Support NeoGAF

[NinjaBoiX]

Obviously you never saw Splinter Cell: Double Agent.

Well I never played the PS3 version, but yeah, I heard it was awful. I mentioned it in my original post as being amongst the worst.

Edit: no I didn't. I meant to. NVM.

 

[fluffydelusions]

Wish I could say I'm surprised but after playing Blops 1 on PS3 I'm not. Went PC version this time and couldn't be happier.

 

[Arkam]

Couldn't wait 3 more days for the Wii U version. :/

Yea i really cant wait to see all the articles comparing all the WiiU multiplats to their HD Twin counterparts. Will make me fee like the good old GC/PS2/Xbx days

 

[palpabl_purpura]

Why?

You can't be sure that the displays are normalized to each other (LOT comparisons are notorious for this, with distored white/black levels) in terms of sharpness, black/white level, etc, and that the framerate analysis is done correctly. DF is also biased toward 360. For example, understating that Rage for PS3 had a framerate advantage of 15-20 FPS, but instead focusing on the longer PS3 load times and the highly-subjective comments about the more pop-up on the PS3 version (there's no way to even objectively measure such a thing). Also the FF13 face off also underplaying the differences in the two versions. Bottom line is to trust nothing from any website and look at the games side by side to determine which is the superior product.

 

[Reiko]

You can't be sure that the displays are normalized to each other (LOT comparisons are notorious for this, with distored white/black levels) in terms of sharpness, black/white level, etc, and that the framerate analysis is done correctly. DF is also biased toward 360. For example, understating that Rage for PS3 had a framerate advantage of 15-20 FPS, but instead focusing on the longer PS3 load times and the highly-subjective comments about the more pop-up on the PS3 version (there's no way to even objectively measure such a thing). Also the FF13 face off also underplaying the differences in the two versions. Bottom line is to trust nothing from any website and look at the games side by side to determine which is the superior product.

Tin Foil Hat.

 

[XANDER CAGE]

Hopefully they patch the PC version too, the performance is absurdly bad, especially with DOF turned on. That PS3 version though.... yikes.

 

[Always-honest]

Yeah this was clear in the screens. The screens that a lot of people couldn't tell apart, lol...

 

[AHA-Lambda]

So glad I switched to 360 for this instalment, wasn't taking the chance again after Black Ops 1.

 

[Eideka]

Hopefully they patch the PC version too, the performance is absurdly bad, especially with DOF turned on. That PS3 version though.... yikes.

Really ?

My roomate has a GTX680 and he runs the game at 130fps or something with 4XMSAA.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Call-of-Duty-Black-Ops-2-PC-237127/Tests/CoD-Black-Ops-2-im-Test-mit-20-Grafikkarten-1035541/

 

[KageMaru]

Please don't tell me that the X86 rumor is true....

What's wrong with the x86 rumor?

 

[Eideka]

What's wrong with the x86 rumor?

As I've said I hope that next-gen consoles will be more "audacious" in their architecture.

Basically, what will separate them from PCs aside from their library ?

 

[XANDER CAGE]

Really ?

My roomate has a GTX680 and he runs the game at 130fps or something with 4XMSAA.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Call-of-Duty-Black-Ops-2-PC-237127/Tests/CoD-Black-Ops-2-im-Test-mit-20-Grafikkarten-1035541/

As usual I think it's my choice of AMD hardware biting me in the ass. The game runs fine until I aim down the sights or a grenade goes off. The depth-of-field effects, for whatever reason, send my game from 90fps to about 30, sometimes as bad as 25. I have to play with the DOF on low and SSAO off completely to maintain 60+, something I've never had to do with a COD game.

 

[Eideka]

As usual I think it's my choice of AMD hardware biting me in the ass. The game runs fine until I aim down the sights or a grenade goes off. The depth-of-field effects, for whatever reason, send my game from 90fps to about 30, sometimes as bad as 25. I have to play with the DOF on low and SSAO off completely to maintain 60+, something I've never had to do with a COD game.

Strange, the game does not seem to be CPU bound unlike previous entries :
http://benchmark3d.com/call-of-duty-black-ops-2-benchmark

CPU usage is extremely low and even with just two cores enabled on the i5 2500k there is absolutely no bottleneck, no frame drops or anything along these line

Where's the PC performance thread ?

 

[nOoblet16]

I'd like to point out something here....720p isn't some magic number, if you find the current setup "blurry as fuck" then 720p won't really fix it as compared to 1080p it's still a low resolution and would provide marginal or close to no practical improvements over the current setup of 880*960. They can go 720p with no AA like RAGE and Doom 3 but that would most definitely provide an overall worse IQ than the current setup with some form of Anti aliasing.

 

[Reiko]

I'd like to point out something here....720p isn't some magic number, if you find the current setup "blurry as fuck" then 720p won't really fix it as compared to 1080p it's still a low resolution and would provide marginal or close to no practical improvements over the current setup of 880*960. They can go 720p with no AA like RAGE and Doom 3 but that would most definitely provide an overall worse IQ than the current setup with some form of Anti aliasing.

Yeah. That sounds like an issue for Fixed Pixel Displays.

 

[papersleeves]

You can't be sure that the displays are normalized to each other (LOT comparisons are notorious for this, with distored white/black levels) in terms of sharpness, black/white level, etc, and that the framerate analysis is done correctly. DF is also biased toward 360. For example, understating that Rage for PS3 had a framerate advantage of 15-20 FPS, but instead focusing on the longer PS3 load times and the highly-subjective comments about the more pop-up on the PS3 version (there's no way to even objectively measure such a thing). Also the FF13 face off also underplaying the differences in the two versions. Bottom line is to trust nothing from any website and look at the games side by side to determine which is the superior product.

???

Rage does not have a 15-20 fps advantage on ps3, considering the 360 version runs at 60 fps 99.9% of the time. WTF are you talking about?

Even in their video comparisons the game barely drops the framerate on both versions.

 

[plagiarize]

Tin Foil Hat.

I was going to say the same thing. Anyone with half decent eyes can see that even if Leadbetter shows an editorial slant, that he's almost never wrong about technical details. I have no idea how anyone can come to the conclusion that Rage on PS3 runs 15-20 seconds better on 360. as I recall, though rare, the PS3 version dropped resolution more than the 360 version did, and the pop wasn't subjective. you just had to spin around on entering a new area to see it, and to see which loaded in the textures quicker.

 

[sleepykyo]

You can't be sure that the displays are normalized to each other (LOT comparisons are notorious for this, with distored white/black levels) in terms of sharpness, black/white level, etc, and that the framerate analysis is done correctly. DF is also biased toward 360. For example, understating that Rage for PS3 had a framerate advantage of 15-20 FPS, but instead focusing on the longer PS3 load times and the highly-subjective comments about the more pop-up on the PS3 version (there's no way to even objectively measure such a thing). Also the FF13 face off also underplaying the differences in the two versions. Bottom line is to trust nothing from any website and look at the games side by side to determine which is the superior product.

I don't dispute that he has subjective slant, but his objective stuff is great. And in this case he is the only one that has indicated that the PS3 version of Black Ops is broken. Not Kotaku, not Polygon, not IGN and definitely not Sony.

 

[KageMaru]

As I've said I hope that next-gen consoles will be more "audacious" in their architecture.

Basically, what will separate them from PCs aside from their library ?

What separates the current Gen consoles from the PC aside from their library? I'm asking in respect to the final output and not the hardware design.

At this point, the hardware differences largely do not matter as long as the overall performance holds up. Differences in hardware may hold some advantages over other console competitors, as we see with the ps360, but those advantages rarely matter against PCs. On top of being mostly irrelevant, diverse hardware would also add hurdles and complications to multi-platform development, which is already complicated enough. Having hardware that is similar in performance and design would help ensure better titles all around, no matter what your platform of choice may be.

Granted, I'll admit that there is some risk of stagnation when everyone is working on similar hardware.

 

[plagiarize]

I don't dispute that he has subjective slant, but his objective stuff is great. And in this case he is the only one that has indicated that the PS3 version of Black Ops is broken. Not Kotaku, not Polygon, not IGN and definitely not Sony.

well, and all the people on GAF who have confirmed that the PS3 version is as blury as the caps on PS3 indicate, including someone who has shown that a patch caused it.

 

[KageMaru]

You can't be sure that the displays are normalized to each other (LOT comparisons are notorious for this, with distored white/black levels) in terms of sharpness, black/white level, etc, and that the framerate analysis is done correctly. DF is also biased toward 360. For example, understating that Rage for PS3 had a framerate advantage of 15-20 FPS, but instead focusing on the longer PS3 load times and the highly-subjective comments about the more pop-up on the PS3 version (there's no way to even objectively measure such a thing). Also the FF13 face off also underplaying the differences in the two versions. Bottom line is to trust nothing from any website and look at the games side by side to determine which is the superior product.

lol Every DF thread and you soldiers have even started lying to support your conspiracy theories.

Always amusing to watch people, who know less than the folks at DF, question their findings.

 

[Risette]

I don't think the architecture does much for the feel. That's up to the software and OS. I also don't think it'll have much effect on how quickly PC outperforms consoles but I do think it'll be good for the industry and selfishly, great for my preferred platform, the PC.

I just don't understand why console manufacturers would willingly choose to go x86. It's only begrudgingly kept alive on PC because of the need for backwards compatibility and is probably one of the limiting factors in modern PC performance. PCs wallop modern consoles regardless of whatever limitations they may suffer from simply because consoles are just so far behind while PC hardware keeps getting refreshed.

(correct me if I'm wrong; I'd like to say I'm fairly knowledgeable but it only goes as far as enthusiasm, I know some people here have degrees and careers relating to this sort of thing and would know more than me...)

 

[Relix]

and here I was complaining about 360 looking blurry as shit.

 

[Naked Snake]

Jesuschrist the PS3 version looks like complete shit. Games with 3D enabled have better image quality. :lol This really is quite pathetic for a big franchise.

The irony is that Black Ops 2 supports 3D... I really wonder how it looks/runs in 3D. I read from someone on AVSforum that it's the first console game he thought looks better in 3D, don't know if he was playing 360 or PS3... perhaps the blur filter is disabled in 3D?

 

[MightyHedgehog]

The X360 version looks and runs fine in 3D (720p upscale), though I think it's still noticeably sharper in 2D 1080p. The effect isn't as pronounced as I was hoping for, but perhaps tweaking the TV size in the System Settings can help. Does allow you to disable the crosshairs in 3D, which is nice.

 

[Punkster_NY]

The PS3 images are horrifying, thank god I didn't spend money on it.

Both versions are horrifying. Who cares about the SP I want to see the side by sides of the MP.

 

[onQ123]

PS3 one looks fine on my 70" HDTV. Weird, I never noticed how blurry any of it looked.

Ah well!

I have the PS3 one too & it look good to me in 1080P & I haven't seen anything looking blurry so it's a good thing we don't play screen shots.

 

[Desaan]

7 year old consoles, both of them look like shit. Can you imagine playing any modern game on a 7 year old PC?

Consoles have to resort to visual trickery, when trickery is removed, thus it looks so.

 

[Little Old Man]

Another awful port for the PS3. The COD engine has shown its age for years, and the console versions suffer compared to the PC obviously, but the 360 version looks solid. Same shit every year.

 

[MidnightCowboy]

The PS3 version looks terrible, god damn. It's so blurry, how is this acceptable?

 

[McLovin]

Yeah, the ps3 version looks ugly as shit, but then again so does the 360 version. Most people play COD for the gameplay and the 60fps so whatever they do to maintain that is worth it. While playing the game I noticed how they did manage to improve the character models, but the environments suffered greatly. Also my MP sessions always end with a hard freeze. Not cool treyarch... not cool.

 

[IMACOMPUTA]

when i played this on ps3 i thought my ps3 was outputting 480p or something, its disgusting. especially on a 55" television.

 

[Rainy Dog]

The PS3 version looks terrible, god damn. It's so blurry, how is this acceptable?

It's a bug caused by a patch.

Can we add this to the OP? Basically, if you delete the 1.02 patch and boot the PS3 version without it, the blur is gone.

Credit goes to Rainy Dog for bringing this issue to everyone's attention. I'm just a shitty cameraman!

And here we go - something with a bit of intricate detail - mind you this was taken with my phone and cropped - the difference is far greater looking at the game with your own eyes.

It's fucking insane. Tried a bot game after this on Hijacked and it was night/day in terms of sharpness. Still not amazing, visually, but it was a LARGE step up.

EDIT: I also made sure to stand in the exact same spot on Slums. Right behind the cop car on the edge of a pile of newspapers. It's on the far side of the map where team B usually spawns.

 

[BradleyLove]

I'm playing in 1080p on my PS3 and I'm sitting about 9 feet back from a 50" Viera VT50 Plasma.

Maybe this is important: I have not applied any patch so I'm running the retail disc as shipped.

I've only played the first two full missions and so far, to me , it looks fine. There's definitely no blurriness. Yeah, some textures are quite low res but others are pin sharp (wall signs, for example). There's very little aliasing from where I'm sitting and overall, it looks pretty clean and surprisingly good. Certainly exceeded my expectations based on Blops 1 (which isn't exactly hard) and what I've read in this thread.

So far I also haven't really noticed any framerate drops either. It feels nice and fluid. /shrugs

I could have bought it for my 360 but all my mates have PS3's so it doesn't make sense to buy on PS3.

So yeah, thus far I can confirm it looks nothing like the comparison photos that have been posted. I imagine my PS+ will update the game overnight however, so I look forward to seeing the IQ ruined by the patch.

 

[mujun]

I have the PS3 one too & it look good to me in 1080P & I haven't seen anything looking blurry so it's a good thing we don't play screen shots.

God forbid we actually rely on the validity of technical analysis in a thread about technical analysis!

 

[cgcg]

Skyrim PS3 looks like smeared poo also

WTF. Why do they do this? Step back with the shit AA.

It's the shitty FXAA on consoles. When Quincunx AA was used people were like omg QAA sucks but when FXAA was introduced for multiplatform, which pretty much does the same shit. The same mofos was like omg it's so awesome.

 

[Dead Prince]

on my bro's 80GB ps3. it's not blurry. just sharp. he plays on 1080i

 

[palpabl_purpura]

I was going to say the same thing. Anyone with half decent eyes can see that even if Leadbetter shows an editorial slant, that he's almost never wrong about technical details. I have no idea how anyone can come to the conclusion that Rage on PS3 runs 15-20 seconds better on 360. as I recall, though rare, the PS3 version dropped resolution more than the 360 version did, and the pop wasn't subjective. you just had to spin around on entering a new area to see it, and to see which loaded in the textures quicker.

Of course you wouldn't know if you read DF. They totally swept the RAGE framerate issue under the rug. LOT mentions it, but also sweeps it under the rug, instead relying on the highly subjective indicators such as amount of pop-in, and resolution drops (which they did not measure % time, or any objective measure). Granted the load times on 360 were better, but RAGE wasn't the clear 360 win that it was portrayed to be.

Performance: The performance aspect of RAGE is a little more one sided. Both versions of the game managed to play the game with minimal screen tearing, so we have good news there. For the most part both versions also played with a frame rate very close to the targeted sixty frames per second. The difference between these two versions boils down to when shit hits the fan in heavy fire fights. Neither version tears in these events, however the 360 version suffers from a noticeable drop in frame rate. The PS3 with a partial install was able to manage a solid sixty frames per second when things got heavy, but the 360 version dropped anywhere from ten to fifteen frames under pressure. The good news is that even at forty-five frames per second, the motions never really seem choppy. When you get right down to it though, the PS3 version is a smoother experience with a solid sixty frames per second in all situations, giving Sony the edge they need to strike back by taking the performance category.

http://www.lensoftruth.com/head2head-rage-analysis/

Totally swept under the rug by DF, and not even mentioned in their "face off". If the situation is vice versa, like BO2's questionable framerate advantage on the 360, there is significant magnification of the PS3's supposed deficiency. You can't really trust a site like that. Better off seeing what the game looks like in person and make your own judgement.

 

[Waaghals]

But digital Foundry mentions the PS3 versions rock solid framerate. It also states that the X360 version has drops, but that these are minor. Talking about Rage, if it wasn't obvious.

 

[sleepykyo]

~snip

Blurriness aside, the game freezes the system.

There are multiple threads on various forums.
Treyarch acknowledges it.

 

[NinjaFridge]

What's wrong with the x86 rumor?

I fear for PS3 backwards compatibility if they go X86. I haven't been paying attention to the rumors about PS4/720 so I don't know if it they have that covered but I can't imagine it would be easy. It would be a major pain to lose my PSN purchases because the PS4 couldn't play them. Although Gaikai could probably deal with that. Eh, I'm rambling.

 

[Mattdaddy]

Its so blurry its kinda distracting. If I delete that patch data will I be able to continue my campaign where I left off or am I going to have to start over?

 

[SapientWolf]

Why are they using YouTube footage for the PS3 screen? Wait... Oh. Oh.

 

[Kung Fu Grip]

This comparison needs to be redone when Treyarch fixes the patch that makes the graphics blurry and soft. The graphics look just as good as the 360 version without that stupid patch.

DO OVER!!

 

[T-0800]

It's a bug caused by a patch.

Can we add this to the OP? Basically, if you delete the 1.02 patch and boot the PS3 version without it, the blur is gone.

I can confirm this too. I just popped the game into my other PS3 and played it without updating it to 1.02, or whatever the patch is and the game looks much much sharper.

 

[T-0800]

Blurriness aside, the game freezes the system.

There are multiple threads on various forums.
Treyarch acknowledges it.

I've only had one freeze in about 6 hours of game time. Still....should be none.

 

[Naked Snake]

I'm just hoping the Wii U version still has 3D. anyone know?

I read a news article today that mentioned it will be 3D on Wii U as well... can't seem to find it with google now.

 

[Kung Fu Grip]

It's a bug caused by a patch.

Can we add this to the OP? Basically, if you delete the 1.02 patch and boot the PS3 version without it, the blur is gone.

How long do you think before a fix? If they even do anything.

 

[papersleeves]

Of course you wouldn't know if you read DF. They totally swept the RAGE framerate issue under the rug. LOT mentions it, but also sweeps it under the rug, instead relying on the highly subjective indicators such as amount of pop-in, and resolution drops (which they did not measure % time, or any objective measure). Granted the load times on 360 were better, but RAGE wasn't the clear 360 win that it was portrayed to be.



http://www.lensoftruth.com/head2head-rage-analysis/

Totally swept under the rug by DF, and not even mentioned in their "face off". If the situation is vice versa, like BO2's questionable framerate advantage on the 360, there is significant magnification of the PS3's supposed deficiency. You can't really trust a site like that. Better off seeing what the game looks like in person and make your own judgement.

You have balls to link a website such as LoT and put their credibility above DF.
How about the 2 comparison videos we see on on the first page of the RAGE face-off from DF? You know, the one where we see the 360 version maintaining a frame rate of 60fps for 99.9% of the time with the lowest fps being something like 58? Or how about the other one featuring vehicle sections where we see both versions dropping during explosions, with one in particular where the PS3 version drops close to 30fps?

I'm not even getting into the texture loading which happen to be significantly slower on the PS3, or the dynamic resolution which drops frequently.

Both versions are stellar for console release imo, but the 360 version stands out as the best one. I don't think it is even up for debate.

If DF was so biased toward the 360, then face-offs for games like Saint Rows 3 or Portal 2 wouldn't exist. DF might appear biased towards 360 for you but that's probably because you're not accepting the reality that the 360 gets the better versions most of the time, which is a trend that die more and more these days btw.

 

[palpabl_purpura]

You have balls to link a website such as LoT and put their credibility above DF.
How about the 2 comparison videos we see on on the first page of the RAGE face-off from DF? You know, the one where we see the 360 version maintaining a frame rate of 60fps for 99.9% of the time with the lowest fps being something like 58? Or how about the other one featuring vehicle sections where we see both versions dropping during explosions, with one in particular where the PS3 version drops close to 30fps?

I'm not even getting into the texture loading which happen to be significantly slower on the PS3, or the dynamic resolution which drops frequently.

Both versions are stellar for console release imo, but the 360 version stands out as the best one. I don't think it is even up for debate.

If DF was so biased toward the 360, then face-offs for games like Saint Rows 3 or Portal 2 wouldn't exist. DF might appear biased towards 360 for you but that's probably because you're not accepting the reality that the 360 gets the better versions most of the time, which is a trend that die more and more these days btw.

That's not my point. My point is to look at the games for yourself, then decide because that excludes the middle man. Certainly most Xbox ports are superior, but I can say this because I've personally seen the games, and excluded the middle man in the decision factor. Bayonetta, Skyrim, Black ops, etc all superior on Xbox, but I don't need an biased site like DF to tell me that or try to absolutely tank the PS3 version of these games.