Face-Off: Medal of Honor

By Richard Leadbetter Published 17 October, 2010

Tiers before bedtime.

Page 1 of 3
- Xbox 360 PlayStation 3
Disc Size 5.5GB 5.64GB (11.6GB with MOH: Frontline)
Install 5.5GB (optional) 2746MB (mandatory)
Surround Support Dolby Digital Dolby Digital, 5.1LPCM, DTS

Technology plays a role of enormous importance within the first-person shooter genre. Design decisions in creating the game engine dictate more than just the look of the game - they're crucial in how it plays. Medal of Honor suffers somewhat compared to its competitors as the foundations for both single- and multiplayer modes were basically air-lifted in by Epic and DICE respectively, creating something of a "second hand" experience to what should have been one of EA's biggest and most important games of the year.

Perhaps then it's no surprise that finding something memorable or unique about Medal of Honor is so difficult. This is no problem for its rivals: Call of Duty is defined by its aim to supply ultra-low latency controller response, foregoing advanced rendering techniques in favour of a game that runs extremely smoothly and puts the player firmly in control. Battlefield: Bad Company 2 on the other hand halves the frame-rate but makes up for it with one of the most advanced engines on the market today: wide open levels, terrain deformation, a stunning destruction model, and ultra-detailed artwork only really scratch the surface of what the Frostbite engine is capable of.

Both are modern warfare based titles, but they are very individual games that have forged their own identities in what must surely be the most competitive area of the market, and many of the core things they do brilliantly are all intimately related to the strengths of the game engines that run them.

In playing Medal of Honor, it's difficult to ascertain exactly what it is that the developers wanted to achieve with this game over and above creating the slick, enjoyable shooter that it undoubtedly is. In putting together this Face-Off, it seems that it is the PC version that has the answers, but this is clearly a console-orientated production and we'll be looking at the PS3 and Xbox 360 releases first and foremost.

Medal of Honor is literally a game of two halves, so to begin with, let's take a look at a selection of scenes from the single-player campaign mode. Powered by Unreal Engine 3, the middleware has a reputation for providing nigh-on identical graphics on both HD consoles. Use the full-screen button to get full 720p resolution, or click the EGTV link for a larger window. Alternatively, there's a triple-format comparison gallery to check out.

Unreal Engine 3 is tasked with powering another high-profile game, this time the Medal of Honor single-player campaign from US studio Danger Close.

As per the norm with UE3 titles, we see native 720p resolution on both platforms and an almost exact parity in terms of visual features. There is some small evidence that 2x MSAA is included on the Xbox 360 version, but in common with many UE3 titles it seems that the work on this is carried out relatively early in the rendering process, with subsequent processing killing off much of the edge-smoothing. Certainly, the overall impression when looking at both games (and even the PC version with AA enabled) is that they are effectively running without anti-aliasing at all.

Differences in the visual make-up of the game are slight - unnoticeable for most part - but here, for example, we can see obviously lower-resolution ground texture on the PlayStation 3 version of the game. Hardly earth-shattering stuff, and it's exactly the kind of artwork you'd trim back if you really did have memory issues.

texture-360
texture-ps3

Artwork is essentially identical cross-platform, but there is the odd example of textures being pared back on PS3, though rare examples like this are unlikely to have much impact on the gameplay experience.

However, this is small beer - a technical curiosity at most - and the overall conclusion is that Danger Close has done a good job in getting some decent visuals out of UE3, which are essentially like-for-like on both console platforms.

We know that historically the UE3 tech has favoured the Xbox 360, with smoother frame-rates and a small basket of additional graphical effects available to developers. However, there's little doubt that the PS3 rendition of the Epic middleware has improved in recent times and effects-wise the two engines are now basically a match. The comparison movie proves that there's effectively nothing between the two games from a graphical perspective, but a difference in performance level is still clearly apparent. We saw it in Enslaved and we're seeing it in the Medal of Honor campaign mode too.

Typical for console UE3, the game operates at a capped 30 frames-per-second, but will drop v-sync in order to maintain fluidity in visual feedback when the engine is under stress. It is the nature of those drops that is an issue. There's are certain hotspots in many of the game's campaign levels that really flummox the PS3, compounding screen-tear with some heavy drops in frame-rate.

It's UE3 so we're essentially capped to 30FPS performance, albeit with tearing. There are a number of hotspots through the game that slow down noticeably on PS3.

It's difficult to understand quite why the PS3 version has these problem areas where performance really suffers. If you run a comparison of cut-scenes it holds its own rather well and often maintains v-sync in areas where the exact same scene will cause tearing on the 360. It suggests that there are specific rendering tasks where each platform has its own strengths and weaknesses, but this does not seem to translate over to the game itself.

Page 1 of 3

Comments (66) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • layleeloo #1 2 years ago

    Did anyone predict a different outcome to this regardless what gaming platform you own. They are interesting to read but blatantly predictable outcomes one you've read a few and got to know what they look at. We won't need these soon as we will just know what games to get on which platforms if like me, you are lucky enough to have them all

  • Lunastra78 #2 2 years ago

    Are these actually game face-offs, or the same Unreal Engine face-off again and again? ;)

  • kdsh7 #3 2 years ago

    Predictable, really? Would any of you have known for sure without buying both?

    And I for one didn't know that Dice handled the multiplayer and therefore that section of the game runs on a different engine. I find digital foundry's in depth articles interesting to read, and all of you could have quite easily clicked on another link in less time than it took to write a glib comment.

  • NewbieZilla #4 2 years ago

    "Predictable, really? Would any of you have known for sure without buying both? "

    I think the point you missed was that PC is going to trump consoles.

  • Whizzo #5 2 years ago

    In years gone by veteran complainer Mary Whitehouse would bitch about programmes that she didn't like but others did, in that case people would suggest instead of whinging all the time she could either change channel or switch off.

    The same applies to these articles, if you don't give a shit don't bother clicking the link.

  • kdsh7 #6 2 years ago

    NewbieZilla: "I think the point you missed was that PC is going to trump consoles."

    I take that as a given every time :)

  • Whizzo #7 2 years ago

    I certainly wish UE3 would disappear for PC games, it seems to be so behind the times these days.

  • Retroid #8 2 years ago

    Good, very little in it again. Better transparancies on PS3 (the dithering did bother me sometimes in in Bad Company 2 on 360), slightly better framerates on 360.

    Takes yer pick.

    I knew DICE were doing the multiplayer on this but hadn't followed it closely enough to realise the campaign was running on Unreal. That, in itself, is fine. It's just the difference in controls and abilities that I'd find jarring. I had the same issue with the GRAW games.

    edit: bloody tired :(
    Edited by Retroid at 17/10/10 @ 16:40

  • defragg #9 2 years ago

    Somehow I just don't get why they didn't use Frostbite for the single player as well. It produces higher frame rates while providing better visuals (at least in this game). It also runs better on the PS3 than the Unreal Engine. Plus: No disconnection between single an multi player in terms of gameplay feeling and rendering style.

  • jefranklin18 #10 2 years ago

    I am playing MOH at the movement and while it is enjoyable to play (especially as the Tier 1 operator), it has little to differentiate itself from COD. Mankind has been using firearms in warfare for well over 300 years, surely one of those could have been used for inspiration?

  • Retroid #11 2 years ago

    It'd be nice if we could avoid trolling.

    Just a suggestion.

  • NewbieZilla #12 2 years ago

    It seems obvious to me that work on UE3 is a lot quicker than it is on the frostbite engine. At least for the campaign. Must be that. Developers will naturally gravitate towards what is better or faster. Can't say better, so faster? To me, it seems a safe bet.

  • Vanmunt #13 2 years ago

    so really its now down to which console you prefer..

  • GamesConnoisseur #14 2 years ago

    RETROID: Good, very little in it again. Better transparancies on PS3 (the dithering did bother me sometimes in in Bad Company 2 on 360), slightly better framerates on PS3.

    Takes yer pick.


    Er?? Seem you are saying PS3 is better on both counts?! What to pick?

    Article didnt reports this as the conclusion unless you misstyped PS3 and should be X360 for the better framerates? This would give your post a clearer meaning?!

  • tiny_Eggy #15 2 years ago

    On not one of the three platforms the game is any good though.

  • sink257 #16 2 years ago

    From what I've heard from people playing the PC version of MoH, the SP looks absolutely horrible, especially the textures.

    I tried the MP beta and it is fine and looks pretty decent but honestly I prefer Bad Company 2, and I'm quite looking forward to Brink.

  • Retroid #17 2 years ago

    @GamesConnoisseur

    Crap, you're right. I have no idea why but of course I meant to say better framerate on 36o, that's what the results said.

    I got about two hours sleep last night. I think its showing. D'oh.

  • VandelayIndustries #18 2 years ago

    I'll be a happy camper once UE3 is dropped altogether.

  • andromeda #19 2 years ago

    who gives a fuck about which version performs 0.5% better ??
    And just how many of us gamers have the choice of two platforms on which to play, or use a game to decide which console to purchase?

    These face offs, despite being perfect nerd fodder, are simply a childish schoolyard dig, dressed up in fps clothing.

    grow up and put something worthwhile in place of these FACEOFFS.

  • VandelayIndustries #20 2 years ago

    It fits the 360 better, but its still ill fitting, just less so.

  • ThemisB #21 2 years ago

    "To illustrate, the hardcore FPS community were up in arms over the fact you couldn't move into a prone position in Bad Company 2, and the same limitation is in effect here"

    A thousand times no. Prone in BC2 would be horrible, and it's generally those who prefer the sniper class who whine about it not being allowed.

    If BC2 had prone sniping, I'd have rage-quit the game months ago. Can't say the same for MoH as I haven't played it since the beta, but from what I hear there's already problems with campers. Prone would just make things worse.

  • dominalien #22 2 years ago

    There's nothing to see here, move along :-)

  • T3TSUO #23 2 years ago

    As far as I'm concerned they are both the same. Both drop frames dependant on what is happening.
    Been saying it for a while now and people are finally taking note. Unreal Engine needs to go away now. It's just too convenient to grab the engine cheap, slap it on Xbox and do a quick port over to the other systems without regard to the other systems strengths. PS3 and PC and do a damn site better than the Unreal Engine's allow.
    What I'm annoyed at is EA swore this MOH title would lead on PS3. I very much doubt it has.
    Of course I'm going off a site that just took a look at Force Unleashed 2 and was too lazy to play till the end of the PS3 demo or how else do they explain they missed the missing wet shaders? Poor guy is soaking wet through by the AT-ST portion of the game.

  • Zaiz #24 2 years ago

    I wish I trusted DICE with multiplayer on the PC, though! I can't connect to BBC2 multi for the life of me, even though I love that game.

  • defragg #25 2 years ago

    @GoodGodOWhitey

    "I'm pretty sure that it didn't bother 360 only gamers when FFXIII was released & found out that it was different to the PS3 version & I'm equally sure that PS3 only gamers really weren't bothered when they found out that RDR was different to the 360 version, They all came away with a equally great experience!"

    I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. Sure, in many cases the differences are minor ones, but especially FFXIII is an example where I could totally understand a 360 only gamer who didn't buy the game because it's technically inferior to it's PS3 counterpart (Bayonetta vice versa).

    "Real gamers don't care we just want to play the games on what ever systems we own, surly thats all that matters?"

    To some degree graphics do contribute to the overall game experience for most people. How much that "some" is, is up to the individual gamer.
    Edited by defragg at 17/10/10 @ 18:48

  • GitSomE_UK #26 2 years ago

    Sweet Jesus will the moaners who don't like the face offs just not read them? This is for those that have both or all the current consoles and those who are genuinely interested in how the technology compares.

  • MeBrains #27 2 years ago

    Anyway, my comparison results........ PS3 verson comes with two games for the price of one :)

    does it? didn't know that.

    it also seems to come with way better sound than 360's offering. somebody asked this before me and it is a very valid question. Since we are pixel counting here, shouldn't we at least have one general article about how much a CPU is taxed with computing DTS or 7.1 sound in contrast to dolby digital?

  • Fab4 #28 2 years ago

    Fuck how it looks, what is the netcode like?

  • defragg #29 2 years ago

    @GoodGodOWhitey

    "I have never played Beyonetta and neither has anyone on my friends on either system, wasn't Beyonetta really broken on PS3 though? "
    If you consider Bayonetta broken (in the sense of nearly unplayable) than one might see FFXII in the more taxing levels as broken too. They both suffer from a really bad frame rate while providing inferior graphics as well. But i wouldn't go that far to call them broken.

    As for Your friends: Sure, You can play FFXIII on the 360, no question. And if You are a fan of the series You will buy it despite the technical problems. But for someone who is unsure whether to buy it or not (limited gaming budget for example) the problems might be the reason to invest his/her money in some other title. That person can in my opinion be a "real gamer" too.

    It saddens me, however, that so many people use the face offs as a vehicle for their flame war. These people are the ones I would not call "real gamers".

    All I want to say is: As a one platform only gamer you can profit from these face offs. Digital Foundry provides the facts. What gamers make out of it is up to them.

    Edited by defragg at 17/10/10 @ 19:48

  • des #30 2 years ago

    Weak PS3 strikes again...i like how he says textures being pared back on PS3 don't have no impact on gameplay.
    No shit Sherlock,people just play games to look at textures,lol...

    zzzz

  • fragjam #31 2 years ago

    Once again, the pc winz\11 Consoles are knob!1

  • telboy007 #32 2 years ago

    Football analogy fits perfectly here, a game of two halves.

  • brod #33 2 years ago

    I agree with Umbriel.

    The comparison between PC and console should be made between the PC version running at 1080p versus the console versions running at 720p and upscaled to 1080p.

    Showing the PC version at 720p isn't very helpful in highlighting the real difference - as you said yourself Richard, one of the advantages of playing MOH on PC is the higher resolution.

    Showing the console versions at 720p also isn't an accurate depiction of the game as the actual experience will involve upscaling for those with 1080p TVs, which I would have to imagine would be the majority of HDTVs these days?

  • sorenfk #34 2 years ago

    no surprise that the pc has the superior graphic.. i have the xbox 360 version, the framerate drops is only happening when there is a lot of smoke bombs , it doesnt goes down to a crawl, but it dips a bit, maybe 3 or 4 framerate.

  • RKOwned #35 2 years ago

    Its good to see that we atleast got virtualy visual parity with UE 3 now, atleast for most games using it. The Performance stuff still irks me, but im sure thatll be improved to as time goes by. Really, The games are Visualy identical and the only thing giving the 360 a win is a bit better performance. So I dont think it should detract you from picking it up on PS3 if you wanted to get Frontlines with it. The one game im most itnerested in seeing a faceoff for is Duke Nukem Forever. I would love to see how they bring code thats been heavily PC based for 13 years over the the PS3 which is anything but a PC. Itll be fine on 360 since its the same archtecture pretty much, but im curious and worried about the PS3 version of this game. Is it using UE 3? It looks like a UE 3 game.
    Edited by RKOwned at 17/10/10 @ 20:54

  • Dangher #36 2 years ago

    "bloody unreal engine, its about time devs started using something a bit more modern is nt it? "

    Not likely. UE3 is the best that the consoles can handle at the moment. Until the new gen, that is, which is what - 2-4 years in the future? PCs will always be playing catch up and "pick the odd one out" until the devs realize that power is in the PC market. Not the buying one, mind you, but the power to impress. Money talks and that is why we, the PC gamers, are left with odd sraps from the corporate sh*t table, the scraps they call triple A games... Oh, the irony...

    P.S. To all naysayers - PC at 1080P runs rock steady with everything turned on using 2-year old hardware (my rig). Core 2 Duo E8600, GTX285, 4 GIG RAM. That's less than a new X-Box 360 Slim in terms of money (at least where I live). Oh, and this type of hardware runs stuff that consoles won't even dream of running at high quality - try Crysis.
    Edited by Dangher at 17/10/10 @ 21:32

  • man.the.king #37 2 years ago

    From the article: "Powered by Unreal Engine 3, the middleware has a reputation for providing nigh-on identical graphics on both HD consoles. "

    As soon as I saw this, I knew the outcome of the face-off without having to read through the entire article. And did I understand this correctly?: RL say UE3 has a reputation for providing almost identical graphics on both consoles? A host of UE3-based games will prove him wrong. UE3 is an engine which is in its element when running on PC or the 360.

    Other than that though, this has to be the first 360-favoring face-off where Leadbetter has pointed to shortcomings of the PS3 version and implied that this is an optimization issue, and not a hardware issue, and for that bit of honesty, this particular face-off is much appreciated.
    Edited by man.the.king at 17/10/10 @ 23:05

  • Tallon4 #38 2 years ago

    I'mreally only interested in the tech talk. The fact that DF is kinda reviewing the game is a bad idea.
    There's enough discussion over the EG reviews already, so please just compare the games on a technical level.

  • local_celebrity #39 2 years ago

    I couldn't disagree more!

    Technical stuff aside, that was a brilliant analysis of what's wrong with Medal of Honor from a gaming perspective. More please.

  • Badassbab #40 2 years ago

    Might as well of been a second opinion review of the game.

  • JBlokeUK #41 2 years ago

    Another face-off.

    Another predictable outcome.

  • cabalero #42 2 years ago

    So... where's the analysis of Castlevania:LOS?

    Sometimes I think that DF only analyse games that are better on 360.

    I own both consoles and I want to buy the game, but don't know which version to get. Dunno why it hasn't come out yet...

    Regardless, good job once again by DF.
    Edited by cabalero at 18/10/10 @ 02:11

  • womble #43 2 years ago

    PS3 whiners, give it a freaking rest.

    Buy a 360 for cross-plat games. Buy a PS3 for exclusives. Simple.

    If you are worried about slight performance differences on your PS3, and you feel compelled to blame UE3 for it, that's your own damned fault.

  • RKOwned #44 2 years ago

    Jeez, i love how peopel think a slight performance advatange suddenly make the PS3 version Inferior. They look the same, and the performance issues arent probaly going to be noticed that much. They certainly wont effect gameplay. Get some perspective people.

  • womble #45 2 years ago

    @Umbriel Some gamers prefer consoles. Deal with it.

    Take your PC zealotry somewhere else. Nobody here gives a damn.

  • womble #46 2 years ago

    Of course the PC version has the best performance. Really!?!? Thanks for that Captain Obvious!

    And so what? Some people want to play on console.

    So fanboys, please STFU already. Nobody is interested in your zealotry and insecurities.

  • JBlokeUK #47 2 years ago

    ''My gaming system is better than yours''

    ''No it's not, mine is clearly better''

    Ah the joys of the gaming community and it's school playground like ways. Can't we just except that everyone is different in their choices?

  • shuyin131 #48 2 years ago

    Of course, DF will post a quick Face-Off of the one where 360 will win but the one where PS3 is the better version is nowhere to be found (recent one being Castlevania) I remember it took awhile for the FFXIII one to come out too and we all knew that version was worse. We didn't even get a fair face-off as the whole article was about how the 360 version could've been better but wasn't. None of the PS3's strengths were even touched or highlighted on, that faceoff was all about the 360 version.

    It seems to me when they know the PS3 version is superior they'll just skip it or delay it in the hopes they'll find something in the game that makes the 360 version superior. I read the Star Wars TFU2 article and I was disgusted by it. It was rushed, plainly obvious which one Leadbetter was going to pick and it didn't even sound like he made any effort on the PS3 version. My instincts tell me that the PS3 version had some optimization and while not as smooth, there are effects that make the game look better in the end. After all, you can have smooth framerate but only because it's not doing as much as the other.

  • JBlokeUK #49 2 years ago

    @Shuyin131

    Couldn't have put it better myself. EG do seem to lean towards the 360. Quite sad for a ''professional, award winning'' gaming website if you ask me, but there you go.
    Edited by JBlokeUK at 18/10/10 @ 05:08

  • Dave52 #50 2 years ago

    Very little to choose between them again - well done developers...!

    Been playing this on the PS3 all weekend. I can't say I agree with the reviews tbh. Yes there are one or two issues in the campaign where I wasn't sure what I was supposed to do - but it's a very solid game. It's almost as if the reviewers held themselves back for COD:BO. I'm sure CODs multiplayer won't be annoying at all with ballistic knives...

  • pommak #51 2 years ago

    No word about half resolution alpha buffer on PS3? Considering that many snow effects are alpha based, it makes awful image quality at times. Just imagine a ground covered with snow, halving the resolution for everything that's in front of it. It looks absolutely terrible.

  • Negotiator #52 2 years ago

    Open enviroments cause the PS3 all sorts of problems, "Large, open areas are more likely to incur frame-rate drops on the PlayStation version while the 360 game manages to sustain its refresh fairly well", I rest my case.

  • DoctorFraud #53 2 years ago

    To be fair, games in general cause the ps3 problems.

  • DoctorFraud #54 2 years ago

    I mean its architecture is not suited to games.

    Its a DSP, built to decode bluray.

  • defragg #55 2 years ago

    @cabalero
    "So... where's the analysis of Castlevania:LOS?"

    [link url=http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-castlevania-lords-of-shadow-face-off
    ]http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digita...[/link]

    Out since October 7th.

  • Badassbab #56 2 years ago

    djronz-

    Comparing a middleware PC game engine such as UE3 and saying it can run fairly well on PS3 and then asking if a PS3 specific engine can run on 360 is a bit unfair don't you think? I saw Gears 3 and Bulletstorm at Eurogamer both running on 360 and they seem to be really pushing the UE3 to new heights. Killzone 3 looked really washed out and lacked the sheen and shine of those two games. Why? Probably because of Quincux AA. There are games that have lead on PS3 and the 360 has performed admirably (Burnout Paradise, Mirrors Edge, Prince of Persia, Castlevania LOTS, Vanquish). But then there are ports which have fared badly (FFXIII). Same goes for the other way around.

  • DoctorFraud #57 2 years ago

    The only kind of environment the PS3 can manage is very tight corridors. Uncharted, GoW, Killzone. Very small play areas with lots of 2D backgrounds and effects that attempt to mask the limited environments.

    The PS3 does not handle open environments well, or AI for that matter. It only really handles high-bandwidth low decision rate traffic well because it is a DSP and it shows.

  • laz1973 #58 2 years ago

    Do you's compare the XBOX360 from Disc or HDD?

  • Average_joe #59 2 years ago

    I would though that ps3 would be better version because ea stated that it is the leading platform but turns up to be different!
    I wont buy this game because cod:bo is just around the corner but allways interested to read these articles!
    Thank you richard leadbetter for another great face-off!

  • Lucodeath #60 2 years ago

    The pc version is not the best, The xbox pees all over it. But then my rig is more bc the pc. 128 meg video card an all that.
    I am close to buyin a new pc an Im willing to spend more money on the video card than I did on my ps3.
    Hopefully it will outperform my consoles then.

  • makattack #61 2 years ago

    My PC would make a great gaming rig, if only more games were written natively in Linux. I refuse to put WinOS on my hardware -- unless it's running in a virtual machine.

  • jlch #62 2 years ago

    @GoodGodOWhitey

    Agree with you completely! Especially on company reputation and QUALITY!!!! something that has been lost especially on this generation of multi-platform titles.
    Edited by jlch at 19/10/10 @ 21:43

  • MegaCadet #63 2 years ago

    The Unreal Engine 3 tends to be better on the X360 since it was built for the PC and the X360/PC have similar architectures.

    When I read this face-off...it kind of got me thinking. Mass Effect 2 on the PS3 might not use MSAA since UE3 games on PS3 rarely ever implement it. And I wonder how Bioware will handle the UE3 on the PS3. A Mass Effect 2 face-off should be Epic.

  • technicianTed #64 2 years ago

    I think mass effect 2 will be fine on ps3.
    It's not the most technically advanced 360 game, despite being very smooth.
    But it's a cracking game.

    I hope for the ps3's sake that their version is good, we know how fanboys work and you can just see the comments if it comes out worse than the 360 version 'the ps3 can't even beat a year old 360 game etc'.
    They'll have a field day.

    Like i said the ps3 version should be fine, but if you've played it on pc @1920x1080p(or higher)at 60fps, don't expect the ps3 version to be anywhere near that sort of quality.

  • RKOwned #65 2 years ago

    Now that UE 3 is "Usualy" on par visualy on both consoles, I think they now need to focus on Performance. Screen tearing and FPS issues are unacceptable.
    Edited by RKOwned at 24/10/10 @ 06:04

  • gaming47 #66 2 years ago

    idont like this one