CoD3 Video Comparison of Next-Gen Platforms [Archive]

Pokute

12-02-2006, 05:31 PM

Now if they would've de-interlaced the video (especially for wii)...
And it's obvious that the wii version is weakest graphically. What's most worrysome was that in the Wii version the soldier that came to hug the player seemed to have a different model than the PS3/XBox360 -version. It will make a big difference if a game will have to have a different models made for wii, but same can be used for ps3 and xbox360. This seems to reinforce the thinking that Wii is a different kind of console than others with requiring custom stuff, therefore endangering some multi-platform projects for it. At least Wii users can claim that their version is truly different.

The advance behind the tank was one of the most differing things I saw in the video for Wii. While on PS3 soldiers advanced through some tall grass, the Wiimote wielding warriors fight over a carpet (flat ground texture). The rain and some dust effects seemed to be different too. Another big difference was the weapons. You could see clearly the resolution difference on many of the weapons.

PS3 & XBox360 versions differed mainly just by contrast/brightness. For figuring out the better one, I'd need to look at still more footage or some comparison still images though I believe that even then the difference will be minimal.

On the other hand, this call of duty footage made me want to play CoD again. I've played the CoD 1 through twice on PC and it was absolutely great. Only the dam & ship missions were a bit too bland for me. And defending that house in stalingrad with highest difficulty setting. It was freaking insane.

Steve_Erhardt

12-02-2006, 05:34 PM

Well assuming everything else is equal (displays, etc), ah... the 360 just ate the PS3 and Wii's lunch. =\

Again, assuming everything else aside from the consoles (obviously), was the same. That was pretty bad.

Tyrant

12-02-2006, 05:34 PM

Oh yeah, I forgot about screen calibration. If the monitor used for the PS3 and 360 isn't recalibrated for both consoles, colour and brightness differences can result when there really isn't any.

bapenguin

12-02-2006, 05:48 PM

360 for better contrast, color and frame rate by more than I expected.

markster3000

12-02-2006, 05:54 PM

This seems to reinforce the thinking that Wii is a different kind of console than others with requiring custom stuff, therefore endangering some multi-platform projects for it.
On the other hand, if they plan their development correctly, they'll be able to produce low-poly versions during the production phase, with little extra cost to the developer.

And defending that house in stalingrad with highest difficulty setting. It was freaking insane.
Why did I use so many health packs at the beginning?!?!?!
The "autosave only when player health >70%" mechanic was slightly broken...
I can see why CoD2 went to the "no healthpacks" health system.

sonysyndicate

12-02-2006, 05:55 PM

The 360 version looks superior to the PS3. Perhaps it is because the developers had more time to work on it.

tombofsoldier

12-02-2006, 06:00 PM

They had this on gametrailers.com, along with the Wii version. The Wii version obviously looked the worst, but as with Tony Hawk the PS3 version looks more washed out, like the gamma is too high or something.

GigaFuzz

12-02-2006, 06:00 PM

The 360 version looks better, and sharper, IMO. It could be a calibration issue, though, I guess.

tombofsoldier

12-02-2006, 06:04 PM

The 360 version looks better, and sharper, IMO. It could be a calibration issue, though, I guess.

Problem with that theory is that the same thing appears to be true for Tony Hawk 8 and Marvel Ultimate Alliance. I'd have a hard time believing it was bad gamma and brightness setting for all 3 games, but I suppose its possible

Bishop

12-02-2006, 06:26 PM

From what I've seen both the 360 and PS3 are very impressive but the 360 got the edge in my opinion.

sprankton

12-02-2006, 06:31 PM

The 360 version looks superior to the PS3. Perhaps it is because the developers had more time to work on it.

Well then we can say Sony had a whole year to develop newer hardware to the point it shouldn’t matter....

Lame excuse to me...

eth3rton

12-02-2006, 06:33 PM

Well then we can say Sony had a whole year to develop newer hardware to the point it shouldn’t matter....

Lame excuse to me...

New hardware that no one can develop for yet.... ;)

I'd say the 360 has this round...... Plus it has the Rumble Feature...

GigaFuzz

12-02-2006, 06:35 PM

Problem with that theory is that the same thing appears to be true for Tony Hawk 8 and Marvel Ultimate Alliance. I'd have a hard time believing it was bad gamma and brightness setting for all 3 games, but I suppose its possible

I was about to say "well maybe it was a problem with the configuration of the TV", but then I realised that would be stupid, as they are presumably using the same TV for the 360 as well.

D'oh.

Zeal

12-02-2006, 06:37 PM

The only issue here is that the 360 has a superior graphic processor and its onboard memory allows for smoother HD framerates.

God, the PS3 just sucks.

EDIT: OK, the Wii version looks like somekind of washed out Nintendo 64 game. Seriously, just no.

eth3rton

12-02-2006, 06:44 PM

The only issue here is that the 360 has a superior graphic processor and its onboard memory allows for smoother HD framerates.

God, the PS3 just sucks.

Ya know come to think about it the original Xbox & PS2 were the exact same way. Xbox was superior but do to the Sony stranglehold on developers it won.... Good Luck to them this Generation though.....

Watership

12-02-2006, 06:57 PM

Ya know come to think about it the original Xbox & PS2 were the exact same way. Xbox was superior but do to the Sony stranglehold on developers it won.... Good Luck to them this Generation though.....

PS2 didn't have a stranglehold on the developers. It was the only sure bet. Xbox was a dream that no one believed in, and the Nintendo Gamecube was famous for ignoring 3rd party support. PS2 was the default choice.

2006. Xbox has a 8 million unit lead, its easier to develop for, its cheaper for the consumer. The Wii is cheaper but still a question mark. Time will tell. Still, the ps3 isn't such a sure thing as the ps2 was.

cjrizzo

12-02-2006, 07:21 PM

Overall, I think the 360 looks best. I noticed a lot of differences in particular on the PS3 with lighting and shading that made things look a little better in some places but overall I found the 360 to be better. The Wii version didn't really look that bad - as someone else said the framerate was good and the graphics weren't that different. Considering that the Wii probably has some great dev tools and the cost of producing a game is less for the Wii, Nintendo can be assured that 3rd parties will make games that may be a little graphically inferior but much easier to produce. Ultimately, if the gameplay experience is basically the same or better than on the 360 or PS3 most people can overlook some of the graphical shortcomings.

gzsfrk

12-02-2006, 07:54 PM

Gametrailers also did the comparison with Marvel: Ultimate Alliance.

http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?id=15399&type=wmv

Guess which one was better?

Holy crap... what was up with the framerates on the PS3 version of M:UA? The 360 version was running smooth as silk. And yes, the interlacing on the Wii version was just awful; would be hard to play that game on the Wii after having played it on either the PS3 or the 360 (especially the 360 version).

Speaking of the Wii, gameplay is great and all, but we SHOULD realistically acknowledge the importance of good graphics. I mean, I know it SHOULDN'T make the exact same game that much better, but I have to honestly admit that it DOES increase the quality of my gaming experience.

<shame> Does that make me a shallow gamer? </shame>

NeoSuplex

12-02-2006, 07:55 PM

Ya know come to think about it the original Xbox & PS2 were the exact same way. Xbox was superior but due to the Sony stranglehold on developers it won.... Good Luck to them this Generation though.....

. . . I think I just channeled Johan...

Royal Fool

12-02-2006, 08:03 PM

EL CABONG

12-02-2006, 08:05 PM

360 was better Than PS3. I am kinda shocked. I thought PS3 would be atleast alittle better. Well I am feeling really good about not dropping a grand for a PS3(sytem,taxes, cables,xtra controller,games). If sony doesn't get some killer apps why would anybody buy one? I'm not saying they are dead they could pull something out of their a$$.

Wolfgang

12-02-2006, 08:15 PM

360 looks better. The PS3 looks completely washed out in almost all games. It seems like the brightness is set to full. But the fact is the lighting just isn't as strong. It is present in all the titles.

Also these screen shot and brief gameplay movies do not tell the whole story. Performance is a bigger concern and reports are the 360 has less slowdown too.

This is just the difference in how Nvidia and ATi render images.

NightRain

12-02-2006, 08:44 PM

From my personal experience the PS3 isn't up to par yet. I have a 360 and my friend bought a PS3, he got Resistance and wanted Rainbow 6: Vegas but found out a few days after ps3 launch it was delayed (he was pretty peeved) After playing some Marvel Ultimate Alliance and COD3 at my place on 360 he decided that since he beat Resistance and hadn't played his PS3 for like 4 days that he would buy COD3 and Marvel: Ultimate Alliance to try them out. He was shocked to find them both having frame rate issues and he said "man if I had know Rainbow 6 was going to be delayed and that these games were going to be so choppy I wouldn't have waited in line for 22 hours. I should have got 360"

PXG 360

12-02-2006, 08:52 PM

Shit! The 360 version DOES look better. The colors and the contrast and most of the textures are just better on the 360.

rein

12-02-2006, 09:02 PM

I am not seeing a difference in the PS3 and 360 versions. At least nothing substantial. Kind of what I expected from a port. The Wii version isn't close but I do not believe that anyone bought a Wii for its graphics prowess.

I had already seen these videos before. I thought it was linked from here.

RedFoxDelta

12-02-2006, 09:26 PM

The 360 is definitly cleaner and better looking, but i'm an xbox fan, so of course i'd say xbox.

Brady

12-02-2006, 09:31 PM

OK, the Wii version looks like somekind of washed out Nintendo 64 game. Seriously, just no.

Honestly, it looks better than I expected. It is definitely no where near the quality of the 360 and PS3, but it isn't absolutely horrible.

It should be mentioned that the Wii video is taken from a television without component cables. So if those cables were more available there would be much less Aliasing... assuming it was running an EDTV or HDTV so it could actually run in 480P.

EDIT: I just watched the Marvel Ultimate Alliance comparison... and well the Wii didn't look all that great with that game. Sooo yeah. Either way though CoD3 on the Wii looks better than I expected. Too bad I hear the controls are pretty bad.

Wonka

12-02-2006, 09:56 PM

I've seen the Wii version in person, it certainly doesn't look too bad on a proper screen. It pales when you compare it to it's big brothers, however. No anti-aliasing (I.e. sharp jaggies you can cut your eyes on), lower-res textures and somewhat odd graphical anomalies that looked rather ugly (flickering geography in the distance, as an example). Wouldn't surprise me if the Wii version is entirely composed of Xbox/PS2 assets.

It should be noted that the Wii version is the only one that had a seperate studio work on the conversion; the Xbox, PS2, 360 and PS3 versions were otherwise all done internally at Treyarch. EXAKT Entertainment did the Wii port, known for, uh... not a whole lot except porting the True Crime games to other platforms as well as a few other ones.

Just an observation.

I think that the fact that they had to have another studio work on the Wii conversion is about the most negative thing about Nintendo that you could have said in this instance. That means that the Wii is so VERY underpowered that it needed separate models, and a substantial amount of extra work to make the game run (IOW, it is SUBSTANTIALLY different from its other console brothers). So much extra work that Treyarch had to outsource the job to not detract from the primary SKU's. This is not surprising, but it does not bode well for Nintendo in the 3rd party support department. On the flip side, their old-school hardware could be easier for people to do small experimental one-off games for. The other nice thing that could be said about Nintendo at this point is that in spite of being severely less powerful than the competitors, it was still able to run the same game (even if it does not look too good in the comparison). I think this underscores the fact that even though the 360 and PS3 are massively more powerful that the Wii, we really are at a law of diminishing returns in terms of what all that power buys you...

Pokute

12-02-2006, 10:26 PM

It should be mentioned that the Wii video is taken from a television without component cables. So if those cables were more available there would be much less Aliasing... assuming it was running an EDTV or HDTV so it could actually run in 480P.

Actually, it's the other way. Component cables are sought after because they have better image quality, in effect less blurry pictures. The aliasing affects you're referring to (unless you mean the interlacing aftifacts) are and a result of drawing a polygon's pixels in an on/off method and it's most noticeable in high-contrast situations (like white on black). Now using a component cables would be less blurry and in turn, it would look even more aliased then.

By the way, the CoD 3 video made me curious - can someone answer whether the Wii outputs 480p by default? Or is it 480i by default?

Wolvie

12-02-2006, 10:41 PM

Weird, the PS3 version looked less vibrant, like some of the color had been bleached out. I wonder what the cause of that was?

civil_dead

12-02-2006, 11:19 PM

<semi-hijack>

I was able to play the Wii and PS3 for the first time tonight:

The Wii is fun to play, but graphically Excite Truck looked like ass. But yeah, it was fun. My friend, who is not a gamer, had a great time playing it. She even asked when I was going to buy one so she could come over and play. While I was playing she happened to go over to the PS3 display, then walked back and said, "Why does this one look so ugly?" Taking this opportunity to do an impromptu poll, I asked if a game's "ugliness" would ever deter her from playing it. Not as long as it was fun, she said.

So we then make our way to the PS3 and tried playing MotorStorm. After a few minutes she handed me the controller and went back to the Wii. I asked her why and she said after playing the Wii the PS3 seemed "boring". "But what about the cool graphics?" I asked. She didn't care. She said she had more fun with the Wii. And she mentioned that she liked feeling the rumble in the Wii controller.

We then got into a discussion about pricing (she thinks anything over $300 is way too expensive for a "toy"), online play and graphics. Now, she is a 26 year old, college educated, very intelligent teacher - not ordinary, but not your average gamer. She likes fun. Graphics, online, Blu-ray, etc means nothing to her. It's all about fun. So much so that she intends to buy a Wii after playing just Excite Truck for 15 minutes. I now think Nintendo is The Smartest Gaming Company Of All Time.

On a related note, Motor Storm, though it looked nice, was nothing like the "target footage" that was shown at E3 (and in their commercials/trailers). Nothing. It looked good, don't get me wrong, but I was shocked at how little it resembled what is being marketed. In fact, it seemed just...meh.

</semi-hijack>

_j_

12-02-2006, 11:42 PM

360 was better Than PS3. I am kinda shocked. I thought PS3 would be atleast alittle better.

Yes, said that here months ago - the biggest differents is that X360 version runs at 60 frames per second and the PS3 one reaches just half of that (30 fps). There have been issues with the PS3 GPU which is also inferior to the GPU in the X360.

Brady

12-02-2006, 11:53 PM

Actually, it's the other way. Component cables are sought after because they have better image quality, in effect less blurry pictures. The aliasing affects you're referring to (unless you mean the interlacing aftifacts) are and a result of drawing a polygon's pixels in an on/off method and it's most noticeable in high-contrast situations (like white on black). Now using a component cables would be less blurry and in turn, it would look even more aliased then.

By the way, the CoD 3 video made me curious - can someone answer whether the Wii outputs 480p by default? Or is it 480i by default?

Good work, you took what I was trying to say and applied the proper terms. Haha, anyways yeah.. I was meaning to talk about the interlacing artifacts. Aliasing was the wrong word.

Anyhow, thank you for pointing that out.

PsychoticVile

12-02-2006, 11:57 PM

I would have to go 360 by far then the Wii and then PS3 not sure why the PS3 looks so washed out compared to the other too granted the PS3 is much crisper than the Wii but there is almost no black in the PS3. At least on the Wii and the 360 the guns actually look like gun metal where the PS3 is just a dull grey.

Wonka

12-03-2006, 12:04 AM

Actually, it's the other way. Component cables are sought after because they have better image quality, in effect less blurry pictures. The aliasing affects you're referring to (unless you mean the interlacing aftifacts) are and a result of drawing a polygon's pixels in an on/off method and it's most noticeable in high-contrast situations (like white on black). Now using a component cables would be less blurry and in turn, it would look even more aliased then.

By the way, the CoD 3 video made me curious - can someone answer whether the Wii outputs 480p by default? Or is it 480i by default?

My Wii still only outputs 480i because I still can't find any damned component cables...

All consoles must default to a starting res of 480i. The ones that CAN do HD, then allow you to switch up to the higher def after hooking up component grade or better cables...

Siraris

12-03-2006, 12:21 AM

Having seen both the PS3 and 360 version in person, they look almost identical. Those videos are absolutely stupid to show off the comparisons. No one points out that the 360 version has it's brightness completely cranked down, to the point that when the guy's in the tunnel at the end you can barely see anything around him.

It's absolutely hilarious that people think the PS3 version should look better than the 360 version. The PS3 may have more power than the 360, but it takes time to take advantage of that. Probably the biggest problem with the PS3 is debugging it right now is a pain, and that makes things harder on the developers. If that wasn't an issue, development would be a lot easier for PS3, since developers would just have to figure out how to properly code for the system, instead of banging their heads against the wall trying to figure out what the code is ACTUALLY doing.

360 definitely has the development tools out of the gate, but that comes from Microsoft having created development tools for the past decade. I also read an article recently that IBM was leaving the development tool development to Sony, which is shitty. Sony really should hire some people with experience in designing development software.

Anyways, both look great in person, but PS3 has some framerate issues that are inherent in the lack of familiarity the developers have with the architecture. The PS3 is definitely a lot less forgiving if you don't design your scheduling properly, which would lead to framerate issues. Interesting thing is that games like Resistance, Genji and RR7 have literally no framerate problems whatsoever, which is pretty crazy especially in some of the bigger battles in Resistance.

Siraris

12-03-2006, 12:24 AM

Yes, said that here months ago - the biggest differents is that X360 version runs at 60 frames per second and the PS3 one reaches just half of that (30 fps). There have been issues with the PS3 GPU which is also inferior to the GPU in the X360.

Really, care to share the differents between the RSX and Xenon and why one is inferior to the other? :rolleyes:

Chameleo

12-03-2006, 01:13 AM

We then got into a discussion about pricing (she thinks anything over $300 is way too expensive for a "toy"), online play and graphics. Now, she is a 26 year old, college educated, very intelligent teacher - not ordinary, but not your average gamer. She likes fun. Graphics, online, Blu-ray, etc means nothing to her. It's all about fun. So much so that she intends to buy a Wii after playing just Excite Truck for 15 minutes. I now think Nintendo is The Smartest Gaming Company Of All Time.

I'm promoting the wii in the mall, and we get a lot of gamers and non-gamers who come by to try it out.... I really like the wii, so obviously I try to give them the best experience possible on the console.

I've lost count of how many people have walked up to the console sceptical, and walked away a convert.... Mostly because of Wii Sports: Boxing. 2 player boxing is such a blast its not even describable. I've seen so many boyfriends/husbands come up and fight their significant others; most of them losing in the process, but both having so much fun in the end, that the girl is 100% behind a purchase of the console.

I've had PS3 owners and 360 owners come up and try out the console - of course I represent Nintendo so they do not level huge complaints at me (except the impolite people with no social skills, in which case i have to respond to comments like "wii is gay" and "wow that looks like ass" etc.) - and most of them come away with a positive impression.

There is a PS3 owner who has come by almost every 2nd day to try it out - he was having a blast at home with his PS3, but he was also really enjoying Wii Sports at the mall. He came and hung out for about an hour everytime I saw him - he was a decent guy too - not like some of the other people who spend extended periods of time at our interactives...

Last week he came by and told me that his PS3 froze! When he boots up, in the main menu, it just freezes and won't move. He's formatted it, he's done all he can, and it won't budge. He bought it from the sony store, but they don't have any in stock to exchange so he has to wait for a box to be sent to him from sony, which he has to pack his PS3 into, and send back to sony, and wait for a new one.

A week and a half with the PS3, and he already has to send it in for repairs, the eta being two weeks at the LEAST

he didn't do anything abnormal to his console - just played resistance online with it every night. He got the gundam game too - and thought that was as shitty as all the reviewers thought.

I've had MS employees come by and walk away saying they will buy one too... Its just a fun system.....

I checked out motorstorm too, and it looks great - sharp lines, clean colours, great resolution - beautiful game. But honestly, I think excite truck is more fun.... you can do spins in the air, set records for jumps, do jump combos, smash other trucks - all that stuff ... its a much deeper game than i first realized - and i've been playing it everyday for 2 weeks.... >_< haha...

sardonic_wrath

12-03-2006, 03:30 AM

The 360 version looks far superior because of the lighting, shadowing etc. from the night shoot-outs.

serioustommy

12-03-2006, 04:49 AM

Johan

12-03-2006, 05:38 AM

. . . I think I just channeled Johan...

froooooom the graaaaaave I speeeeeeakkkkk...

Good luck to Sony this generation! ;)

hee hee!

Ravenlock

12-03-2006, 06:51 AM

civil_dead: great anecdote, thanks for sharing :D I think it's hilarious that I've tried two PS3 demo units, one at Circuit City and one at Best Buy, both playing Motorstorm, and BOTH of them crashed while I was playing. The Best Buy rep told me it happens all the time - something he's probably not supposed to say, but there it is.

Rented CoD3 on the Wii yesterday. The control system is a lot of fun, and gives me a lot of hope that future FPS games, designed for the Wii, with internet play, will be absolutely AMAZING.

CoD3 itself, however, isn't that hot on the Wii aside from the fun controls. The graphics are far less than what we already know the console can handle, which disappoints me. There's shadowing glitches with no excuse for being there. The water looks AWFUL - much, much worse than the water in Zelda or even Excite Truck. And the environment isn't destructible at all except in pre-planned locations; I can knock down a barn wall with a grenade in the "right place", but elsewhere I can put bullets in a window without breaking it or even making bullet holes.

I'm glad I rented it, but since it doesn't even have local multiplayer, I think it might be a play-once-and-that's-it game for me.

Wolfgang

12-03-2006, 06:59 AM

The washout look could just be down to the contrast/brightness settings, no? I'm sure if the ps3 video is adjusted right, 360 and ps3 both look identical as they seem to have the same models, texture resolutions.

That is not true at all. In your PC is you swipe out your Nvidia card for an ATi card there will be slight differences based on just how they render.

And since the 360's GPU is more advanced with the shader engine, on chip memory, etc... compared to the PS3s -- they will render the same image a little different.

Voodoo

12-03-2006, 07:01 AM

X360 looks to be the best. Can't wait for the unified shader cards to start arriving at a normal price point on the PC. Nice to see ATI's first generation doing so well, hopefully their second and onward on the PC will have a good showing.

Qoz

12-03-2006, 08:14 AM

Siraris... you are so right. It is too soon to draw conclusions regarding the hardware power. This is a PS3 launch game, the PS3 is harder to code for and has been available for less time.

The CoD3 developers could very well have improved the PS3 version, if they have had more time, and if it was designed for PS3. CoD3 was in development before PS3 hardware was available and nobody really knew how to code for it. The PS3 is different from standard development, so people need to spend time with the hardware and need some proper tools. This is probably a halfway Xbox360 --> PS3 port. Plus the fact that they wanted to get it out for launch too. It all adds up to a lesser PS3 version.

I'm really not a Sony fanboy (actually I think they suck), but we need to keep things fair. When the PS3 has been out for 1 year we can start to compare games regarding the hardware. Then games will be written for the PS3 - now alot of them are just modified Xbox360 games so they can run decent on a PS3.

I fully acknowledge the fact, that you can compare the 2 consoles regarding what is best for the consumer to buy right now (this would be Xbox360), but flaming the PS3 hardware due to the games that are out now is kinda fast. PS3 has some great potential and in 1 years time it could have great looking games, a cheaper price and a Linux-mediacenter OS. If that happens then I'm buying.

lettheashesfall

12-03-2006, 09:16 AM

haha whoever said the wii version looked comparable to the xbox360 and ps3 versions is just lying to themselves. It looks like tekken 2 models in ww2 gear.

the xbox360 version does look the best, whoever said the ps3's colors looked a bit more 'bleached out' was exactly right in that description.

its a shame that ps3 keeps dropping the ball.

Fartacus

12-03-2006, 09:23 AM

Having seen both the PS3 and 360 version in person, they look almost identical. Those videos are absolutely stupid to show off the comparisons. No one points out that the 360 version has it's brightness completely cranked down, to the point that when the guy's in the tunnel at the end you can barely see anything around him.

I've seen them both in person, and the quality is close, but 360 does look better by a small margin. It's clear with Marvel: UA that the quality is superior on 360. The most noticeable quality difference is with the shadows, they're softer and nicer looking on the 360. And the 360 clearly wins on framerate in all cases.

It's absolutely hilarious that people think the PS3 version should look better than the 360 version. The PS3 may have more power than the 360, but it takes time to take advantage of that.

The PS3 does not have more power than the 360. The Xenos GPU on the 360 is faster and more powerful than the RSX on the PS3, and the GPU is a much bigger factor in visual quality and performance than the CPU. While the Cell has more CPU horsepower (marginally), it is much more difficult to get peak utilization out of the Cell than the Xbox CPU. Last but far from least, the memory architecture of the 360 allows for better memory utilization and for more optimal communication between the GPU and CPU. 360 FTW.

Grimmjow

12-03-2006, 10:22 AM

the 2 versions are identical, but you have to keep in mind that most developers haven't had FINAL hardware for more then 5 months and this is just a port from 360 to ps3.

Wolfgang

12-03-2006, 10:25 AM

the 2 versions are identical, but you have to keep in mind that most developers haven't had FINAL hardware for more then 5 months and this is just a port from 360 to ps3.

They are not identical.

CoD3 on 360: supports 4 player split screen online. PS3 does not.
360 has higher Framerate and smoother framerate.
Graphics are different slightly.

Grimmjow

12-03-2006, 10:27 AM

They are not identical.

CoD3 on 360: supports 4 player split screen online. PS3 does not.
360 has higher Framerate and smoother framerate.
Graphics are different slightly.

maybe i should rephrase what i said, I meant identical in graphics not game play or features. everything you listed comes down to how long they had the hardware to play with.

_j_

12-03-2006, 10:53 AM

Really, care to share the differents between the RSX and Xenon and why one is inferior to the other? :rolleyes:

Yes, really

PS3 (RSX GPU): 22 GB/sec GDDR3 bandwidth and 25 GB/sec RDRAM bandwidth

X360 (Xenos GPU): 22 GB/sec GDDR3 bandwidth and 256 GB/sec EDRAM bandwidth

When you do the math the PS3 memory bandwidth is insufficient to maintain its GPU peak rendering speed even without textures. To compensate for the slow throughput the PS3 tries with texture compression, etc. ...

The 10 times higher EDRAM bandwidth of the X360 allows it to do Z-testing, HDR, alphablended color rendering with 4x multisample anti aliasing at full speed and have the main bus bandwidth left over for textures and vertices

Then comes unified shader architecture and more, but the thing above is the most important ...

The COD3 gameplay/physics code runs a bit quicker on the PS3 vs the X360. But the end-result - the twice slower framerate on the PS3 - its the GPU hurting it. The advantage of the PS3 SPUs already running the COD3 physics quicker was all killed by the PS3 GPU

Pluvious

12-03-2006, 11:13 AM

Based on those two videos.. 360 wins in my book. Not even close. People who claim ps3 looks ok are blind.

MasterKwan

12-03-2006, 01:14 PM

Shit, maybe I should sell my PS3 before christmas. Haven't opened it yet...

Lutheran

12-03-2006, 04:52 PM

<semi-hijack>

I was able to play the Wii and PS3 for the first time tonight:

The Wii is fun to play, but graphically Excite Truck looked like ass. But yeah, it was fun. My friend, who is not a gamer, had a great time playing it. She even asked when I was going to buy one so she could come over and play. While I was playing she happened to go over to the PS3 display, then walked back and said, "Why does this one look so ugly?" Taking this opportunity to do an impromptu poll, I asked if a game's "ugliness" would ever deter her from playing it. Not as long as it was fun, she said.

So we then make our way to the PS3 and tried playing MotorStorm. After a few minutes she handed me the controller and went back to the Wii. I asked her why and she said after playing the Wii the PS3 seemed "boring". "But what about the cool graphics?" I asked. She didn't care. She said she had more fun with the Wii. And she mentioned that she liked feeling the rumble in the Wii controller.

</semi-hijack>

I have a Wii and a 360 and my 2 nephews , both in there teens , fight like mad over the controller to play Wii sports even while I sit there and play GoW on my 360..they leave me alone lol. With the right games Nintendo has a bonafide hit on their hands , believe it. I also picked up Red Steel , and trust me its a lot of fun. Not nearly the train wreck some would have you believe. The sword fighting is actually pretty fun.

absolut taco

12-03-2006, 07:22 PM

On a related note, Motor Storm, though it looked nice, was nothing like the "target footage" that was shown at E3 (and in their commercials/trailers). Nothing. It looked good, don't get me wrong, but I was shocked at how little it resembled what is being marketed. In fact, it seemed just...meh.
People with PS3s who have downloaded the new MotorStorm demo claim it's much better than the store demos. Why the stores don't get the new demo is really baffling me. Aren't they trying to sell PS3s?

rein

12-03-2006, 09:44 PM

So we then make our way to the PS3 and tried playing MotorStorm. After a few minutes she handed me the controller and went back to the Wii. I asked her why and she said after playing the Wii the PS3 seemed "boring". "But what about the cool graphics?" I asked. She didn't care. She said she had more fun with the Wii. And she mentioned that she liked feeling the rumble in the Wii controller.

You should have turned on the motion sensing control for the PS3 and let her try it that way. It's funny, I have had people in my store give me back the Wii-mote and play Motorstorm when I show them that. I hate steering with it, but apparently it's cool to control games that way.

Did she really say she liked feeling the rumble? That sounds so "marketing" to me. ;)

FullTilt

12-04-2006, 12:27 AM

Apparently some magazine or website has taken 360 screenshots directly from the frame buffer, before the image is scaled, and found CoD3 is running at considerably less than 720p.

Without an internal scaler the PS3 will be running at 720p, which could explain the lesser detail and choppy framerate from a port.

Tony Hawk and one other are supposedly the same wrt lesser resolution on the 360.

Ravenlock

12-04-2006, 03:08 AM

You should have turned on the motion sensing control for the PS3 and let her try it that way. It's funny, I have had people in my store give me back the Wii-mote and play Motorstorm when I show them that. I hate steering with it, but apparently it's cool to control games that way.

Did she really say she liked feeling the rumble? That sounds so "marketing" to me. ;)My problem with Motorstorm (aside from the fact that it crashed on both of the demo units I tried it on... ;) ) is that the most enjoyable part of the demo was wrecking your vehicle. I mean, the graphics are undeniably beautiful, and when you catapult yourself off a rock and it does the slow-motion-crash, spinning through the air with parts flying, it's reallllly pretty to watch. But the actual racing.... eh. I didn't get to try the motion controls, but I don't think that would have made it more fun for me. It just felt... cumbersome.

Versus the Excite Truck demo, which with a very similar premise (big trucks racing over dirt tracks) successfully emphasized speed, shortcuts and crazy jumps in a way that, once I got used to the control scheme, was immediately appealing to me. It wasn't nearly as pretty to look at, but I felt much more engaged by the game and was having a better time.

*Shrug* To each his own, obviously.

Chameleo

12-04-2006, 03:17 AM

isn't it "marketing" to say that the rumble isn't really necessary? (when only 1 currently available console doesn't have it.. especially)...?

thats counting GCN, PS2, Xbox, 360, and Wii.

_j_

12-04-2006, 09:55 AM

Apparently some magazine or website has taken 360 screenshots directly from the frame buffer, before the image is scaled, and found CoD3 is running at considerably less than 720p.
...
Tony Hawk and one other are supposedly the same wrt lesser resolution on the 360.

Yes pretty much everyone does it these days. The reason is -> to be able to fit in the 10MB quick EDRAM memory, so they can benefit of the 4x antialiasing and more, and thus the X360 games killing the PS3 ones in framerate big time and looking as good :D

Put the game redering in /720 on the devkit and right next to it the another one rendering in a little bit smaller one but fitting in the EDRAM with all bells and whistles turned on.
Give it to gamers to play both without telling them which is which, and do not tell about resolutions, etc. - just to avoid the placebo effects. And pretty much everyone will like the version rendering in the smaller buffer better.

*Legion*

12-04-2006, 01:35 PM

The washout look could just be down to the contrast/brightness settings, no?

No, the washed out look is because the PS3 version is lacking all the shading and shadowing the 360 version has. Look at the shadows and darkened areas around objects on the 360, then watch when it kicks over to the PS3 and how they're completely missing.

Johan

12-04-2006, 01:42 PM

Wow...this is depressing for Sony. :(

bitwise

12-04-2006, 02:13 PM

I know no one may still be watching this article, and this may have already been said before, but as the owner of a standard def TV, i would be really interested in seeing a side-by-side comparison of all 3 systems at the same resolution (480 or 720, depending). I think my TV can only do 480, but I'd be interested to see how different the quality would be on my TV at home, as opposed to a TV costing a few bills which I don't care about and couldn't afford even if I did.

Tyrant

12-04-2006, 04:12 PM

Yes pretty much everyone does it these days. The reason is -> to be able to fit in the 10MB quick EDRAM memory, so they can benefit of the 4x antialiasing and more, and thus the X360 games killing the PS3 ones in framerate big time and looking as good :D

Put the game redering in /720 on the devkit and right next to it the another one rendering in a little bit smaller one but fitting in the EDRAM with all bells and whistles turned on.
Give it to gamers to play both without telling them which is which, and do not tell about resolutions, etc. - just to avoid the placebo effects. And pretty much everyone will like the version rendering in the smaller buffer better.

Aside from the Activision games and Project Gotham Racing 3, what other titles render at a lower resolution internally?

Fartacus

12-04-2006, 08:38 PM

Yes pretty much everyone does it these days. The reason is -> to be able to fit in the 10MB quick EDRAM memory, so they can benefit of the 4x antialiasing and more, and thus the X360 games killing the PS3 ones in framerate big time and looking as good :D

Put the game redering in /720 on the devkit and right next to it the another one rendering in a little bit smaller one but fitting in the EDRAM with all bells and whistles turned on.
Give it to gamers to play both without telling them which is which, and do not tell about resolutions, etc. - just to avoid the placebo effects. And pretty much everyone will like the version rendering in the smaller buffer better.

Actually, the 360 has a predicated tiling mechanism that allows you to render to larger buffers than will fit in the EDRAM, while still taking advantage of the EDRAM and the antialiasing.

But I get your point and agree. At the end of the day, the number of samples is more important than the number of pixels drawn.