So yesterday we had the Digital Foundry comparison of Call of Duty: Black Ops. I’ll happily admit that I love Digitial Foundry, I think their comparisons are an amazing insight into the various technical differences between the 360 and the PS3 and every article gives you an insight into the technical side of gaming which rarely gets an in depth analysis; generally any comment on technical performance is based on subjective perception rather than the actual technical breakdown that Digital Foundry performs.
That’s why I find it so odd that Digital Foundry seems to fairly regularly get accused of flame-baiting. Now if this were anyone other than Digital Foundry I’d be inclined to agree, just looking at images side by side and commenting on which you think looks better is, for the most part, little more than creating controversy for controversies sake. These kind of comparisons really don’t teach you much beyond “some guy has an opinion you may or may not agree with.”
Digital Foundry is basically the complete opposite of this style of comparison. By providing a detailed technical break down of resolution, frame-rate, screen tearing etc… they’re able to give you a meaningful conclusion on which version of the game performs better. What it really means is that the information you’re presented with has actual meaning, has a context and a valid source that makes the article actually worth reading and elevates it above simple flame-bait.
That’s my take on this, and is all I really have to say for the moment. How do you feel about comparisons? Do you trust Digital Foundry? Do you ignore all comparisons? Do you find them interesting or useful in anyway?