• Call of Duty: Ghosts video compares graphics to Modern Warfare 3
    73 replies, posted
[url]http://www.shacknews.com/article/79330/call-of-duty-ghosts-video-compares-graphics-to-modern-warfare[/url]
Graphics =/= good game
collar duty: dogs dogs dogs dogs
[QUOTE=lolo;40744314]Graphics =/= good game[/QUOTE] I think everyone is tired of the paper graphics. So yes, new graphics will certainly boost Ghost. There is no doubt good graphics can enhance a game incredibly much. Games that are deliberate made with less good graphics, it doesn't matter much.
[QUOTE=lolo;40744314]Graphics =/= good game[/QUOTE] Oh god please go back to 1996 Gamefaqs or something. Graphics stopped being a focus and selling point years ago, old games used brag about the game's graphics ON THE GAME'S BOX. The graphics art team doesnt work on the game's coding so graphics cant negatively effect a game's development no matter how much clueless angry gamers think.
The only thing I heard at Xbox One the conference was "CURVES CURVES SMOKE SMOKE GRAPHICS DOGS DOGS COD 60FPS" I'm sorry, but I watched the whole conference, and they didn't talk much about the gameplay itself beyond the dog.
[QUOTE=Manibogi;40744408]The only thing I heard at Xbox One the conference was "CURVES CURVES SMOKE SMOKE GRAPHICS DOGS DOGS COD 60FPS" I'm sorry, but I watched the whole conference, and they didn't talk much about the gameplay itself beyond the dog.[/QUOTE] not trying to rip on call of duty here but everyone already knows how it's going to play
lol that video was hilarious [editline]22nd May 2013[/editline] OUR NEW TECHNOLOGY, SUBD
Looks pretty and all, but it's nothing new or innovative. Adding a dog that they're going to kill near the end to attempt to make you have feels isn't going to make the game not suck. I mean, they are finally adding fence hopping! That tech has been around for YEARS. Round objects, scars, cuts, hairy arms...if that's all you can say about your game then I have a feeling that gameplay was an after thought. Again.
[QUOTE=IceWarrior98;40744610]Looks pretty and all, but it's nothing new or innovative. Adding a dog that they're going to kill near the end to attempt to make you have feels isn't going to make the game not suck. I mean, they are finally adding fence hopping! That tech has been around for YEARS. Round objects, scars, cuts, hairy arms...if that's all you can say about your game then I have a feeling that gameplay was an after thought. Again.[/QUOTE] for what they're trying to achieve, the series is as close to perfection as it's going to get and there's absolutely [I]no[/I] reason to change it
Since when were LOD's revolutionary?
WOW I never thought they would update their engine! This means a CoD game which isn't ugly? Woooaoaaah...
And now to think back at the happy times when people were bitching about the terrible graphics and how they kept reusing the MW engine. This can really only be a good thing.
[QUOTE=PredGD;40744746]WOW I never thought they would update their engine! This means a CoD game which isn't ugly? Woooaoaaah...[/QUOTE] cod games aren't ugly
good one
What I love is how they push MW3 as being at the pinnacle of graphical fidelity on release when in reality it was pretty crappy looking compared to Battlefield 3. Also, most of the tech that they've added to the new engine has been around for several years now and has been possible on current gen hardware.
[QUOTE=Odellus;40744771]cod games aren't ugly[/QUOTE] Not really "ugly", but "ugly" compared to the standards for our time. On another note, holy balls, the new engine actually looks really good. [editline]22nd May 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Wiggles;40744803]What I love is how they push MW3 as being at the pinnacle of graphical fidelity on release when in reality it was pretty crappy looking compared to Battlefield 3. Also, most of the tech that they've added to the new engine has been around for several years now and has been possible on current gen hardware.[/QUOTE] It looks like Crysis 1 :v:
the realtime graphics look like shit, those rendered parts looked up to date. that dog is definitely not up to par with a new generation. that black guy man. stare of death, weird animations, no eyelids, block vest.
It definitely seems like they're pushing forth from Modern Warfare.. even if it's not much.
[QUOTE=PredGD;40744810]Not really "ugly", but "ugly" compared to the standards for our time. On another note, holy balls, the new engine actually looks really good. [editline]22nd May 2013[/editline] It looks like Crysis 1 :v:[/QUOTE] Most of it was probably prerendered, so don't get your hopes up.
[QUOTE=Ericson666;40744864]Most of it was probably prerendered, so don't get your hopes up.[/QUOTE] idk if you saw the video but "everything you're about to see is running real time in the next generation call of duty engine" [QUOTE=Wiggles;40744803]What I love is how they push MW3 as being at the pinnacle of graphical fidelity on release when in reality it was pretty crappy looking compared to Battlefield 3. Also, most of the tech that they've added to the new engine has been around for several years now and has been possible on current gen hardware.[/QUOTE] tesselation and SSS is fairly recent and it's only been used sparingly on what you'd probably call 'benchmark games'
[QUOTE=Juniez;40744910]idk if you saw the video but "everything you're about to see is running real time in the next generation call of duty engine"[/QUOTE] I'm sure it all [I]can[/I] run in realtime, but if the visual fidelity you see here is what you'll actually get in the final product is up for debate. After all, this is a marketing trailer, not a live demo.
[QUOTE=Odellus;40744771]cod games aren't ugly[/QUOTE] I don't know if I would call them ugly, but certainly behind the graphical curve. That's okay though. It's been clear since Call of Duty started as a series that Infinity Ward and it's affiliates weren't looking to push the technological envelope but just make a good shooter that runs really well and feels responsive. I can say for certainty that Battlefield 3 looks and sounds noticeably better than either MW3 or Black Ops 2, but neither of the latters graphics are so bad as to ruin the experience. Maybe it's because I cut my teeth on Quake and Doom but I just don't care about graphical fidelity that much. I think early source games like Half Life 2 and Counter-Strike Source still look entirely decent. [editline]22nd May 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Ericson666;40744864]Most of it was probably prerendered, so don't get your hopes up.[/QUOTE] Call of Duty doesn't do pre-rendered footage.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40744970]I don't know if I would call them ugly, but certainly behind the graphical curve. That's okay though. It's been clear since Call of Duty started as a series that Infinity Ward and it's affiliates weren't looking to push the technological envelope but just make a good shooter that runs really well and feels responsive. I can say for certainty that Battlefield 3 looks and sounds noticeably better than either MW3 or Black Ops 2, but neither of the latters graphics are so bad as to ruin the experience. Maybe it's because I cut my teeth on Quake and Doom but I just don't care about graphical fidelity that much. I think early source games like Half Life 2 and Counter-Strike Source still look entirely decent.[/QUOTE] The Source engine is probably the only dated engine which I think looks good. It got its own unique and good looking style.
[QUOTE=Juniez;40744910]idk if you saw the video but "everything you're about to see is running real time in the next generation call of duty engine" tesselation and SSS is fairly recent and it's only been used sparingly on what you'd probably call 'benchmark games'[/QUOTE] Oh, I thought it was just the reveal video they showed at the Xbox conference. But still, those models are standing stock still for the most part (minus the one guy who does a bit of shrugging), and they're in plain white rooms with nothing else to render, so I'm not sure if they'll actually look that good during game play. Also, the environment was just shot from one static location. It's easy to make something look beautiful when you can confine the camera to one specific location, but we won't be able to tell how it really stacks up until some game play videos float out
It looks alright
boy oh boy this sure does look like a certain game we all saw and played six or so years ago
[QUOTE=Wiggles;40744803]What I love is how they push MW3 as being at the pinnacle of graphical fidelity on release when in reality it was pretty crappy looking compared to Battlefield 3. Also, most of the tech that they've added to the new engine has been around for several years now and has been possible on current gen hardware.[/QUOTE] modern warfare 3 actually looked worse than modern warfare 2
It doesnt look much different to me. Yeah your game is going to better obviously when you havnt dont a single damn thing since Cod4.
[QUOTE=mark6789;40745105]It doesnt look much different to me. Yeah your game is going to better obviously when you havnt dont a single damn thing since Cod4.[/QUOTE] Actually, from what I remember, MW2 was a pretty big step up in graphics
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.