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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Modern Warfe 2 Graphics. Give it a rest. It's awesome.

Akvod on 12 November 2009
tuscaniman said:

Ok let me rephrase that. MW2 is head and shoulders about KZ2. Its not an opinion. I dont care if the graphics aren't, the game is. And 7 million people on day 1 agree with me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity



Around the Network
XxXProphecyXxX on 12 November 2009

Hmmmm lets see...

bringing up irrelevant stuff into the discussion(check)
stating opinion as a fact(check)
using sales to base quality of the game(check)

Yep sounds like one of them trolls to me.



NKAJ on 12 November 2009
tuscaniman said:

Ok let me rephrase that. MW2 is head and shoulders about KZ2. Its not an opinion. I dont care if the graphics aren't, the game is. And 7 million people on day 1 agree with me.


first.Please state how it is a fact...

second.we are not discussing how good the gameplay is,rather how good the graphics are so please dont make stuch a innapropiate comment.

Lastly.Not only is that statement neccacerily true...(how do you know they prefer mw2 to kz2?)It is completely irrelevant to this discussion about graphics

 



"They will know heghan belongs to the helghast"

"England expects that everyman will do his duty"

"we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"

 

Squilliam on 12 November 2009
WereKitten said:
Squilliam said:

The question I was asking was not whether KZ2 looks 'better' or if it implements more advanced techniques. The question I was asking was considering they had differing design goals can you really say that one has better technology than the other? If we take John Carmacks word as gospel, 30fps relative to 60fps yields roughly 3* the performance budget per frame you can see that there is quite the performance tradeoff.

Unless you can prove otherwise, the fact that the two highest selling multiplayer shooters are also the shooters with the lowest latency (Halo 3's latency as low as you can go @ 30fps) is quite telling. Call of Duty 4 sold once it was in players hands. The legs on that game were quite godly and that was simply due to word of mouth. Can you really call it a coincidence that the only 60fps shooter franchise is also the best selling franchise? One of the best selling Arcade games 'Trials HD' sold over half a million copies and had one of the best demo - purchase conversion rates, again it was 60fps!

Perhaps the low latency is needed and the games themselves have suffered due to the marketing effect where people have been drawn to games which visually look better in video. You cannot get a 60fps video to even convey to the public on any of the gaming video sites the difference in gameplay. You have to wait until it gets into peoples hands.

So given the benefit and tradeoffs for taking a game to 60fps, can you definitively say that a game has better technology simply because it looks better. What about playing better?

First: this thread -and CGI's comments in the specific- was about visual technical prowess. That's why I said that you either bring the 60fps issue in the field of how it improves the visuals, or you accept that it went in the way of more sophisticated graphic effects. Saying that it's necessary for the MP experience is a red herring in this context, and I point to my previous post for the issue about its PC roots and its design goals.

Second: no, that's not how it works. I don't have to disprove your theory about low latency being the key to better gameplay and then to sale success, you have the burden to prove it. And no, I don't even consider Halo and CoD and Trials HD proofs in this sense. GTAIV is culprit of 30fps -and not rock steady at that- and a high latency when shooting. So what? It was a blockbuster anyway. R&C always boasted a smooth 60fps action, and it sold ok but not in the same league.

And more importantly, when you want to advance correlation hypothesis you should at least start by defining the terms you're using. The "latency" word you're touting as if it clearly meant something is actually quite devoid of a well defined value. Latency in what? The Gamasutra measurements and the DF ones were about the latency of some very easy "discrete" actions, such as shooting and jumping. That doesn't say much about the latency of other actions or more importantly the "feel" of movement and aiming. Which is much more about inertia and acceleration curves than the difference between shooting in 100ms (3 frames) in Halo 3 vs shooting in 133ms (4 frames) in KZ2 vs shooting in about 67ms in CoD.

Frankly, the 1/30th of a second difference in shooting time between Halo and KZ2 isn't even close in my mind to what any reasonable person will find as a necessity for "good gameplay". Halo, CoD, KZ2 have very different gameplay styles differing in speed, immediatness, aim assist, matchmaking, multiplayer modes, weaponry, progression and ranking... I can find much more poignant commonalities between the gameplay of the two most successful franchises than being "low latency".

He said technology. Furthermore what a lot of people ascribe to better technology is actually better artistry in games.

Just because the series has roots in the PC gaming space where framerate is more defined by the end user rather than by the developer, doesn't imply an automatic transition to 60fps. Most games which transition onto consoles, transition onto a 30fps framerate. Call of Duty is one of the only series which springs to mind which doesn't run at 30fps.

I don't have time to finish writing but as it stands its 70ms vs 150+ms. Then you add 2-3 frames for the TV's latency and you can have a difference of over 150ms. A lot of people will notice that and latency was one very importaint reason why Killzone 2's controls were panned.



Tease.

Garnett on 12 November 2009

@Xoj

 

CoD has alot more happening on screen at once,and both games are built around the SP, MP is added extra, also KZ2 guns do not shoot thru walls with realistic projectiles.

 

For instance a 9mm gun cannot piece a concrete wall while a AK47 can. 



*Remember when the world was supposed to end on May 21st, 2011? Well click here to see our short parody video of it [not]ending*

Around the Network
NKAJ on 12 November 2009
Garnett said:

@Xoj

 

CoD has alot more happening on screen at once,and both games are built around the SP, MP is added extra, also KZ2 guns do not shoot thru walls with realistic projectiles.

 

For instance a 9mm gun cannot piece a concrete wall while a AK47 can. 


isnt cod mw2 single player only 5 hours long or osmehting?



"They will know heghan belongs to the helghast"

"England expects that everyman will do his duty"

"we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"

 

Xoj on 12 November 2009
Garnett said:

@Xoj

 

CoD has alot more happening on screen at once,and both games are built around the SP, MP is added extra, also KZ2 guns do not shoot thru walls with realistic projectiles.

 

For instance a 9mm gun cannot piece a concrete wall while a AK47 can. 

kz2 weapons are not human weapons to behind with and each bullets its very detailed- from the particles to how it pierces the wall. each wall have it own material, metal on radec can't be pierce, but the rock pillars fall apart, and are very destructible.

if killzone 2 it seems because some places are just insane like the train the whole area it's a moving train.  and search and destroy where everything turns into huge firefight it's 32 players on a single area doing a MESS vs 18 on mw2.

all this on 32 vs 32 multiplayer =D



PullusPardus on 12 November 2009
tuscaniman said:
I understand this is somewhat of a graphics thread and you guys are comparing it to KZ2 but the one main point is MW2>>>>>KZ2 in gameplay. Its head and shoulders better. Who cares if KZ2 is a little better looking.

are you gabe newell?



BMaker11 on 12 November 2009
richardhutnik said:
libellule said:
@richardhutnik,

funny how you are going in the past to "protect the 360 guardians" that are severely ass kicked in this thread.

but, sadly, KZ2 was not called the Halo killer by most of them and it was not supposed to reinvente FPS.
But technically, KZ2 was praised a LOT and it was still a very good game overall (see metacritic)

going back to the OP : KZ2 took the technical crown from the 360.

Sooner peole will accept, sooner those crappy thread will disappear.

I am now upset that people are arguing that Big Rigs is superior to the PC version of MW2.  That frosts my shorts.  I refuse to have Big Rigs knocked off the Winner throne by MW2 on the PC!

And no, don't expect people who are partisan console owners to acknowledge anything good about games on rival consoles.  It isn't going to happen.

But the game is on the PS3...you make it seem as if MW2 is 360 exclusive....



richardhutnik on 12 November 2009
tuscaniman said:
I understand this is somewhat of a graphics thread and you guys are comparing it to KZ2 but the one main point is MW2>>>>>KZ2 in gameplay. Its head and shoulders better. Who cares if KZ2 is a little better looking.

Gameplay?  Depends on what one prefers.  I wish MW2 had bots in it for deathmatch, or I could get split-screen for Killzone 2.  With each, I am dealing with trade offs.  And yes, DEATHMATCHES.  Don't give me this, "just play the campaign", because MW2 doesn't have a multiplayer campaign.  It has levels of the game tweaked for multiplayer play, and arcade objectives.