Digital Foundry: Blacks Ops PS3 vs 360

In what is swiftly becoming an annual tradition, Activision's latest Call of Duty looks set to be the biggest launch of the year. Luckily for us, it's also a damn good shooter. What it lacks in innovation it makes up for with a highly polished campaign, the traditionally phenomenal multiplayer modes and a raft of cool bonus additions: split-screen, 3D, zombies, a full hidden game... It's all there. Once dismissed by hardcore players as the "other" COD studio, Treyarch is now a real force to be reckoned with in the FPS genre thanks to World at War and, particularly, Black Ops.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Shanks2925d ago (Edited 2925d ago )

"For Black Ops, there have been changes. To the PS3 version at least. The Xbox 360 version remains the same (our measurement comes in at 1040x608 with 2x MSAA) but it appears to be the case that the PS3 game has been reduced to 960x544, again with 2x MSAA."

"It's quite telling that the Xbox 360 game doesn't drop a single frame throughout these cinematics and yet the PS3 does regularly. At one point we see a gulf of 20FPS between the two consoles, which is probably the biggest we've seen in this game (and worryingly, in a fairly low-stress scene)."

It seems that the PS3 port was rushed with zero optimisation.
This is ridiculous, we all know the PS3 has more horsepower, why not take advantage of that?

Activision won't get my money that's for sure.

Pennywise2925d ago

CoD is a rushed, yearly piece of trash game anyways.

GG to the cookie cutter gamers.

ConanOBrien2925d ago (Edited 2925d ago )

Xbox 360 : 1040x608 (no framedrops)
PS3 : 960x544 (regular framedrops)

Please click on Disagree button to activate damage control here ---------->

Game-ur2925d ago (Edited 2925d ago )

I think many of these comparisions are exaggerated, but here it's clearly better on the 360.

With hundreds of millions made from COD you would think they will build a game to acomidate PS3 hardware.

Fans should refuse being taken advantage of and skip this on the PS3.

And was their this big a difference in MW2?

Edit: ConanObrien are you baiting? Why did you change the last line?

sack_boi2925d ago (Edited 2925d ago )

Time is money why should the waste it on the PS3? The both had the same dev time, blame Sony for making their console this way not the devs.

DasBunker2925d ago

anybody else sick of BO articles.. ugh i wanna see some real news

darthv722925d ago (Edited 2925d ago )

lets dig up some old multiplatform titles like Mortal Kombat or Street fighter 2 from the Genesis/SNES era and run them through the digital foundry process. /s

Give it a rest already. If you have a 360 and like COD, chances are it isnt going to be the game changer to get the PS3 version.

Same goes for a ps3 owner. You think they will get a 360 over this game?

Those with both.......get both and see for yourself. This isnt the 90's anymore.

Active Reload2925d ago

Grabs popcorn...*first comment, 4 hours ago*...grabs burned popcorn.

ShinMaster2925d ago

You guys have fun with this one.

I actually agree with you on this.

poopface12925d ago (Edited 2925d ago )

comparing a multiplat that came out yesterday is too emotional for you.

single console owners should stay out of comparisons if you are going to cry about it.

I actually have a 360 and ps3 and was thinking about getting the ps3 version for free internet if my live runs out, not any more.

but please, continue to bitch and moan when this info is not meant for single console owners anyways.

Persistantthug2925d ago

XBOX 360 version is the better console version to get...period.

That said, personally, I haven't bought one single Call Of Duty game this entire generation and I'm not likely to start here.

If PS3 owners would stop buying this rubbish sub HD crap every year, they would stop giving out inferior versions of this game and lead develop the game on the PS3 like most devs have learned to do.

But I said, Peer to Peer COD isn't for me, and that's why I stick with BATTLEFIELD BAD COMPANY 2.

HolyOrangeCows2924d ago (Edited 2924d ago )

I haven't opened my copy yet. I'll return it tomorrow.

Back to COD4 and [email protected]

Perjoss2924d ago

I've not had a single problem playing it on my 360, I think it's my favorite cod so far, I think Treyarch has done a fantastic job, that's my honest opinion.

AAACE52924d ago

Technically, each CoD developer has about 2 years to make the game. They use the same engine, so all they have to do is tweak it. They had enough time to make the game!

This is just an example of them not taking the development of the Ps3 version seriously! I thought most developers were switching over to the Ps3 as the lead platform for multiplat games and porting them over to the 360?

IDK, maybe MS has some kind of inside deal going on with Activision...

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 2924d ago
edhe2925d ago

Yeah, split screening, zombie mode, 3d and a whole hidden game along with an overhauled mp and large sp campaign.

One console performs less and they're "lazy developers".

K. Sure.

mrv3212925d ago

Split screen was in COD2
Zombie mode was in [email protected]
Oerhauled? They changed the XP system into money...
LARGE?! PLAY A RPG.... if they aren't too complex

Call Of Duty is no longer a great FPS, it went downhill since 4.

If the PS3 can run Uncharted 2 I'm sure it could run Black Ops.

Wakka_2925d ago

Wow! It has more content than Heavenly Sword, Uncharted 1, Ratchet & Clank and MGS4!

Persistantthug2925d ago (Edited 2925d ago )

Yeah...I call that not only Lazy...I call it inferior.

Battlefield Bad Company 2 certainly isn't lazy, sub HD, or inferior on one console.

@Below at edhe #1.3...
Why was Caslevania better on the PS3? Why was Final Fantasy 13 better on the PS3? Why did Darksiders look slightly better on the PS3? Naruto?
Because those games were led developed on the PS3, just as this Sub HD yearly rehash was led developed on the XBOX 360.

Please stop pretending like you don't know any better.

When the XBOX has games that are equivalent to the PS3's best games Uncharted 2, God Of War 3, and Killzone 2 and 3, the XBOX will have proven itself as powerful.

It's been 5 years though, so I'm leaning towards a "no go" on that.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2925d ago
edhe2925d ago

No, what we know is that the consoles are both roughly equal with the 360 coming out tops in almost all comparisons because it was designed for gaming better at the architectural level.

2925d ago
Anton Chigurh2925d ago

edhe is right.Even John Carmack said the same thing.

raztad2925d ago (Edited 2925d ago )

Mediocre multiplat ports dont confirm anything but the PS3 being harder to develop for.

BTW, here are some numbers:

DLAA implementation SW:TFU2.

PS3 takes 1.6ms (5 SPUS)
Xbox takes 2.2ms (using GPU)

40% difference approx. If that is what you call roughly, I might agree then.

sofocado2924d ago (Edited 2924d ago )

You just mention few games. You forgot to mention Ghost-busters was lead on the ps3 and look how that came out to be. The only advantage that the ps3 has is bluray, that is all, even John Carmack said that.

Persistantthug2924d ago

equal or better....Dead Space 2 is going to be equal or better on the PS3. Why? Because it was led developed on the PS3....just like Dead Space 1....just like Dante's Inferno.

But tell me why XBOX 360 can't produce its own exclusives like PS3's Exclusives, Uncharted 2, God 3 and Killzone 2 and 3?

Why is Alan Wake Sub HD? Why is Halo Reach Sub HD?

Just keep it real...truth is truth....XBOX 360's hardware is NOT as powerful as the PS3 and is technically inferior...period.

2011 almost here, no excuses left....Truth is truth, and that's all there is to it.

edhe2924d ago

DLAA is timing limited due to directx, not hardware.

Read your own source properly.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 2924d ago
Blaze9292925d ago

anyone try the 3D mode on the Xbox 360 yet? I'm curious to see how that works and how it's even possible for a system that supposedly could not do "real 3D"...

tucky2925d ago

go back on your planet

Kroganwrex2925d ago

I have a seriously fucking good idea.


Long story short, 360 beats ps3 at its own 3d game.

Information Minister2925d ago

I seriously doubt Black Ops can be considered as an example of Sony's vision on stereoscopic 3D. GT5 and Killzone 3 are probably more representative of Sony's "own 3D game".

On topic: the Xbox 360 was clearly the lead platform for Black Ops, and it shows. Developers spent the most time with it, leaving the PS3 and PC versions as an afterthought. Shadow and texture streaming glitches? Wow, just wow! It simply feels like the PC/PS3 versions were released still in beta stage. Profit over quality, as expected from Activision.

raztad2925d ago (Edited 2925d ago )

LOL. What a mess. The PS3 version runs at 40fps and it is even closer to the SD territory than MW2.

I should have known Treyard has not the necessary know how to produce any kind of magic. 60fps 3D implementation as some previews early claimed? lol. Even more downgraded resolution + 50% of framerate reduction is all we got. Previews are worth shite.


It all comes down to HDMI 1.2 bandwith. Considering the resolutions we are talking about here (SD territory perhaps) it is likely HDMI 1.2 provides enough bandwith to send both images + sound.

EDIT: I was honestly thinking to get this game, and one of the reason was the "impressive" 3D. WTF. Not happy with the 2D version either (PS3), Treyard cant program for the PS3 to save their lives. Skipping this one.

Ju2925d ago (Edited 2925d ago )

Was on the fence. 960x544? Are they for real? Treyarch screwed up. How did they put 17GB on the disk and not fully utilize the PS3? They might have some great artists, but not the best engineers, it seems. No buy for me.

To many other games coming. Some even manage to get 1080 right.

raztad2925d ago (Edited 2925d ago )

I'm very surprised by this Face-off.

How Treyard managed to screw the PS3 version (and also PC it seems) up is beyond me. Was Word at War this bad?

960x544 = 522240 (Alan Wake resolution)



This is a game where you actually need to care MUCH more about gameplay than graphics.

Tito082924d ago

That's why I always liked old Infinity Ward!!!!!

Inside_out2924d ago (Edited 2924d ago )

WoW...biggest release of the year and another PS3 disaster. Don't cry Raz, it's the cell's fault.

You can cry when Rage releases in much the same way since they share the same engine. PS3 is only good for pre-rendered movies like Heavy rain, UC 2 and Infamous 2. Add this game to the list of 2010 disasters like RDR, Mafia 2, Enslaved...etc

Sad part is that this game as well as ALL multi-plats are being dumbed down because of the useless cell. Wait for KZ 3 to release. I can't wait to here the excuses then.

duplissi2924d ago (Edited 2924d ago )

are you serious cez? wow.

glad to see you only have one bubble because you spout a shitload of nonsense.

Ju2924d ago

pre-rendered movies. You're such a mo..on, cez. UC2 and now KZ3 (and GoW3) all have the highest resolution on their textures of any game played on consoles so far. This is just streaming done right. No RAM limitation there. Infamous2 showed this awesomeness in an open world; which supposedly the PS3 can't handle. Again, streaming done right removes memory boundaries.

Treyarch just can't handle Infinity Wards technology. This is pretty obvious. They might have build on top of that, but what can you do if the biggest talent isn't available any more. Copy cat alone doesn't get you anywhere.

Somehow glad that ended that way. Credit to the ones who do the actual work. It ain't Treyarch, though, nor Activision.

BubloZX2924d ago

looks like he's been sitting on 360's dick for too long.....

Glazed his shit like a krespy creme donut

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 2924d ago
joydestroy2925d ago

iunno. i was pretty impressed when i popped this into my PS3 and went to town on some MP with it running off of my HDTV

Domer252924d ago

Well THAT is what matters; Enjoy the game.

DelbertGrady2925d ago

This is more about MS giving more support to third party devs than Sony does.

raztad2925d ago (Edited 2925d ago )

Not true actually. Activision/MS have a very strong partnership going on. Considering the short development time, I wouldnt be surprised if Treyard just made sure game was running the best they could on xbox, and butchered the PS3 version so they could ship something on release date. People is gonna buy it anyway, so it doesnt matter.

To add support to my theory, it seems the PC version is absolutely crappy also. So, looks like MS were right when they said CoD xbox is the best sku.

iamgoatman2925d ago

960x544? Good lord!

It's 2010! How can they STILL be releasing games with a resolution only marginally higher than 800x600!? I can't even remember how long ago It was since I was using such a low res on my PC.

HDgamer2925d ago

Lol, from my experience there is zero frame drops on the ps3. The sad thing is my friends who have the xbox 360 version are saying the game sucks for some reason. I think they've been smoking crack or something.

vhero2924d ago

Graphics don't effect the gameplay however this 5.1LPCM,7.1LPCM for PS3 is a dealbreaker for enthusiasts. You can only get the complete experience on PS3 FACT. 360 gives you dolby digital only XD. I'll take my surround sound thankyou for a 10X better experience and you can take your slightly better graphics and framerate which doesn't change the gameplay whatsoever you can still play the whole game without any probs on either system just like every other multiplatform game. If your a movie buff you will know just how important decent sound is.

ct032924d ago (Edited 2924d ago )

"I'll take my surround sound thankyou"

Dolby Digital is surround. Since you don't know this, do you even have a receiver that handles 7.1 LPCM?

PhantomT14122924d ago

many multiplat games have smaller rez on PS3 (Ghostbusters, GTA IV, RDR...etc). Even AC developed on PS3 I think, lacks the v-sync.

2924d ago
+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 2924d ago
N4PS3G2925d ago (Edited 2925d ago )

All the previous COD games are Sub-HD and somehow they managed to make this one even More Sub-HD and dipping to 20FPS.

Amazing accomplishment Treyarch!

vhero2924d ago (Edited 2924d ago )

3D is a killer if in the hands of n00b devs. Also the fact they obviously put 360 as lead console this proves it.

"In theory, the PlayStation 3 commands the advantage here as there's literally double the resolution being transmitted from the HDMI port. In practice, though, it seems to be the case that, despite the HDMI 1.4 output format, the image is still being squeezed horizontally in much the same way as the Xbox 360's"

So obviously a 360 port..AKA lazy developing..

Also this

"On PlayStation 3 though, the second player is represented as a sub-player of the main PSN login, so you'd have "DigitalFoundryUK" and "DigitalFoundryUK(1)" ; as opposed to individual handles. There's nothing Treyarch can do here, as it's the way things are set up on the PS3"

Sony have clearly said it's possible on PS3 numerous times it's upto devs to do it not Sony as the PS3 is capable of logging several ID's in at once LBP is solid proof of this.

edhe2925d ago

Sony touting 3d and yet it's the 360 that runs it better.
It was even the event code.

vhero2924d ago (Edited 2924d ago )

Go away! Shoo! God damn fanboy.. it's obvious 360 was lead platform by my earlier comment so the 3D was obviously badly ported too.

xxxxxxxxxx12925d ago (Edited 2925d ago )

This game plays like shit on ps3! What is up with the shit frame rate on PS3. It's like a slide show!

Shaman2925d ago

Why the disagrees?Did he say something wrong?

cyborg69712924d ago

Shaman your a 360 troll did I say something wrong get lost. Same to you below,lugia.

lugia 40002924d ago

Because PS3 users always make up an excuse when the 360 is better at something.

xxxxxxxxxx12925d ago

PS3 it does everything except what 360 can do!

Wakka_2925d ago

PS3 it only does inferior multiplats.

Beahmscream2925d ago (Edited 2925d ago )

Not sure how you can disagree with that... It is true about 80% of 360 multiplats are in fact better.

EDIT: That is not the topic Shadow Master. No one said 360 had the better exclusives....

muddygamesite2925d ago

Can the same statement be made for PS3 exclusives ? games that are still yet to be matched technically by any game on the XBOX 360 ? games that actually push the industry forward and are examplary in terms of what the present generation of consoles are capable of ? I think not . . .

The simple fact you cling onto the weak multiplatform argument is rather telling. It really does show how the XBOX360 isnt really doing anything new for the industry . . i mean if the XBOX 360 is what you make it out to be, then please name 6 games on the XBoX 360 that are actually " NEXT GEN " defining . . How is ALAN WAKE doing by the way ?

The real killer2925d ago

Wrong,Multiplat developers always bumped down the PS3 versions to look the same or worse than the 360 counterpart.

Guys, don't worry, we have still our Sony's first developersw to mkake the PS3 shine and put the multiplat and the 360 exclusive in shame!!

poopface12925d ago

the fact that you have to go completely off topic and do damage controll in an article about a multiplatform game is pretty telling.

Fact is taht the ps3 exclusives will never have a 360 version to compare with, so thats why you go off topic and bring that up. Who knows, from what ive seen so far Id guess that a compressed and multi disc uncharted 2 might look or run better on 360.

honestly, the reason ps3 only owners downplay the visuals of multiplats is because the multiplats usualy look worse on ps3, so they dont know what the good version looks like.

Killed4Less2925d ago

Or maybe Shadow, like the differences here are greatly exaggerated I think that same over exaggeration is applied to PS3 exclusives and the "miles ahead of anything" garbage.

After playing Vanquish I don't look at Killzone or even Gears the same anymore.

Biggest2924d ago

You seriously think that a game like Uncharted 2 would look and play BETTER with tons of extra compression and multiple disks? Now I know why roll with the 360 crowd.

raztad2924d ago (Edited 2924d ago )


It is actually easy to understand this EXCLUSIVES VS MULTIPLAT stuff

Let us check one of the best looking multiplat game on the xbox: Castlevania:LoS. Are you still with me? do you agree with C:LoS being one of the best looking (if not the best looking game on xbox so far)?

Well here you go:

C:LoS (Ps3) > C:LoS (xbox)

Both SKUS run at 26fps average, lacking AA.

Here is where GoW3 enters

GoW3 > C:LoS(PS3).

Looks better in term of everything, perhaps the best image quality in any console game, the best looking main character, hell Kratos muscles actually move, has much larger scale and runs at 40fps MIN, hitting 60fps quite frequently.

Hope you happy :)


It only does MULTIPLATS. Who needs exclusives?

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 2924d ago
Ju2925d ago

Well, it can do everything the 360 can - even the sh!tty stuff @ say 95% performance (360 "emulation" - that's what that is).

But not sure if that works other way round. Still waiting for KZ like eye opener on that platform. Would accept 95% there, too.