Call of Duty 4: Modern combat trailer up
- Thread starter Rangers
- Start date
The question would be if they are objectiv and fair in their judging. And then the resolution for both versions (PS3/xbox360) are running at 1024*600p with 2xAA. I think that those ss and others on the net are surpressed becouse... well it doesn't suit some peoples tastes or rather "alliances"!
EDIT: Found some more ss for the textures from different places.
Last edited by a moderator:
Some texture comparison photos:
Thats is some serious difference for the wall and ground... also is there not a bit more stuff on teh xbox360 ss at the building end (middle left)?
No there isn't.
The two shots are taken from different places (The angle and distance from the wall are completely different). It's not an exact match.
Maybe if it was in closer to being in the same place it would actually be a valid comparison shot, rather than just an engineered "difference" to please the xbox fansites.
What is the difference for the ground?
ihamoitc2005
Veteran
If what I hear is true then that 25% cannot be used because of data rate for that 25% is too slow for high-graphics games, so for many games, DVD9 only gives ~6.5GB usable space.
Maybe PS3 owners are busy playing it and aren't really interested in the "big" debate.
It's been so long since we've had anything decent to play I bet they are just enjoying it (not that I think it's decent as FPS games aren't my bag)
How about these ss then? Are they also to please xbox fansites becouse trully they seem to be properly compared and the difference is noticably no mather ones "alliance".
Oh cmon. The differences in texture resolution are obvious. No amount of replicating the position can invalidate this difference.
Regarding the stuff between the buried ring and the building, there's definitely something else there, but it might be an NPC, or a vehicle... maybe someone with the game can verify if there is ground decoration at that spot?
@Mize
I suggest not listening to the bickering between the "usual suspects" regarding the superiority (or lack thereof) of the PC/360/PS3 version of the game. I'm playing the 360 version and it seems to look just like the PS3 screens I've seen. If there are differences, they are subtle and I guarantee you won't have time to notice when the bullets start flying. If you have a PS3, then get that version. If you have a PS3 and a 360, well, then I don't know what to tell you. Flip a coin.
In my opinion, this game deserves to be played from the couch on a large TV with surround sound.
I suggest not listening to the bickering between the "usual suspects" regarding the superiority (or lack thereof) of the PC/360/PS3 version of the game. I'm playing the 360 version and it seems to look just like the PS3 screens I've seen. If there are differences, they are subtle and I guarantee you won't have time to notice when the bullets start flying. If you have a PS3, then get that version. If you have a PS3 and a 360, well, then I don't know what to tell you. Flip a coin.
In my opinion, this game deserves to be played from the couch on a large TV with surround sound.
I would say resolution and type of texture. Truly I like the PS3 one more since it displays more detail at distance and I dont see how often one would be so upclose to see the texture "break up" (image 1). The second image is a bit off in the view angles.
As you will notice from the part I quoted of the original post I was referring to the suggestion that the 360 had more objects in the building.
Besides, IW have already said you can take screenshots from both versions and "prove" one version looks superior to the next if you wanted, so I do not really see the point of all these shots that "prove" the 360 version is better looking.
Besides, IW have already said you can take screenshots from both versions and "prove" one version looks superior to the next if you wanted, so I do not really see the point of all these shots that "prove" the 360 version is better looking.
But you clearly see both buildings and the stuff there, although the ss are dark. Or do you think that perhaps it is a soldier/tank/object that comes into view +/- a second?
What do you mean +/- a second? The two shots may be taken hours away in gameplay time.
I would have assumed the one taking the ss would move to the same postion on both versions and then take the ss, meaning about same time or close to get to the point. I was under the impression that the game is not freeroaming and you have to follow the 'walk-path'. But perhaps it is from multi-player, yes?
The point of these comparison screenshots is not to "prove" anything. It's to examine any differences, good or bad, that may exist between the PS3 and 360 versions.
I'm a PS3-guy myself, but I find these comparisons very illuminating.
Funnily enough even my GTS 640 can't maintain a solid >60fps in this game all of the time even at those settings. However in other places its getting close to 200fps. Never does it fall below 40fps but in high action areas the framerate can hover between 45 and 60.
I'm guessing that its a CPU limitation as increasing settings barley does anything to my framerate. In addition, i'm dubious as to whether the console versions genuinly maintain >60fps all of the time or whether its just a 60% of the time kinda thing.
For the record I have an E6600 and play this at 1280x800 + 16xTMAA/16xHQAF. Getting a locked 60fps about 60-70% of the time with the rest hovering between 40 and 60.
Last edited by a moderator:
360 wall clearly looks better but for the ground I also prefer PS3 version.
It would be nice to see some video of that scene because I'm not sure if the view angle is any bad for the second picture. Even the trash has shadows.
Similar threads
