Hey guys. I'm Don. One of the many PSU writers/editors that you don't know. I happen to have written a rather long explanation of what I did and didn't like about Black Ops II: PSU's Black Ops II review.
(I flew to California to review this one at Activision's review event! I hung out with a bunch of writers from huge sites like GiantBomb, IGN, and Game Trailers. Cool, huh?)
I mention the disparities between the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions of the game.
Here's what I think about it: it sucks, and shouldn't be happening. The bottom line is that Call of Duty isn't ruined by its lack of outstanding visuals. However, as I'm sure you'd all agree, the most logical reason the PS3 version would show muddier textures is lower optimization due to the game running natively on 360.
The install only polishes up some textures, but nothing major. It's still noticeable.
The game is still as fun as you'd like it to be though.
Sent using Tapatalk
Cheers don I'll give it a read. Also thanks for the explanation on the texture thing :)
Anybody who has both should definatly have different setting for both.
Id put my money on Quncunix, its basically free as its a hardware AA filter, but its famous for blurring everything. In an effort to hit 60fps, I would say they simply chose it over any other form of AA. I'm not seeing the normal telltale signs of lower res.
It's Mr Podcast himself. Everyone should tune into the PSU podcast, it's a lot of fun and Don is a great (and slightly mental) host. :P
Not really a surprise IF the 360 is the lead platform. Not sure if that is true or not?Quote:
It's fair to say that Treyarch's track record in terms of cross-platform conversions is patchy at best, especially evident when the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 versions of 2010's Call of Duty: Black Ops are compared directly. Lower frame-rates, lower resolution frame buffers, and PSN's online issues gave the impression that the firm's focus had been directed towards the Xbox 360 version of the game, resulting in a sub-par experience for PS3 owners. So how does Black Ops 2 fare?
As we speak, Digital Foundry's Tom Morgan is poring over all three versions of the game, having bought each at the midnight launch on Tuesday. A complete analysis is in the running for this weekend, but for now, we are in a position to offer some headline pointers on what separates the two console versions based on our captures of the single-player campaign.
First up: rendering resolution. Since the release of Modern Warfare, the Call of Duty engine has always operated in a sub-HD configuration, with Treyarch's Black Ops running at the COD standard 1040x600 with 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing (MSAA) on Xbox 360. Alas, this saw a reduction to 960x540 on the PlayStation 3.
Resolution parity returned with Infinity Ward's Modern Warfare 3, but this has changed once again with Black Ops 2; native resolution is now 880x720 on Xbox 360 with 2x MSAA. It may sound somewhat on the low side, but kudos to Treyarch here - the upscaling algorithm is remarkably refined when viewed in motion. The overall impression is that this is the crispest COD we've seen on 360. As you'll see in the comparison viewer below, the upscaled image generally compares quite well with the PC version running at native res.
Things aren't quite so impressive on PS3, however. Base resolution does indeed appear to be a very close match, with our pixel count resolving a marginally lower 864x720 image. It's impossible to overlook the aggressive blur applied over the top of the image though, resulting from what appears to be a new post-process anti-aliasing technique for the studio. The intensity of the filter is so pronounced that, even after close study of numerous shots, it's difficult to pinpoint whether any hardware MSAA is being applied on Sony's platform. A significant amount of detail is lost in the image overall, but on the plus side, edge detection/smoothing does work out better in some scenes.
Black Ops 2 on PS3 suffers from noticeable hit to image quality, where the additional blur comes from Treyarch's choice method of anti-aliasing. As a result, the 360 scales up an 880x720 native resolution alongside 2x MSAA to create a crisper image, while PS3 uses lower precision post processing to mask the jaggies.
We've also run some like-for-like video clips through our frame-rate analysis tools to discern whether or not a disparity in performance still exists between the two console platforms - historically the COD engine has favoured the Xbox 360 - a state of affairs especially evident in Black Ops.
Modern Warfare 3 closed the gap somewhat, but it's safe to say that there is still a noticeable performance difference between Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 in the new game, as you can see by checking out the cut-scene and traversal video below, which seeks to measure frame-rates in areas where the rendering engines are put through a series of nigh-on identical stress tests.
We're still working on campaign gameplay, multiplayer, and stereoscopic 3D analyses but we reckon that the gap between the two console SKUs does close - especially in terms of the all-important online experience (though these issues are somewhat alarming).
In most gameplay areas, PS3 performance generally is significantly closer to the target 60FPS than it was in the first Black Ops, though more intense effects work clearly takes its toll on frame-rate. Curiously we find that the PC version seems to require serious amounts of CPU power - no problem for quad-core systems but the 2.8GHz Pentium G840 powering the £300 Digital Foundry PC seems to have issues running the game at anything above 30FPS, regardless of what graphical settings or resolutions we try, something we'll be taking another look at shortly.
We aim to have our full article complete for the weekend, but in the meantime, we can safely recommend the Xbox 360 version of Black Ops 2 ahead of its Sony equivalent. That said, assuming Treyarch can overcome the freezes and lock-ups impacting the PS3 experience, the gap between the two console versions in terms of performance does narrow if you're mainly invested in the multiplayer side.
If the shoe fits...
Sent using Tapatalk 2
It's hard to tell the performance difference while playing for sure lol. The blurring effect that mynd already explained, is easier to see.
Well lets put it this way, if it isnt Quincunx...they should have...it couldnt have done any worse....
Well at least the preformance holds up better than in Blops1. Dunno what reason they can't get parity after all these years though, it's not like the game is as intense as Skyrim. Maybe they don't care that much because they know it'll still sell 10m+ on the PS3 regardless
There is no reason any version should be running Sub-HD, its terrible really it is
I don't see how it's terrible. 60fps is silky smooth, and I like it. Visually the game isn't a disappointment for me.
When I first started playing I felt it looked murky, kind of unclear (multiplayer) and smudged but got use to it now. I never remember the first or Mw2 giving me that impression. I even swapped hdmi lead/port on my monitor and altered afew settings to no avail. SP looks pretty, MP in general doesn't really, I don't mean the textures looking hard up to a wall, I mean like before the round starts and you see the broader picture of team mates and part of the map, the clarity just doesn't seem to be there. Maybe there is something incorrect with my setup, I'll have to check again but when I first sat down with MP I thought is this really the best they can do?
Or it is me and having come from MoH warfighter after logging 30 odd hours online I was not ready for it to look worse.
Goodness. I can't even begin to see that kind of visual problems because I'm running around trying not to get my ass handed to me lol. Sometimes, I might be trying to hide. :snicker I'll play a few matches and try and pay attention to detail and see if I can understand what you're experiencing.
May just be me expecting too much :lol:
My ps3 copy has yet to ship. They said it'd be here by tomorrow : (
I think the game looks really good and I'm playing the PS3 version (when the game first starts it is kind of muddy looking but the HD textures will kick in right after the countdown is over). also, the map designs are WAY better compared to some previous CoD games.
on the PS3 version at least, joining a server is still pretty buggy and I will say if Treyarch can't fix this problem in 1 week, they are pretty crappy developers.
A lot of you make interesting points. The PS3 version does indeed still play very smoothly, however, less graphical polish and buggy matchmaking are definitely noticeable.
We'll be talking about this all on the next episode of Podcast Derailed, of course. Some of you might want to tune in; I might even read some of your posts on air!
Sent using Tapatalk 2