Xbox 360 COD 3 Better than on PS3

[Zeus]

Gamespot say that generally the Xbox 360 version of Call of Duty 3 is better than on the PS3 as it doesn't suffer from choppy frame rates. Overall they class it as 'slightly inferior'. Another victory for Xbox 360 fans.


From start to finish, Call of Duty 3 is an intense experience and a great game. The visuals are mostly excellent and the sound is some of the best in any game to date. However, an inconsistent frame rate and fewer multiplayer options make the PlayStation 3 version slightly inferior to the Xbox 360 version. Ultimately, if the Call of Duty series hasn't won you over previously, Call of Duty 3 isn't going to do much to change your mind. But for anyone who considers themselves a fan of the series, Call of Duty 3 is a must-play.


News Source: <A href="http://us.gamespot.com/ps3/action/callofduty3/review.html?sid=6161718&page=2" target="_blank">Gamespot</a>

[daps83777]

wonder if this is because the PS3 is so hard to program, lack of effort, or its true that the cell is powerful, yet not optopmized for video games?

[Da Man 10]

u cant compare a second gen version of cod3 for the x360 to a first gen version of cod3 on the ps3 give developers time to learn how to develop on the ps3

[ka0s]

man... i like my psp, have a sony reciever, ps1, ps2, etc, etc... but i hope ps3 crashes and burns! dont know why really, its the only next gen system i dont plan to buy.

CoD 3 is pretty fun on xbox live.. even though it feels like im playing counter strike

[SSChevy2001]

HA HA MS beat sony by a year and still has better graphics! For those who say otherwise just check out Tony Hawk Project 8, MS still wins another multi-platform game.

Now I can't wait till MGS makes it way on the 360. :) It's not to late PS3 fanboys to switch sides. :D

[Awakened1]

u cant compare a second gen version of cod3 for the x360 to a first gen version of cod3 on the ps3 give developers time to learn how to develop on the ps3

No you can't but I'm not to sure on what you were expecting? Maby a game that look 9 times better than the xbox360? Sorry but it just seems like there are going to be many more of these posts.

Here is a interesting article a full indepth article at every hardware aspect of the xbox360 vs ps3 if anybody hasn't seen it. It was just on digg a little while ago http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=1.

[Robotron]

No you can't but I'm not to sure on what you were expecting? Maby a game that look 9 times better than the xbox360? Sorry but it just seems like there are going to be many more of these posts.

Here is a interesting article a full indepth article at every hardware aspect of the xbox360 vs ps3 if anybody hasn't seen it. It was just on digg a little while ago http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=1.


Thanks for that link. Best gaming read I've had in awhile (lately most gaming news really sucks).

[Freestyle]

http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=1[/url].

Great Article...Who knew the 360's GPU was so advanced and efficient.

[Retroboy]

gotta say COD2 was rather turd for the 360 so Activision have had a little experience with the 360 to improve COD3 and must say BRAVO love the game.

This is the first COD for the PS3 so it might still have bugs to figure out.

[Trashcat]

With all the ps3 delays developers had more than enough time for both platforms, so it seems like ps3 is as hard to make games for as ppl though it will be.

[burgertime]

PS3 must be very hard to program. Because i wouldn't even consider CoD3 graphics much more advanced than CoD2. To have framerate issue with such a substandard graphics in-game that even Xbox 360 can do at 60fps and PS3 only at 30fps is surely worrying. The PS3 should be cutting throught those kind of graphics with easy, since it it suppose to be 3x more powerful than Xbox 360. Something don't add up.

[TheClockWork]

No you can't but I'm not to sure on what you were expecting? Maby a game that look 9 times better than the xbox360? Sorry but it just seems like there are going to be many more of these posts.

No not 9 times better but actually PS3 shows really bad Pixelshader on 3d Party Games. Its not the System its of course the port.

But for example, when i look at Metal Gear Solid 4 i always see this damn shitty world textures. And I ask myself, why ? I mean compare it to Perfect Dark Zero, I dont like the game, but I was standing 1 Minute infront of a texture and I was overwhelmend from its parallax mapping! Just WOW! And imho, alot of PS3 Games are missing the use of texture shader. Use more parallax mapping, this rawks :).

Of course it depends, when you program on a 10 Cluster Processor, you have to split the program into pieces which actually isn't sooooooo good for some types of games. But for example look at Full Auto 2 Battlelines, I mean Games like that can ONLY be done, graphically, on the PS3. And also, that rawks :). The question is mostly, do you really need to render billions of polygons ? :) and huge levels, simply not often. But that types of games which needed huge battles with thousands of objects interacting then the PS3 is the clear winner :). The other way, making a good looking game is simplier on XBOX360 than PS3 so the question is, are you going to say: hehe PS3 rawks because there are some companys which can actually efford to have this amount of graphic or are you going to say, I want to play more Games which have interested gameplay but not so good graphics :) Also, are Polygons really that important ? I think nowadays the difference of "good looking" isnt just about the polygons. Its mostly about the shader which are basically acessable on all systems.

Also there are Games which are graphically not ageing. For example Wind Waker. Wind Waker wouldnt look so much better on XBOX360 or PS3 than for example Zelda Twilight Princess. But actually, i think this whole graphic thing isnt so extreme :) I still can play Metroid Prime, and I think the graphics are just beautiful. Its not only the system its the game and the style you are doing.

And no, there are also 3d Party games that look better on PS3 for example this Tiger Woods Stuff :).

Sry if I'm repeating myself or such and thx for reading :)

[Retroboy]

With all the ps3 delays developers had more than enough time for both platforms, so it seems like ps3 is as hard to make games for as ppl though it will be.

people dont have problems making games for the PS3, its just COD3 doesnt run perfectly compared to the 360, this is activisions fault for not making it run as good, not sony.

Youll find if they make COD4 for both 360 and PS3 they will be identical, depending any console only features like different levels/weapons.

[Scorpion3]

wonder if this is because the PS3 is so hard to program, lack of effort, or its true that the cell is powerful, yet not optopmized for video games?

That's my guess too. Question is, with all these multiplatform games coming out saying that the 360 will look better then the "Superior PS3", I wonder if any of the Sony guys will say anything about this. I could almost mark my calender to a Ken quote.

Great Article...Who knew the 360's GPU was so advanced and efficient.

Are you kidding man? Truth is most people have been saying it was just as up to par as The Cell was but everyone just kept talking about The Cell because it's new and such, but they forgot that IBM also created a brand new type of processor for the 360 as well.

Oh, and one thing more

But for example look at Full Auto 2 Battlelines, I mean Games like that can ONLY be done, graphically, on the PS3. And also, that rawks

What are you stupid? Have you SEEN the gameplay for FA2? It looks worse and doesn't even play as smoothly as the first game did. lol.

[Retroboy]

Full Auto 2 is a turd game, i downloaded the demo for the 360 and there was nothing to it at all, race and shoot.

GoW now dude im definately making a copy of that.

[Scorpion3]

Full Auto 2 is a turd game, i downloaded the demo for the 360 and there was nothing to it at all, race and shoot.

GoW now dude im definately making a copy of that.

:eek: :eek: :eek: DOoooooD! You can't talk about copying games here! lol.

I owned Full Auto, it was pretty good but I got burned out after playing through the hard as hell story-mode to get the cars.

[Retroboy]

ahh yea, well no harm done, not as if im asking how to or where do i go ect.

Ill keep that in mind ;)

[The Bat]

u cant compare a second gen version of cod3 for the x360 to a first gen version of cod3 on the ps3 give developers time to learn how to develop on the ps3

Why not? Sony kept telling everybody that the PS3 is 3 times as powerful as the 360, is powerful and advanced enough to replace PCs, and signals the true start of next generation gaming. If newer, more powerful, more advanced technology isn't staying a step ahead of supposedly inferior technology, which will also improve over time, doesn't this bring Sony's lofty claims into question?

In the end, it'll come down to what exclusive games justify the price of the hardware itself. And that answer will depend on the person buying the hardware.

[Retroboy]

im sure sony was regarding the thuper prothecor:p

[TheClockWork]

What are you stupid? Have you SEEN the gameplay for FA2? It looks worse and doesn't even play as smoothly as the first game did. lol.
Maybe you can try to speak NOT like a total primitive. Wait, I'm going to top that. What are YOU FUCKING Stupid, Bytch?

I have seen all the "Trailer" Movies on IGN with IGN Insider (HD). And it just looks awesome and they are all inGame.

Full Auto 2 is a turd game, i downloaded the demo for the 360 and there was nothing to it at all, race and shoot.

You downloaded "Full Auto 2 : Battlelines" as a demo for your 360 ? As I can see Full Auto 2 is an exclusive Playstation 3 title so its hard for me to believe. And your "there was nothing to it all, race and shoot" is just l0l. Sry but with your logic, any Race Game is just **** because its half as good as Full Auto 2. "Itz only race l0lz bro".

[Retroboy]

its a sega game, its bound to be just as cr@p as the first one, the only good game sega have made on the 360 is condemned.

[TheClockWork]

What!?!??? What has Condemned to do with Full Auto 2 ? Because both are from Sega ? Do you actually now what you are talking about ?! Sega is a Publisher, Okay !? Got that !? Condemned is from Monolith Productions okay!? Sega aren't making many games themself. Oh my god...

[daps83777]

What!?!??? What has Condemned to do with Full Auto 2 ? Because both are from Sega ? Do you actually now what you are talking about ?! Sega is a Publisher, Okay !? Got that !? Condemned is from Monolith Productions okay!? Sega aren't making many games themself. Oh my god...

uh yes, sega makes games, thats what they do now. they make alot of games. in fact they made more games for gamecube than any other third party company and are expected to make even more for the Wii than they did for the GC.

[TheClockWork]

Tell me, what Games ? Remember that all Sonic Titles are from "TEAM SONIC" and NOT Developed by Sega.
And Full Auto 2 is from Pseudo Interactive.

[DanASBO]

Tell me, what Games ? Remember that all Sonic Titles are from "TEAM SONIC" and NOT Developed by Sega.
And Full Auto 2 is from Pseudo Interactive.

"Team Sonic" Sonic Team are part of SEGA...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega#Internal_structure

[TheClockWork]

I think this isn't actually changing anything, Sega is a brand name with Second-Part Developer (Referring to Wiki) (I didn't read the whole article). This is actually logomachy. What I was refering to, is that there isn't one Team called "SEGA" which create Games, Sega owns more Companys which are creating Games ( The same thing like Nintendo, Retro Studios ). So of course they are cooperating but the Team itself is still a own. I meant that there is a big difference between a Company actually developing and publishin games or a company which owns 2nd Party Developers which are creating the games.

And the "root" of my posts were that Retroboy said: "its a sega game, its bound to be just as cr@p as the first one, the only good game sega have made on the 360 is condemned."which is basically very shortsighted. Because of course Pseudo Interactive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo_Interactive) is published by Sega (like Monolith) but the Company itself is NOT a Second Party Company. So you actually can't say "Its a sega game l0l hohohoho it sucks". And imho Sega gets more and more a pure brand Name. Like Atari.

[DanASBO]

I think this isn't actually changing anything, Sega is a brand name with Second-Part Developer (Referring to Wiki) (I didn't read the whole article). This is actually logomachy. What I was refering to, is that there isn't one Team called "SEGA" which create Games, Sega owns more Companys which are creating Games ( The same thing like Nintendo, Retro Studios ). So of course they are cooperating but the Team itself is still a own company.

Read the whole article... also take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_Team

All of those listed under Internal are SEGA.

Edit: I wasn't responding to Retroboy's claims that SEGA only make "cr@p" games. I was responding to your claim that SEGA doesn't make many games, which they do. Atari... that's a different kettle of fish.

[TheClockWork]

Ahhh okay :) so yes, DanASBO your right. Sonic Team IS actually Sega. Actually it's not the old Sega, i mean:

"The joint creator of Sonic, Naoto Oshima, left Sonic Team to form his own studio, Artoon. Recently on May 8, 2006, Naka left the group with ten other members of Sonic Team to establish an independent game developer, PROPE."

so again, the "real" team behind Sonic isn't any more present at Sega. Its mostly some people behind the name but you are right.

[DanASBO]

As for Full Auto it's no "Twisted Metal". 1up pretty much sums up my impressions thus far of numero deux.

http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?cId=3155063

EDIT: IMO The CoD series is a pile of wank anyway, it doesn't matter to me that CoD3 runs better on the 360, it won't be running at all on my 360. I still find it funny that the uber powerful PS3 is getting worse reviews because of the choppy framerates and inferior graphics.

[TheClockWork]

Okay and for the last: "

uh yes, sega makes games, thats what they do now. they make alot of games. in fact they made more games for gamecube than any other third party company and are expected to make even more for the Wii than they did for the GC."

Sega publishes 38 Titles for GameCube,1 1/3 are developed from Sega/SonicTeam .

For comparisson Electronic Arts published 83 Titles for the GameCube, 1 1/2,5 are developed from EA Canada / EA Redwood Shores.

So it's very very close :)
(Resource: cube.ign.com)

@DanASBO
I don't like 1up :) But as I said, i actually only saw the Videos on IGN and I found them very very nice looking. I cann't speak for the gameplay :). I tooked Full Auto 2 for my explanation for massive polygon rendering. Maybe I'm wrong but i think Full Auto 2 is this kind of game where PS3 cleary wins through the fast processor (Graphics of course). I didn't played this type of game since 5? years so I for myself am happy for a new title in that genre :)

[Retroboy]

TheClockWork has really made a t!t of him self just then LOL.

Thinking a game is not Sega because its Sonic Team aka Sega, also Monlith is a partner of Condmened and Sega Published the game, aka another and the best Sega game, the rest have been including the new sonic, terd!

[Scorpion3]

Why not? Sony kept telling everybody that the PS3 is 3 times as powerful as the 360, is powerful and advanced enough to replace PCs, and signals the true start of next generation gaming. If newer, more powerful, more advanced technology isn't staying a step ahead of supposedly inferior technology, which will also improve over time, doesn't this bring Sony's lofty claims into question?

In the end, it'll come down to what exclusive games justify the price of the hardware itself. And that answer will depend on the person buying the hardware.

Precisely!

If you can't compaire them, then if Killzone 2 comes out and has "Actual Gameplay" that is like that trailer, you can't compare that to Gears of War, right? :rolleyes: With all the pretty lies that Sony has been spreading about the PS3, about it being next gen and the 360 NOT being Next Gen, then you should be able to compaire it right out of the box.

Maybe you can try to speak NOT like a total primitive. Wait, I'm going to top that. What are YOU FUCKING Stupid, Bytch?

If I was talking like a so called primative, I'm pretty sure it'd be like this..."Rahrago! Aboo, stff, agsro!" all while flinging feces at you...It was rhetorical you dumbshit, now that wasn't.

uh yes, sega makes games, thats what they do now. they make alot of games. in fact they made more games for gamecube than any other third party company and are expected to make even more for the Wii than they did for the GC.

I always loved that irony. And entirely correct, they're having all the 2D Sonic games coming to their downloadable games as well.

In the end, what was this thread about again?

[daps83777]

i think this thread was about CoD 3 being better on the 360 than the supercomputer known as the PS3, is that right? both systems have bottleknecks, and the PS3 gets hurt by it. i have been reading in mags about the PS3 release, and people really believe the cell is great but that it isn't as powerful as sony makes you think when it comes to gaming.

i think in the end that the 360 and PS3 are about the same, each one has pros and cons. and i think that everything will be very similiar as far as graphics and framerates , as the previous gen ps2 and xbox. neither will be leaps and bounds over the other.

[Gary Coleman]

I think alot of the problems we see with the ps3 come down to the fact that cell is so new. It has 8 cores, so it has the potential to smoke xbox 360. However this has its drawbacks on the software side. Multithreading is still new in the areas of gaming. a good analogy is in pc processors. A intel duo quad has 4 cores, but it is not up to snuff as far as gaming is concerned, because most games only take advantage of one processor. encoding video on the other hand really is a zillion times faster, because codecs and encoders have been writen with multithreading in mind. once games catch up you will find that ps3 will look just as good as 360, because they will be taking advantage of the processing power available. ...of course by then, ms and nintendo will be well on their way to newer systems, and ps4 could still be 4 years away.

ps3 seems to be a showcase of just what the cell can do, and a way to push blu ray into as many living rooms as possible. they will probably succeed to some degree, but by not focusing on games as much, they are making alot of gamers sore.

[Awakened1]

I think alot of the problems we see with the ps3 come down to the fact that cell is so new. It has 8 cores, so it has the potential to smoke xbox 360. However this has its drawbacks on the software side. Multithreading is still new in the areas of gaming. a good analogy is in pc processors. A intel duo quad has 4 cores, but it is not up to snuff as far as gaming is concerned, because most games only take advantage of one processor. encoding video on the other hand really is a zillion times faster, because codecs and encoders have been writen with multithreading in mind. once games catch up you will find that ps3 will look just as good as 360, because they will be taking advantage of the processing power available. ...of course by then, ms and nintendo will be well on their way to newer systems, and ps4 could still be 4 years away.

ps3 seems to be a showcase of just what the cell can do, and a way to push blu ray into as many living rooms as possible. they will probably succeed to some degree, but by not focusing on games as much, they are making alot of gamers sore.

8 cores you say? Hmm wow I didn't know this specially since I read it has 8 spe's which is totally different then cores. And by the way the ps3 will only be using 6 of these spe's because 1 of the 8 if there for fault and another of the 8th is used to run the os in the background.

[Scorpion3]

i think this thread was about CoD 3 being better on the 360 than the supercomputer known as the PS3, is that right? both systems have bottleknecks, and the PS3 gets hurt by it. i have been reading in mags about the PS3 release, and people really believe the cell is great but that it isn't as powerful as sony makes you think when it comes to gaming.

i think in the end that the 360 and PS3 are about the same, each one has pros and cons. and i think that everything will be very similiar as far as graphics and framerates , as the previous gen ps2 and xbox. neither will be leaps and bounds over the other.

Finally someone sees the light. >.< They're almost literally equal in power, that has been said many times by game developers, but Sony and their fanbase like to quote numbers.

The only difference between the two is the Price, for games and the console are higher then the 360. And of course the fact that developers can make 360 games a lot easier because it's "User friendly" when it comes to coding and such.