Top
250°

Lens of Truth: Modern Warfare 2 Color Comparison

Lens of Truth writes "The site has been abuzz with many comments and links in reference to the color differences in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. We thought we would take some time to clear up the confusion. But first we need to make one thing clear, we have said this many times on our site: all of our Head2Heads are done with "out-of-the-box" settings. Meaning they are completely default. The only changes that have been made to the systems are Full RGB and Extended modes enabled. This is the only way that we can guarantee that what is being captured is as the developer intended. And this is where the confusion comes in. Most of the time the default settings for a given game match within a threshold of each other, and you usually spot the characteristics of each system's video card (Xbox 360 more contrasted, PlayStation 3 a little muted). However with Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Infinity Ward didn't match the default settings well at all."

Read Full Story >>
lensoftruth.com
Oculus Quest Giveaway! Click Here to Enter
The story is too old to be commented.
ghostface3684d ago

The first thing I did was adjust the color for the ps3 version of the game, because it was so bright.

Anon19743684d ago (Edited 3684d ago )

They said neither the 360 nor PS3 versions should be run at default brightness. Adjust.

Is this really worth another article, LOT? It kinda looks like you're just whoring for hits now.

I'll take IGN's reviews over these type of questionable comparisons any day.

"On the PS3 specifically you'll find a couple random frame hitches (very minimal), and loading times feel a bit longer by perhaps a few seconds over 360, but the two versions are 99% the same."

Done. Differences, to the point in one sentence along with a full review of the actual gameplay, which is what really matters. The only purpose sites like LOT serve is to throw gasoline onto the fire of fanboy flames.

Darkeyes3684d ago (Edited 3684d ago )

This is what I hate about these sites comparing both versions. they don't fukin try to adjust the settings and start comparing stuff out of the box. Don't these guys know that their comparison will probably be taken as standard to decide which version is better.. The least they can do is make some freaking settings changes to see if that affects the performance or not.

Sorry LOT, but you are full of fail. All you did was spark out a fanboy battle for a game that looks 99.9% identical on both consoles Thank you for that. Next time while making your stupid comparison, make sure you adjust the TV or ingame brightness you stupid morons.

What you did now was basically first you said PS3 version is pale and now you come out and say both versions are identical upon changing a few settings that a 10 year old can do... Double hits... Sorry state of journalism...

Kiroe3684d ago

"kinda looks like you're just whoring for hits now."

Funny thing is you did the exact thing with their analysis earlier this week and I am sure you will write something on your blog about this post.

XboxGirl3684d ago (Edited 3684d ago )

First, numb nuts they capture source video so that no external device (like a TV) alters the video and keeps the comparison equal.

Second, adjusting the picture on your Vizo will never reach the color spectrum my Brava displays. You can't grantee that everyone own's the same TV stupid, so color correct should not be a factor in any comparison.

Lastly, you people really need to get a grip, just accept the fact the Xbox 360 has a superior graphics card.

Darkeyes3684d ago

If the comparison was so "Equal" then how come they have to post a reply and say 'Sorry we screwed up' eh?

Secondly, I own a Hitachi 42" Plasma capable of producing Full HD, ya it's a year old, but it produces great color and suffices my gaming needs. It's just me, but I prefer Plasmas over LCDs cause I find most LCDs have ghosting and high response time.

"Xbox has a superior graphic card"... Learn some ABC about game development and then come here and argue. All I see is PS3 first party pwning 360 in the graphical department. Seriously is that the best you can do lol. It's like someone has put a spell or something on cause we have lots of evidence to show here man... Unch.. Ah forget it, you guys will always stay in denial. bububu X-Engine pulled for HHGs @ss LMAO.

Sea_Man3684d ago

You guys are pathetic. If you adjuat your t.v. to make one game look better then in essence your adding a post process effect to the default image. Tell me genius's what's the difference if I use a t.v. or phgotoshop to adjust an image's brightness or contrast? There is no difference It's image mutilation at it's finest. If Eurogammer does this then he's saying that Xbox is the way the game should look.. WRONG buddy! That is so biased! To keep a comparison fair you need to keep the settings default. Wheat EUROGAMMER needs to do now is go out and buy every t.v. on the market and compair how each game looks on all those t.v.'s. Adjusting any image is call IMAGE MUTILATION!!

LOT was right all along and you too jerks need to apologize!

ArthurLee3684d ago

Great article and that is how they should be testing - with the default settings! Nice to see them shut up the doubters, like they always do.

Darkeyes3684d ago

Don't tell me you just believe the crap you just wrote there. So next time I sit to game, I don't adjust the TV brightness even if the images are too dark or too light cause that is not how the developer intended it to be right moron?

And here... LOT article:"Most of the time the default settings for a given game match within a threshold of each other, and you usually spot the characteristics of each system’s video card (Xbox 360 more contrasted, PlayStation 3 a little muted). However with Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Infinity Ward DIDN'T match the default settings well at all."

Image mutilation on anything I don't give a sh!t. As long as just adjusting a few bars to make an image better (that too it doesn't cost to just tweak the settings). The reason I am pissed at LOT is not cause they declared 360 as winner, but cause the fact that the PS3 version looks identical by just clicking a few times on the remote.. It's not rocket science you know. When you take all the pains in comparing 2 screen shots, it's better to see if the brightness is low before declaring the version runs pale. I don't give a sh!t, but millions take it to heart and the usual '360 runs multi-plats better'.

XboxGirl3684d ago (Edited 3684d ago )

The point is adjusting the color on whatever POS TV you own is done on a personal level because (numb nuts) not everyone owns the same TV nor have the same eye balls. So color correction in these comparisons are meaning less and should have not been a factor. Digital Foundry got nerves and changed their whole capture method because of fanbabies, which I think is pathetic. So if you want the raw dog comparison with no condom attached Lens of Truth is it..

Strange_Evil3684d ago (Edited 3684d ago )

Disagree with you fiore3dartist. If changing a few settings can really make a day or night difference, then why not? These guys take pains in matching screen shots to the precise second, then this is the least we can expect from them. I personally own the 360 version and my roommate owns a PS3 version and I can hardly spot a difference (we usually do a lot of comparing to see who got a superior version lol). Even that frame rate problem on the PS3 version is hardly evident (52FPS vs 54FPS, you must have incredible eyes to spot that 2-3FPS). And trust me, when he popped in the PS3 version, we both felt that it was too pale, but changing the contrast and brightness helped a lot and we both got nearly identical pics.

And no one said that they need to test their comparison on 100 TVs before passing a verdict. But they can optimize a TVs setting to suit both versions so both seem identical (as much close as they can make them look) and then compare which is missing which texture or whose lighting is imperfect or whose shadow doesn't have Anti-aliasing.

LOT sparked an unnecessary Fanboy battle and I agree with darkride and Darkeyes about a site searching for hits. And yes, if changing a few settings can affect the performance of a game, then why not change it? It must be fair in the end and changing settings on the TV doesn't count as cheating.

@XboxGirl: Open zone is designed just for you guys, so have fun there.

Sea_Man3684d ago

Wait wait wait. What your saying is when I site does a comparison they need to adjust all the settings possible to make one game look good or better then the other. Are you freaking nuts. Absolutely no no no that's not fair. In order for a game to be compared properly with out any external influences like t.v.s or adjusting sliders or your personal opinion then the game needs to be played at default. God I can't even believe I'm having this discussion! Dud play a PC then. I buy a console because if I take my game to a friends house then were are getting the same experience, unless of course he has done things difference to his t.v. settings! YOU GUYS ARE REALLY DUMB.

Seriously you want sites to adjust the games pictures when doing comparisons right. Adjust them for who and what, for there t.v. for their set up. Come on you punks you know the only way to get a fair comparison is with out any external influences. What your thinking of is a review not a comparison!

Strange_Evil3684d ago

I still am not able to grasp what you are trying to say. There in NO external influence in this case get over it. It's 1 TV used and 2 versions which CAN produce equal quality but the devs were too lazy to care about setting the default brightness lower or higher on any version.

An external influence means someone took those shots and then photoshopped them to make one look better than another or some external medium is used to make graphics better. I mean who here doesn't tinker with the settings before playing a game. Only a retard would post an argument and say X console wins cause the dev forgot to move the brightness slider of another console up by a few notches.

I will make it simpler. If you own a 360, just pop in and play, if you own a PS3 version, tinker with the contrast and brightness and it WILL look like the 360 version. Nothing 'cheating' happening here mate.

And yes a comparison of both versions should be made by taking every effort to make the game look as good or as equal as possible. That is why Digital Foundry earns my respect as they went all the way, changed PS3 settings and then compared. But you are in a state of denial and I can't help you.

The Lazy One3684d ago

Color and brightness isn't even a factor in L O T comparisons. They compare framerate, screen tear, resolution, and texture quality. Sometimes model quality (though that usually doesn't matter as most just use the same models).

They aren't apologizing. They are explaining why there is a difference between the two.

IdleLeeSiuLung3684d ago

From a scientific standpoint you shouldn't be tinkering with settings, because it introduces a potential error. If the developers intended it, they would have adjusted it or provided a means to calibrate it.

Ju3684d ago

Funny to see them going the extra mile arguing over this to save their reputation instead of simply saying "Sorry, we screwed up. That has nothing to do with the games performance".

Good job LoT. You really screwed that up.

The Lazy One3684d ago

you're an idiot.

http://www.lensoftruth.com/...

here's the comparison.

Graphics:
"Although the differences are minor, the Xbox 360 version takes the win with overbright (glare/bloom) and softer dynamic shadows. We were also glad to see equal texture resolutions in both versions"

Performance:
"While neither version of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 performed perfectly, the Xbox 360 had the higher fps when the action hits. But best of all, both versions were free of the dreaded frame tearing."

Loading:
"Though load times are masked in the game by narrations, people that replay missions will appreciate the faster load times on the Xbox 360."

Outcome:
"The win was marginal with slightly better visuals, quicker loading times and a higher average fps on the Xbox 360. As stated before, you will not be disappointed with either version of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2."

Where do you see brightness or color come up? Nowhere. Maybe it's in something one of the staffers said in their choice.

360 staffer:
"Both versions of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 are so close in terms of quality that I would be happy with either one. My decision is to purchase the Xbox 360 version because I have many CoD 4 and CoD: WaW friends on Xbox Live. Although, you really can’t go wrong with either version."

PS3 staffer:
"Personally, I am buying this game for the PS3. In my opinion the differences on the Xbox 360 weren’t enough to detour me from buying the PS3 version. Besides, I don’t have a wireless adapter for my Xbox 360 and I hate dragging a 50 foot cable into my game room every time I want to play online with my Xbox 360. For me it’s well worth it to get the PS3 version especially knowing how much time I’m going to spend online with this game."

PS3 staffer 2:
"Unlike most people I only played Modern Warfare 1’s campaign. I never quite got used to online play. Seeing how online play didn’t affect my decision here (I don’t buy games just cause my friends have the same game on the same console), I went with PS3 because I don’t think the Xbox has any major advantage. Frankly, anyone who buys this is the clear winner."

OH HEY! COLOR AND BRIGHTNESS LITERALLY NEVER COME UP!

JokesOnYou3684d ago

Hurry up and adjust your TV so it can come close to the color out of the box on 360, and still fails.

Now try to adjust for the higher FPS that the 360 version has.

Now try to adjust for the shorter load time that the 360 version has.

Now try to adjust for the better visuals that the 360 version has.

-lol, whats funny is all of the above differences are minimal but because ps3 extremists cried so much about the comparison the small advantage the 360 version has is getting even more attention....talk about counter-productive, thats sony loyalists for ya. lol

JOY

AliTheBrit193684d ago

We all already know

In terms of visuals

Xbox 360>>PS3

Not surprising, pretty much all multi-plats are like that ;)

sikbeta3684d ago (Edited 3684d ago )

too much comparisons for just one game, get over it every version is crap and is a real shame

commodore643684d ago

It's funny that the screenshots from cynamite and this article from LOT are being held up as examples of why MW2 should now be considered equal on both consoles.

Fact is, it was never about the colours!

It was shown that the ps3 couldn't manage to keep up with regard to:
- framerates
- shadow sampling
- loading times.

Most PS3 fans seem to want to gloss over these important details.

It's not rocket science.
The evidence is objective and verified.

+ Show (17) more repliesLast reply 3684d ago
Strange_Evil3684d ago

The only thing I would advice the gamers here is to stop the BS fanboy was over which version is superior cause to my eyes both are identical.

And LOT, next time try to be more professional and at least be unbiased in such delicate issues. Just to garner more hits by criticizing a version and saying 'sorry we screwed up with the settings' is HHG level. I would much rather trust Digital Foundry as those guys seem to know what they are doing.

The Lazy One3684d ago

they use default settings always.

They didn't dog the PS3 version for brightness or colors either. Read their comparison next time. 2/3 of the staff opinions even said they were getting the PS3 version, and all of their staff said the differences were too small to justify swaying in either direction.

You are making hate from nothing.

Kiroe3684d ago (Edited 3684d ago )

Also worth noting on the Eurogamer article:

"Usual form within any Digital Foundry Face-Off is simply to run the game at default settings and let the chips fall as they may - the assumption being that the default is equivalent to the colour settings within the console's framebuffer, or at the very least what the developer calibrates the output to. However, keeping the default settings is really not a particularly good idea within Modern Warfare 2 and we're also not sure how effective Infinity Ward's calibration method is for the end user is either. "

So they deviated from their default mindset to make sure they didn't get any flack. Interesting to note.

But better yet, is that ALL of their findings are exactly what Lens of Truth had found. Better frame rate, better lighting, etc, etc on the Xbox 360.

The only thing LoT did was stay consistent with their capturing methods.

Qui-Gon Jim3684d ago

"So they deviated from their default mindset to make sure they didn't get any flack. Interesting to note."

PS3 fanboys claim that anything pro-XBox 360 is bought or hype-driven, and XBox 360 fanboys claim that anything pro-PS3 is to placate angry PS3 fanboys.

P.S. See my comment below (#9) about why the adjustment was made. Same thing pointed out by a couple others.

Dellis3684d ago

How about just play the game?, who cares about these things?

Remember when gaming was about playing games?

TheROsingleB3684d ago

Most pointless website for gaming, ever.
Honestly, who cares? who I tell you, WHO???

"OMGZ TEH PIXILZ ON PS3 IS DIFFRENT"

Show all comments (50)
The story is too old to be commented.