Face-Off: Modern Warfare 2

By Richard Leadbetter Published 12 November, 2009

Extensive analysis of the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions.

Page 1 of 3

The year's hottest and most successful videogame finally gets the full-on Digital Foundry Face-Off treatment. It's fair to say that Call of Duty titles in recent years have consistently favoured performance on the Xbox 360, whether they've been produced by series founder Infinity Ward or gap-year specialists Treyarch. With 2009's offering featuring an enhanced engine and brand new streaming tech, can the PS3 game match or indeed surpass the quality of the Xbox title?

First things first. While there have been plenty of attempts at comparison shots thus far across the net, something hasn't really looked quite right about any of them. The colour balance is quite patently wrong.

Basic settings don't cut it with Modern Warfare 2. You really need to spend some time setting up the game to play nicely with your screen... or indeed your capture kit. 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.

Leave things at default settings and you get images like this:

'Face-Off: Modern Warfare 2' Screenshot 360-uncalibrated
'Face-Off: Modern Warfare 2' Screenshot ps3-uncalibrated

Default brightness settings make neither version look particularly impressive, and aren't particularly useful for comparison.

Bottom line: if you're an Xbox 360 owner, you should be making the image brighter, and if you're playing on PS3, it's really a massively good idea to lower the brightness level significantly, otherwise the lighting - one of the really impressive things in this game - simply won't look as good as it should. Many people online are discussing the PS3's washed-out image, or talking about a "grey filter". In truth, there's nothing wrong with it. It's simply a case of tweaking your settings.

So with all that in mind, here's our set of 720p comparison shots, different from the others you might have seen in that they actually show each version of the game in the way they should be seen.

For the record, these are the settings we ended up using that gave us the closest colour match between the two versions while at the same time offering the best picture. Mileage will vary according to your display, but assuming your screen is well set-up, this is the ballpark. Give this a shot and tweak from there.

'Face-Off: Modern Warfare 2' Screenshot 360-settings
'Face-Off: Modern Warfare 2' Screenshot ps3-settings

Our preferred settings. Note the enormous difference required in brightness between the two games to produce a decent like-for-like image.

With that sorted out, it's time to take a look at some like-for-like comparison video to show just how close the game is between the two console platforms. The video runs at 30 per cent speed here, in order to retain detail levels while keeping it readily streamable for broadband users. Even with the extra layer of scrutiny that this affords us, it's clear to see that Infinity Ward has done a superb job of achieving platform parity. Particular effort has been made on the PS3 side of things. Under the bonnet, a lot has been done to bring the visuals on the Sony platform up to the same standard as that seen on the 360 build.

Slowed down to 30 per cent speed, here we compare two versions directly in like-for-like shots. Hit the full-screen button for full HD resolution, or else click the EGTV link for a larger window.

Infinity Ward's improvements to the PS3 game are particularly evident in the handling of textures. The original Modern Warfare did a good job of being perceptually very similar to the Xbox 360 version, but look more closely - literally - and you could see that there were compromises in texture quality. The comparison shots here kick off with a close-up of Captain Price from COD4, followed up by an equivalent close-up shot in the sequel. The improvement is absolutely colossal, and while there isn't quite platform parity, any differences are now negligible.

'Face-Off: Modern Warfare 2' Screenshot 360-mw1
'Face-Off: Modern Warfare 2' Screenshot ps3-mw1
'Face-Off: Modern Warfare 2' Screenshot 360-mw2
'Face-Off: Modern Warfare 2' Screenshot ps3-mw2

Infinity Ward's streaming tech means substantial texture improvements on PS3... Modern Warfare 1 on top, sequel shots below.

So, what's the secret? In common with many other developers, Infinity Ward has jettisoned the notion of storing all textures in RAM and instead streams them in as and when they are needed. Liberated from the constraints of onboard video memory, Modern Warfare 2 is a much richer place in which to play, but it does come at a cost. There's limited bandwidth available when streaming from an optical disc, so in fast-moving scenes, lower-resolution textures are left on-screen for longer than you might like. While this affects the 360 build to some extent too, at least there you have the ability to install the entire game to hard disk.

Page 1 of 3

Comments (175) Latest comment 2 years ago

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

  • GaidenZero #1 2 years ago

    Run for your lives!!

  • RobotRocker #2 2 years ago

    PLEASE PROCEED TO ALL APPROVED FANBOY PROOF SHELTERS

    THIS IS NOT A DRILL

  • stevetuck #3 2 years ago

    For those who cant be bothered :p

    However, for those that haven't made up their minds, it's fairly easy to say that while both renditions of the game are well worthy of the Eurogamer 9/10 score, the Xbox 360's marginally superior visuals and significantly smoother performance gives it an undoubted edge over the PlayStation 3 game, and this translates directly into a tangibly better gameplay experience.

    There the only paragraph you need :)

  • Azazel #4 2 years ago

    They lie in wait like wolves - the smell of blood in their nostrils. Waiting, interminably waiting, and then...

  • PlugMonkey #5 2 years ago

    It's quiet...

    Too quiet...

  • towser #6 2 years ago

    Mommy, I'm scared...

  • Petulant_Radish #7 2 years ago

    They come at night....mostly.

  • thedaveeyres #8 2 years ago

    They're heeeeeeerrrrrrreeeeeee....

  • Benyboyuk #9 2 years ago

    "Is it over Daddy? Are the great fanboy flame wars finally over?"

    "I hope so Timmy, I hope so!"

  • Tetsuo_Shima #10 2 years ago

    Care package incoming

  • MeBrains #11 2 years ago

    [link url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYMSkGXFoN4&feature=rel ated
    ]http://ww w.youtube.com/watch?v=lYMSkGXFo...[/link]

  • Psychotext #12 2 years ago

    Glad someone got around to doing this comparison properly. I've seen so many half arsed attempts over the last week.

  • StooMonster #13 2 years ago

    Good analysis, waiting for PC one before laying any cash out.

  • telboy007 #14 2 years ago

    So both versions look bloody nice, excellent.

  • Dave52 #15 2 years ago

    I actually think that the PS3 build looks better. The bit where the guy comes out of the water to grab the guard and pull him in, the XBox version looks like it's filmed in Black and White.

    If the PS3 drops down from 50 to 48 fps I don't think I'm gonna notice.

  • Physically_Insane #16 2 years ago

    Am I meant to write PS3LOL? Is that what the article wants?

  • stevetuck #17 2 years ago

    1024x600... HD Gaming yay!

  • TopKatt #18 2 years ago

    These comments aren't nearly as much fun now that EG has started banning fanboys. :(

    Come back Donnie, we need you!

  • robg #19 2 years ago

    I hear the 360 will have an exclusive zombie mode.

  • muscleblade #20 2 years ago

    I said it before and i say it again.

    I like it smooth.

  • wowami #21 2 years ago

    remember.
    "HD gaming starts when we say so"
    when exactly will it happen?

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #22 2 years ago

    I hear the 360 will have an exclusive zombie mode.

    Yeah, it was written by Valve, but you have to buy it separately.

  • metalangel #23 2 years ago

    Fuck me, Soap looks like Turok. Or is it the other way around?

  • paulf #24 2 years ago

    don't all of these, albeit being interesting reading for techies say exactly the same thing?

  • jonsaan #25 2 years ago

    This sort of thing was a lot easier in the Spectrum v C64 days. The screenshots actually looked different then, it was easy.

  • ps3owner #26 2 years ago

    ok I watched the vids and sure the number says that there is a difference in the framerate, but my eyes seem to tell me something else?! maybe it's just me. looks smooth enough?!

    anyway. well done Xbox.

  • Moonprince #27 2 years ago

    Donnie was banned!!??? But BUT

    Where do I get the jokes n laughs from now???!

  • MeBrains #28 2 years ago

    topkat: what the hell?! was donnie banned?!

  • ps3owner #29 2 years ago

    @boneparteofballybay

    I thought he just didn't bother to shoot, (haven't got the game yet)... interesting comment there from you. I am in it for the multiplayer anyway. couldn't care less about the story :)

  • muscleblade #30 2 years ago

    "but my eyes seem to tell me something else?! "

    Your eyes tell you what you WANT to see.

    Predictable coming from you.

  • GreyBeard #31 2 years ago

    The important thing is that IW v-syncs everything, which means that any frame rate discrepancy can be pegged to how frequently the game has to drop to 30fps.

    So its kind of misleading to describe average frame rates in the way the article does, as the numbers are generated based on an average (arithmetic mean I assume?) over certain arbitrarily chosen periods of time.

    The worst case scenario - 2 frames (30fps) to render the scene is consistent, the only difference between the two builds is how often this worst case scenario is in effect. And judging by the numbers that's actually not a particularly big discrepancy.

    EDIT FOR THE RATE-DOWN BRIGADE

    Given that the draw-time for any given frame is effectively a binary proposition : either 1/60th of a second (1 display refresh cycle @ 60hz) or 1/30th of a second (2 display refresh cycles @ 60hz), an average frame rate of 45 fps indicates that its running in 2 frames exactly 50% of the time.

    Now given the stated example shows the 360 with a 56.44FPS average, and the PS3 with only 51.82FPS, you're talking about an overall discrepancy of of around 16.67% more frames lost.

    Now 1/6th greater chance of a "frame-drop" isn't drastic imho, especially when its clearly packed into points of high stress. Note that in the same example the "peak" sample period dropped the PS3 to a low of 33fps (thats running at 1/30 nearly 100% of the sample period), but by the same token the 360's record of 41fps shows that it was running at 1/30 nearly 70% of the time also!

    If you understand the math and the underlying principles its not a big deal.



    Edited by 1 at 12/11/09 @ 17:47

  • Bigglesworth #32 2 years ago

    If you're gonna ban Donnie how can you not ban Richard Leadbetter??

  • berelain #33 2 years ago

    @PS3owner - aye, both versions look silky-smooth, possibly because the eye has trouble detecting much above 30fps, with 60fps being somewhere around the fastest the human eye can actually see. So whilst all the PC buffs can celebrate their 120+fps, it amounts to no visible difference for most people.

    In any case, I dont think either version has anything to be ashamed of. Even at its worst moments the PS3 build barely dips to 30fps, which is still extremely playable.

  • KeatsSeven #34 2 years ago

    all that effort by the writer and they look exactly the bloody same

  • cianchristopher #35 2 years ago

    I'll trot out the old chestnut:

    Buy your multiplatform titles for 360, and only buy exclusives for PS3. (It's the story of this generation!)

    That way, you win! :)

  • StrayBezza #36 2 years ago

    Face-Off: Modern Waffle 2

  • Widge #37 2 years ago

    Question: games often come locked to 30fps. Does it HAVE to be 30fps? Why not lock at 40 or 50?

  • GrumpyLlama #38 2 years ago

    The main difference from my point of view is that I was stuck playing with myself ; ) as the servers for the PS3 version were buggered last night. Almost makes be long for the rasping wheeze of my old 360.

  • GamerG #39 2 years ago

    Very happy in the knowledge that I have the superior version.

  • Widge #40 2 years ago

    yes, because when you own a PS3 and a 360 you suddenly decide to not buy the 360 exclusives because you are A BIG FAT MENTAL

  • Widge #41 2 years ago

    I mean WHAT A MONG

  • muscleblade #42 2 years ago

    @Widge

    Exactly! LOL.

  • mcmonkeyplc #43 2 years ago

    Where are the PS3 fanboys?! Have they all died of shock? Actually where the hell are the xbox fanboys? They haven't even bothered to gloat yet?!

    As a halo fanboy I feel I must point out that Halo 3 got a 10 and no CoD game has.

    /adds kerosine to fire

  • Bartacus #44 2 years ago

    I had it on PS3, then tried my friends 360, quickly took back the PS3 version & swapped it for 360. It was lagging in the smoke during the mounted gun humvee level.

    Uncharted 2 is great though PS3 has it's uses.

    got MW2 £26.00 @ Sainsburys brilliant game at that price.
    Edited by 1 at 12/11/09 @ 15:17

  • zisssou #45 2 years ago

    So basically its better on PC?

    ;)

  • insincere_dave #46 2 years ago

    PS3 owners probably won't notice the difference anyway because they're all living in shacks and their TVs will be steamed up from the harsh winter cold.

  • Vanmunt #47 2 years ago

    Played it for an hour, underwhelmed, went back to Dragon Age. Glad I only paid £26 for the most overhyped game since' Halo3.

    edit:
    and thanks DF for the heads up on the settings.
    Edited by 1 at 12/11/09 @ 15:25

  • Waffleaber #48 2 years ago

    I quite like the idea of a pacifict mode you could pretend you were a journalist or something.

    Hmm, wonder how far I can get in mario without killing anything.

  • GamerG #49 2 years ago

    ha ha! You can stick your blu ray, your free online and your built in wifi up yer arse!

    Xbox has the best the best CODMW2 and thats all that matters! (and MW2 online that works too!!)

  • Darren #50 2 years ago

    Seeing as the levels I've played so far in Call of Duty: MW2 last all of 10 minutes each, I'm surprised that they even require ANY streaming. If anything the few levels I've played so far look graphically the same as the first MW game but are actually shorter!!! If the textures are supposed to be better then I'm not seeing it (PC version)... bit of a waste of streaming IMO if the levels are short and still separated by loading screens... :?

  • spazmo #51 2 years ago

    The game is a bit meh on both consoles. All fanboys can agree with that.

    Something stinks about the whole launch of this game

  • El-Dev #52 2 years ago

    I normally wouldn't play MP on FPS games but I'm gonna have to give this a whirl to see what all the hype is about. The SP is a bit m'eh to be honest.

  • Darren #53 2 years ago

    And it would have been nice to have included the PC version in this comparison because I haven't seen any texture streaming issues in that version and the shadows look great too not hideously serrated like in those screenshots.

    P.S. Does the PC version's engine stream like the consoles? PC graphics cards typically have access to a lot more memory than the consoles so constant streaming shouldn't really be needed at all. I noticed though that the PC version uses 11 GB of HDD space so it presumably has higher quality assets than either of the console versions?

  • GrumpyLlama #54 2 years ago

    I don't understand the issues with 60fps over 30fps. Cinema is 24fps and I've never thought is was sub standard. I am I missing the point, or are my eyes just to rubbish to notice these differences. I admit I noticed a difference moving from SD to HDTV, but the only game that I ever noticed these techy things on was Mirrors Edge. The screen tear was awful between the bouts of nausea. So does it really matter which version is technically better.

  • LeD #55 2 years ago

    Once more, the 360 version absolutely destroys the PS3 version. It's getting embarrassing. Suck on this, PS3 fanboys.

  • bratmandu #56 2 years ago

    Better to play it safe, keep everyone happy and say as Will Smith said in some Christmas episode of Fresh Prince, when he was comparing his aunts' and mother's stuffing:

    "I like all of em, equally. Everything, is exactly as good, as everything else."
    Edited by 3 at 12/11/09 @ 15:53

  • Moonprince #57 2 years ago

    Led - sucks to be you! If Donnie was banned, surely you should be too?? Get on it mods...

  • metalmike25 #58 2 years ago

    @farticumaximus

    Easy grumpy! you should maybe chill out, it's only a game after all.

  • GamerG #59 2 years ago

    Seriously though I wouldn't like playing a version when I knew it was a better game on a different console. It would bug me so much i'd end up buying the other console version just so that I knew I had the best, thats just me I guess.

    PS I know the PC version will probably be the best but I find playing Keyboard/mouse to fidly/twitchy, I use my pc for RTS games only.
    Edited by 1 at 12/11/09 @ 15:47

  • mashk #60 2 years ago

    360 version superior? There's a surprise!

  • Darren #61 2 years ago

    @GrumpyLlama - It's not so much how it looks as how it feels to actually play really.

    I can't always tell 60 fps from 30 fps by watching a game in motion, perhaps a racing game replay looks slightly less smooth at 30 fps than the 60 fps gameplay, but I can usually tell the difference when I play it. Movies run at 24 fps with motion-blurring to give the impression of smoother movement, something effectively used in many 30 fps and even 60 fps (Tekken 6) games these days. You don't interactive with a movie but if you could then I think you'd find 24 fps a bit sluggish control wise and nowhere near as sharp and responsive as 60 fps.

    Anything above 60 fps is pointless IMO which is why I always enable v-sync and laugh at PC owners who brag about playing their games, usually FPSs, at 120+ fps. Personally above 60 fps I can't feel any difference in responsiveness but I sure as hell notice the tearing!!!

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #62 2 years ago

    Question: games often come locked to 30fps. Does it HAVE to be 30fps? Why not lock at 40 or 50?

    When playing console games your TV will be locked to Pal 60 mode, so it will update at 60fps. As such, to prevent tearing the refresh rate has to be a whole factor of 60, so 30, 20, 15, 12, 10, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 or 1.
    Edited by 1 at 12/11/09 @ 16:01

  • brazzauk #63 2 years ago

    @LeD What a clown, did you even read the whole article or just cherry pick the parts to feed you fanboy limited intellect? The outcome of this was in the words of the writer 'marginal difference'. I am glad both copies are comparable, good to see some developers taking the time on multi format.

  • Widge #64 2 years ago

    For GamerG consumption:

    I remember the xbox version of San Andreas was better (visually WAY ahead) than the PS2 version. Did we give a shit?
    NO WE DID NOT.
    Do we give a shit about this scenario.
    NO WE DO NOT.

  • Widge #65 2 years ago

    and I love the "must discredit the PC as competition" aspect too.

  • Darren #66 2 years ago

    @GamerG - The PC version, bar the higher resolution (1920x1200 for the win!), additional AA and mouse/keyboard controls, is essentially a console port and it does show in places, e.g. the crippled multiplayer and ugly designed-for-720p interface.

    I was actually surprised and somewhat disappointed that it didn't support the Xbox 360 controller because I prefer to play most PC games that way even Crysis and Unreal Tournament III, which work beautifully with said controller. I don't play games online much so I have no need for precise mouse controls and a controller does free you up from having to play games at a desk. It also gives you feedback in the form of vibration too which adds to the game in a subtle but effective way.

  • brazzauk #67 2 years ago

    @widge

    Good post, people are crowing because there console of choice has 4-5 fps advanctage on some occasions

  • uk_mal #68 2 years ago

    @Widge & muscleblade

    From what I can gather, it's because the refresh rate of a TV is 60 hz, so they can only show frame rates that are factors of 60 - so, 60 (60/1),30 (60/2), 20 (60/3), etc. A torn frame is the result of the game using a framerate that doesn't obey this rule.

    Imagine drawing a from top-to-bottom, and half way down your page, deciding to change the angle at which you're drawing from. It'd look like there was a big slice across your page, where you changed angle. A frame tear is the same. At 40 fps on a 60hz TV, it would take 1.5 refreshes to draw each screen. If each frame was displayed as soon as it was drawn, you'd end up with a tear every other frame, as it switched to the newly drawn frame.

    However, if you were to lock to one of the framerates mentioned above, you'd be displaying a new frame every 1 or 2 or 3...(etc) frames, and you shouldn't have to worry about tearing.

  • udat #69 2 years ago

    @Widge - because all monitors and HD TVs update at 60 frames per second, and NTSC SD TVs update at 60 fields per second.

    Updating at 30 or 60 Hz therefore means you update in sync with the TV/monitor and there are no torn frames. Updating at any other frequency results in torn frames.

    Edit: Hmm, i should read all the comments before replying i guess...
    Edited by 1 at 12/11/09 @ 16:11

  • Widge #70 2 years ago

    Thanks. Didn't know the science.

  • Darren #71 2 years ago

    @Mentalist(air) - Triple buffering allows a game to run any framerate upto the refresh rate of the display without tearing so long as v-sync is enabled. You could then cap the framerate to whatever you want, something you can easily do with, for example, Unreal Engine 3 games on the PC as the minimum and maximum framerate can be tweaked via the Engine INI file.

    Triple buffering is memory hungry though because it requires an extra frame buffer so isn't used much on the consoles, although an increasing number of PS3 games are now using it, e.g. Bionic Commando, Uncharted 2. Less so on the 360 though, presumably because its non-standard 10 MB framebuffer makes it more difficult to implement (at a guess)?

  • rickimalone #72 2 years ago

    Excellent comparison by Digital Floundry. I really can not understand why so many people log in just to moan about them, if you don’t like reading Face off’s then don’t! Being a multiplatform owner I really value these articles, therefore when they are of this high quality I really can’t complain. Looks like it’s the Xbox 360 version for me this time round. Keep up the good work.

  • MiniAmin #73 2 years ago

    @ notmyrealname

    Donnie-bashing is neither original nor relevant here.

    Great technical analysis. With multiplayer I always tend to favour the 360, because most of my "real" friends are on XBL. Still I won't be buying this for a long while. FIFA 10/Halo ODST/Uncharted 2 will keep me occupied for the year. Then there's Mass Effect 2 in spring and God of War 3.

    I can't be the only person who's nonplussed by the way ALL games are expected to buy MW2.

  • Bravestinsane #74 2 years ago

    This is very good hopefully more developers will be able to give equal performance to both platforms.

    My only niggle...

    PLEASE get someone better to do the missions your shooting was awful just awful, perhaps you done it on purpose (getting hit that is) but shooting the enemy jeese.

  • Johnsters #75 2 years ago

    hmmm, both versions look good to me.
    As i dont have an xbox, I'll make do with the PS3 version. Which is good so far.
    SP is ok, MP is where it's at. (haven't tried special ops yet)

    @LeD
    "Once more, the 360 version absolutely destr0ys the PS3 version. It's getting embarrassing...."
    I think you need to read the article more again. Bottom line was *marginally* superior. I think owners of either console would be happy.

  • Big-Swiss #76 2 years ago

    Ps3 version for the win, if you only have a PS3

    or: better COD MW2 on PS3 than no COD MW2

  • Negotiator #77 2 years ago

    This just proves once again that the old 360 is more powerful than the over priced PS3, this game has the best graphics of any game so far on a console. I own both consoles so I don't care which has the better graphics, but it bothers me when Sony claim the PS3 can produce better graphics. This game proves it can't.

  • butler` #78 2 years ago

    it's epic when the ps3 crew have objective stuff they can't argue with

    LURVELY

  • El-Dev #79 2 years ago

    "this game has the best graphics of any game so far on a console."

    File this statement in the folder marked "wrong" please.
    Edited by 1 at 12/11/09 @ 16:34

  • GamerG #80 2 years ago

    @Widge

    You sure use a lot of CAPITALS for some who doesn't give a shit!!!

    BTW no one gave a shit about GTA:SA on Xbox because it came out a year after!

  • Dave52 #81 2 years ago

    Negotiator: "this game has the best graphics of any game so far on a console"

    Oh dear...

  • Darren #82 2 years ago

    @Negioator - "This just proves once again that the old 360 is more powerful than the over priced PS3, this game has the best graphics of any game so far on a console."

    You're entitled to your opinion, obviously, but you really think CoD: MW 2 looks better than Uncharted 2?

    Different genres admittedly but the latter game shows the kind of attention to detail that's lacking in the former, e.g. facial expressions and excellent lip-synching outside of cutscenes and superior lighting effects (since it uses HDR not bloom). You don't see people walk THROUGH dead bodies but over them nor do they regularly clip through solid objects and other people. You don't get snagged on scenery either, something I've experienced in every CoD game to date on the consoles.

  • TonyCocaCola #83 2 years ago

    Who is donnie?

  • Diomedes #84 2 years ago

    My God ,you always do this ......you start saying both games are nearly like-for-like and then start the fanboy rant and the biased comparisions (I have seen frame rate comparisions in about 20 scenes of this game and the 360 is marginally better by 3-4 frames ,not the 10-12 fps you are putting here ) about SIGNIFICANT differences until it appears one game is really superior to the other.Then you conclude they are nearly the same and the differences marginal and to buy in the plattform where you have most friends.

    You just cant control the fanboy inside can you?

  • Zappa #85 2 years ago

    wow, 360 shadows look so terrible!!

  • Felwyn #86 2 years ago

    The lag between initial posting and fanboy entrance is quite noticable...in other words, quoting another comment:

    "Conclusion:

    Nobody cares."

  • smelly #87 2 years ago

    ZZZZzzzzzZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  • septimus #88 2 years ago

    Played both... barely noticed a difference when they are blown up to 46". Neither have the texture resolution for that, and they felt the same to play.

  • r_simsini #89 2 years ago

    This comparison is exactly the same as any other. All multiplaform games are marginaly better on the 360.

  • smelly #90 2 years ago

    "Why bother play a game that is little more than an interactive movie? For those of us raised on Mario and Sonic the hedgehog the lack of challenge is surely unacceptable? "

    You're confusing COD for Bioshock.. COD4 had a challenge, it was just stupidly short (As i understand this one is too).

  • FooAtari #91 2 years ago

    @Gamer
    Seriously though I wouldn't like playing a version when I knew it was a better game on a different console. It would bug me so much i'd end up buying the other console version just so that I knew I had the best, thats just me I guess.

    PS I know the PC version will probably be the best but I find playing Keyboard/mouse to fidly/twitchy, I use my pc for RTS games only.

    Do you realise how stupid that comment is? Clearly it doesn't bug you not having the best version...Totally contradicted yourself.

  • smelly #92 2 years ago

    "This comparison is exactly the same as any other. All multiplaform games are marginaly better on the 360. "

    By "marginally" you mean "so similar no-one would ever notice unless they were sad enough to slow down the footage and run them both side by side"?

  • TRUTH #93 2 years ago

    This game is soooooooooooo over hyped.

  • Chufty #94 2 years ago

    For a minute there I thought the Fanboys weren't going to emerge.

    Here they are.

  • Calgon #95 2 years ago

    :) Ahhh.... I love the smell of PS3 fanboy tears in the evening! :D

    2 things:

    1) Theres no reason for PS3 fanboys to complain here, they worked pretty hard on the PS3 version. They are close enough not to complain but 360 edges it on framerate and image quality.
    2) Seriously Diomedes you dont have a clue, denial is not pretty sight to witness, especially from a PS3 fanboy.

  • Gay-Lord-Perry #96 2 years ago

    Glad I got the 360 version =D

  • Gormless #97 2 years ago

    IW please give the PS3 version an install option

  • jambo74 #98 2 years ago

    Got both consoles so I can make the choice as needed.

  • Ashcroft #99 2 years ago

    My god, this article could send a coke fiend to sleep whilst he was jumping on a trampoline. What else can you tell us? Which game has the clearer fonts? Which disc is rounder?

  • r_simsini #100 2 years ago

    "By "marginally" you mean "so similar no-one would ever notice unless they were sad enough to slow down the footage and run them both side by side"?"

    Possibly. But as another person commented here, I wouldn't want to be playing a game knowing it is "marginally" better on another console.

  • spudsbuckley #101 2 years ago

    Got both consoles and a PC.

    Bought on PS3 because i don't want my second 360 to RRoD so i only use it for Sky and exclusives and my PC isn't good enough to run it well.

  • makattack #102 2 years ago

    Erm... these articles are great for the anorak / engineer in me. My purchase decision will be driven by which console I own (if I were a single console owner) or by which group of mates I'd play with. I bought the 360 version even though my PS3 slim still has the new console scent. No worries, U2 will eventually find its way there once I'm through with MW2.

  • Trejser #103 2 years ago

    "Possibly. But as another person commented here, I wouldn't want to be playing a game knowing it is "marginally" better on another console."

    But pc version is always the best, you dont know that?

  • Emmit_Assassin #104 2 years ago

    Can I just say, to all posters here (wel, most anyway) well done for the maturity. I've skipped a lot of the posts, but skimmed them, and can't see a lot of fanboy crap, considering the article makes out the 360 version is technically 'better'.

    Finally nice to see adult discussion and funny comments and not a lot of for-no-real-reason slagging matches between 360 and PS3 owners.

    Which, by the way, would make a great multi platform arcade game.

  • des #105 2 years ago

    Nothing new.
    Wait for PS4.

  • Emmit_Assassin #106 2 years ago

    @Galore -Very good.
    By the way, translated as : 'I have both consoles but I prefer the Xbox version'.

  • Emmit_Assassin #107 2 years ago

    To everyone: Read this, it's funny a f**k.

    [link url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology /video-games/6546346/Call-of-Duty-For-an-army-of-forsaken-wo men-its-more-like-a-call-for-help.html
    ]http://ww w.telegraph.co.uk/technology/vi...[/link]

    The comments afterwards are the best bit. Especially the guy that does the little inner monologues of the couple. "I want you to sit here with me while I do nothing"...

    That woman journo got pnwed!

  • Aname #108 2 years ago

    What about audio? Why is that never mentioned eh? Damn visualists.

  • Mnia786 #109 2 years ago

    Look at the picture of Sgt. Dionne on the bottom of page 2. If that is what gives the xbox version its superiority, these guys must be on meth when they write this stuff

  • makeamazing #110 2 years ago

    I was pretty shocked as well that he could run through the on-rails section without actually doing anything. I hope this was on easy or something.

    I found that level pretty poor to be honest, I think they were going for intense, but it ended up being who the hell is shooting at me, and its shaking all over the place. Bad bad game design indeed... if you want to know how to do it properly look at the game Black Hawk Down, now thats how you do a humvee and gun level :)

    Ive only got as far as level 3 but i'm not that impressed so far, not finding it as good as MW1.

    As for the crazy fanboys, seriously, both games got a 9, so they must be pretty close eh? Yep I agree the Xbox has certainly got a better FPS this gen, but unless you stick both machines next to each other are you going to notice.... We all know the advantages and disadvantages of both machines, there is an argument for both.

  • IronGiant #111 2 years ago

    They should stick to 30fps and give us a smooth experience all round.

  • davisorle #112 2 years ago

    Nice one but I have one complain. Since i dont like the washed out look as shown in the PS3 version I noticd you made the 360 version brighter ( havent played neither. Only PC version ) to the poiunt that I noticed that you made the 360 a bit too bright and I didnt like it on the screen shots. You ended up making the PS3 darker than the 360 which was originally darker. How come? lol :p

    I only read the first 10 comments on the threat here and none was craptalking. im impressed. I didnt check any firther how the wave goes to not ruin it. Im happy for you all.

    I have to agree with you. Not that the game is that much overrated, but the fact that its so scripted and the whole thing in oredr to have that cinematic feel and touch in it and constant action, it looses a bit the point of actual gameplay and by rnning along the scripted levels ends up being just weird. Amazing game and set up of the whole thing but nowhere to take some skill out on. Only thing that makes it up is the Spec Ops. IO swear, if it wasnt for that mod the game would have not even half the value..

  • BartonFink #113 2 years ago

    Yup 360 version definitely is the way to go.

    What's the score now in the face-offs? 40 nil to xbox360 or some such .

  • patchbox360 #114 2 years ago

    would definately get the ps3 version just to avoid the horrendous cd and fan noises the 360 makes during gameplay

  • prettyboytim #115 2 years ago

    I figured the 360 version would probably perform better, but I got the PS3 one because the Xbox makes such a racket.

  • womble #116 2 years ago

    "My theory has to do with the 360 edram, and if thats true its just another PS3 port."

    Ah, the lament of the PS3 fanboy. If a game isn't quite as good on the PS3, it must be the 360's fault!

    Or the good old "lazy developers" argument.

    Read the full article next time, before weighing in with your usual fanboy tactics. Specifically, this:

    "Particular effort has been made on the PS3 side of things. Under the bonnet, a lot has been done to bring the visuals on the Sony platform up to the same standard as that seen on the 360 build."

    Edited by 2 at 12/11/09 @ 21:19

  • MrsPacMan #117 2 years ago

    However, for those that haven't made up their minds, it's fairly easy to say that while both renditions of the game are well worthy of the Eurogamer 9/10 score, the Xbox 360's MASSIVELY superior visuals and SIGNIFICANTLY smoother performance gives it an UNDOUBTED edge over the Play(lol)Station 3 game, and this translates directly into a TANGIBLY BETTER gameplay experience.
    Edited by 2 at 12/11/09 @ 21:44

  • MrsPacMan #118 2 years ago

    @prettyboy

    you can't hear that when you have the volume up loud (cs)

  • oreillymj #119 2 years ago

    Sorry for the slightly off-topic question, but didn't IW say that online stats were going to be reset?
    I know that the game went on sale early in parts of the US/UK, but at the top of the PS3 multiplayer leaderboards are several people who have racked up > 3 days of play online.

    I can't say I was ever brilliant in online play but I got to the stage where I was usually coming out of most matches with kills > deaths. Now I getting my arse smacked badly by people who seem to know every last pixel of the new maps.

    And multiplayer was borked for most of yesterday.
    Edited by 1 at 12/11/09 @ 22:13

  • IMD1_Pk #120 2 years ago

    @Darren
    "I was actually surprised and somewhat disappointed that it didn't support the Xbox 360 controller because I prefer to play most PC games that way even Crysis and Unreal Tournament III, which work beautifully with said controller"
    ModernWarfare2 is a game heavily reliable on auto-aim for console versions. If the auto-aim was that high on the PC version you wouldn't see people playing the game after a week. Unreal tournament 3 doesn't require you to aim down sights so it's not a big deal but CoD requires you to quickly aim quickly down the sights and that's what makes it pretty ok. I found pretty nice on Crysis but I felt more comfartable playing with a mouse in Warhead and Wars.

  • local_celebrity #121 2 years ago

    @oreillymj

    "Sorry for the slightly off-topic question, but didn't IW say that online stats were going to be reset?

    I know that the game went on sale early in parts of the US/UK, but at the top of the PS3 multiplayer leaderboards are several people who have racked up > 3 days of play online. "

    Don't worry, there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for this.

    They're Time Bandits.

  • Negotiator #122 2 years ago

    Why are some people surprised when I stated MW2 has the best graphics of any console game to date, there is no question it has. Uncharted 2 is a very pretty game, but its not doing half of what MW2 is doing on screen at any given time. Also MW2 is 60fps, Uncharted 2 is 30fps, I own both games and what MW2 has done is set a new benchmark for console graphics. Uncharted 2 is very pretty but don't let that blind you to the fact that the battles are small scale, and compared to MW2 they are tiny.

  • Dave52 #123 2 years ago

    Oh dear...

  • MrsPacMan #124 2 years ago

    @wile_coyote

    You're not really getting into this thread are you?

  • MrsPacMan #125 2 years ago

    @Negotiator

    But your talking about the PS3 yes?

    Most if not all titles look, play and are better on X360 aren't they?

    It's all I read on here!!!

    iPhone owner

  • El-Dev #126 2 years ago

    "Also MW2 is 60fps, Uncharted 2 is 30fps, I own both games and what MW2 has done is set a new benchmark for console graphics. "

    Of course it has.

  • Pro_Gamer #127 2 years ago

    Suck shit to PS3 fanboyts - you bought the shittest of the two consoles and now you have to play an inferior version of the game with an inferior controller. And you don't EVEN have an exclusive shooter as good as you know what to compete!

  • Quixz #128 2 years ago

    Another win for the Xbox yay!

  • Aname #129 2 years ago

    @wile_coyote

    ..."same audio", whoah there. The article, like every DF article, sadly chooses to ignore audio entirely. I can only presume that these articles are written by cloth-eared, tone-deaf image junkies.

    As someone who can hear things, and who often uses this ability in a video game environment, I demand sonic testing on a par with the visual trials, or really it seems all a bit half-arsed.

    Do you hear me DF? Probably not. Deaf as doorposts, see?

  • SeesThroughAll #130 2 years ago

    @ Diomedes:

    I have seen frame rate comparisions in about 20 scenes of this game and the 360 is marginally better by 3-4 frames ,not the 10-12 fps you are putting here

    Care to post a few links?

  • Negotiator #131 2 years ago

    It is a sad day for the PS3 sadboys, when the best game of the year is at its finest on the great white hope xbox 360, I love it man, I fucking love it. Most of them are now trying to say the game is not that good, well fellas 6 million people can't be wrong.

  • Badassbab #132 2 years ago

    I honestly thought it was going to be even more similar in performace than MW1 not further away!

  • Aname #133 2 years ago

    Here is an alternative comparison:

    [link url=http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=18459 021&postcount=78
    ]http://ww w.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php...[/link]

    :D

  • El-Dev #134 2 years ago

    I fear Negotiator has lost the plot.

    Finished the SP today, the ending is brilliant.

    Edited by 1 at 13/11/09 @ 01:35

  • IMD1_Pk #135 2 years ago

    Despite not agreeing with semitope's comments sometimes when I watch from the sidelines I'm gonna have to agree with him fully this time. Playing it on the PC with a $600 configuration can get you running with high textures a constant locked 60fps with a bit of AA, all at a real 720p resolution. It's a bit overhyped in terms of it's multiplayer mode but they have made a lot of improvements in terms of map design, spawning system, and glitches(for now).
    @Negotiaotor
    Right now my personal GOTY is Uncharted 2. I thought I would get that out of the way before I continued. The differences in the way Naughty Dog or Infinity Ward approaches their engine depends on what they want accomplished. Naughty Dog wanted an engine that could support the facial animations and LOD to make a great story while Infinity Ward focused on making the engine suitable for online Multi-player as well as singleplay. They could have pushed the engine further by making the fps limit 30 and having improvement in many areas of the engine but they wanted the game to be very responsive for their firefights. Despite being my GOTY I know Uncharted 2 can't compete in the multiplayer area with most first/third person shooters on the 360 and PS3, but it's singleplayer took precedence. We will remember the stories of Nathan Drake and Solid Snake in years to come but after a year or 2 people will only remember a few moments from the Modern Warfare games. 6 million people can be wrong. It only takes one leader to lead a bunch of followers.

  • Big-Swiss #136 2 years ago

    perhaps it is my TV, but I put the disc in yesterday, and I was very happy with the graphics.
    /is PS3 owner
    / its ok if the 360 is better, its not like the PS3 is crap
    Edited by 1 at 13/11/09 @ 11:29

  • msamik #137 2 years ago

    So let me summarise:
    multiplat game: 360 > Ps3 marginally for some games
    Exclusive game: PS3 thrashes 360 games (compare KZ2 or Uncharted 2 to ODST ot L4D2)

  • FooAtari #138 2 years ago

    I love how people have started dropping in the word "console" when discussing graphics. Kind of shows it's just another arguing point for the strange specifies that is the fanboy.

    Let's face it, if graphics really was your primary concern you would be playing this on the PC. Instead you arguing which console comes second best...

  • Negotiator #139 2 years ago

    "MW2 is chucking around 5-6 enemies and the odd helicopter (all at a low 600p), and even then it drops frames all over the place. I mean for fucks sake Halo on the original Xbox was chucking around a lot more than sodding Modern Warfare 2."

    5-6 enemies, you have just made yourself look very stupid N@, I wonder if you have even played the game, making a silly comment like that.

  • Globalexpress #140 2 years ago

    Once again this article shows the limitation of bandwidth on both consoles, but more pronounced on the PS3. However, the game looks great on both consoles and therefore I send my congratulations to the developers.

  • hayisforhorses #141 2 years ago

    Why does everyone get so worked up about this, i liked the comparison i dont think either really looks paticularly inferior or superior both games look damn good, but i will say this i dont think it is the best looking game ever on any platform!

  • pankomentarz #142 2 years ago

    Why by Jove would you post a photo of Captain Price! Spolier mongers!

  • lockload #143 2 years ago

    It was obvious whihc version would be superior, all the interview with the devs all they talk about is xbox360 and playing with their friends on live they know where their bread is buttered

    Queue 'te pwr of te cell'

  • JaysonG #144 2 years ago

    Need to install it to my HDD then too.

  • dr_faulk #145 2 years ago

    No reference made to Soap's crap mohawk?

  • itsfuzzy #146 2 years ago

    Both look great. Special Ops is a great add. Maybe they should do an article on that and multiplayer changes.
    Would make more sense.

  • Emmit_Assassin #147 2 years ago

    @local_celebrity

    ""Don't worry, there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for this.

    They're Time Bandits.""

    LOL. Fuckin awesome film.

  • Emmit_Assassin #148 2 years ago

    I wish I wore the trousers in my marriage. Then I could have a nice shiny new HDTV to play MW2 on now instead of Xmas day.

    But then I know what's good for me. Fuck my 360, she can have whatever she wants so long as she keeps my balls happy...

  • Gecks #149 2 years ago

    i think djronz wants us all to know he has an expensive tv.
    Edited by 1 at 13/11/09 @ 17:44

  • muscleblade #150 2 years ago

    "Seeing as the levels I've played so far in Call of Duty: MW2 last all of 10 minutes each"

    Damn. Its more like at least 30 minutes each for me. Im playing on the only difficulty for seasoned gamers though. Veteran all the way.

  • muscleblade #151 2 years ago

    I wonder if KZ2 looks better than MW2 in peoples minds? How about Uncharted 2? I personally dont think so but what do i know? All three look more than good enough too please my eyes. I personally loved the graphics in Bionic Commando. Lost Planet 2 and Bayonetta has the looks that i really love. AC2 that i actually bought today also looks just as good as Uncharted 2 imo.

  • Sparda989 #152 2 years ago

    With regards to the ps3 version, does it look better when I force a 1080p upscale or should I just leave it at 720p? I have a sharp aquos TV that is full HD.

  • TheNinkyNonk #153 2 years ago

    As someone who's played both platforms on the same screen, I'd say there's naff all in the graphics but what I would say is that comparing the two has made me realise one thing: the PS3 controller thumbsticks are far superior than the 360's. Attempting fine movements on the 360 result in clacking the stick from one extreme to the other but the significantly larger surface area on the PS3 sticks enables much, much smoother and more precise movements. That, if anything, contributes to a better experience. Balls to negligible differences in graphics.

  • Dave52 #154 2 years ago

    Seriously, I've been looking at all the "face off" articles across the internets and I have to say I'm perplexed. The XBox keeps wining, but the PS3 looks better. Are all of these comparisons coming down to 1 or 2 fps drops...?

  • makeamazing #155 2 years ago

    I dont care if its got 5 or 10 more frames, I am just not liking the game... I am surprised more people havent commented on it... or perhaps its just my age or I'm just not clicking with it.

    At the moment UC2 is GOTY for me, i was impressed by most of it (some parts were alittle boring, but it quickly ramped it back up again). While MW2 is more scripted than its every been, and the sections are sooo short and lifeless:(. The snow mobile part that was shown at E3 looked amazing, but playing it myself was just really boring and flat.... Now I admit i did play MW1 on the PC, so i wonder if these games are not for me on the console, though I dont mind FPS games generally... Oh well going to give it another try tonight and hopefully something clicks (I want to enjoy it because everyone else seems to be loving it).

  • womble #156 2 years ago

    "When he became a little exasperated at the fact most people had asked for ps3 version he asked the que"

    That does sound a little strange, considering that the 360 version is wildly outselling the PS3 version...

    Take a look at the best seller lists at major sites. They show the 360 version leads in demand.

    Currently, the top three games, in order, at amazon are:

    1. MW2 (360)

    2. Super Mario Bros (Wii)

    3. MW2 (PS3)

    So, I'm not sure how representative that sample of customers at Sainsburys was...

  • womble #157 2 years ago

    Oh, and FWIW, I've returned my copy to the store. Reason: I'm disgusted by the terrorist scene. The game is bombastic and adolescent enough without turning the player in to a mass murderer as well.

    Activision should be ashamed of themselves.

  • Badassbab #158 2 years ago

    Ah Semitope totally not surprised to see you here! You really think this game is not meant to be played on consoles? It was made with consoles in mind too you know. It's an amazing game, has lush 60fps graphics and guess what, unlike you I own it!

    But them shadows are damn ugly!

  • flanker22 #159 2 years ago

    @ Dave52 , did you even bother to read the article?

    the 360 version has faster texture streaming, an added layer of lighting effects, better antiscopic filtering and shadow detail is better at mid-range. So its not just performance its also image quality. And depending on which part of the game 1-2 fps is far from it, youre looking at 10-15fps on alpha heavy zones...
    Edited by 1 at 13/11/09 @ 22:39

  • Dave52 #160 2 years ago

    @flanker22, I'm sorry but the image quality is better on the PS3. Rather than reading the words, take a look at the actual images. The xbox version is either too dark (which I think is down to the contrast settings, because they've over done it on the PS3 images), or there is simply no colour to it.

    Look at the scene where the guy pulls the guard into the water. PS3, full camo-coloured trousers, Xbox - black and white movie.

    Look at the last image on page 2 of this article. PS3 has proper shadows on the guys face, proper textures on the guys clothes and the stars and stripes are in fact red, white and blue. Xbox image has blocky shadows on the guys face, no definition on his clothes and a grey scale representation of the stars and stripes.

    Comparing both versions, the xbox is blurry, the PS3 is defined. EG and Lens Of Truth seem to have wacked the contrast up on the PS3 images as if they're trying to make it look shit. It just doesn't look like that in the real world. I am not arguing the toss about most comparisons, because a lot of them are very poor PS3 ports (not that anyone cares about GI Joe), but MW2 is different. It looks like the two developments split quite early in the cycle, and the PS3 version is excellent.

  • mudasira #161 2 years ago

    I am developer who has worked on multiplatform games i.e 360 and PS3. Almost 90% developers use 360 as the primary development platform because the tools are extremely mature and easy to use. So when the rendering engine is coded, 360 takes priority. We even do profiling and optimization on the 360 first then try to optimize if the same level is framing out on the PS3. One example is blendshapes rendering performance was pretty good on the 360 but we had to do so something different on PS3 to maintain 60fps. At a glance it would look the same but if looked at in detail you would notice the difference. This the reason why most 360 games perform slightly better than PS3. I believe PS3 is a great system but very few games do justice to it. Uncharted blew me away, it really pushed the PS3. Naughty dog came up with PS3 specific solutions to do posteffects by processing it on the SPU. Post effects are normally done in the shader pipeline on the 360. (Killzone 2 didnt do anything special that 360 couldnt do, in my opinion, they didnt push the PS3) So what you will see in the future is that the difference between PS3 and 360 games will become smaller and smaller. Eventually the PS3 might start performing better then 360 but for different reasons. E.g PS3 is an awesome number cruncher and with its SPUs we will probably see better AI, Physics and maths heavy stuff. But by then 360 coders will have made another iteration on tech and might be able to draw more stuff,etc. Expect to see games that benefit from the different platforms in different ways because of their strengths and weaknesses in design.

  • hardsoft #162 2 years ago

    The frame rate vid is a tricky one... In the scene where it looks like an outdoor market, I can only count a total of 5 enemies on the 360 ver., whereas the PS3 version I count 10 and often they're grouped together instead of single soldiers as on 360. This will surely account for heavier loading and ultimately lower framerates. Having more enemies onscreen and frantic battles on framerates averaging above 50fps shouldn't be classed as a lose to the 360..??
    Either way we're still talking trivial differences.

  • SaberEdge #163 2 years ago

    Thanks, Digital Foundry, for another great comparison article. Not surprisingly the 360 version was found to look and perform somewhat better, just like 90+% of multi-platform games. Nevertheless, the difference isn't night and day and I think owners of either version are going to have a great experience.

    That said, I am not sure I am even going to buy the game. I know it has a lot of hype behind it and a lot of people seem to love it, but I am usually not a huge fan of real-world shooters. They carry too much political baggage from our everyday reality. I prefer sci-fi settings like those found in Killzone or Halo.

    If I did decide to buy the game I might get it on the PS3 even though I know it performs a bit worse on that console. The reason being that I have been contemplating whether I want to continue paying for Xbox Live. It's a great online service, but the PSN has largely caught up to it and I find myself playing more and more games online on my PS3 than on my 360.

    Anyway, I'm not sure what I am going to do, but it's nice to see that Infinity Ward put in some solid effort to try to give owners of either console a great experience. The 360 version is no doubt better to a degree, but the PS3 version is not a crappy port like we have sometimes seen in the past.

  • tnt_2008smum #164 2 years ago

    "I would say is that comparing the two has made me realise one thing: the PS3 controller thumbsticks are far superior than the 360's."

    sometimes people will spout any old shite to make themselves feel better!

  • TheNinkyNonk #165 2 years ago

    @tnt_2008smum

    I'm assuming you own both consoles and have played FPS on them extensively?

    Because if not, I'd wager that your comment refers to yourself.

  • des #166 2 years ago

    "I would say is that comparing the two has made me realise one thing: the PS3 controller thumbsticks are far superior than the 360's."

    Yeah,maybe is some delusional Sony fantasy land.
    360 controller is and it always be better for shooters,just like MW2 is superior on 360...deal with it

  • tnt_2008smum #167 2 years ago

    Yes i do own both thanks and i don't really need to add anything else as des has it pretty much covered.

  • Badassbab #168 2 years ago

    Semitope-

    I don't know how difficult it is to play with the PS3 pad (it was after all designed in the early 90's with tacked on analouge sticks after the N64 was released), but it's easier enough on the 360. Presumably you wish Killzone 2 and Resistence were released on PC instead or at least 'as well'. I'm sure the power of your PC would be more than enough to handle it just as it's powerful enough to handle your legit copy of MW2 at higher settings than your PS3 could cope with.

  • Badassbab #169 2 years ago

    My point is obvious. You say MW2 isn't suitable for console play (presumably because they are FPS) so I've assumed you think all FPS inc the PS3 exclusives would be best suited to PC play and perhaps you wish they were available on that platform as surely it would be your platform of choice.

  • womble #170 2 years ago

    It's easy. The reason he's saying MW2 isn't suitable for console play is because the 360 version is marginally better than the PS3 version.

    If the PS3 version had been better, he'd be crowing to the rooftops about it, telling everyone how great MW2 is as a console game.

    Personally, I doubt he actually has the PC version at all.

  • mgillespie #171 2 years ago

    Time the PS3 needs to be unchained from the 360 which is clearly holding it back. You only got to look at the PS3 exclusives to see what can be done, when you have't got the 1970's PC-like archiecture holding it back.

  • mukki #172 2 years ago

    well dammit bought this for the ps3 but only because I have more friends playing it on there...

    but honestly is the ps3 such a b*tch to code for?
    the 360 almost always if not always gets better games or better said games that run a bit better...

    could also be 360+PC = bigger market than ps3 so more time is spent on dev?

    who knows...



  • edhe #173 2 years ago

    @mgillespie or similarly unchain the 360 from the shackles of the code-hole that is the ps3 and let the developers truly flex their skills on a well-designed system.

    Imagine how much better games would be if developers didn't have to spend so much time getting 'up to speed' on the ps3.

    If Sony don't continue with the cell/rsx codebase for their next console they'll be truly shafted.

  • Badassbab #174 2 years ago

    Semitope

    I understand your point perfectly. If the PS3 loses the head to head (majority of the time), look for any excuse and any way out no matter what including using diversionary tactics. I'm staying relevant. This is the PS3 version up against the 360 one. You just had to bring the PC in. Which is fair enough. You may think it's wrong to play this kind of games on consoles. I think your wrong and I'm glad we can enjoy FPS on consoles.

  • SandokTheSlayer #175 2 years ago

    How many clicks over from the left is the brightness setting that you guys use on the xbox 360?

    http://im ages.eurogamer.net/assets/artic...

    I notice that it is centered perfectly directly above in the heart of the "d" in enabled but I can't get that exact same position on mine for some reason. Its either just a little to the left of the right of the heart of the "d". Thanks I'm just trying to get the best picture!