By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
UltimateUnknown on 01 May 2012
Edit Thread
pezus said:
UltimateUnknown said:
pezus said:
VGKing said:
pezus said:
VGKing said:
pezus said:

Well, there's at least some originality here. They really need a new engine though, it just looks old.


Easily outdoes Crysis IMO.
Graphically, yeah showing its age. But that didn't stop Black Ops or Modern Warfare 3 from breaking industry records.

Wait...in what way? There's no need for you to bring up the sales each time someone mentions something bad about CoD


Story. It already seems way more interesting that of Crysis 2 or 3.
Sales is just common sense.

I still don't see how Crysis was relevant here. It's not too hard to outdo Crysis 2's story TBH

LOL are you actually trying to defend Crysis 2? Its multiplayer was a copypasta of COD. I will not comment about PC because it is a much superior game on PC (as are most PC games for that matter at this point) but on console it had extremely clunky controls. Your character feels like a ton of bricks to move, it may have had better graphics but comes nowhere near COD in terms of gameplay. And why exactly does graphics become the only thing to consider when it comes to COD anyway?

This is coming from a dude who still plays the original Crysis in its full glory on PC just to take in the beautiful visuals.

What are you on about? I implied Crysis 2's story wasn't good. BUT neither were most CoD games' stories (except 4 and maybe Black Ops). I explained why I am considering the graphics here in the answer above. It's not the only thing to consider, it's just that we know what to expect by now from CoD. It's always the same thing with a few new maps and maybe a new gameplay mode or two. Putting some effort into the graphics is the least they can do. I heard they usually botch the PS3 version too.

Well COD campaigns are average at best if you ask me, thats not exactly why most people play it for.

As for your question about graphics, if you play PC games (I don't know if you do, pardon me) you will know that the processing power of your CPU and GPU are heavily used for higher frame rates as well as good textures/graphics in general. A lot of times, if you want to have a smooth experience with a game (and you don't have a crazy powerful rig) you need to tone down your graphics to be able to get a smooth gameplay experience. 

For COD, it HAS to always run at 60 FPS on consoles which not that many FPS do. Battlefield, Crysis, Homefront and most other FPS I have played all run at 30 FPS which gives them the clunky feel (imo) rather than the fast pace trademark feel that you get with COD. But because they run at a lower frame rate they can use the remaining processing power for better graphics. COD keeps the graphics low so that they can get the game to feel like it does. I don't think they can make much changes to that until the next generation hits. I'm sure Activision/Treyarch has the resources to make the graphics next gen but they wouldn't be able to translate that over to console, plus they aren't really interested in PC.