By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Modern Warfare 2 Will Render at 600p

Barozi on 29 July 2009
digitalentourage said:
Barozi said:
CommunistHater said:
Upgrade your PC for 300 and you will have 1080p 60 fps

$300 upgrade for 1 game ?

Pretty useless, because other modern games need more than a $300 upgrade to run with 60 FPS on 1920x1080.

incorrect. my pc cost me 700$ total and will run anything at 1920x1200(a little bigger than 1080p) with far greater than console settings. Lets not get price involved here, because if you're playing MW2 you're also paying for an XBL account, where as I will get it on steam for cheap, and the game will only cost me what? 60? I think the game retails for 90$ US. or is that in the UK?

And before you say "My 360 cost me 299$+Tax!" You're wrong, no it did not. you paid about 350 before tax. How are you typing to me here? on your 360? right, it doesn't have a web browser.

I suspect you have a 500-600$ PC or maybe even a 1200$ laptop.


If anyone complains about the price of PC gaming and has a half decent PC/laptop they should be slapped. You are paying way more money than we do.

 

Also, if you're one of those people that purchased an apple computer, well, you're even worse if you complain or talk bad about price for pc gaming. Considering apple products are the most severly

First off: Apple sucks

 

I have a $1020 PC so you're a bit wrong here. I won't deny that a $700 computer can run pretty much everything on 1080p (or 1200p in your and in my case) and high settings. But we were talking about a $300 upgrade only.

I don't think $300 is enough to transform a decent computer into a high-end machine.



Around the Network
_honeybadger_ on 29 July 2009
Millennium said:
_honeybadger_ said:

So after 2 years to produce MW2 is just a new skin of MW?  whats your opinion about this?

I think that I got a HD console for HD gaming on a HDTV, thats the reason I made that investment so Im not happy about this.

My opinion on this is that if you bought an HD console for HD gaming on an HDTV, then you should perhaps be more careful what you wish for, because "HD gaming on an HDTV" is exactly and precisely what you are getting. You got taken in by marketers who told you that HD could somehow make games "more" than what they were before, and now you're starting to realize that it cannot. Seriously: you're arguing over something as trivial as the friggin screen resolution as though it made any difference whatsoever to how good the game is. This makes no sense, but then, that's exactly what marketers thrive on: manipulating people into doing things that make no sense, all to sell a product.

HD is nothing more than a new skin on the same old games. If this particular iteration of Call of Duty can teach you that lesson, then perhaps it will have been of some value to you after all.

You my friend are wrong if you asked me HD gaming is way MORE and multiple developers think the same way, the thing that you failed to notice is that COD MW wasnt a HD game and this new iteration isnt one either and considering all the money that they made with MW they should improve on the presentation of the game,  this has an effect on the game, not that is a deal breaker but when other developers are making strides in HD gaming and Investing a lot of money to reach this goals, other developers making even more money dont seem willing to invest in this and it looks bad in my opinion. Is only fair to your customers to provide them significant value for their money and for the looks of it they arent doing it.

 

Are you pro corporation and against consumer?



leo-j on 29 July 2009

I see..

whats stopping them from hitting native HD resolution? We have tons of PS3 games that run at 60fps and even at times at a resolution as high as 1920X1080 natively.

Yet we cant have a game that graphicly does not impress break 720P native resolution.



 

mM
_honeybadger_ on 29 July 2009
NightDragon83 said:
I love it when HD whores whine about the actual resolution of a game... like back when Halo 3 came out and the devs said it was only 540p or something like that, people went ape shit!

I'd much rather have a game that runs silky smooth without any framerate hiccups whatsoever, especially during all the online MP chaos that will ensue, then have a game that looks great in still photos but chugs horribly during actual gameplay.

No reason for the name calling to the people that just express their opinions and you  must understand that there are multiple games that enjoy great HD Visuals with a really good/perfect frame rate. but you can continue to ignore them if you like.



Barozi on 29 July 2009
CGI-Quality said:
Barozi said:
CommunistHater said:
Upgrade your PC for 300 and you will have 1080p 60 fps

$300 upgrade for 1 game ?

Pretty useless, because other modern games need more than a $300 upgrade to run with 60 FPS on 1920x1080.

How DARE you! I upgraded from an Xbox to a 360 in 2005 for Condemned: Criminal Origins alone....

only $300 ?

My 360 Pro cost ~$500 when I bought it September 07. Everything is so expensive here in Europe.... (except for UK ^^)



Around the Network
bobacob on 29 July 2009
leo-j said:
I see..

whats stopping them from hitting native HD resolution? We have tons of PS3 games that run at 60fps and even at times at a resolution as high as 1920X1080 natively.

Yet we cant have a game that graphicly does not impress break 720P native resolution.


How many of those said games have online greater than 12 players, run at 60fps, have limbs that can be blown off, have decent explosions, large maps and the ability to drive vehicles.

AND shit grass. :D



Endure. In enduring, grow strong.

greenmedic88 on 29 July 2009

Millions of satisfied buyers for CoD4 on console, despite the resolution.

I'm sure Infinity Ward saw no reason to go back to the drawing board with engine optimization so long as the game runs as smoothly as the last one did.

And frankly, I'm willing to bet that the millions who bought CoD4 on console won't care either if Halo 3 was any good indicator on console FPS sales.

It's already been established that if you really want to play 1920x1080 native resolutions at 60fps+ (anything beyond is pretty pointless with V-sych unless you have a 120hz or faster display) you're going to be gaming on a custom PC.

I'm still undecided whether I'll be buying this for PC or PS3; it all depends on who I want to play online with if at all. I bought CoD4 for both platforms.



Sontikka on 29 July 2009
CommunistHater said:
Upgrade your PC for 300 and you will have 1080p 60 fps

My monitor can have 1920x1200 and it's 24" (Acer G24)

1337



Please register :)

Slimebeast on 29 July 2009

When will people learn that resolution ain't that important? It's only a minor part of overall graphics quality.



greenmedic88 on 29 July 2009

It depends on user preferences.

Personally, I think low res games upscaled to 1080p look pretty awful due to the blurriness.

Naturally a smooth frame rate matters most in terms of playability, but as long as you have the juice for it, matching native resolution to the max native resolution of the display being used is the way to go for optimal clarity, sharpness, detail and definition.