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.
BIGAL-1992
Hardly surprising. There were similar results to this when they went over Modern Warfare 2.
cc_star
Can’t believe how badly the PS3 version fared in 3D in comparison to the 360, it really doesn’t seem up to it, barring a developer who has unlimited time & resources to sink a game’s development.
3/4’s of my way through a 2nd play through and I noticed 2 frame-rate drops in the whole game, neither of which affected my enjoyment and both of which were massive WTF moments, so even though the frame-rate has proved to be a lot more variable on the PS3 (as is normal with the majority of 3rd party titles) I can honestly say with quality action its practically impossible to notice.
Person678
Anyone who noticed the difference between 60FPS and 40FPS has eagle eyes.
teflon
I think what you have to take away from this is that even when you’re simply doing a quick jump from a 2D game with 60FpS to 3D at 30FpS, it’ll still require a fair amount of work to pull off.
In particular you can tell that adding 3D was a rather last minute idea simply because they haven’t really adjusted the HUD to handle it, the crosshairs in particular look odd, and there aren’t any 3D cutscenes on the disc for the PS3 (where there would be space for them).
If they’d decided to be doing 3D from the beginning of the development cycle (2 years, don’t forget, and Guerilla Games are adding 3D to KZ3 with the same dev cycle length, and will get a lot more polish on it), then the results would be much more favourable.
But really I think that neither console is particularly ready for 3D, what we’ve got is a sort of botch job to get it all working. Even if the consoles were powerful enough to handle 3D with no issues at 1080p60, then we’re still working with 3D TV tech that is fundamentally rather weak for its purpose.
3D as a whole isnt ready yet, but it’ll get much much better in the next few years.
rept0n
3D looks and plays good to me. The effect of looking down the barrel or scope is incredible.
It’s not ‘tacked on’, as it starts up recognising that the 3D display is attached, runs the whole game in 3D, even the menu screen.
lewis
The 360 is excellent at running older game engines that were created at the beginning of this console generation. The PS3 is better at running newer engines that can work with the cell processor to offload graphical tasks. All you have to do is look at God of War III, Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2 to see that there is not a problem with the console. The problem lies with the programming.
ScottW-1976
Exactly
teflon
@repton: That’s the easy part. The difficult part is making it so that the crosshairs aren’t massively distracting from the 3D effect, and actually hinders you when you’re playing. It’s easy to get 3D up and running, but it’s difficult to get all the little things just right.
@Lewis: The age of a game engine has little to do with, it’s more how it’s being optimised and tweaked to the platforms that’s the issue. The CoD4 engine (itself more a 1.x version of the CoD2 engine) had just as much time between it and MW2 and the Uncharted engine had between UC1 and UC2, and as KZ2 has to KZ3.
This, then, is more the difference between being exclusive and multi-platform. It is, however, disappointing to see that CoD still hasn’t got the PS3 up to parity after 4 attempts. By contrast, AC1 to AC2 was also multi platform, and between the two made great strides in improving the PS3 version. Though even there it’s far from perfectly equal…
Jimmy Hopkins
‘Can’t believe how badly the PS3 version fared in 3D in comparison to the 360, it really doesn’t seem up to it, barring a developer who has unlimited time & resources to sink a game’s development.’
So according to you; if a cheap ass game has been made on an inferior platform first and then ‘copied and pasted’ to the playstation, and is 1% less good it’s the playstation that can’t handle it? lol
and do xboxs even have 3D?
cc_star
Course they have 3D… If you follow the source link you’d see that despite some technical HDMI limitations it handles the 3D better
Your “according to…” paragraph just stinks of fanboyism so I tuned out… sorry, read the source link to see what I mean.
aphex187
Lol you should try playing it on the PC, an absolute disgrace and yet another blow to the gaming community!
gideon1451
It disappoints me that multiplatform developers don’t bother to use the full potential of the PS3.
cc_star
It’s a fine looking game and although there are technical differences you would be hard pushed to notice
Lord_Gremlin
What did you expect from this game? It’s supposed primarily to make money, which in it’s case has nothing to do with actual quality.
ScottW-1976
All games primary objective is to make money, it’s called ‘business’.
Another COD hating troll on TSA, what a suprise….
Charmed_Fanatic
Same :( they should lead with the PS3 and port it too the 360 later
bunimomike
Wow. That really paints a crap picture for the PS3. Appreciate most things are fairly close but the fact that there’s a raft of shortcomings makes it smart that much more. I really thought we’d moved passed this all. :-\
Kovacs
I’d hardly say “crap.” The 360 version is technically better. I doubt most people would actually notice. But the internet loves these face-offs so … c’est la vie.
Jimmy Hopkins
You’re definately right about no one noticing (apart from those frickin’ dweebs on that website) MW2 came with my xbox and it looked exactly the same as MW and WAW that I had on PS3. I’m sure this is no different.
ScottW-1976
Not really, more a problem with the developer IMHO.
Everyone know that the PS3 is tougher to develop for than the 360, but when the developer knows what they are doing (Naughty Dog – Uncharted 2, Polyphony Digital – GT5) and don’t just do lazy porting I would suggest that it shows itself to be the superior hardware.
cc_star
The lazy porting statement starts to wear a bit thin when you see how much money and development time first party games take, 3rd party devs don’t have the luxury of nearly 6 years of dev time… people would get sacked if any other game took that long to be released.
It’s only through the comforting arms of the platform holder playing mr. nice guy that that can be allowed to happen.
And as for Naughty Dog… they are indeed geniuses as they’re able to turn a game around like Uncharted2 with a 2 year dev time, I know of no one else like that in the world, although Turn10 probably run them close.
ScottW-1976
I understand your point CC, but still think that ceratin developers are lazy in their approach to PS3 versions of their games.
TBH the blame lies at Sony’s feet, I can only assume their SDK must be a nightmare to use.
And I think we both know that only one man in the world would be allowed a 6 year dev time ;)
Quinlank
It’s not so much lazy porting as it is taking the “stupid” approach to developing multiplatform games. Ubisoft recently said it was “crazy” not to develop for PS3 and then port to 360, an approach that usually eliminates any minor issues that exist in the majority of 3rd party titles with no loss of overall game quality. So any developers still doing things the old way don’t really have anyone to blame but themselves when there are complaints about their work.
JamesF
Although I hate the term “lazy developer” as it is invariably more to do with the budget (or other) constraints imposed on them, the equivalent DF face-offs for Medal of Honor (using the UT3 engine) demonstrate that a developer can make the differences (with an old engine) minimal.
More cynically, Activision have a partnership with MS whereas EA have done a similar deal with Sony. As such, the PS3 version was always going to be borked ;)
bunimomike
Ah, but I was commenting how it paints a crap picture even though it’s probably quite close. Just such a shame, that’s all. ;-)
spooner_22
well my bro said the 360 one sucks so i think i wont bother gettin it if ps3 one is worse
ScottW-1976
Thats right, don’t you go thinking for yourself…..
rht992
hey the brothers always right
kahana95
Lets be honest 40fps is hardly game breaking especially when other shooters are locked at 30fps.
cc_star
Indeed, a lot of games are capped at 30fps and drop as low as 20fps.
The issue is the varying of the framerate leading to an inconsistent experience, but having sunk close on 15hrs into it over the past 2 days I’d say its more a technical issue than one you’d notice
ScottW-1976
Enjoying it then CC? SP or MP?
monty2k
Yeah, but the 60fps frame rate is a big selling point of the game.
cc_star
And it the main it reaches it just fine
60fps, 59fps or even 40fps in a couple of rare instances or of course anything in between, is all largely irrelevant when set against the fact the higher than normal framerate eliminates one of the reasons for controller input lag leading to a more responsive offering.
monty2k
Ah ok, I thought the slowdown was worse than that.
Well that’s what my friends who have the game have told me anyway.
simplebob
So wheres the detailed comparison to the Wii version?
Jimmy Hopkins
*roll eyes* sadasses, some people need to get an effin’ life (that digital whatsit website not here lol)
gazzagb
It still looks stunning on (my) PS3. And I haven’t had any frame rate problems.
AJ
Compared to what we’ve been used to lately, I think that Black Ops really isn’t stunning at all…
Maybe because I’m playing the PS3 version!?
Heh
But it’s damn fun. They could have sold just the zombie mode and I would have paid for it. And the Dead Ops Arcade is AWESOME. Good luck Dead Nation.
solidsteven
Cue the fanboy wars.
i am fed up with these “comparsions”.It doesn’t bleeding matter which is the best. IGN are the worst for doing these.
Jimmy Hopkins
This. Dosen’t it make you wanna just go give them a nice hard slap ’round the face? :P
a inferior race
I find a lot of comparisons to be mostly pointless. However, in these instances it can be useful to take into account what both platforms offer. Bayonetta anyone?
Juelz345
Not entirely true. I have both consoles so i like to know if one version is better in any meaningful way. In this instance the differences don’t really seem to matter. I bought it for 360 as i do most online multiplayer games, but if the PS3 version had been significantly better then i probably would of went that way.