Earlier this week, Videogamer.com posted up a 720p comparison of Call of Duty 5 on the PS3 and Xbox 360.
I saw the video and started noticing differences between the two that I felt couldn’t be ignored. So what I did is, I took a screengrab of the comparison to show you. Comparison videos always cause a general ruckus between the different console owners and this one is obviously doing the same. Truth be told, the Xbox 360 version looks significantly better and what bothers me the most is that I picked up the differences in the introduction cut-scene, which is a controlled environment that doesn’t really have that much complexity to it.
So why I ask, does the PS3 version look significantly worse? Check the full image after the jump and see for yourself.
You can click the above image to see it in full resolution, although take note that there is a little bit of compression on the image.
Ok, so check out the highlighted areas above. When you take a closer look you can clearly see that the texturing on the man’s clothing and even the little badge on the bottom right is significantly lower and more “jaggy” or pixelated than the one on the Xbox 360. Not only that but you will also notice that the guy all the way in the background has some missing models on him.
Now I have seen Uncharted and Metal Gear Solid 4 running on a PS3 and the graphics were phenomenal. So why again is the PS3 getting the short end of the stick. Why on earth, in a cutscene so simple, would Treyarch have to resort to lower texture resolutions and less geometry. I can’t even see such small changes making a large difference to the framerate anyway.
At the end of the day, small differences like this won’t completely change a gamers experience but really, this doesn’t make any sense because we know that the PS3 should be able to handle graphics like this without any issues. I ask again if it is just down to developer laziness because regardless of which was the lead platform, it can’t be that damn difficult to make the graphics look equal in quality on both.
Tell us what you think by leaving a comment. If you think I have made a mistake in the comparison feel free to point it out and let me know.
Last Updated: November 17, 2008
Scotty777
November 17, 2008 at 12:14
well that’s interesting, have you seen Resistance 2, Killzone 2 etc? those games have some crazy shyte going on… and the detail is insane… so why would developers only make a half baked attempt at making games…
I’m sure people are going to start getting pissed off when they by multi-platform games, because they simply aren’t getting the quality they got from there single platform titles…
janrik
November 17, 2008 at 12:17
1stly: Can’t see the background dude on the 360 side, since the bloody RED ALERT 3 banner floats over it. (using Chrome)
Why is Ported games looking worst on a PS3 than on a 360, or PC? – Most common denominator: it has the least amount of RAM and the Hardest CPU to code for. Also no ANA (scaler chip) and the GPU is inferior to the rest.
They can make it look better and we have seen stunning games on the PS3, but what will that do to their release dead lines?
Will PS3 owner be happy to wait a few months (or a year like Oblivion) to get a superior product?
I won’t. I will go and grab it for my 360 and leave my PS3 for the exclusives.
LazySAGamer
November 17, 2008 at 12:23
Damn that’s annoying…
I can’t seem to make the flash element a lower Z axis to the image…
I’ll see if I can make it do something different
LazySAGamer
November 17, 2008 at 12:28
Okay I removed the fancy gallery… now it opens simply, I’ll put the gallery back tomorrow, for anyone who wants to see it on it’s own click on
http://www.lazygamer.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/cod5graphics.jpg
ferver
November 17, 2008 at 12:35
It’s so annoying!! You pay the double for a console that is supposed to be much more powerful and you end up with this??
When will the games start using the full potential of this console???
If Sony used the PS3 like Microsoft is with the Xbox 360, we would clearly see the difference between games and the PS3 would be superior. I guess will see this in a year or two…
2009, the year of the PS3?
JimBob
November 17, 2008 at 12:35
I’m playing the 360 version and the textures throughout the game are horrible when you look at them to closely – wall textures and ground textures especially. CoD4 also cheated by using low-res textures where it wasn’t important to have high-res ones, but it wasn’t as noticeable. Game still looks really good in jungle levels (some nice fire effects, too), but the urban levels are kinda disappointing.
MJ
November 17, 2008 at 12:45
what are those 2 guys doing in the back?
David
November 17, 2008 at 12:51
I am deeply disappointing 😥 because I was going to get this game for my PS3, but after seeing this I am going to get the Xbox 360 version Instead.THANK YOU FOR POINTING THIS OUT LAZYGAMER.
And Can you believe that this game is coming out on the Wii and PS2 man the graphics on those are going to be crap.
David
November 17, 2008 at 12:52
I was meant to say I was deeply disappointed ❗
Macethy
November 17, 2008 at 12:53
😯 And what are they doing?
wwemark
November 17, 2008 at 14:09
Its unacceptable…its just laziness on the part of the developers. Its the same with these damn installs..surely when games such as fallout 3 and uncharted dont need installations nothing else needs them either
baba
November 17, 2008 at 14:28
I’ll hold my judgement until Eurogamer gives the official word. According to IGN though, the gfx are the same, except for better aliasing on the 360.
Wolfy
November 17, 2008 at 15:04
anybody ever heard of saving ryan’s privates… lol
Wolfy
November 17, 2008 at 15:07
you know whats weird i remember back in 99 when cybernet was still on SABC 2 they always mentioned how brilliant PS1 textures was even though it was crap, but when the PS2 arrived. They always refered the PS1 games graphics as the most hidious graphics they ever seen.. makes you wonder doesnt it. How badly will we critisize the Ps3 and X360 in a couple of years
Wolfy
November 17, 2008 at 15:08
these installs are just to give to extend your optical drive life thats all
Wolfy
November 17, 2008 at 15:09
i dont like war games much call of duty 4 was awesome bhut whats the use of making so many war games. we allready had like 3 or 4 this year if im not mistaken which i know of
SlippyMadFrog
November 17, 2008 at 16:37
you mean shaving ryan’s privates
doobiwan
November 17, 2008 at 17:19
Shooters and War tend to go together, sort of like Marmite and Cheese.
doobiwans last blog post..Gears 2 Flashback Map Pack, gimme! Please.
LazySAGamer
November 17, 2008 at 21:27
But the image above is quite clear isn’t it?
Milesh Bhana
November 18, 2008 at 00:11
if you’re a dual console ownder why would you have considered the PS3 version anyway? 360 has a far bigger on-line community so regardless if one looks slightly better or not, 360 is the better buy because you’ll have more people to play with.
Wolfy
November 18, 2008 at 07:50
I just think you like these games because its easy achievements you achievement junkie!
ad
November 18, 2008 at 10:37
significantly? you joking right?
firstly, you capture the ps3 image with lower contrast than the xbox – most likely by changing the contrast setting on the tv or using compnent instead of hdmi. why do i know? because i have both versions of the game and the ps3 has better contrast whilst in your picture the ps3 has lower contrast.
secondly, if significant means freezing a moving image and seeing a minsiscule difference then i think you have a very strange perspective on gaming.
lazygamer, please get back to what matters to gaming (i.e. gaming) and not some half-arsed fudged picture with a sensationalist headline. i wish sometimes this industry got rid of journalist like yourself that so often manifest this generation. talk about the games – and not some lame hit-whoring sensationalist comparison screenie.
significantly, wrong.
Nick
November 18, 2008 at 10:47
I took this image for the direct feed comparison provided by Videogamer.com, I noticed the difference when watching the 720 p comparison and merely captured one of the frames to show some of the differences that were seen in the video.
They are valid and the differences are clear so I don’t feel like I have done anything unfair.
I do think this is a valid gaming article because people who own both consoles will want to decide on which version to buy and this may point them in the right direction, in this case, the Xbox 360.
ad
November 18, 2008 at 11:17
you know why it is not valid?
because:
firstly, you, of all people know it ISN’T a significant difference. 99.9% of people won’t even notice the difference when actually playing the game.
secondly do you know how videogamer.com captured the video i.e what was the source of the direct feed (hmdi or composite)?? no you don’t. did you verify the source was fair? no you didn’t. did you play the two versions of the game?? nada.
thirdly, the frame you captured doesn’t look anything like the in-game image. why? because your image is compressed and altered.
fourthly, like i said the ps3 version has higher contrast and if you did your own research – which people like you never do any more – you would agree with me.
finally, the most important aspect so of a game is not a miniscule differences in texture but frame-rate, loading screens, pop-ups, bugs, on-line lag and other additional features that might be in one versions and not in another version. so if you claim to help people make decisions on which game to get then shouldn’t you be focusing on these issues instead?? an games journalist worth his salt would have focused on these factors instead. but of course you haven’t – hence my comment about the lack of good games journalist this generation. don’t purport to help gamers when we all know you are just lazy and after a hit or two to satisfy you pay packet.
shame.
codemonkey
November 18, 2008 at 11:26
ad – Fanboy alert:), the difference is obvious and not miniscule. When will ps3 fanboys accept that they wasted their money?
I remember a year ago when all the ps3 fanboys’s said that within a year the ps3 will be the clear winner with regards to cross platform games. A year later and the ps3 is still losing the battle , even though the differences in most cases are very miniscule. Now every ps3 fanboy is saying that in 2 years the ps3 will be the new victor. Please , just accept the fact , you lost. In 2-3 years the new xbox will be out , and it will still be cheaper than a ps3.
Sell your ps3 (or keep it if you need blu ray, or the occasional great game like drakes fortune, little big planet etc), and get an xbox.
Thanks:)
LazySAGamer
November 18, 2008 at 11:29
Just to butt in…
He doesn’t get paid per hit and would you be happy to rescind your statement if it comes out that COD5 has a worse framerate on the PS3 and has extra pop in?
It seems that this has been the case for 99% of all cross platform titles and I am willing to bet it will be the case again.
If you have any proof that this isn’t the case we would love to hear it.
I am also slightly confused as to how Contrast has made the collar jagged or even how a different compression has removed certain artifacts entirely.
ad
November 18, 2008 at 11:32
great you label me a fanboy because i disagree with you.
this often happens when people lose an argument.
you know i just bought two xbox 360 in the last two months. i am also only recommending 360 to my nephews.
so yes again you people fail.
i own a wii, two ps3, two xbox360, a ps3, one ps3, psone, saturn, ds, psp etc etc..
i am passionate about games but what i am passionate about is stupid ignorant journalists who do no research of their own and instead just sit on their arse writing hit-whoring artciles that have nothing to do with gaming.
ad
November 18, 2008 at 11:33
“a ps3, one ps3,”
oops meant to say one of the ps3 is a 120gig jap and the other is a 160gig pal.
Nick
November 18, 2008 at 11:36
I’m sorry, but I don’t see how all of those factors could possible change a lower texture resolution and some missing geometry, which are the only factors that I have mentioned. This is one image taken from one video, I have not seperately saved or compressed the images so the difference you see still stands. I said nothing about the contrast because I know that it can change with certain factors.
I have actually seen the game running on both systems with my own two eyes as well, so please don’t shoot me down so quickly. Sure, there are many other factors that will come into play but this article is focusing on the graphics as it related to the videogamer comparison.
Videogamer.com is also a well respected gaming videos website, so I dont see a problem in using their comparisons.
Nick
November 18, 2008 at 11:44
You don’t like being labeled, which is completely understandable but you are so quick to label me as a stupid, ignorant hit whoring, lazy journalist?
ad
November 18, 2008 at 11:44
well, you have seen both versions then why don’t you go back to the consoles. put the game disks in both console and play them.
you will notice that the xbox version is actually more washed out.
why don’t you from this day onwards be a better journalist and do MORE research to justify you claim to help people decide which version is better.
codemonkey
November 18, 2008 at 11:50
Can i be honest with you ad? I don’t believe you own any of the other systems. Ps3 fanboys very often say they own an xbox 360 in an attempt to make their comments more valid. Everything about you SCREAMS desperation to validate the amount you paid for your ps3.
I would get a ps3 for 3 reasons
1. blu ray
2. ps2 backwards compatibility
3. the occasional good game , and it does have some good ones. But compared to the xbox lineup , absolutely insignificant.
I myself own a wii, xbox and ds, i contemplated getting a ps3, and might still do it someday , but the current line up and shoddy ports are not enticing at all.
I am proud to call myself an xbox fanboy, but i have absolutely no qualms about becoming a ps3 fan if they get their act together which seems unlikely in this generation.
Please do not knock lazy, he is the best south african gaming journalist in my opinion and this site is always interesting to read.
thanks:)
Nick
November 18, 2008 at 11:52
… You have just told me that I am a lazy no-good journo for not even knowing what kind of cables were used for the comparison but now you want me to go and check out the games on my own setup so that I can see that it looks exactly the same as your setup.
ad
November 18, 2008 at 11:53
you are paid to write yet you do no research nor validate anything. you claim to help people decide which version to get yet focus on an initial which people won’t even notice.
how can you claim to be justify your salary?
ad
November 18, 2008 at 12:05
would you believe me that i tell you i used to work with Dave Gardner at Electronic Arts and he wrote my reference for me to go to Chicago Business School? No you wouldn’t.
How about I give you his facebook adrees and the rest of the EA team I used to work with a while back in 2000?
Also I will pm you my xbox login if you want.
I have been into console gaming way before you even picked up a controller.
You FAIL.
ad
November 18, 2008 at 12:06
yes i want you to do this because it is your JOB.
ad
November 18, 2008 at 12:20
also are you stupid or something??
how many ps3fanboy recommend their nephews to buy an xbox instead of an ps3.
Nick
November 18, 2008 at 12:20
Im sorry but you aren’t making sense. If what you say is true, then the setup that was used for the comparison makes a big difference. How then am I supposed to give my impressions off of my own personal setup if it is quite possibly very different to yours as well as videogamer.com’s.
That would be the same or worse than basing my opinions on the setup of a credible gaming video website. You are telling me that I haven’t verified their credibility but you want me to believe that the contrast is better on the PS3 because it is when you play it at home?
ad
November 18, 2008 at 12:31
let me get this straight.
you own both versions of COD5. you own both consoles. yet rely on a videogamer.com feed verbatim to make a conclusion that the xbox version is SIGNIFICANTLY better.
seriously, didn’t it occur to you at any point to test which version is better yourself – instead of relying on one feed from another website???
this is why i am calling you lazy. i mean how can you possibly argue it any other way? seriously, stop digging yourself a bigger hole by arguing.
LazySAGamer
November 18, 2008 at 12:36
The problem is that getting the equipment for direct feed video is very expensive and not a worthy investment as every second person argues it’s accuracy.
So I haven’t invested in it.
The picture above seems to show the flaws quite easily and unless you can post a reason as to why certain models are missing between the two I would have to say your reasoning is flawed.
Nick
November 18, 2008 at 12:38
I said that I have seen it running on both consoles (and it was side by side btw), I did not say that I own both, you made that assumption yourself and went from there.
spl0it
November 18, 2008 at 12:49
All the Fanbois in the House say Way-o!!!
ad
November 18, 2008 at 13:00
btw i never said the ps3 version is better. infact i couldn’t care less if the ps3 version is worst.
what i care about is what really matters in a game.
miniscule diferences in textures doesn’t make a difference.
what really matters is frame rate and all the other tings i mentioned. the point of this article is that the author does no proper research and makes one claim and stands by the argument that his views means that the xbox version is significantly better.
this is the stupidity of the article. the shoddy lazy journalist that plagues this industry.
baba
November 18, 2008 at 13:45
Yes it is.
But how was it captured?
How was it compressed?
Not that it bothers me, I’m not going to get the game for either console anyway.
V@mp
November 18, 2008 at 14:06
Anybody still wanna argue that playing video games
don’t make you hostile? I guess owning 10+ consoles will
do that to you 😯
SlippyMadFrog
November 18, 2008 at 14:27
Hey everybody, the internetz is wrong and ad is correct. You wanna know why? Because he worked with Dave Gardner at Electronic Arts. He also went to the Chicago Business School.
He know the whole EA Facebook adresses. He poked Dave Gardner numerous times.
All that is necesarry to differentiate between which version is better.
LazySAGamer
November 18, 2008 at 14:33
So you agree the 360 version is better but you just don’t agree with why this article says it is…
…
Wolfy
November 18, 2008 at 15:00
or playing 10 diffrent consoles that just bricked on you
ad
November 18, 2008 at 15:36
we are nearly there. i didn’t say that the xbox version was better – what i said is if you want to draw conclusions you need to work a bit harder.
furthermore, if you claim claim to help fanboys decide which version to buy then you could either:
A) take one screenshot from another website. magnify it. ignore how the video was captured and make a conclusion that version A is better than version B SIGNIFICANTLY.
or
B) justify your existence, get off your backside. play both versions of the game and draw a conclusion.
but obviously your colleague went for option A because he works for a website call LAZYGAMER. there is no irony there.
why don’t you journalists justify your profession i.e. work – or am i asking too much from people who sit around all day regurgitating other people’s work as if it was the bible.
ad
November 18, 2008 at 15:38
hey, you know people who talk about homosexual sex all the time are often repressed homosexuals themselves?
V@mp
November 18, 2008 at 15:59
Jip,that might just do it.
LazySAGamer
November 18, 2008 at 16:48
ad, your arguing that Nick didn’t do enough research but got to the correct answer in the end anyway?
Your point has been nullified by your own comments.
As a side note we don’t get to sit around all day picking wholes in articles, there is a bit more to it 😉
Nick
November 18, 2008 at 17:06
Wow.
ad
November 18, 2008 at 17:38
no you haven’t got to the answer. that is the point. in truth you still do not fully know which version is better because you haven’t even got off your backside to try the two different versions.
the conclusion you have made is version A is better than version B because of a slight difference in texture which most people wouldn’t even notice.
play the games for goodness sake. and tell us which version is better and stop speculating by simply looking at someone else’s comparison video.
lazygamer, you know what i am saying is right so why argue with me?
SlippyMadFrog
November 18, 2008 at 18:39
Dude, do you know Facebook? You can “poke” other people. I didn’t mean butt sex like thought. The irony!
SlippyMadFrog
November 18, 2008 at 18:40
I meant “like you thought”
ad
November 18, 2008 at 19:22
of course i know what facebook is you muppet
but obviously you meant poking in the homosexual sense, you don’t need a degree in human pyschology to know this.
the reason i mentioned my connection to the industry was because the guy (i was talking to) assumed i was a one console (ps3) owner.
if you bothered to read the whole conversation then you would understand the context of my comments but obviously you didn’t so hence.
ad
November 18, 2008 at 19:26
but on the other hand maybe i am expecting too much from you because you are clearly too stupid to understand your own innuendo
LazySAGamer
November 18, 2008 at 21:56
I thought you misread that one to be honest as SlippyMadFrog has no idea if you are male or Female… or did I miss that you posted your sex somewhere?
Anyway this is way off track from the main discussion.
Your last comment to me was that Nick should have tested both games to see the difference between them and not just relied on a simple texture issue.
Well we hadn’t received both our review copies at the time of writing (we now have and are testing them) but I also feel you keep avoiding the same point.
Yes the jaggies could have been caused by any number of things including bad compression but the fact that the models are missing certain pieces on the PS3 version couldn’t have been caused by anything other than they do not exist.
I feel it is perfectly fair to draw a conclusion from that.
SlippyMadFrog
November 18, 2008 at 22:19
You made the homosexual connection, not me. So i guess by your logic you are a suppressed homosexual? Oops! 😆
I fail to see how studying at Chicago Business School eliminates you of being a fanboy. Unless you majored in Avoiding Fanboyism.
Ag I’m just joking around. You’re ok.
xyber
November 20, 2008 at 17:54
then why dont first party games use installs all the time?
remz
August 2, 2009 at 14:08
ive played both, and the 360 vversion does look better the colours look deeper where as the PS3 looks slightly washed.