COD3 - 30 frames per second on PS3 - 60fps on 360

[Acert93]

yep

and guess what?

you just answered the question to every one of these threads that say "PS3 will look better than 360 version or 360 will look better than PS3 version"

That story of B3D!

Game #1
Sony Fan: Game ABC looks better on the PS3, it shows the Xbox 360 is lacking.
MS Fan: No, the PS3 was the lead platform and they had issue XYZ with the game on the Xbox 360.
Nintendo Fan: It is all about the games. Now I am gonna play with my Wii.

Game #2
MS Fan: Game ABC looks better on the Xbox 360, it shows the PS3 is lacking.
Sony Fan: No, the Xbox 360 was the lead platform and they had issue XYZ with the game on the PS3.
Nintendo Fan: It is all about the games. Now I am gonna play with my Wii.

ad naseum.

There is worthwhile discussion to be had on many of these issues, but it is pretty clear that this is the 2nd CoD title on the 360 and one would have to assume the work done to the CoD2 engine was ported over whereas this is a fresher effort on the PS3 (although we should expect FAST strides due to RSX and the PPE similarities). But anyone seeing this as a lacking in the PS3 -- on a good, but not great looking title -- needs to re-evaluate themselves. Kind of like the other thread about an Xbox/PS2/GCN port lacking certain features in the Xbox 360 version -- as if the dog of a game says anything. These sorts of issues and titles tell us more about the development processes than games actually made for or co-developed on platforms.

 

[blakjedi]

yep

and guess what?

you just answered the question to every one of these threads that say "PS3 will look better than 360 version or 360 will look better than PS3 version"

Agreed. Not sure much is to be gained by these types of discussions... although discussing the merits of performance and visual fidelity on similar games could be interesting. For example on my HTPC I have always used ATI cards because they have appeared to have better color saturation and less artifacting in terms of video processing than Nvidia cards... I haven't compared recent cards so this may not be the case anymore...

The difference between that type of debate nd this potential debate is that when comparing video cards (or monitors, tvs, projectors, etc) you are using the exact same source for comparison (DVD or electronic material). With video games there are card/architecture features that developers utilize that are generally exposed in the API yet proprietary in implementation. So because of "tweaks" specific to a card/IHV architecture you may get a better framerate, better gradients, less/no tearing, or better AA... making it difficult at best to determine whether the quality of the technical features of the game are fundamentally due to programming or hardware... when the truth is that its a complex mix of both...

All that is to say that unless you see a game running and simply just like the way it looks better on THAT console, you can almost never say that one console is "better" than another. You just maybe prefer that console in general and that in that programming instance, the developer got everything you hoped for out of the machine on that title.

Sorry for the long post...

BTW I am gonna get my blast fix from Gears and R:FoM and probably not this game if i can get a damned PS3...!

 

[mrboo]

I must say im shocked, but im not interested in COD3, i have number 2 and have only played it once.

 

[Jesus2006]

I don't know what COD2 you played but it was a consistent 60fps with very few frame drops on my machine. And most certainly never dipped into the 20fps range....

Sorry, but he is completely right and what you say here is definately not true. I agree CoD ran at 60 fps, whenever you look straight up the sky or towards a wall* that is, where no action is going on, otherwise the framerate is totally unsteady, and dropped way below 30ies at times. With some smoke and action going on it's easily below 20 as well... (with no AA or AF whatsoever)

*When you move out of this "wall" you immediately notice the framerate dropping way below 60fps and it's just not as fluid anymore when looking around.

 

[Krat0s]

http://ps3.gamespy.com/playstation-3.../733814p1.html

The main difference between the Xbox 360 and the PS3 versions will be an improved lighting system in the latter. The Cell processor's abilities should allow multiple lights and shadows placed one upon another, so that the final effect should be one of the most realistic ever seen in a next-gen game so far. Unfortunately, no additional work will be done on the character animations or level detail; that will stay the same as the Xbox 360 version.

 

[mrboo]

http://ps3.gamespy.com/playstation-3.../733814p1.html

We have knwon about PS3 having more light sources for months now

 

[Arctic Permafrost]

Everyone should get their fair share. To all those PS hardcore fans out there reading this, you better believe I'm going to give you a piece of my mind. Isn't that so that the PS3 is not near as powerful as you think it is?

This is the first time in the history of consoles that a console breaks a record... (while X360 broke every technical record at launchtime)

More precisely, a negative record.

To my way of thinking, PS3 is a exception, as its debut marks for the first time in the history of consoles (to my knowledge at least) a console launched later on the back of one promise after another, is not the most advanced, not technically-wise.

PS3 was going to be the most powerful console ever created...

Putting two and two together, Motorstorm and Killzone 2 were the perfect example of the worst style of unreasoned lies, among too many others to mention, i.e. the so promised worlwide laugh -sry, launch-. I call it deceptive advertising.

Back on topic:

Taken from Games Radar, from Edge magazine:

"Further to the Edge comments this month about how much better Call Of Duty 3 looks on 360 in comparison to the PS3 version, I noticed this in GamesTM this month On Rainbow Six Vegas.....

'' .....a chat with the Ubisoft development team shed a little light on he matter."All I'm able to say is that we're looking to ship on PS3 as well but we're not having specific content..... we're developing with 360 as our main development platform and porting to PS3means that there's less memory available for us to use, but we're trying to minimise any drop in quality"..Such comments sugget that the gap in performance between Playstation3 and Xbox 360 is nowhere near as powerful as some would like us to believe and that the console may even be less able than Microsoft's..."

They also go on to say that only the 360 version will feature the face mapping technolgy and that their are no plans for PS3/PSP linkage or to use the sixaxis tilt technology."

Sure, PS3 has 256 MB (XTS 522 MB) of VRAM, a few graphical effects here and there, but nothing to scream at. All fireworks, nothing for real.

______________________________

"Unlucky in games, lucky in love"

Gamertag: Cyaneyes

 

[Jesus2006]

omg, spam!
(sorry but that's what it is )

Don't think this thread will lead anywhere now...

 

[mrboo]

Arctic Permafrost - FACT is the RAM in both machines work differently, with 360 you just take what you need for texture's, section it off and job done. With PS3 however if you go over the 256mb VRAM limmit you have to then set up the game engine to use XDR for texture's and i can gurantee that NONE of these developers have done that. i also dont see what all the fuss is about, The Darkness has bad textures, COD3 texture's are nothing to scream about on either version and R6:Vegas is'nt mind blowing in the texture department compared to some PS3 game's.

 

[Krat0s]

Uh-oh.

 

[Krat0s]

So now The darkness,rainbow six:Vegas and Cod3 all better looking on the 360

I didn't know these games were released.

 

[scooby_dooby]

This thread wasn't going anywhere anyways, the most interesting thing here is that COD3 is only 4 weeks awway from it's supposed release on PS3.

 

[mrboo]

Anyway back on topic :

The game doesn't run as smoothly as the Xbox 360 version (not yet, anyway- it runs at 30 frames per second instead of 60)

Its running at 30fps for the time being, but should latter be at 60fps.

 

[Love_In_Rio]

Anyway back on topic :



Its running at 30fps for the time being, but should latter be at 60fps.

or not...

 

[dodo3]

We'll have to wait and see. No use in arguing.

 

[AlNom]

I just had a look on the Activision website. What a small jumble! CoD2 was done by Infinity Ward and CoD3 by Treyarch.

Any particular link between these two dev's?

Treyarch was responsible for the Call of Duty games on the Xbox/PS2/GC, which were quite different from the PC version. It seems that both develop simultaneously, but release titles alternately over the years while keeping the franchise name going.

 

[kyleb]

exactly unless he talking about PC version

GAMESPOT

I am talking about the 360 version, and Gamespot is talking about what some PR person told them to say. If you want to see what I am talking about; just start up a system link game in Brecourt by yourself, walk out in them middle of the field, and then toss a smoke grenade and spin in a circle beside it. As you face the smoke and look away from it you will see the difference between 30fps and 60fps, and that isn't nearly as demanding as what happens during intense multiplayer battles or some of the more heated potions of single player on higher difficulties.

 

[StefanS]

thread not going anywhere. Thus locked. Plus some guy getting time off.