Eurogamer regular Digital Foundry has set the cat amongst the pigeons with his detailed, in-depth look at both the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions of Activision’s Call of Duty: Black Ops. In the report, everything is analysed in the closest of details, from the framerate to the resolution, and there’s some surprising results, even though the Xbox 360 version comes out on top as the clear winner.
First off, both versions are “sub-HD”, with the developers opting to reduce the resolution to ensure the framerate stays as high as possible. The Xbox 360 version comes in at 1040 x 608 with 2x MSAA whilst the PS3 version offers a 960 x 544 resolution, with the same anti-aliasing. The former, according to the report, has “a slightly cleaner look to it” but both versions look just fine.
Digital Foundry then looks at the framerate (during one of the game’s cutscenes) – on the Xbox 360 the framerate’s locked at 60fps, but on the PS3 it drops as low as 40fps during one particular section – there’s also some screen tearing on the PS3 version not present on the Microsoft platform, even though it’s largely invisible. The same sort of framerate divide appears to occur during the game itself, too.
Page 2 of the report discusses the texture differences (there’s some lower resolution textures on the PS3 version) and the shadow detail, which, again, is much better on the 360. There’s some debate on the 3D merits, too, which suggests that the developers opted to halve the frame-rate on both consoles to get the dual-outputs down the cables. “The 3D version of Black Ops on PS3 really isn’t very satisfying at all,” it says.
We’ll have our own review of the game very soon, where hopefully we’ll set the record straight on the actual game. In the meantime, if you’re considering which version to get, it’s probably well worth reading the full report and making your own mind up.
plutoniumdragon
Same here :) And I’m only commenting to show how silly the whole comparison argument is.
Play it on your system of choice and be done with it – the PC is always going to beat both of them anyway :) :) :)
ScottW-1976
Out of interest guys, how much did your rig cost you that can pump that out that level of graphics with no frame rate drop?
My PS3 Slim was £230 BTW ;)
bunimomike
I reckon a £300 rig could probably run a similar resolution as the PS3’s offering with similar texture maps too. That’d be a genuinely interesting way to look at it.
ScottW-1976
Possibly Mike, been a while since I was into the whole PC building thing.
Don’t think it would be likely to offer the rest of the package though.
Uhyve
And then there’s people of the opinion that anyone who paid money for Black Ops made a mistake, no matter what platform your using. Though, that’s not necessarily my opinion, just thought I’d throw that out there.
Erroneus
Now if people would stop cashing out every year for these mediocre shooters, it might force the publishers to actually produce some quality games.
But neither is never gonna happen.
ScottW-1976
I’m afraid your in the minority with your ‘mediocre’ comment.
Having played pretty much every big FPS since Doom I reckon MW2 is one of the best ever. Picking up BO at the weekend so can’t comment on that yet.
Erroneus
MW was brilliant, but MW2 was a mess. The story was a mess, the ending awful and the campaign way to short. Mediocre might be to hard, because of the great Multiplayer, but it was defiantly not worth perfect scores, not even 90% scores with such a disappointing single-player.
MW2 was massively hyped, even I felt for it and bought it on release and the same thing seems to be going on with Black Ops. While it might be a good game, the pressure from Activision on the devs, so a new CoD is released every fall is not good for quality.
ScottW-1976
I thought the MW2 campaign was ridiculous but a lot of fun TBH. The MP , for me, was awesome. I must have invested over 100 hrs in it before finally trading it in against BC2.
I have no issues with the 90% scores as it delivered massively in my eyes.
Colinbarr66
Should try playing Black Ops, definitely not mediocre.
Erroneus
When it’s down in price or if I find it cheap as used :)
Juelz345
I love how you’re calling Black Ops mediocre and you obviously haven’t played it. And reviews are subjective and the opinion of the reviewer, so saying that the games don’t deserve the scores they got it highly egotistical. You have your opinion, and the reviewers have theirs.
The vast majority of gamers happen to think that the COD gamers are really good, and some of the best shooters out (as proven by sales and reviews i.e commercial and critical success). The length of the campaign being too short is again, subjective. The bread and butter of the series is the multiplayer.
So you don’t like the game, fine, but understand that every issue you’ve named has been subjective.
“Now if people would stop cashing out every year for these mediocre shooters, it might force the publishers to actually produce some quality games”
It’s my opinion that every game in the series since MW1 has been quality. You just sound bitter that the PS3 version is inferior in ways that you’d probably never notice without it being pointed out.
Erroneus
You are dead wrong. I couldn’t care less that the PS3 version is inferior. As I wrote in an earlier post, mediocre was to hard a word.
“The vast majority of gamers happen to think that the COD gamers are really good”
I’m sorry, but that’s not true. The amount people who really likes MW2 is a lot, but it’s is not the vast majority. It might be among you and your friends, but among every game, not even close.
“as proven by sales and reviews i.e commercial and critical success”
Sales doesn’t prove a game is good, it proves it has been hyped and has a huge marketing campaign behind it.
MW2 is a decent game, MW was better and by the looks of it, Black Ops is somewhere in the middle. Off course it’s subjective, but if people and reviewers would be a bit more objective and not be impressed by the hype and big flashy trailers, then we might end up with a great CoD series. I don’t like this “let’s release a CoD game each year” strategy from Activision, it forces the devs to take some shortcuts and the creativity gets thrown out of the window.
Off course MP is the biggest selling point with CoD, but to me a minor update of the MP each year doesn’t justify paying 50£, but I also pretty much feel the same with eg. Fifa.
Kennykazey
This is because it’s made for pc, xbox uses similar architecture so thats safe, and then they do a poor port to the ps3 because activision doesn’t care and just want the money already.
ScottW-1976
360 and PC are identical architechture TBH, the 360 will just have it’s settings locked at a certain level.
Agree with your point though, PS3 development appears too challenging for most publishers.
foeroyingur
Actually they’re completely different architectures. PC is x86 or x86-64 and 360 is PowerPC.
Grey_Ghost13
I still think it doesn’t look as good as MW2 did, on the ps3 anyway.
jayjay119
I also hate these comparisons as it’s never for any specific purpose other than to fire fan boy wars. The only thing that this proves is that Activision are too lazy to offer the ‘exact same’ playing experience for their PS3 customers.
monty2k
For those of us who own both a Xbox 360 and PS3, it is very useful.
GTRsannin
I wonder how good Deus Ex 3 is going to look like since the last i heard they were doing it on all 3 platforms from the scratch no ports
OneShotWook
Was playing last night,single player is way better than last year,veteran seems balls tough again and those 2 issues were my main turn off with Mw2.
As for graphics it seemed as i expected,a little better than the previous,played 1+2 on the P.c,then upto w@w on the 360 and they’ve all followed the same yearly pattern,this ones no different in my eyes.
Kenny i kindve agree with you but if you want to play this online then fk the P.c version tbh and this is in no way a poor port.
ghost5
All though these differences are not generally noticeable while playing it is annoying knowing that the game is not as good as it should have been. In enjoying the game though and that’s what matters the most
plutoniumdragon
This game’s requirements are pretty light by modern PC standards, I reckon you could do that easily.
Surely this is irrelevant though, there are many other factors to consider like online play and what systems your friends have – it’s not all about graphics performance in one particular game.
fps_d0minat0r
i think we can all agree COD isnt the best looking game. but then how the hell cant it even be doing 720p???
3rd party developers always screw up, no matter how big they are they make the ps3 version crap on purpose whether their activision or rockstar or bethesda.
i say ‘on purpose’ because looking at games like gran turimso, god of war, killzone, its obvious what the ps3 is capable of.
a game of call of duty standard SHOULD BE RUNNING AT 60FPS IN NATIVE 1080P ON THE PS3.
use the whole f***ing cell.
BIGAL-1992
” but then how the hell cant it even be doing 720p???”
The engine they’re using is based on an extremely heavily modified form of id Tech 3. That’s why.