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

Forums - Gaming - Sledgehammer: PS3/360 "raw horsepower" nearly exhausted Don't expect graphical leaps and bounds

Pikachuu on 05 November 2011
Snesboy said:
Pikachuu said:
Snesboy said:
Pikachuu said:
im sorry but these comments are sad the last modern warfare had amazing graphics and was praised for that and an improved version of their game suddenly has low tier graphics?? i can bet anyone that cod on consoles will look better then battlefield 3 on consoles

You can bet they both look terrible on consoles.


i don't know where anybody get's this info from! on my 50 inch cod looks simply amazing not uncharted amazing but still amazing, i just hate how people are always judging graphics when our consoles cant produce much. to me cod and uncharted are the 2 best looking games right now i have played

Have you played The Witcher 2? That looks way better on a 50 inch LED.


no i have not :/



Around the Network
Yukanna on 05 November 2011
Pikachuu said:
Snesboy said:
Pikachuu said:
im sorry but these comments are sad the last modern warfare had amazing graphics and was praised for that and an improved version of their game suddenly has low tier graphics?? i can bet anyone that cod on consoles will look better then battlefield 3 on consoles

You can bet they both look terrible on consoles.


i don't know where anybody get's this info from! on my 50 inch cod looks simply amazing not uncharted amazing but still amazing, i just hate how people are always judging graphics when our consoles cant produce much. to me cod and uncharted are the 2 best looking games right now i have played


So you played probably only Uncharted and Call of Duty in this Gen
Every Console has better looking games,even the Wii with Mario Galaxy 2 and soon Zelda

The 360 has games like Forza 4 and Gears of War while the PS3 has Uncharted,Killzone 3,God of War ,NiNoKuni and dozen other exclusives
Multiplat Games like Batman,AssaCreed and all that stuff are on that level too

Call of Duty is low tier in terms of graphics - Its outdated and that is a fact
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsi4yJsuElo  > And now search for Battlefield 3 especially for the PC Version with Ultra Settings
Every game could achieve 60FPS when it looks like a PS2 Game like MW3 does.Especially with those small maps.Its a complete difference if you have to work with big maps and top notch graphics or with PS2 graphics and maps where you can throw a grenade from your spawn to the other teams spawn.
Hell even people who got paid by Activision say its at best MW2.5



UltimateUnknown on 05 November 2011
Yukanna said:
Pikachuu said:
Snesboy said:
Pikachuu said:
im sorry but these comments are sad the last modern warfare had amazing graphics and was praised for that and an improved version of their game suddenly has low tier graphics?? i can bet anyone that cod on consoles will look better then battlefield 3 on consoles

You can bet they both look terrible on consoles.


i don't know where anybody get's this info from! on my 50 inch cod looks simply amazing not uncharted amazing but still amazing, i just hate how people are always judging graphics when our consoles cant produce much. to me cod and uncharted are the 2 best looking games right now i have played


So you played probably only Uncharted and Call of Duty in this Gen
Every Console has better looking games,even the Wii with Mario Galaxy 2 and soon Zelda

The 360 has games like Forza 4 and Gears of War while the PS3 has Uncharted,Killzone 3,God of War ,NiNoKuni and dozen other exclusives
Multiplat Games like Batman,AssaCreed and all that stuff are on that level too

Call of Duty is low tier in terms of graphics - Its outdated and that is a fact
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsi4yJsuElo  > And now search for Battlefield 3 especially for the PC Version with Ultra Settings
Every game could achieve 60FPS when it looks like a PS2 Game like MW3 does.Especially with those small maps.Its a complete difference if you have to work with big maps and top notch graphics or with PS2 graphics and maps where you can throw a grenade from your spawn to the other teams spawn.
Hell even people who got paid by Activision say its at best MW2.5

MW3 look like a PS2 game? Wow.

And throw a grenade from your spawn to the enemy spawn? I would like to see you try that in Derail, while you are at it let me know the mod/hack you are using so that I can report you as well.

Plus why are you comparing BF3 PC version with other console games, its pc NOT consoles.



 

SecondWar on 05 November 2011
UltimateUnknown said:
NobleTeam360 said:
What is BF3 then? I mean sure after BF3 don't expect graphical leaps but i don't think MW3 developers can really talk considering they haven't changed the graphics at all for the call of duty series. ( even though i don't care about graphics they should be improved upon to keep up with the competition)

I don't think they can, it is integral for them to be running MW3 at 60 FPS without any frame rate dips whatsoever. A lot of their hardware processing power is required to achieve this which allows COD to have the smooth run and gun arcadey gameplay like no other. Whatever is left after that is dedicated towards graphics, etc.

Believe me, I play quite a lot of military shooters, when you play a game like Battlefield or Homefront which run at 30 FPS after playing COD at 60 FPS, you do feel the difference. The character movements do feel as though they lag behind and COD is much more fast paced.

That said I remember there having been a BF3 interview where the developers of that game said the opposite, that they run 30 FPS so that they can dedicate more processing power for the graphics and other functions. I think its pretty safe to say that with the current hardware on consoles, its just not possible to run 60 FPS with BF3 level graphics, you have to make a sacrifice somewhere. But I will give props to Dice for getting their PC versions to run at 60 FPS and 1080p. I am fairly sure that will be the norm next gen for consoles though.

And although that tech-spec sounds really impressive when compared to games like Battlefield 3 say, the vast majority won't actually won't be looking for, or even able to spot the difference. Really, when I see people critise games for things like that I just feel theyre overeacting and playing the game to find faults rather than to enjoy it.



UltimateUnknown on 05 November 2011
SecondWar said:
UltimateUnknown said:
NobleTeam360 said:
What is BF3 then? I mean sure after BF3 don't expect graphical leaps but i don't think MW3 developers can really talk considering they haven't changed the graphics at all for the call of duty series. ( even though i don't care about graphics they should be improved upon to keep up with the competition)

I don't think they can, it is integral for them to be running MW3 at 60 FPS without any frame rate dips whatsoever. A lot of their hardware processing power is required to achieve this which allows COD to have the smooth run and gun arcadey gameplay like no other. Whatever is left after that is dedicated towards graphics, etc.

Believe me, I play quite a lot of military shooters, when you play a game like Battlefield or Homefront which run at 30 FPS after playing COD at 60 FPS, you do feel the difference. The character movements do feel as though they lag behind and COD is much more fast paced.

That said I remember there having been a BF3 interview where the developers of that game said the opposite, that they run 30 FPS so that they can dedicate more processing power for the graphics and other functions. I think its pretty safe to say that with the current hardware on consoles, its just not possible to run 60 FPS with BF3 level graphics, you have to make a sacrifice somewhere. But I will give props to Dice for getting their PC versions to run at 60 FPS and 1080p. I am fairly sure that will be the norm next gen for consoles though.

And although that tech-spec sounds really impressive when compared to games like Battlefield 3 say, the vast majority won't actually won't be looking for, or even able to spot the difference. Really, when I see people critise games for things like that I just feel theyre overeacting and playing the game to find faults rather than to enjoy it.

Vast majority won't be able to tell that BF3 is running at 30 FPS and COD at 60 FPS, but they definitely will feel the controls not being as crisp. Btw I wasn't criticising BF3, it doesn't need 60 FPS (atleast for consoles), they have many other things like large maps, destruction, graphics, etc in which they need to invest the limited processing power into.

But I agree with you 100%, a lot of people seem to play the game just to nitpick, I mean COD's graphics isn't PS2 level, its pretty standard for current level hardware. Its just that people don't understand or want to understand what COD needs to prioritise on, and being a console shooter, I don't see them going out of their way like Dice to blow the game up on PC, for which I give full props to Dice. As for consoles, BF and COD have different things they prioritise on with the hardware limitations, and in the end all that matters is the fun we have, not all this technical mumbo jumbo.