By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Digital Foundry: Face-Off: Call of Duty: Black Ops (360 vs. PS3)

ethomaz on 11 November 2010
kowenicki said:
disolitude said:
Rainbird said:
disolitude said:

Not too bad for 5 year old hardware and 4 year old hardware with a 6 year old video card.

Im curious though, how does the 3D mode run on consoles?

320x240 per eye? lol

Just read the article.

Thanks!

So 360 runs 720p/2 per eye and then scaled back to 720p.

PS3 runs at ???? resolution which is stuck in to a 1280x1470 frame and then cut in half for each eye. (the standard HDMI 1.4 3D gaming resolution)

Apparently 360 version runs smoother but thats not surprising considering that the game in 2D runs smoother as well...

so the 3d version is better on 360?

I read some reviewers saying no becase the 3D on 360 was not real 3D... the 3D felling was worst in 360 version... so PS3 version was better with 3D.

But both fail to deliver a 3D level like Killzone 3.



Around the Network
Darc Requiem on 11 November 2010

Treyarch made the game for 360, PS3, and Wii. This makes them lazy how?



Skeeuk on 11 November 2010

just recived the game this morning, theres a 25meg patch to download and the game looks and plays great on ps3, im happy with it.



...not much time to post anymore, used to be awesome on here really good fond memories from VGchartz...

PSN: Skeeuk - XBL: SkeeUK - PC: Skeeuk

really miss the VGCHARTZ of 2008 - 2013...

4k1x3r on 11 November 2010
hikaruchan said:
4k1x3r said:
kowenicki said:

thats quite a big difference isnt it.

anyway 360 version looks great.


No it's not a big difference, the game isn't HD on 360, so you'll notice the difference if you really look at it. If it was such a big difference it would have been noticed in some reviews and it would have spreak through the internet like : OMGZ BLACK OPS PS3 IZ TEH INFERIORZ VERSION, IZ SO UGLY!. (remember Bayonetta and other multiplat?)

after the Patch Bayonetta runs much better the load times are halved versus no install and the Frame rate is slightly improved. and visuals are lightly better to.    


You missunderstood what I said, I was talking about the fuss about Bayonetta graphics and the fact that there was no such a thing about Black Ops, I have Bayonetta on PS3 and I like it how it is.



disolitude on 11 November 2010
ethomaz said:
kowenicki said:
disolitude said:
Rainbird said:
disolitude said:

Not too bad for 5 year old hardware and 4 year old hardware with a 6 year old video card.

Im curious though, how does the 3D mode run on consoles?

320x240 per eye? lol

Just read the article.

Thanks!

So 360 runs 720p/2 per eye and then scaled back to 720p.

PS3 runs at ???? resolution which is stuck in to a 1280x1470 frame and then cut in half for each eye. (the standard HDMI 1.4 3D gaming resolution)

Apparently 360 version runs smoother but thats not surprising considering that the game in 2D runs smoother as well...

so the 3d version is better on 360?

I read some reviewers saying no becase the 3D on 360 was not real 3D... the 3D felling was worst in 360 version... so PS3 version was better with 3D.

But both fail to deliver a 3D level like Killzone 3.


You're wrong.

Both are using real stereoscopic 3D. 360 is using the standard side to side format which has been used since early 2000's for PC 3D gaming. PS3 is using the HDMI 1.4 format of stuffing both images in to 1 giant frame.

Both methods yield exact same results for the gamer... 360 has a better frame rate in 2D and when that happens its pretty much a given it will have smoother 3D gameplay.



Around the Network
HappyHenry on 11 November 2010

I always get the 360 multiplatform games not only because they look better and run smoother,But because the online side is way way better,i only buy the exclusive games for PS3.



Rainbird on 11 November 2010
HappyHenry said:

I always get the 360 multiplatform games not only because they look better and run smoother,But because the online side is way way better,i only buy the exclusive games for PS3.

You do realize that that's not always the case, right?



ethomaz on 11 November 2010
disolitude said:
ethomaz said:
kowenicki said:
disolitude said:
Rainbird said:
disolitude said:

Not too bad for 5 year old hardware and 4 year old hardware with a 6 year old video card.

Im curious though, how does the 3D mode run on consoles?

320x240 per eye? lol

Just read the article.

Thanks!

So 360 runs 720p/2 per eye and then scaled back to 720p.

PS3 runs at ???? resolution which is stuck in to a 1280x1470 frame and then cut in half for each eye. (the standard HDMI 1.4 3D gaming resolution)

Apparently 360 version runs smoother but thats not surprising considering that the game in 2D runs smoother as well...

so the 3d version is better on 360?

I read some reviewers saying no becase the 3D on 360 was not real 3D... the 3D felling was worst in 360 version... so PS3 version was better with 3D.

But both fail to deliver a 3D level like Killzone 3.


You're wrong.

Both are using real stereoscopic 3D. 360 is using the standard side to side format which has been used since early 2000's for PC 3D gaming. PS3 is using the HDMI 1.4 format of stuffing both images in to 1 giant frame.

Both methods yield exact same results for the gamer... 360 has a better frame rate in 2D and when that happens its pretty much a given it will have smoother 3D gameplay.

Sorry but in practice this does not happen the 3D on PS3 did better.



disolitude on 11 November 2010
ethomaz said:

Sorry but in practice this does not happen the 3D on PS3 did better.

I don't understand your reply...



ethomaz on 11 November 2010
disolitude said:
ethomaz said:
 

Sorry but in practice this does not happen the 3D on PS3 did better.

I don't understand your reply...

The method and tech are the same but PS3 version has better 3D. Treyarch confirmed this yesterday on interview.

In real (pratice wrong word) the 3D experience on PS3 is better... the 360 version fell fake and not imersive.