Call of Duty: World at War Triple-Format Face-Off

By Richard Leadbetter Published 18 November, 2008

Don't mention the PC version.

Page 1 of 3

Once again, PC meets Xbox 360 meets PlayStation 3 in the latest of our special Bonus Round comparisons, reserved for the most important games of the moment - in this case, Call of Duty: World at War.

Despite its incredible first week of sales, controversy still surrounds the latest release in gaming's most powerful first person shooter franchise. Infinity Ward handing off the Call of Duty baton to Activision development workhouse Treyarch was enough to make many fear the worst. Deeply unimpressive Treyarch PS3 work such as the awful Spider-Man: Web of Shadows suggested that owners of the Sony format should be more than a little cautious of the latest Call of Duty offering.

While Treyarch's output has hardly been impressive of late on PlayStation 3, the fact is that Call of Duty: World at War is easily their best work yet on the Sony platform. There's little in terms of criticism in Dan Whitehead's 8/10 Eurogamer review that doesn't apply equally to both Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 versions of the game.

Part of the success of World at War on both platforms comes down to the coding DNA that Treyarch inherited from Call of Duty masterminds, Infinity Ward. The game's interface and its overall look and feel is basically identical to the brilliant Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. The control scheme is the same, the rules of engagement virtually unchanged. Slap an Infinity Ward logo on the title screen, strip out the wholly unnecessary, teeth-achingly awful dog/knife melee combat and I have the strange feeling that World at War would not have received half the criticism it has from both press and gamers.

A montage of comparison action from Call of Duty: World at War on Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. Spot the difference - both conversions are very, very close.

The undisputed excellence of Infinity Ward's engine can't be the only reason why World at War works as well it does. Quantum of Solace - another Treyarch effort, also using the COD4 engine - is a disappointing game on both Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, losing the signature 60 frames-per-second gameplay and proving to be tangibly worse from a technical perspective on the Sony machine. Put simply, all the evidence points to Treyarch pulling out all the stops to make both console versions of World at War as good as possible. The team clearly had their best people on the job, and it shows. And the PC version of game? Um, we'll get to that later.

The Engine

An integral part of the appeal of the Call of Duty games on the current generation of consoles has been Infinity Ward's commitment to 60fps gaming. Put simply, the action feels smoother, more responsive - animation looks more fluid, more real. It's a core dynamic that elevates key aspects of the overall experience over any of its contemporaries. Nobody else - not even first party, console-exclusive software developers - have really made an effort to make their first-person shooters run as smoothly as this.

But the fact is that Call of Duty 4 isn't locked at that magical refresh rate. Instead, it features what you might call a perceptual 60fps - most of the time it runs at this speed, and when it doesn't, the drop is usually slight enough not to be noticed by the human eye - when it is noticeable it'll be on fast horizontal movement and will show up as a judder or stutter. The game can fluctuate at anything between 40fps to 60fps, but the fluctuations are usually so rapid, they're difficult for the human eye to pick up. In measurements of like-for-like footage (see the author's blog), Xbox 360 runs anything from 10 per cent to 20 per cent smoother. The perception, however, is one of parity cross-platform and that, of course, is more important than technical fact.

Page 1 of 3

Comments (68) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • rudedudejude #1 3 years ago

    wii wii wii !

  • DFawkes #2 3 years ago

    Wii! Wii! Wii!

  • jonsaan #3 3 years ago

    The dogs are awesome. Wrong EG!

  • DFawkes #4 3 years ago

    Seriously, we were told there'dd be a face-off including Wii. Perhaps not this one, but one eventually. It'd make for interesting reading - I know it's obviously not going to fare well, but finding out about all the little technical effects that the 360 and PS3 consoles are allowing that couldn't be done on Wii. Or maybe I'm just too much of a geek.

  • GamerG #5 3 years ago

    if you play PC with a controller surely you'd just get you arse handed to you online?!!!

    Kudos to the 360, once again proving itse;f more than a match for its double the price, "4D", "2 teraflop" competitor

  • Vistrix #6 3 years ago

    Wow, why are there comments like this here every single time? These comparisons arent a waste of time.

    I, like MANY other people, have all consoles and a PC. Graphics are one of the deciding factors in which platform I pick. Its not the biggest factor but it certainly is an important one.

  • rock27gr #7 3 years ago

    @ DFawkes

    Heck, we don't even care about the technical face of between the Wii and the rest; what would be nice is if they could just tell us how it plays on the Wii, if it's worth it, and if the control method is good and adds anything to the game.

  • GamerG #8 3 years ago

    Thanks to EG for getting this up so soon after release, my friend is buying a console for COD:Wow and i'll show him this to help him make his mind up which one

  • rudedudejude #9 3 years ago

    If you have consoles and a pc you should know that PC wins everytime. If not for the higher resolutions you can run it at, all the mods, add ons, tweaks, customisation, and manufacturer graphical settings you can do to enhance the graphics even more.

    I would like to know who the Wii version fares with the controls etc, that might be interesting and informative eg!

  • dpb135 #10 3 years ago

    Glad I picked the 360 version up instead of the PS3 one this time, and from tomorrow it will be a bit quieter on my xbox to LOL

    And I agree with Vistrix, owing all consoles these face offs are good & informative, it makes sure I pick up the best version. Its only fanboys (PS3) who dont like them and from what I've read, wait till the new need for speed is out and a face off is done, PS3 fanboys wont like that. (read ign review for a start)
    Edited by 1 at 18/11/08 @ 16:35

  • DFawkes #11 3 years ago

    Like rock27gr said, I want to know about the Wii version. This article is a waste of time, becasue that time could've been used to review the Wii version. Once that's done, formulate all the opinions about which version is better you want, but don't forsake reviews of games for this. Please.

    Incidentally, if anyone has played the Wii version could they tell me how it controls, and if it still has the levelling-up sytem of it's bigger brothers? You'll automatically be more useful than this article.

  • mikew1985 #12 3 years ago

    @ DFawkes

    Perhaps with the new Shaun White Game, isn't it significantly different on Wii.

    Or perhaps I have misunderstood you

  • seasidebaz #13 3 years ago

    If you have consoles and a pc you should know that PC wins everytime.

    Did you actually READ the article?

    PC fails.

    edit: Bolded for emphasis
    Edited by 1 at 18/11/08 @ 16:48

  • ronuds #14 3 years ago

    Can we just assume from here on out that the 360 version is always better than the PS3's - and that PC pwns every time?

    Don't get me wrong, I like the comparisons, but they're getting repetetive.

  • miiiguel #15 3 years ago

    "If you have consoles and a pc you should know that PC wins everytime. "
    Huh?

    Please read this:
    http://ww w.eurogamer.net/article.php?art...

  • Widge #16 3 years ago

    Lol! NickJC1 is back in FRESH NEW FLAVOUR.

  • CannonAnBall #17 3 years ago

    I miss my original Xbox to be honest. Everyone seemed to have a PS2 apart from me and it was good. This gen is just bollocks, it really is.

    I have all the consoles including the megadrive and gamegear.

    By the looks of things in my area all the scroaty little shits are getting the 360 for christmas from what i've seen, so i'm glad i have a PS3 which is a bit too expensive for the council estate twats.

  • rudedudejude #18 3 years ago

    It's likely that pc problems will be fixed in a future patch if they are that stark - no end of FPS's have performance related patches post release.
    Edited by 1 at 18/11/08 @ 16:51

  • ruttyboy #19 3 years ago

    Were there consoles before the Megadrive and Gamegear, or did I imagine that?
    Edited by 1 at 18/11/08 @ 16:57

  • indafunkyhouse #20 3 years ago

    the 360 might be the chavs console of choice as some people call it but hey ho the quality in the games is far better. Always the case with the upper class cunts who think they have the best because it costs more ;-)

  • kangarootoo #21 3 years ago

    "There are plenty of examples of lower texture resolution on PS3 though - the soldier's boot in the video being a clear example."

    Oh my life. The world has gone mad.

  • seasidebaz #22 3 years ago

    Strange indeed is the time when texture resolution affects performance...

  • gilroyneil #23 3 years ago

    Anybody who says 'this is useless fanboy bait' is probably a PS3 only owner. LOSERS! ;-)

    hehehe I cannot resist. Mind you, I am lucky enough to have a 360 and a PS3. I wouldn't buy anything on the PS3 that was not an exclusive, and most of them are rubbish (LBP excluded).

  • Weezer #24 3 years ago

    Increasingly I'm wondering what the hell I bought a PS3 for. Don't need Blu-ray and it sure as hell isn't the cutting-edge powerhouse gaming conjuror Sony promised. Curse you Sony and your lies!

    /shakes fist, ineffectually

    Oh, well, I've always got Buzz Quiz TV to fall back on (sob!).

  • diz93 #25 3 years ago

    It looks like the PS3 is catching up a bit this time. I still wouldn't buy one though.


  • brokenkey #26 3 years ago

    "As a postscript, I should also add that there are no equivalents to the Trophies/Achievements and there's no support either for the Xbox 360 controller"

    Says on the box and in the manual that there is support. Have you downloaded a pirate copy?

  • kangarootoo #27 3 years ago

    @seasidebaz

    Well, I'm really making a point that pointing out differences such as the texture resolution of a boot suggests that some poeple have really lost the plot when it comes to what gaming is all about.

    I find it hard to accept that these head-to-head comparisons actually have a point. No because the differences can't be found - I'm sure they can - its the inherrent implication that this shit matters IN THE SLIGHTEST.

    Its numbers for their own sake. Comparing things simple because they can be compared. I can understand wanting to know if one version of a game has its fun impacted by technical issues, but comparing boot textures serves no purpose that has anything at all to do with fun that I can see.

    What happened to the fun?

  • Genome #28 3 years ago

    I'm running it on PC with the following specs: 5200+, HD4850, 4GB of RAM and Vista.

    It's silky smooth at 1680x1050 with everything maxed. Have you tried it on any other hardware?

    By the way, the single player on this game is incredibly short. Multiplayer had better be worth it.

  • TPCG_Russ #29 3 years ago

    "I say that the PC is swiftly becoming a viable 'console' in itself: an upgradable gaming machine that works great with an HDTV"

    Is anyone else wondering what the hell was going through Richards mind when he wrote this? Surely it's the consoles that are becoming more like PC's…
    Anyhoo, liked the article. Shame the PC version wasn't 'finished' with regard to tuning.

  • seasidebaz #30 3 years ago

    @kangarootoo:

    I know exactly what you mean.

    Why not compare the quality of the insides of people's heads while they're at it? I'm assuming the long-standing CoD bug of crawling through a body and seeing the backs of their polygons is still there.

    These comparisons are a bit useless, really, and anyone who says otherwise must have invisible difference OCD or something.

  • Timmy182008 #31 3 years ago

    We all know atm where mulit platform games lie. If its 360 lead then the 360 will look better. however look at title where ps3 has been lead. Mirrors for example it looks ten fold better then the 360 version. So its abit of give and take. Alot of developers are now leading on ps3. IW are for the next call of duty so.

  • gaselite #32 3 years ago

    That's strange. I haven't played SP very much admittedly - 3 or so levels - but have played quite a bit of MP, and it runs fine on my PC at 1900x1200 with much the same specs as yours (GTX, more RAM). Maybe I should play SP a bit more to get a sense for it but so far, so good.

    oh and

    In such an environment, controller support is essential

    bollocks to that. bollocks to it.
    Edited by 1 at 18/11/08 @ 18:02

  • Oh-Bollox #33 3 years ago

    I, like MANY other people, have all consoles and a PC.

    Fucking well aye. What planet are you on? Some of us weren't born with a silver spoon shoved up our arses.

  • Gaol #34 3 years ago

    Mmm finally EG get an article out before I have actually bought a game; useful.

    Was gonna get PC, but given my system is almost identical to the 'everyman' one; and given Trophy support and mates playing with PS3; I will probably go with that one.

    Still looking forward to Resistance 2 more though.

  • miiiguel #35 3 years ago

    I heard the same "oh developers will soon be looking into PS3 1st..., then 360", almost one year ago, by the time Burnout Paradise came out. I bet next Xmas I'll be reading the same stuff.
    Anyway, if that makes you cosy, please do continue.

  • UncleLou #36 3 years ago

    Hm, bit strange that with the PC version, seeing how CoD 4 runs so silky-smooth. Have they upgraded the engine that much? Good thing I am waiting for IW's next CoD, anyway, then.

    On an unrelated note, the frontpage claims there are 66 replies to this, but it's still on the first page.

  • IPTKI #37 3 years ago

    Why do you people see that the 360 is better?! The lighting and textures are better on PS3

    PS3 win this one..Go to 00:06 and wait till they're in the boat..U can see the arm lacks detail by the 360 and by the characters for instance..But these are just details that you don't see in the heat of the battle..

    Edited by 1 at 18/11/08 @ 19:19

  • Zander #38 3 years ago

    yeah! xbox rocks! Until it RROD's on you like mine did last night!! I have more xbox games than ps3 games, but if i can't play them.... :-(

    COD4 for me is the most over rated fps (bar Halo) for a long time, no one has a bad thing to say about it. That's just my opinion but can anyone tell me why its so good? I am not just trying to be a nob (even though i am a nob) but i just don't get it.

  • Subquest #39 3 years ago

    "I say that the PC is swiftly becoming a viable 'console' in itself: an upgradable gaming machine that works great with an HDTV"

    Is anyone else wondering what the hell was going through Richards mind when he wrote this? Surely it's the consoles that are becoming more like PC's…
    Anyhoo, liked the article. Shame the PC version wasn't 'finished' with regard to tuning.

    His point is the PC is equally at home in the living room as it is in the bedroom now, as long as games support the 360 controller. Even Crysis supports the 360 controller out of the box. Developers who don't include it are either stupid or lazy.

    EDIT: games that don't support a pad can be made to do so using this. Heh - with PC somebody always finds a way...
    Edited by 2 at 18/11/08 @ 19:24

  • Andriesc #40 3 years ago

    Pc is better than Xbox360 en ps3?

    WTF :/

  • Zappa #41 3 years ago

    PS3 looks way better then 360 clearly.

    And lol at xbot richard saying 360 has better texture yet all he has to say is a boot...getting more laughable everytime you write on EG.

  • Xerx3s #42 3 years ago

    /facepalm @ 60% of the comments

  • Waldo #43 3 years ago

    1024x600

    Microsoft and Sony should be ashamed of themselves for passing off this resolution as "HD."

  • thenastypasty #44 3 years ago

    these face off articals are really starting to piss me off now ,does anyone really care about small frame rate drops between platforms just buy the game and enjoy it life is just to short!

  • Subquest #45 3 years ago

    these face off articals are really starting to piss me off now

    Do you also walk round wearing clothes you don't like? Eating food you don't like? You have options people, options!

  • onyxbox #46 3 years ago

    @retibra

    hooray! I couldn't agree more, 360 will always perform better because the GPU is more capable... without some rather bespoke programming techniques the PS3 is on the back foot.

    These features are just highlighting time after time the same things.... 360 has better fill rate and more AA on cross platform development.

    To be honest in my own experience the difference is so small it's meaningless and this type of article is indeed just ammunition for fan-boy behaviour. If the PS3 consistently beat the 360 it would be equally as pointless.

  • DrDamn #47 3 years ago

    "The perception, however, is one of parity cross-platform and that, of course, is more important than technical fact." ... right so why was a three page article devoted to technical fact when you only gave the review itself 2 pages. Why not just update the review with "360 had a bit better frame rate and PS3 dropped some detail occasionally - but not that you'd notice that much". Then use the time and effort on some interesting articles. Craziness I know.

  • Tyedyed #48 3 years ago

    That wouldnt generate the page hits eurogamer seem so desperate for DrDamn!

  • Zappa #49 3 years ago

    lol, 360 looks like crap in every pic!!

  • Zappa #50 3 years ago

    doubtful. Richard is clear as day a fanboy xbot.

  • drumbaby #51 3 years ago

    Yeah, I noticed that soldier's boot.

    No, really....

  • Zappa #52 3 years ago

    people only like it because its noob friendly with small maps ,the game is nothing but run around and shoot each other in the back.

  • marc_canaranya #53 3 years ago

    I think EG should continue doing these articles, mostly because it's the only way of knowing what's different (usually, what's wrong) on the PS3.

    Not everyone can buy all the consoles, and it seems that I chose the wrong one in one aspect: There are almost no reviews of cross-platform games actually reviewed on the PS3.

  • AhrimaaN #54 3 years ago

    Idiots at EG.

    CoD WaW is a GFW game. that means it has joypad support out of the box. Morons. How pro console has EG got lately?

  • onyxbox #55 3 years ago

    Not everyone can buy all the consoles, and it seems that I chose the wrong one in one aspect

    I have both 360 and PS3... trust me... there's nothing in it and I often find the differences described are not worth the debate. IMO all that is required is that if one version happens to be a lot worse than another then they should just append a note to the review.

    This type of anal analysis isn't achieving anything other than website hits and fueling playground type battles of words.


  • 3william56 #56 3 years ago

    Shows how mad this whole process had got when a PC costing 2-3 times as much as either console is shown to have the pants cheapo version. Back a couple of months, we had PC Gaming is Dead headlines. Back then, it was all talk, but now the money is going to the consoles. Is this the thin end of the wedge for the PC crowd?

    But no, stuff the possible major change to gaming funding emphasis, in a headline FPS even, let's all b*tch about a frame drop or boot texture between the 360 and PS3.

    /shakes head at Leadbetter's ignoring of 360 issues, and overemphasis of PS3 differences yet again... 360 dropped frames, fuzzy shadows and low rez textures are fine, but a frame drop - during a cut scene, no less - is suddenly "mildly annoying". Give it up. Hell, it's not even generating the comment war and hit count it used to.

  • The_Surreal #57 3 years ago

    There are way too many idiot fucking fanboys here (like NickD09). You want your beloved 360 to win sooo badly that your mind is fabricating differences that simply ARE NOT THERE!

    Both versions are almost identical. The PS3 version is a little bit lighter, and the 360 versions a little darker.

    More of you fucks should listen to Timmy182008. He is making the point that most of the comparisons done here are on 360 games ported to the PS3. So really, what is being compared is the original code, verses a conversion of the code.

    THESE ARE REALLY VIDEOS ABOUT HOW WELL THE DEVELOPER HAS PORTED THE GAME

    THEY ARE NOT COMPARISONS OF HARDWARE PERFORMANCE

    So, although these comparisons may be useful for consumers deciding which version they should by, it is fucking stupid to try and use them for your fanboy agenda - because if you do - it means you are a complete fucking moron.

  • Dave52 #58 3 years ago

    @retriba, great post...! Look at how amazing Drake's Fortune is, and the Killzone2 Beta is shaping up to be sweet as.

    Anyone who plays this on any platform will enjoy the game - that's all that matters.

  • Widge #59 3 years ago

    lol, I'm about 20 posts down in this thread!

  • Chufty #60 3 years ago

    Why are you running the PC version at TV resolutions? I doubt many people do that. And mouse+keyboard is never ever detremental to a first person shooter. If it is, you're doing it wrong, or you have limited motor functions in your arm, or you're just fucking retarded.

  • bonker #61 3 years ago

    Those are some fab screenies.

  • GeneralVinyard #62 3 years ago

    once again the xbox comes out on top.
    now ive got 360,ps3,wii and pc all in the house.
    id never buy a serious game like this on any other format than 360, it constantly out perfoms the others.
    now off to put my feet up on the 300 quid dvd player that is a ps3 and play some smooth, responsive cod:waw on the 360!

    dont worry ps3 gamers your day will come, in the form of a sockman, making joke levels, with little daises for 6 year old girls.

  • GeneralVinyard #63 3 years ago

    The_Surreal - PS3 fanboy of the highest order

  • danodynamo #64 3 years ago

    Seriously, think alot of people are correct about EG being biased towards the XBOX 360. From the face off they always seem to be ragging on the PS3. Not that I care. But a bit of subjective journalism would be nice.

    Oh buy the way I don't have a PS3 have a 360. I don't consider myself to be a fanboy. Would like a PS3 though (anyone wanna give me theirs?)

    Edited by 1 at 19/11/08 @ 22:46

  • yerawldda #65 3 years ago

    104 replies it says on the front page, but theres only 87? i dont have anyone on ignore..

    haha i think they are trying to beef it up a little as someone in these posts slagged them off and said something like 'give it up your not even getting the same amount of replys anymore'

    and i agree. why these minute details need blown up to a full article is beyond me - especially when they come post release...

    if there something really worth mentioning regarding different platforms surely to should be pinned on the review, you know before anyone buys it.

  • TRUTH #66 3 years ago

    Got PS3 version (borrowed) - the colors looked a bit washed out, and have less depth. This happend with Fallout 3 too.

  • BonzoBanana #67 3 years ago

    I'm a ps3 and 360 owner and there is little doubt that the 360 is the better gaming machine of the two as a general rule. However owning both is soooo much better than owning just one of them. Like the ps2 the ps3 is overly complicated and hard to fully exploit but as a general rule ps3 games are almost as good as 360 and exclusive ps3 games can be as good if not better than 360 technically. I love both its the wii I don't have much regard for.

  • The_Surreal #68 3 years ago

    GeneralVinyard = Fucking Retard of the highest order