COD3 is best on 360, in more ways than one
by Richard Mitchell 
{ Nov 16th 2006 at 1:30PM }
If you're a 360 fanboy who's curious about the PS3, there is always one question on your mind: "what's the online like?" If you've been paying attention to Resistance, you'll know that it can be great. However, Call of Duty 3 paints a different picture. Gamespot's review of COD3 for the PS3 cites a couple of noticeable differences between the PS3 version and its 360 cousin. The first difference: the PS3 has a choppy frame rate that makes the game a chore occasionally. We'll chalk that up to Treyarch being unfamiliar with the PS3. The differences in online play, on the other hand, are more fundamental. The PS3 version offers 24 players online, just like the 360 version. Unfortunately, only one person per PS3 can go online versus the 360 version's four. Also, there is no ranked play available, a feature that is standard on 360 thanks to TrueSkill.
If Sony continues to put the onus on developers to create online features, we can only assume that online options will always be superior on the 360, at least when it comes to cross-platform titles. What do you think? Does the fact that Sony's service is free outweigh the depth of features available through Xbox Live?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
KineticOnline @ Nov 16th 2006 1:48PM
COD3 is the reason my brother (a long time sony fanboy) has stopped waiting on the PS3 and has been converted for a 360 fan :) Hes not a fanboy yet but im working on it ;)
matthew @ Nov 16th 2006 1:50PM
It's not even like Live is that expensive. 13 months for $50 is a *bargain* for what you get. That's $3.85 a month! As a Nintendo fan and an Apple user, I'm predisposed to hating on Microsoft. But after having a 360 for a month, I'm super impressed with Live.
It has to be as good or better, and right now its not looking like it. Sony can't just say it's free, because Live really is pretty cheap. But with millions and millions of users, that $3.85 a person ads up to a lot of money MS can put into maintaining and upgrading their services.
With the massive losses Sony is taking on hardware, can they really afford to burn money on something they're not getting any revenue from?
gt = stoneNbone420 @ Nov 16th 2006 1:57PM
umm... arent the ranked games in cod3 broken on 360? obviously they are going to fix that though.
Adrien @ Nov 16th 2006 2:04PM
Sony will surely come up with something similar as the trueskill system. They will call it the realSkill system which will have much more features like oh... I don't know... Real time skill change!
Battousai8728 @ Nov 16th 2006 3:40PM
Well, ranked games should be an essential part and it's difficult with Sony's free Online plan. It'd be totally up to the developer so standards would be lower than the 360
BklynKid @ Nov 16th 2006 3:34PM
So the PS3 sucks, me and all the other 360 fanboys knew that already.
jc @ Nov 16th 2006 2:20PM
Yeah, those features dont warrant paying 50 a year for xbox live.
I'd rather not have ranked play (never use that crap anyways), or 4 player per console (wtf... who wants a tiny corner of a screen) and not have to pay per year.
HEY @ Nov 16th 2006 2:37PM
so far the reviews i've read for need for speed carbon, tony hawk, COD 3, marvel: UA and tiger woods all say the 360 version is better.
stumpie @ Nov 16th 2006 2:50PM
Hell no...Xbox Live is worth every penny. When I can invite someone to my game no matter what they are doing...that's an amazing feature that one has to experience to appreciate. PS3 fanboys just have no clue at how far behind the PS3 truly is on the online department. I don't want crappy online for free anymore than I wan't recycled toilet paper for free.
Netcruzer @ Nov 16th 2006 2:39PM
I find it hilarious that PS3 CoD3 has framerate issues. Way to go Cell and RSX. Yeah yeah, 1st gen game, blah blah, I don't care. It runs PERFECTLY SILKY SMOOTH on 360, and the opening battle is the most intense firefight I've ever experienced. I definitely noticed how smooth it played with all the crazy effects and explosions on screen, and I agree that gamespot rated the 360 version higher at 8.8 vs PS3s 8.2.
get over it @ Nov 16th 2006 2:49PM
no ranked play... so there's no reason to cheat?
how will i be able to tell how much cooler i am than someone else without an online ranking in a video game?
friedriches @ Nov 16th 2006 2:52PM
Umm, someone sounds jealous (cough#5cough). If you never use ranked play, you must suck. Even *I* use ranked play.
Back to topic...
Yes, those features are worth it, even if you don't use them every time you utilize the service. If you've ever had friends over to play, you know that it's worth it.
Besides that, the PS3 lacks integrated buddy lists throughout. If I'm jamming on Gears and want to play a buddy in H2/H3 Multiplayer Beta :D or CoD3 or football or WHATEVER- I can simply send him a voice/video message and he can hop into my game directly. It's also much easier to get a large game together that way. This is something fundamental to console online gaming and it's something that the PS3 is lacking.
That, and a free Sony anything still is a Sony something. Which immediately makes me wary.
King Keepo @ Nov 16th 2006 3:19PM
The trouble with getting the developers to create their own online variants is that you'll end up with a bunch of fractured experiences where things aren't quite the same.
A bonus of having Live run through one place is that you get the same UI and the same experience. It also reduces development time as you don't have to set up your own system (although I don't know what Sony and MS provide regarding their online development stories)
Ciaran Gallagher @ Nov 17th 2006 11:16AM
ridge racer isn't any better than 360 at all (in fact arguably worse), Tony Hawks is said to be worse and now COD3? Its all pointing towards one thing - don't buy a PS3!
The graphics really AREN'T any better!
Steven Moore @ Nov 16th 2006 3:50PM
What you all are forgetting is that Call of Duty 2 for the 360 had no of those features as well. I'm sure they will add those features to Call of Duty 4 when it comes out so it's really not as much of problem with the PS3 as it is the development of the game. As soon as they work out the development specifics of the PS3, they will add those features, and fix the framerate problem. It comes with getting to know the system just like with the 360.
On a side note: Has anyone notice difficult it is to snipe in COD3. It's almost impossible.
Veron @ Nov 16th 2006 6:34PM
I wasn't going to buy COD3 anyway :S It looks alright, not particually run out and buy worthy though, just another boring FPS, based on the same war storylines, how is this any different to all the other war games, what, because of GFX?
Whether the AI is better, doesn't change the fact that yet again we have another...FPS.
J korn @ Nov 16th 2006 10:25PM
Simple, COD3 makes you feel like you are actualy fighting in a war. The ways the gun react when you shoot and the cooperation of your allies is very realistic. I love the game, even if i'm not the most avid fps player.
slacker @ Nov 17th 2006 3:38AM
i rather have free online play. but paying $200 more than a 360 isnt exactly free... now is it.
i need to get another 360. effin aye.
joey @ Nov 17th 2006 12:49AM
Poo is free...does that mean it's better than gold?
PeteL @ Nov 17th 2006 8:36AM
When live works, it is terrific. But there are many games with issues connecting, drops and lag. I was trying to hook up with some friends on COD3 last night. They game sent invites, I would accept but then get a message "Game session no longer available" Of course it was as they were still playing. We had these same problems joing games with PDZ and Burnout. But PGR and COD2 (after patch) work fine.
I'm sick of it really. If I'm not going to be able to freely join games with my friends on COD3 I will just blast through the singleplayer and sell it. Stick with GOW and hope that Vegas multiplayer works.
Nicomcm @ Nov 19th 2006 9:29PM
Well 50$ x 5 years... It's a Wii !
Or it's a PS3 with Blu Ray, HDMI, Bluetooth, 2,5" HDD, Cell, Linux :s !
360 + HD-DVD + 5 years of Live = ??? $ = PS3 ?