Barozi said:
bananaking21 said:
Barozi said:
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).
|
those are PC screen shots. have you played the ps3 version? honestly its something to laugh at. and your helping my point, current gen consoles cant do graphics like that. people seem to not understand that generations dont apply to pc, graphics on pc get better and better every year, there are no generations.
@ bolded, i completely agree, thats why when seeing this screenshot it shows that there will be a a good leap when it comes to power for next gen PS and xbox. the limits on the 360/ps3 have been reached for quite some time
|
You said the CoD developers didn't bother to make it look better, which I "proved" to be wrong since the PC version looks far superior. They are restricted on consoles because they want to keep the game at 60FPS and that's a valid excuse, since this needs a lot of power which then cannot be used to improve resolution, AA, shadows or lighting.
You compared this screenshot (the possible new standard) to Call of Duty, which just makes no sense at all, since they are not comparable because 60FPS is not "standard" for HD games. Why not compare this to a 30FPS game like Halo 4, GoW3 or Red Dead Redemption ? Because then the "jump" wouldn't look nearly as big.
|
true i shouldnt be comparing this to CoD until we know what frame rate this runs on. but try arch really dont bother to make things look better on PS3 atleast, have you played it? rage just looks a million times better, and yes i know its mostly in small corridor area's but its not like Call of duty is an open world game, its as small as the next game yet rage makes CoD black ops2 look like a joke.
and those pc screenshots arent really that good. there ok at best, compare them to crysis or battlefield on pc and just look at the difference.
