaining them," but that's actually the LEAST biased way to present comparison images and videos. I much rather have a website present images to me so that I can analyze and compare them MYSELF without the possibility of a bias or agenda.

When you have a website like Lens of Truth providing an "analysis," there's way too much room for things like bias, or human error, or just some people MISSING stuff. Humans are not perfect; their analyses are not perfect and are subject to BIAS and ERROR.

Therefore, I much prefer a website just give me screenshots that allow me to do the comparisons myself WITHOUT adding in their own commentary (which can be flawed).

Tempjf3724d ago

Ok then how do you know what settings he using? If he is adjusting the contrast for one is he doing it for the other. I mean think about it. Is he using HDMI or component there is soo much room for fowl play. That way is completely biased. I've been following the LOT from the beginning and yes they are only human and they have made mistakes in the past but they are not the end all be all. They are merely expressing their opinion about which one they preferred. Like they say in the article the final decision always come down to you. You got to respect that

pangitkqb3724d ago

But I still think Lens of Truth does a bang up job.

slayorofgods3724d ago

It is very interesting how much the comparisons differ. It also explains why I don't care about seeing these websites giving comparisons. There is just something not to trust.

The first modern warefare looked like clone on both 360 and PS3. Why would they regress now? They are to good of a company to struggle with making games for two consoles. They aren't Valve, so I'd expect quality on their PS3 support, YET AGAIN!!!!!

Mr Logic3724d ago

PC FTW! Yeah the 360 looks better, but I only play multiplat games on PC and exclusives on consoles.

randomwiz3724d ago

"In light of this, I'll be getting the 360 version for sure."

its not like you have a choice...

Mikerra173724d ago

the 360 fanboys are all over this one, I think we have gotten to that point where the PS3 is starting to surpase the 360 in terms of fan base. It used to be semi rare to see 360 fans come onto the chat and bash PS3. Looking as if the tide has turned 360 fanboys are starting to get desperate

kwicksandz3724d ago

the difference in the snow level looked quite drastic, ps3 seemed to have a very muted colour pallete. otherwise i didnt notice many differences.

still boycotting for the treatment of pc version though.

DaTruth3723d ago

Almost every game has a brightness scale in the options. It almost never matches your screen right out of the box!

If you were to go to the options and set the brightness scale, these games would look exactly the same.

Also, all my TV settings are set to RGB and Super white on. If I were to turn those off for the purposes of a comparison, my television would not be set right for my PS3 settings!

commodore643723d ago (Edited 3723d ago )

SO yeah... um....

360 version:

- better bloom/flare (proven)
- slightly faster framerates (proven)
- much faster load times (proven)
- better shadows (proven)
- better colours (debatable)

Did anyone else notice how LOT went OUT OF THEIR WAY to explain why and how they do these comparisons?
Were they expecting a backlash from angry fanboys?
... they sure got it!

I am just glad they present their accurate findings.

It is interesting to note the usual ps3 diehards alleging LOT is biased.
That's so sad.

Fact is, LOT cannot fake ps3 increased loading times
Fact is, LOT cannot fake ps3 inferior shadows
Fact is, LOT cannot fake ps3 slightly reduced framerates.
Fact is, LOT canNot fake that MW2 is demonstrably technically better on the 360, even if the differences are subtle.

That's the truth of it.
Thanks LOT, for providing such strength and truth amongst all the subjective and inaccurate reports on the net.

We need more sites like LOT that just tell it like it is!

IdleLeeSiuLung3723d ago

I agree. I mean frame rate alone given all else is roughly equal is enough to give the win to the 360!

Unless you prefer the PS3 controller, but I will take smoother game play anytime.

SL1M DADDY3723d ago

Even after showing everybody how the PS3 version is exactly the same in every way with pictures to boot the 360 fans still can't seem to see the truth. Now that is dedication to MS... I wonder, what is it that you get from MS for your blind admiration?

commodore643723d ago (Edited 3723d ago )

@ slimdaddy

Heres' what you said:
"the PS3 version is exactly the same in every way"

Dude, the LOT article PROVED that this isn't the case.
Other posters, including me, even went to the trouble of pointing out the exact areas where this isn't the case.

Yet, then you come along and completely ignore the evidence?
What is wrong with you?

Do you work at ignorance, or is it a natural talent you have?

SL1M DADDY3723d ago

To sum it up for ya. One is not bias, the other is. One tells the truth, the other does not. One shows true representation of both copies, one does not. LOT is a pathetic excuse for a site and Cynamite is not. You can trust Cynamite and only fanboys trust LOT.

commodore643723d ago (Edited 3723d ago )


..but slim daddy...
can you not read?

LOT accurately measured and compared framerates, load times and shadows.
In these areas, the 360 undeniably came out on top.
That is a fact.

What did cynamite do?
They posted some screenshots that look about the same.
They did no comparison at all, and the interpretation of the screenshots is no different than the interpretation of the screenshots of the LOT article itself.

Read the article if you don't believe me.

Your argument is very weak indeed and your adherence to it is making you look very foolish, friend.

SL1M DADDY3723d ago


I did read the dribble but dribble from a bias media outlet is just that, bias media. When a bias media outlet runs tests, there is ultimately bias ingrained into the test as with the LOT tests. LOT has a rep of bias and has had so since they came about. They are a flamebait site that thrives on fanboys like you so please, don't use them as an argument aid, that is as bad as using VG Charts for sales numbers.

DelbertGrady3723d ago

That's some true Jedi denial you are displaying there lol!

The sh!tty german site must be right since it shows the PS3 version looking more like the 360. Even though it has no explanations and lo-res screenshots.

Sour grapes ftw! Anyways. No one in their right mind would play an FPS game using that clunky 10 year old controller design. Not to mention the dead quiet desert that is PSN.

+ Show (48) more repliesLast reply 3723d ago
Serjikal_Strike3724d ago (Edited 3724d ago )

that washed out...i just seen in another screen comparison(diff. website) and they looked identical...

lens of truth? i dont think sooo!

link to what im talkin bout...

evildeli3724d ago

I don't think it looks washed out.

PirateThom3724d ago

Lens of Truth use "default" settings. Which seems to be make sure the limited mode is on for PS3.

It's why these comparisons are questionable, there's a huge difference here, but none on the other screens.

AK463724d ago

Something fishy going on here.

evildeli3724d ago

They show the differences in the first rollover. I question if you read the article

PirateThom3724d ago

I did read it and, yes, they do show the differences.

And, the screenshots after it, show the similar washed out "limited" range on the PS3 version against the crisper "expanded" range on the 360.

Unless Cynamite is lying as well.

junk-3d3724d ago

Having played the game, you have the ability to adjust gamma. It looks like did tweaks on both systems to make the colors match.

Noob3724d ago (Edited 3724d ago )

Can easily be fixed by adjusting the brightness/contrast, which is something they don't do. These pictures tell a different story.

But they are right about everything else and the bloom effect, which makes the 360 version look worse in some scenes IMO. Makes the game look too bright.

archemides5183724d ago (Edited 3724d ago )

just compare their "screenshots" with those of the other links in this thread. the ps3 version in the other links looks slightly sharper than the 360 on ALL of them (just look at the posters), but yes likes in the LoT article there is no "bloom" but that in my opinion in most of the shots looks bad (shiny heads). the colors are NOT off, and if u look at lens of truth, in their screenshots on the PS3 side are taken from a slightly more far off distance perspective, so OF COURSE it makes the 360 textures look sharper, but surprisingly in the other comparison they are slightly worse on EVERY identical frame. just look at the evidence HERE and say i'm wrong--lens of proof biased confirmed

Fel3724d ago

Everyone who realises this setting exists for PC monitors, raise your hand!


Limited is correct for televisions. The extra bit of range at either end exists to prevent clipping. If you turn on "Full", you're just smacking your games with black crush. The correct way to do it is to use "Limited" and then properly calibrate the brightness and contrast on your television set.

Don't take your advise from a bunch of 14 year olds either... if you don't believe me, go ask in a mature AV forum and they'll tell you the same. Understand what you're talking about.

Hutch23553724d ago

Just a question, why are the "default settings" not the best settings, or do you need to tweek settings on the ps3 for all games? Not trying to be a fanboy, but I see it alot when it comes to these types of comparasins. I have never tweeked my settings for any game on any system after the initial set up. Why would sony make the default settings not be the ones that show off the games the best? Please everyone dont hammer me for asking a question. I got my Ps3 in january so I didn't know it needed constant tweeking to get the most out of games.

TheReaper423723d ago (Edited 3723d ago )


First thing i did when i bought my tv is to change its setting for best visuals. The same thing was done on the PS3. Change it to "FULL" instead of "limited." What's so hard about changing your setting once? And I seriously doubt you even own a PS3.

Do yourself a favor, take your imaginary PS3 and turn on your imaginary "Full" setting.

shadow27973723d ago

Wow, The Reaper, that was just sad. Look a couple posts above yours and you would see that Limited is the correct setting. And you also claimed he didn't have a PS3 for asking a valid question. Geez.

To answer the question, basically, no two HD TV's are identical. You need to find the settings that look best with your set up. Sony most likely set the defaults to look best on the majority of sets, which are SD. If you don't want to go through the trouble, you don't have to, but there are ways to make the game look better. Some games make you set the brightness on the first start up (such as Killzone 2).

I know Limited is correct for TV monitors, but does any knowledgeable person know when the correct time to use "Super White" is?

Qui-Gon Jim3723d ago

The default setting on PS3 is for "limited" which IS correct for almost all TV's. The problem, though, comes in that if you are doing screen-shot captures, you are going to be doing it on a computer, and the proper setting for computer monitors is "full." When i bought my HDTV in January i did some research on this on avforums and other places, and it was consistently stated that "limited" is for TV, "full" is for computer monitors. So for screen grabs, they SHOULD be using "RGB full."

I don't know how much difference that would make with this comparison, but as others have pointed out, cynamite shows the two as being virtually the same with perhaps a slight edge going to the PS3 (imo). One site shows 360 version looking better, one shows both being the same, believe which one you want. I, for one, can enjoy a game without needing to say "I can enjoy it more than you can."

Hutch23553723d ago

my psn id is hutch2355 just like my live id is. The question was asked because I honestly didn't know, so do you have to do it to the 360 as well? I have a 52 inch toshiba lcd 1080p. I think the games look great. you are a typical fanboy. Someone can't even ask a question here anymore. What a moron you are. Thanks to the others for your honest answers, and proving that n4g isn't just fanboys, but fans of gaming unlike that idiot.

TheReaper423723d ago (Edited 3723d ago )

CALM down hutch, look at your little 14 year old barrage of insults. I set my option to FULL because it makes the graphics more vibrant and not washed out. Unless you're dumb, you would know how to do it too.

Your question on the 360, I leave my settings alone. On my PS3, I leave my setting on FULL for ALL GAMES. My LCD monitor is calibrated perfectly. Are you people too stupid to comprehend how easily it is to switch between full and limited?

SO I guess in your term, telling the facts = fanboy now huh? Go back to school and get educated.

shawnsl653723d ago

Lol... no wonder Hutch couldn't see the difference between FULL and Limited.. he has a toshiba nuff said. My samsung can tell the difference between full and limited, but my toshiba.. well.. it doesn't make a significant difference. Typical 360 fanboy trashing the ps3.

Hutch23553723d ago

No its morons like you two that make this site almost unbearable. When I see people acting like fanboys, sure I post rants against them. At one point I could be called a 360 fanboy, that was before I purchased my ps3 and found out how incredible it was. Now back to the point, this is not bashing of the ps3 idiot, it is a question, or do you not know the difference. I have never changed my settings on my ps3 so no I don't know the difference between the two, but i guess with my 3 year old 52 inch tv I couldn't huh? What a couple of morons. I gather that the two of you must be the teenagers, based on your past comments, lol Geez I should have read your past comments before commenting, I wouldn't have wasted my time. Thanks again to the people that answer questions and don't just bash like the two idiots above. So you two, go ahead and bash, I won't have any bubbles left to respond. Once again it will prove how fanboyish you two and your comments are.

Treylove993723d ago

telling facts doesn't = fanboy, but treating people like you did, for asking a question, is. YOU proved how ignorant someone can be on this site. The poor guy asks a serious question, and you and the other guy just bash the heck out of him. I agree with hutch, you two are proof how bad this site has become. Real gamers look at people like you two and probably don't even bother posting on this site. It is so much worse now than it was when the 360 idiots were hammering everyone, now if you even meniton a hint that you might like the 360 over the ps3 you are hammered and your bubbles disapear. Its no wonder most ture fans have bailed on this place. Mostly because real gamers don't stand up and hammer back you idiots like you two. Two peas in a pod. Acting like little children. So sad you have nothing better to do with your lives than just hammer a poor guy for asking a question. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

shawnsl653722d ago (Edited 3722d ago )

Nice two accounts same IP, you are truely pathetic. More lil babies added to the ignore list.