Corey | 
November 12, 2009 | ” …the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 are putting out very different color ranges…”
 |
 |
|
Feature – Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 Color Differences Length: 00:03:15 There has been a lot of back and forth about the color issue for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. We take a look at how different the “default” settings are and show how to most closely mimic the two systems. |
|
 |
 |
|||
 |
||||
The site has been abuzz with many comments and links in reference to the color differences in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. We thought we would take some time to clear up the confusion. But first we need to make one thing clear, we have said this many times on our site: all of our Head2Heads are done with “out-of-the-box” settings. Meaning they are completely default. The only changes that have been made to the systems are Full RGB and Extended modes enabled. This is the only way that we can guarantee that what is being captured is as the developer intended. And this is where the confusion comes in. Most of the time the default settings for a given game match within a threshold of each other, and you usually spot the characteristics of each system’s video card (Xbox 360 more contrasted, PlayStation 3 a little muted). However with Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Infinity Ward didn’t match the default settings well at all.
Alright, take a look at the roll over below. This image shows the default brightness setting for both the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. For both systems the default position for the brightness slider is 14 steps from the left. But what is interesting in this roll over is the RGB values for each of the black and grey boxes. Here you can clearly see why when set to default the PlayStation 3 version looks washed out compared to the Xbox 360. The value range is too far apart.
Roll over to see the differences in the default settings.
We decided to take a closer look at what is actually happening with the brightness settings in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. For this, we took captures of the brightness settings from the lowest to the highest, all 41 steps, and then sampled each of the 3 black/grey boxes to get their RGB value. All of this data was then compiled into a spreadsheet and graphed for your viewing pleasure. We have also provided all of the data in the “Data” tab above.
So what does all of that data mean? Well, to put it simply, the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 are putting out very different color ranges based on the same slider position. So just matching the position of the slider will not ensure a color match between the consoles. The colors can be matched up pretty closely, but it is not perfect for every situation. In the pictures below, you will see that the PlayStation 3 has been matched closely to the Xbox 360 and the Xbox 360 matched to the PlayStation 3.
As you can see, the colors can mimic each other closely, although the Xbox 360 version seems to be slightly more saturated. But, as mentioned before, this isn’t the case for all scenes. Take a look at the snow scenario. Using the exact same settings as before, matching the PlayStation 3 to the Xbox 360 results in slightly darker visuals, whereas matching the Xbox 360 to the PlayStation 3 version is slightly lighter (bloom could be a factor).
As you can see, Infinity Ward has made Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 a little less user friendly in the color correction department, thus all of the “proper screen shots” and “definitive screen” posts you probably have seen all over the net. Regardless, getting those screens to match takes a lot of trial and error, so kudos to them. Which brings us to our poll question. If a game doesn’t prompt you to make color adjustments, do you go out of your way to adjust them in the options?
Loading ...Slider Position |
PS3 High |
PS3 Mid |
PS3 Low |
Xbox High |
Xbox Mid |
Xbox Low |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
15 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
18 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
22 |
0 |
0 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
26 |
0 |
0 |
11 |
0 |
0 |
9 |
29 |
0 |
0 |
14 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
33 |
0 |
0 |
17 |
0 |
0 |
11 |
37 |
3 |
0 |
21 |
1 |
0 |
12 |
40 |
6 |
0 |
24 |
2 |
0 |
13 |
43 |
11 |
0 |
27 |
3 |
0 |
14 |
46 |
15 |
3 |
30 |
5 |
1 |
15 |
50 |
18 |
6 |
33 |
6 |
2 |
16 |
52 |
22 |
10 |
37 |
9 |
3 |
17 |
55 |
25 |
15 |
39 |
11 |
4 |
18 |
58 |
29 |
17 |
43 |
14 |
6 |
19 |
61 |
31 |
20 |
45 |
16 |
8 |
20 |
64 |
34 |
24 |
48 |
19 |
10 |
21 |
66 |
37 |
27 |
51 |
22 |
12 |
22 |
69 |
40 |
30 |
53 |
25 |
15 |
23 |
71 |
43 |
33 |
56 |
28 |
17 |
24 |
74 |
46 |
36 |
58 |
31 |
20 |
25 |
76 |
48 |
39 |
61 |
33 |
23 |
26 |
77 |
51 |
41 |
63 |
36 |
26 |
27 |
80 |
54 |
44 |
65 |
38 |
29 |
28 |
83 |
57 |
47 |
67 |
41 |
31 |
29 |
84 |
59 |
50 |
70 |
44 |
34 |
30 |
87 |
61 |
52 |
72 |
46 |
36 |
31 |
89 |
64 |
54 |
74 |
48 |
38 |
32 |
91 |
66 |
57 |
76 |
51 |
41 |
33 |
93 |
68 |
59 |
78 |
53 |
43 |
34 |
95 |
71 |
61 |
80 |
55 |
45 |
35 |
96 |
72 |
64 |
82 |
57 |
48 |
36 |
98 |
74 |
65 |
84 |
59 |
50 |
37 |
100 |
76 |
68 |
85 |
61 |
52 |
38 |
102 |
77 |
71 |
87 |
64 |
54 |
39 |
103 |
80 |
72 |
89 |
66 |
57 |
40 |
105 |
82 |
74 |
91 |
67 |
59 |
41 |
105 |
84 |
76 |
93 |
70 |
60 |
I wonder why this happens really, wouldn’t developers realize and notice the color saturation when they are in the testing procedure?
Another thing, is possible that the PS3 may have HDR while the 360 uses bloom? I’ve heard somewhere that the implements HDR much better than the 360 and vice versa for Bloom (Although i can not guarantee the validity).
It also brings us to the question: Which adjustments is the one the developer’s intended us to view the game? I’m gonna go with the 360 since it seemed to be their lead platform.
I usually don’t play with the settings at all unless prompted too and its a shame we have to adjust them to receive the proper view.
I think that both games start off looking like the default ps3 version but since xbox has the rgb expansion(or w/e it’s called) always on at least on standard, it will always look a bit darker and more contrasted which is why brightness settings have to be tweaked because the ps3’s rgb full setting is like the highest setting on the 360 and some tv’s don’t support it too well.
I think ur just lazy, c’mon a shame? itssss only pressing some buttons…
lol. just joking man..
Very good work.
Finally we see why the images of the PS3 were so washed out, when in fact they can still achieve a better level of contrast that the 360 version.
The truth is that the first pictures are always better looking than the latter, which just goes to show that the color range chosen for the 360 version is better than the color range chosen for the PS3 version, and less informed people think that this color difference has to do with the graphics quality of the 2 versions, when in reality it was only an option for developers.
Less informed people like you think it’s the consoles’ fault (roll eyes), where in reality it’s the dev’s fault and a direct result of multi console programming vs exclusive games, which are optimized for each system.
This whole thing makes me laugh, remembering yesterday’s graphical comparison, where everyone’s ignorance made comments like “360 is better”, yet I pointed out that this game and its graphics will never prove that due to its multiplat development, and that with a tweak of the settings, either 360 or PS3 can look very much like the other, and here is my proof.
Ha!
Websites like this should be banned..
Luis, after reading your comments a 2nd time, it appears that you were in fact not blaming the consoles but accurately blaming the devs. Please accept my apologies for my comments against you on this. Cheers :beer:
No you are wrong, the 360 version still has better contrast and overall better visuals compared to the ps3 version
From Eurogamer/Digital Foundry:
“Basic settings don’t cut it with Modern Warfare 2. You really need to spend some time setting up the game to play nicely with your screen… or indeed your capture kit. Usual form within any Digital Foundry Face-Off is simply to run the game at default settings and let the chips fall as they may – the assumption being that the default is equivalent to the colour settings within the console’s framebuffer, or at the very least what the developer calibrates the output to. However, keeping the default settings is really not a particularly good idea within Modern Warfare 2 and we’re also not sure how effective Infinity Ward’s calibration method is for the end user is either.”
So sounds like Infinity Ward dropped the ball in the color department.
Sounds like Eurogamer dropped the ball. When you adjust a default image it’s called image manipulation! If you adjust your t.v. to fix a games brightness and contrast then your adding a post process effect to the image. It’s the same thing as bringing the image into photshop and adjusting it’s levels! It’s not fair because it’s misrepresentation of a games default settings. If he adjusted the PS3’s brightness then I thinks it’s unfair because he’s taking into account his personal preferences and saying then game should look a certain way. Besides if he had to adjust the image on the PS3 then he needed to do the same thing for the XBOX because he manipulated the image for PS3 but left the XBOX at default! that’s not fair it’s like doing a comparison with one system hooked up to HDMI and the other to component!
Didn’t you get the memo that Eurogamer/Digital Foundry eye balls are the industry standard in human optics. So we all need transplants. Anyway adjusting color is done on a personal level considering not everyone has the same TV and eye balls.
Tempjf, if you think every tv set comes from factory professionally calibrated and what Lens of Truth did here is “image manipulation”, you’re an idiot. Same with a player’s settings. That’s why they are all adjustable, so that when we all get home, we can adjust for best image quality. No manufacturer does this at the factory for 2 main reasons: (1) it’s not cheap and would add to the cost of the tv/player, which they try to have as low as possible so little old you and me can afford it and (2) most modern tvs have a certain lifespan, and throughout that lifespan the “screen” is “used up” (in layman’s terms) – as it’s “used up”, it’s color and light output changes (over time), meaning every so often the set will fall out of calibration anyways and needs to be re-calibrated. What this means for us, consumers, is to re-calibrate every few years or re-tweak the settings on our own.
@Tom
So then what TV should I buy and tell me what are my settings? Yea I always thought the Default settings in a game were what the Developers thought look the best. You said
“That’s why they are all adjustable, so that when we all get home, we can adjust for best image quality.”
Adjust for best image quality for you, but what if I think you color correction sucks and I like it brighter? Color correction is a personal preferences and should never be weighed in on these comparison and that’s why LOT don’t.
So your saying that if buy a gun I should I let someone calibrated for me. You sound really stupid.
Rudesole:
You should buy whichever tv you like and can afford. I recommend plasma over LCD due to its better image depth. LCD can look very 2D’ish and cartoonish sometimes with image blur, though top models display a good image (but are expensive). LED tvs just came out, so too soon to tell. They do look promising, but I recommend waiting 2-3 generations to get more out of them
Default settings in a game are never what the devs think will look the best, they are simply either somewhere in the middle of the adjustable range (for you to tweak from there at home for your equipment and environment) or some settings are auto-detectable with your tv set for best option (carried by your tv), i.e. RGB full/limited, etc, but not always, sometimes you have to set these manually.
When I said adjust for best image quality, I meant for each of us. Of course, me and you (and others) will have different definitions of what is best, which is natural – we each adjust for that. Now, if you really want to have something set up for what is considered “correct”, then get a professional calibration. A professional will come to your house and adjust your settings (including factory menus that you can’t access yourself) to a national standard, which specs color temps, contrast, brightness and so on. This may not be what you consider the “best”, but it’s what the industry considers the most accurate relative to real life, i.e. skin tones look like real skin as we see it with our eyes and so on and not over saturated/too bright/etc.
Note: Stores are more to blame for tv settings being “off” than the manufacturers themselves because they re-adjust the settings for their store’s viewing environment. Most tvs come from stores with their settings cranked way up. Stores do this so you can see the image in a brightly lighted environment ,like a sales floor (which would otherwise wash away the image). The 1st thing you should always do when you get home is adjust the settings for your tv room’s environment during the time which you watch it the most (night or day light, usually nightime for most of us). You will also extend the life of the tv, as some don’t last as long with the contrast setting set to max, which stores like to do.
Lastly, please don’t buy a gun. I want you to live a long, long life
ps: if you’d like to get the most out of your equipment (tv, dvd/blu-ray player, audio surround sound, etc) check out the AVS forums. After some reading and a little practice tweaking your settings using a good reference quality film, you can get a pretty good image out of your set on your own, usually better than what you start out with.
Thank you for your fast response about clarify my doubts, very professional Lens of Truth. Ps3 images seemed horrible at start, balancing them now look similar. Anyway its clear that xbox has better effects and fps. So Infinity Ward didnt put effort in Sony console… I will invest my money in Uncharted 2 and not in this game far inferior to it (or even to Killzone2)for a ps3 owner.
It plays and runs fine on the PS3 (and looks better than any image here btw). Don’t worry about it. Don’t let useless websites like this one stop you from enjoying a great game.
Agree.
I will do the same.
Uncharted 2 is way better than MW2.
This game still looks like liquid turd on a stick. I will be awaiting the lynch mob at any time now.
Sorry for having an opinion that doesn’t shine the holy light on this game, like every one else seem to do.
Thanks for the comparison, this looks like it took alot of work, it won’t go unappreciated:)
Agreed. I’m glad to see this article as well.
Isn’t this just a by-product of the PS3 outputting a gamma of 2.2 while 360 is 2.5+. Looks like they calibrated all their levels for the 360 version and just dumped it on PS3 with no corrections. In any event, it’s amazing the budgets and revenues these games generate, but developers/publishers can’t be bothered to make sure they adhere to some basic video standards like movies.
I can’t comment on the gamma specs because I don’t know them, only to say that gamma isn’t the only spec that matters when adjusting or calibrating for best picture quality.
I do want to say that I couldn’t agree with you more about the budgets and revenues these games generate and you’re absolutely right. Companies that do multiplat games ought to be ashamed of themselves. They make so much revenue that the least they could do is have different teams work on the game for each console (optimizing it for that console to get the most out of it). The fact that they opt to instead take the lowest common denominator route for all simply shows how greedy (and lazy) they are. Who knows, maybe it’s the only way that their CEO’s can afford multi-million dollar mansions, $100k sports cars and $6k fake t*ts for the wife.
sad they need to go through this much trouble to shut people up. im tired of readers saying this site is biased..
If people hadn’t voiced their opinion, do you seriously think they would’ve done this 2nd color comparison?
They should’ve done this from the beginning. The only they’ve shown is how incompetent they are.
It’s also amazing how dumb kids these days are and how easy a company like MS can brain wash them.
Wow, so let me ask you something? Do you think it would be fair that now after all this color nonsense has flooded the web, should the Lens of Truth take every screen shot into Photoshop and make sure the PS3 and Xbox 360 color match up identically?
I’m not really understanding why color has anything to do with a technical analysis.
This article proves that the colors are a mute point to their Head2Head and should be adjusted to an individual liking.
Guys, how many times do I have to say it? “Default” is NOT the “best”. It isn’t even what the devs intend you to see – they have NO way of knowing what equipment we all have. Thus, they give us ADJUSTABLE settings, so that WE can adjust for best picture quality. Am I speaking French?
“Fair”? Listen, what you are seeing in that 1st comparison is not the console’s graphics – it’s just one console being too bright – turn down the brightness level – hello? If your tv comes set too bright from the store don’t you turn its brightness level down a bit when you get home? Do you think it’s fair that they are calling THAT a graphics comparison??
Each console outputs differents levels of brightness/color/gamma/etc. – whoop di doo – this means NOTHING – they BOTH need to be tweaked for best picture quality, no different than a tv set. Why do you think videophiles pay $$ for ISF calibrations on their tvs? Because they know all this, which you guys don’t. Heck, even two of the same model tvs will have slightly different outputs, due to variations in production (same with a car, for example, you can have 2 mustangs, where one just happens to be faster from factory, but still within “tolerance”). You’re simply un-educated on this. Sad part is, so are websites like this, which then mis-guides consumers like me and you. Look it, I’m just a guy who got sick of all this and started to do my own research. I’m not an expert, but I know enough now to make my own informed decisions, instead of being swayed by dirty propaganda.
If you don’t tweak the settings, the only “differences” you are seeing are the differences in the equipment overall, not just the consoles. It doesn’t matter what they do in the default setting, it matters what they do when maxed out (think of it as max “performance”). If a 360 happened to be the one to have a brighter image at the same setting as a PS3, would that mean the PS3 has better graphics? No!
When you buy a car, do you just jump in and drive away? Does the auto manufacturer automatically adjust your seat for the “best” driving position? Or do you adjust the seat for your height and size? The “height and size” is everything from the console to cabling to tv. Make sense?
A TRUE technical analysis of a graphical comparison between consoles would HAVE to involve a calibration for best picture quality from each console with the rest of the equipment. Only then can you make the statement “one does this better while the other does that better”. Because ONLY THEN will you be comparing GRAPHICS, and nothing else in between.
Case closed.
ps: they didn’t use photoshop – THAT would be cheating.
Look at how resolutions between tvs are professionally compared. People who do these comparisons don’t simply plug them into the wall at their “default” settings, or even at the mid-point (50% on all), that would be a joke. They are all first professionally calibrated, THEN measured for performance, one against the other. Consoles are no different. Unfortunately, the people comparing consoles don’t know their face from their a**.
pps: let’s say that everything was done right, calibrated and all, and the graphics were compared. Which console would win then? I’ll save you the suspense – I’m sure the 360 would still have the overall edge. Why? Well, this brings me back to some of my initial arguments, mainly that the devs, this time around, start with the 360 platform and then just port over to the PS3 (last gen was PS2, then xbox). Many still assume this means one is better than the other – wrong. It simply means the devs are greedy and lazy and don’t want to optimize each system with its own version of the game. To see which one is best, you would have to make the same game for each console and optimize it for each one (since they both have different architectures). Regardless of which would win, the PS3 and 360 are so close that using this comparison alone to make your decision on which to buy is the wrong way to look at it IMO. The way I see it, the 360 is geared more towards just gaming, while the PS3 is geared more towards a multi-media experience. So, choose which one fits you and your lifestyle best (don’t forget the Wii). Now, if you like one more but also want the other’s exclusives, or most of your friends chose the other, then just save up and get both. Life is short, why limit yourself?
The only reason why articles like these drive me nuts, is because the basis on which they stand is utterly flawed (downright wrong at times) and they mis-inform all of us. It’s time some of us fought back and set the record straight.
Have a good weekend guys.
“The only reason why articles like these drive me nuts, is because the basis on which they stand is utterly flawed (downright wrong at times) and they mis-inform all of us. It’s time some of us fought back and set the record straight.”
But see, that is where you are misinformed. The frame buffer is what the console is outputting natively and should have been closely matched between both versions of the game. Every comparison from Eurogamer/DF (up until CoD:MW2), LoT and PS360 uses the default framebuffer. It is a baseline, a constant which is necessary in any analysis. Now, they could adjust to match the PS3, the Xbox 360 or what they personally think looks best…but now the baseline is skewed.
What still kills me is that they never once judged the color and they constantly remind people that everything is default but people still find something to complain about. Plain and simple if you don’t like what you see you can always leave.
So they are “incompetent” because they stick to their exact same settings for every capture they do? Riiiight. If anything adjusting from default destroys the baseline.
And what is the best about the whole color issue is that it wasn’t even a factor in any of their analysis. Other than that singular color factor, they came to the EXACT same conclusion that Eurogamer/DF arrived at.
If anything, Eurogamer/DF hurt their reputation for changing their methods to accommodate for this single game. Now they will be expected to make adjustments for future comparisons instead of relying solely on the frame buffer output.
Read my post just above yours please.
@Tom
Your saying that “Default is NOT the “best”. It isn’t even what the devs intend”
So Default controls scheme, Default difficulty, and default color settings was not what the developers intended?
Wow your sadly mistaken. Default settings on any project is the base line for entire development process. And considering the primary SKU was the PC PS3 color settings just got over look by the developers.
BTW Every cross platform PS3 game this generation has always looked more washed out than the Xbox 360 and will continue to look washed out until the next generation of consoles are here. So deal with it..
That’s funny because I remember CoD MW2 on PS3 does make the user do a brightness adjustment the first time you play campaign. I’m not lying, it actually does.
Only an idiot (YOU) wouldn’t adjust the Barely visible to being barely visible, and the one you’re not supposed to see blacked out. I really do question your loyalties to one console over the other.
Your silly poll tries to cover your butt, and you’re misleading us.
But what you are missing is the fact that default is default. Just because it is barely visible on my display doesn’t mean that it will look right on your display. There are way to many variables when you start tweaking the colors for a comparison. Especially when the slide has 41 positions! Default is usually the safest, but for this game apparently not.
And like it has been mentioned a thousand times before, the slight, and I do mean slight color difference will not bring bloom, performance or softer shadows to your beloved PS3 version. Sorry, truth hurts.
Yes truth hurts, PS3 version have better shadows:
http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/8/3/8/5/7/7/Shadow_01_360.jpg.jpg
http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/8/3/8/5/7/7/Shadow_01_PS3.jpg.jpg
http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/8/3/8/5/7/7/Shadow_03_360.jpg.jpg
http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/8/3/8/5/7/7/Shadow_03_PS3.jpg.jpg
In my opinion in “graphics” section there should be a “tie”, better shadows vs bloom.
Hmm, not sure about that one. Eurogamer had this to say about the shadow differences:
“It’s basic bilinear filtering on the PS3, but the fugly edges are at least smoothed off to some degree. Infinity Ward is using some kind of more basic, custom shadow sampling on the Xbox 360 version. The implementation can look better than the filtered PS3 version in some scenarios (for example in the mid-distance), but can totally fall apart in others. ”
Both versions have less than spectacular shadows, and both implementations have their ups and downs. So shadows are a tie here, leaving only the bloom effect on the Xbox 360 to clench the graphics win.
I agree that the shadows are quite a bit better on the PS3.I have seen videos of MW2 on 360 and the shadows really aren’t up to par with the PS3. Even in mid range distance. PS3 just has superior shadows while 360 maintains bloom. I have also seen pictures and comparisons which state that the PS3 maintains better anti-aliasing. So in the graphics are the game should be a tie. Framerate averages were slightly different amongst the two consoles. The 360 had a slightly higher framerate average. Not by a lot though. As for loading, I do not mind much because I can wait.
[...] Modern Warfare 2: Tercera comparación (de gráficos y color) Lens of Truth han hecho una coparación de color y de paso podrémos volver a comparar los gráficos. Aquí Xbox 360 es bastante superior a Playstation 3. Me es extraño cómo cada medio da resultado distintos. He visto imágenes donde PS3 es ganador, otras donde no hay diferencias. La verdad es que me fío cada vez menos y en muchas de las comparaciones no dudo que haya intervención de fanboys para inclinar el resultado a su favor. Kotaku ha apoyado a Lens of Truth así que esto tiene sentido. Finalmente, ¿podría ser que Xbox 360 tenga la mejor versión? Comparación gráfica y de color. [...]
Tom, the thing is that 3rd party developers shouldn’t have to keep wasting their time, money, & resources just to make PS3 versions of games on par with the 360 versions (or even better than the 360 versions, for that matter). Especially when the PS3 is STILL being stuck in 3rd place, development costs keep rising, & that most PS3 versions of games really don’t sell very well compared to 360 versions. Do you honestly think that they have the kind of money to waste just trying to make PS3 versions look on par with 360 or even better? That’s why you see most games being multiplatform.
Even when PS3 reaches it’s full potential, & by the time that happens, both Nintendo & Microsoft would be out with their next gen consoles that would make those PS3 graphics look very dated. Guaranteed.
Sony made their console hard for developers to develop on for PS2 as hard enough as it is, but then they intentionally made it worse for PS3. Maybe they should learn their lesson not to make their console so damn hard to develop games on. That’s why so many 3rd party developers hated developing games on that machine. Plus a more better GPU & more RAM would be a big help.
Also, you call 3rd developers lazy because they won’t spend any time trying to make PS3 versions of games look on par with 360 versions or better than 360 versions? Come on. Even when a game is being developed first for PS3, or if a game was ported from PS3 to 360, they’ll still come out running & looking better on the 360. Look at games like Virtua Fighter 5 & Assassin’s Creed. Developing games for PS3 first would take a lot of time, & money. Just like what Namco-Bandai did with Tekken 6, in which they started developing for the PS3 for about 2-3 years. And guess what? When it was announced that it was coming to the 360 in October last year, the graphics came out running & looking the exact same on the 360 in less development time & money. The same thing that’s going on with Square-Enix on Final Fantasy XIII. So, it was all just wasted effort. You have to understand that.
Also, you replied to me on COD:MW 2 earlier about why would I pick the 360 when “It’s more than just resolutions & graphics?” Simple. Because it’s a fun, gaming system. Plus Microsoft didn’t treat the 360 like some sort of supercomputer like Sony did with the PS3. They were treating it like a gaming system. I like the PS3, too, but to be honest with you, not many people care for online, & Blu-Ray, etc. Otherwise, we would have all 34+ million owners on X-Box live by now, etc. Plus the X-Box 360 as well as the Arcade model is more popular than you think that it is. Why do you think that more people keep buying it?
And it is more than just resolutions & graphics. Most PS3 versions of games happens to suffer from one or more of these things below:
1.) Games running in 30 Hz instead of at 60.
2.) Laggy Online.
3.) Framerate drops.
4.) Screen Tearing.
5.) Awful lighting, shadowing, & texturing.
6.) Tons of jaggies.
You get the point.
@Garland
I´m sure you must be talking about the flaws of THIS GENERATION games, because many x360 games have exactly the same problems.
True, but most multiplats on the 360 have lesser issues compared to the PS3 versions of multiplat games.