pezus said:
UltimateUnknown said:
pezus said:
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.
|
I game mainly on PC now, which is the reason I am always unimpressed by their games. Putting some effort into the PC version wouldn't hurt their sales at all.
|
Well as I said before, PC games are superior. And the reason you are disappointed is because you are comparing the PC version of COD to other PC games which are superior to almost every console FPS at this point of time. While I do agree that they could beef up the PC version (like BF3 did with 1080p 60 FPS on PC only), COD isn't a PC game. 95% of their audience is on consoles and Activision probably sees no reason to invest money to please a small portion of the fanbase on PC with insane graphics when they can make do with sub-par. And of course that can be disappointing if you do have a PC that can handle a graphically testing game. But next gen is near, I am sure the next iteration of COD will be able to utilise next gen hardware, and with that the PC version will also get a huge boost.
