blog

In the spirit of starting things off with a bang, this fledgling edition of Consolidated has pitted the PS3 and the 360 against each other; squaring-off on Infinity Ward’s highly anticipated and decidedly gorgeous first person shooter Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare.  For this strictly graphic-centric comparison, each and every raindrop, tracer and smoke bomb have been scrutinized on each of the systems to determine which console appears to be superior in its visual presentation the game.

In order to fairly investigate which of the two consoles looks and plays Call of Duty 4 the best, an Xbox360 Elite and PlayStation 3 were connected to the same Samsung LNT4665F 46" 1080p LCD HDTV using equivalent Monster HDMI cables.  Each version of the game was tested on three different resolutions: 720p, 1080i and 1080p (upscaled).  *Note: RGB Full Range and Super-White options have been enabled on the PS3*

-

Before getting down to business, allow me to start by saying that Call of Duty 4 looks absolutely fantastic, regardless of what console it is being played on.  My kudos go out to Infinity Ward for not falling into the realm of supposed console favoritism (Mr. Madden, I’m looking at your direction) and creating a nearly identical game on both of the graphically-intense “next-gen” consoles.  Issues like gratuitous degradation of distant textures, choppy frame rates and outlandish aliasing problems (a.k.a. “jaggies”) that have plagued PS3 multi-console titles in the past are simply not an issue in Call of Duty 4.  While there are noticeable and quantifiable differences between the ways that the two systems handle the game, it was relieving to see a developer take time to develop equally on both systems and not be content in settling with just another ported title.

So, rather than nit-pick each and every minute detail of the game on an individual, point-for-point basis, I found that there are essentially only two main categories where the consoles noticeably differ from each other in terms of visual presentation: Lighting/Shading and Overall Performance.

To begin, the way in which each console has handled the in-game lighting is the most noticeable and identifiable difference between the two games.  In the early days of the 360 and PS3 rivalry, the multi-console titles for the 360 were commonly credited with having superior lighting to that of the PS3 versions, especially in terms of games which utilized High Dynamic Range (HDR) lighting.

Unfortunately, the term “superior lighting effects” is often incorrectly used as a synonym for “more lighting effects.”  The truth is, Microsoft’s 360 tends to be much more liberal with its use of HDR-based light blooming (the incandescent aura that surrounds light sources) than Sony’s PS3, which tends to be a bit more reserved in terms of the lighting effects that are used.

Light Blob vs. Light Bulb?

The screen shots above clearly show the difference in lighting style from the 360 to the PS3.  Notice how the source of the light is much brighter and intense on the 360 version than the same exact light source that is rendered on the PS3.  While it could be argued that the 360 version gives the player more eye candy insofar as it has brighter, “bloomier” and more obvious light sources, the understated PS3 lighting scheme allows the player to realize that the light source in question is actually from a small, wire-encased light bulb and not just from a randomly-placed, amorphous blob which emits a pretty glow.

Granted, while the exaggerated lighting effects in the 360 version of Call of Duty 4 look a bit “dreamier” and tend to brighten up the surrounding areas more (which can help in a firefight in a darker room), the conservative lighting style in the PS3 version often allows for more texture detail to become visible, especially in indoor locations.  For example, by not drenching bump and normal mapped textures in a hazy glow of light bloom, the PS3 version allows these textures to stand out a more than on the 360 version, which gives the game a more gritty, visceral feel.  On the contrary, it seems that the increased lighting effects on the 360 version do an excellent job at bringing out more a vibrant color palette, even more than the PS3 version of the game running in Full RGB mode.  This was unexpected to me, as previous multi-console games, such as The Darkness, looked more colorful and vibrant on the PS3 than on the 360.

In any case, it is impossible to determine if either of the consoles does lighting “better” than the other.  They each have very distinguishable and different approaches to how light effects are rendered in-game.  Thus, it is up to the player to decide which of the two versions is more aesthetically pleasing to the eye.  If you’re a gamer who loves the eye-candy of extensive, but less realistic, HDR light bloom, the 360 version might be a better choice.  On the other hand, if you’re a gamer who likes subtle lighting with more controlled, realistic light sources, the PS3 version may be better suited to your tastes.  Personally, I happen to be a sucker for light bloom, so my vote goes to the 360 in this aspect (despite the fact that any marginally reflective surface looks like it was just doused in radioactive Vaseline).

Still working within the realm of lighting, another noticeable discrepancy between the two console versions is the way in which each has rendered shadows and shading effects.  Straight away, I noticed that on the whole, the shadows in the PS3 seemed to be darker, less jagged and certainly more numerous than the 360 version of the game.

It’s like playing Erotic Photo Hunt, except nerdier.

For example, when looking at the screen shots above, there are a two interesting and rather surprising observations that can be made.  The PS3 version of the game actually appears to have darker, more clearly defined shadows than that of its 360 counterpart.  More importantly, when looking at the self-shadows on the head and accompanying facemask of the NPC, notice how the PS3 has fully rendered the shadows cast by the straps of the NPC’s facemask while the 360 version’s shadows are either less distinct or not rendered at all.  Especially when viewed in this side-by-side context, these types of shading anomalies can become more and more obvious the more dramatic the lighting environment becomes.  Therefore, the PS3 version of Call of Duty 4 definitely gets my vote in terms of shading and shadow effects.

Moving on, the next most obvious differences between the PS3 and 360 versions of Call of Duty 4 can be found in the overall performance of the game.  Although not directly related to the visual presentation, the 360 version of the game loads a level in about 33% of the time that it takes the PS3 to load a level.  While this stipulation is only a matter of approximately 8-12 seconds, some finicky gamers may find the extended loading times a bit irritating on the PS3.  I should also clarify that restarting a level occurs almost instantly on both systems and both versions run at a steady 60 frames per second.

I also noticed a much more liberal use of particle effects and environmental effects (such as rain) on the PS3 version than were observed on the 360 version.

The PS3 rain’s supreme!

When looking at the screen shot above, note how the PS3 version clearly has more rain and general environmental chaos on-screen than the 360 version.  Additionally, a similar difference can be observed, though not nearly as obvious and to a much lesser degree, in settings which are heavy in particle effects such as smoke or sparks emitted by ricocheting bullets.  Now, I would love to attribute this characteristic to the Cell processor, but I suspect it was more of an aesthetic choice to omit some of the rain on the 360 rather than a performance choice.

However, all of these details are relatively minor when compared to one relatively gargantuan issue I discovered when booting up the game in each of the consoles.  Assuming the game is being played on an HDTV, it appears as though only the PS3 version of the game defaults to 720p by default, even if the PS3 is set to output in 1080i or 1080p.  Moreover, users who only have a HDTV that supports 720p or 1080i but have set their PS3 to display in 1080i will be shocked to find out that the game downgrades to a lowly resolution of 480p.  Obviously, a technical issue of this sort could lead to many PS3 gamers with incompatible settings to believe that Call of Duty 4 is not as good looking of a game as it really is, which is a tragedy concerning how truly great looking of a game Call of Duty 4 really is.

After a fair amount of experimenting, I discovered that in order to fix this problem and run the game at 1080p on my PS3, I had to quit the game, go to my display settings and block all output resolutions except for 1080p, the output I had originally intended.  Obviously, this is an unnecessarily arduous, annoying task that can prove to be a real problem when switching to different games, such as MotorStorm, which typically run at 720p, as I have to go back into my display settings and allow the PS3 to output in 720p.  While I do not believe that this issue is enough of a reason to fully forgo buying the PS3 version of the game, it is an issue to be aware of regardless, especially since the 360 counterpart of the game does not appear to suffer the same irritating problem.

Overall, determining which console version of Call of Duty 4 looks better is an extremely difficult task.  There are certainly pluses and minuses to both the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 version of the game.  For example, on the 360, the lighting effects are more intense, the colors are more vibrant, and the loading times are faster; but the overall shadow and shading quality leaves something to be desired.  On the PS3, the lighting effects are more realistic, the environmental effects more immersive, and the shading and shadow effects are more numerous; but the game loads a bit slower and there are major issues with displaying the game in certain resolutions.

Therefore, in my personal opinion and experience, I believe the Xbox 360 version of Call of Duty 4 just barely edges out the PS3 in terms of visual presentation.

Just barely.

To be honest, much of my opinion is rooted in the fact that I simply enjoy the 360’s lighting style more; it suits my personal preference.  As I stated earlier, I am a sucker for light bloom.  Though I am aware that much of the lighting effects are not very realistic, the saturated and glossy lighting style gives the game a sort of surreal and cinematic feel and provides more than enough visual flare to distract me from the 360 version’s less-impressive shading and shadowing system.  Moreover, the annoying resolution and scaling issues on the PS3 version of the game detracted from its overall presentation, which was disappointing to me because visually, I really do enjoy what Infinity Ward has done with the game on the PS3.

That being said, beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder for the two console versions of Call of Duty 4.  Each version of the game has something visually different to offer; it’s just a matter of finding the version that matches your own personal style.

Share this article: