If you compare a standard of frame tests then sure.  There are far more differences then those.  The PS3 has more rain on one level, the 360 has more snow on another.  The 360 renders better upclose textures while losing the when viewing things in the distance.  I'm sure there are many more.  All i know is i'm hyped for CoD6, i just hope they fix the lag issues.  But that never stopped me from playing an insane amount of the game :)

Thank you.

Great post.   KylieDog has no idea what he's talking about.

Shush or you'll get the gas!  Things have to look good in screens to sell millions of games not look good in motion and play well :P

Well when the Wii is rendering basic triangles I guess it's a little easier...

This post could have been made about any FPS in history.  It's just dumb.  No one notices frame rate drops except for whoever wrote this stupid article.  Read reviews.

I don't care what the framerate of a game is aslong as its stable.

I certainly hope killzone 2 doesn't have any technical issues.

In all my years of math classes, geometry, calculus, trig and such I never knew there was "complex" triangles, what are these, do they have an extra side to them?  making them squares? :P

All 3D models everywhere are made of polygons...

Clarification: just triangles. No polygons. Maybe some squares.

Edit:  also, no one studies MP3 to see if it has frame rate drops because no cares enough to bash it.  KZ2 is going through the same stuff that Halo and Gears did.  props to Infinity Ward for getting away with infinite spawns.  Those should be picked apart.

None worth mentioning.  Just check all the reviews and everyone's impression of the beta.

Then again, there will always be a few people saying there are technical problems with popular games because they need something to complain about.

Digital Foundry makes accurate, objective frame-rate and resolution measures, and I respect them very much as a source. Same goes my respect for Carmack. On the other hand taking out of context a 3x factor, and pulling out of thin air a 4x for an undefined "performance" parameter is

a) a logical fallacy

b) a rethorical dishonesty, because quoting numbers from authoritative sources out of context for pure non-seuiturs is a way to have some of the trust they rightfully earned rub off on your wishful thinking and speculations.

As someone who works in the scientific field, I am very touchy on the necessary distinction. Try pulling any kind of rethoric, logical inconsistent trick like this in an objective scientific debate and you become a laughing stock. Let's try to keep the level higher, and wait for example for the in-depth analysis Digital Foundry has promised of the performance and features of the KZ2 engine (which they seem to be highly praising, notwithstanding the 20 fps dip they measured in instances they will surely detail)

As for the "awsomeness" of Infinity Ward, you're free to tag them in any way and they are authors of a greatly entertraining game. But again, in the context of graphic engines? That's misleading.

CryEngine2 is lauded for its realism. Id's Tech5 or even the deferred rendering techniques Guerilla developed for the KZ2 engine are the object of whitepapers and discussions among workers in the field. When a commercial project needs to license an existing engine UE3 or Source are discussed.

But the engine of COD4 (modified Id doom3 engine with bloom, self-shadows and dynamic lighting updates and proprietary physiscs as I recall) was merely adequate for the game, and never more than "good looking". The lighting in particular seemed to me (PC version, where framerate was not an issue, ever) to be quite sub-par and the texturing in the game was quite poor, probably a trade-off for framerate.

But if you can point me to objective peer analysis sustantiating the "awsomeness" of the COD4 engine, I'll be happy to read about it.