bananaking21 said:
call of duty can look better if they actually bother and try make it look better, 60FPS is no excuse. just look at rage, 60 FPS looks great. its to early to assume how much frames they are going to target. but i would agree and guess 30FPS since it runs smoothly enough and they can make things look better |
On the other hand Rage doesn't use any kind of AA and has a multiplayer limit of 4 players, so again it's not really fair to compare these games.
I played Rage and know that the majority of missions happen in smaller corridor areas, which is technically not very impressive.
Treyarch/Infinity Ward constantly upgrade the engine. Compare World at War with Black Ops 2 and the difference is quite big. The fact that Black Ops 2 can't even sustain 60FPS in the campaign on several occasions is proof enough that they are trying to make it look better. A considerable upgrade on PS360 is just not possible.
60FPS is an excuse as it takes huge amount of power.
Besides Blops 2 already looks great:
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4930439
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4900125
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4904418
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4886379
This is not a case of lazy developers, the consoles are just too weak to show the beautiness of CoD (and sustain 60FPS at the same time).
