Call Of Duty Advance Warfare System Requirements Identical to Ghosts - Polidicks

[QUOTE=AcidGravy;45636870]Call of Duty is like the family comedy of games. They can continue to make the same game with the same formula because no matter what people WILL buy. I own a few CoD games because sometimes I need a mind-numbing fps.[/QUOTE] I just don't see what people are expecting. First Person Shooters by definition are games where you point at people and shoot them. The Call of Duty games have taken place in different time periods, used completely different weapons, models, textures, gameplay mechanics but they still get criticized because "it's Call of Duty" and it's easy to hate on something popular. I'm not even being provakative. The games that haven't been made by Infinity Ward are good games. The games are improving, the graphics are getting better, the sounds are great, the gunplay is great, the multiplayer hasn't even been revealed yet but Black Ops 1/2 were great multiplayer games and they both had engaging well written stories that deserved to be told.

[QUOTE=LaTrefle;45636882]Buy titanfall, its the greatest mindnumbing fps you can find, its basically a better cod [editline]9th August 2014[/editline] Still the publisher is EA so think twice but the game is fun as fuck[/QUOTE] It's not only better than COD, it's the natural evolution of COD. Same original devs, and COD would have been that if Activison didn't fuck over original IW. EA may be the publisher but they have no control of the IP besides publishing. (Thankfully)

[QUOTE=Korova;45654169]I just don't see what people are expecting. First Person Shooters by definition are games where you point at people and shoot them. The Call of Duty games have taken place in different time periods, used completely different weapons, models, textures, gameplay mechanics but they still get criticized because "it's Call of Duty" and it's easy to hate on something popular. I'm not even being provakative. The games that haven't been made by Infinity Ward are good games. The games are improving, the graphics are getting better, the sounds are great, the gunplay is great, the multiplayer hasn't even been revealed yet but Black Ops 1/2 were great multiplayer games and they both had engaging well written stories that deserved to be told.[/QUOTE] I think it's mainly because the games don't have a story that can be followed. Black Ops 1 and 2 in my opinion were pretty good and tied in the two games very well. But the others are just templates filled out. Oh no there's a russian/middle eastern/ dictator/war criminal and the only ones who can stop them are the US. And then at the end of the story there isn't really anything else to it, there's no blanks to fill or any hope of additions to the story because there isn't any room for wonder. Halo is an example of an FPS shooter with a decent story in my opinion. I mean holy shit, at the end of Halo 3 people were losing their shit over the legendary ending and for years it was debated what will happen in the next game. CoD doesn't really have that. But as you said it fills a space in the market and it sells well. They have a rightful place in the game industry.

[QUOTE=AcidGravy;45654261]I think it's mainly because the games don't have a story that can be followed. Black Ops 1 and 2 in my opinion were pretty good and tied in the two games very well. But the others are just templates filled out. Oh no there's a russian/middle eastern/ dictator/war criminal and the only ones who can stop them are the US. And then at the end of the story there isn't really anything else to it, there's no blanks to fill or any hope of additions to the story because there isn't any room for wonder. Halo is an example of an FPS shooter with a decent story in my opinion. I mean holy shit, at the end of Halo 3 people were losing their shit over the legendary ending and for years it was debated what will happen in the next game. CoD doesn't really have that. But as you said it fills a space in the market and it sells well. They have a rightful place in the game industry.[/QUOTE] That's very true but the games have never been that, even from the very start. Call of Duty 2 doesn't continue the story from Call of Duty 1/United Offensive. Each installment should be treated as its own standalone game like Battlefield 1942 to Battlefield 2 to Battlefield 3 to Battlefield 4. Within the franchise, there are series of games like Modern Warfare and Black Ops similar to the Bad Company games where they do have a storyline but going from Modern Warfare 1 to Black Ops II, you're not going to be hearing about that time back in 2009 where [sp]that nuke went off and killed a bunch of people in the Middle East[/sp]. They're standalone games and series of games and I think they should be judged on a installment-by-installment basis because of that.

BE READY FOR A BULK LOAD OF BINK VIDEO prerendered CUTSCENES

[QUOTE=Korova;45654343]That's very true but the games have never been that, even from the very start. Call of Duty 2 doesn't continue the story from Call of Duty 1/United Offensive. Each installment should be treated as its own standalone game like Battlefield 1942 to Battlefield 2 to Battlefield 3 to Battlefield 4. Within the franchise, there are series of games like Modern Warfare and Black Ops similar to the Bad Company games where they do have a storyline but going from Modern Warfare 1 to Black Ops II, you're not going to be hearing about that time back in 2009 where [sp]that nuke went off and killed a bunch of people in the Middle East[/sp]. They're standalone games and series of games and I think they should be judged on a installment-by-installment basis because of that.[/QUOTE] I see your point and I agree. However I think they're being bashed so much so recently because there's just too many stories being told in the same way. It's kind of like making the same sandwich everyday, soon enough you're gonna get bored of it and want something different, but some people could eat just that one type of sandwich if that's their favourite. Also personally if I want to play online on a CoD game then I'd just buy a single one, since the multiplayer is very similar in all of the games. And that's not a bad thing, since what else can really be done with such a simple yet highly functional multiplayer system?

[QUOTE=cra0kalo;45654380]BE READY FOR A BULK LOAD OF BINK VIDEO prerendered CUTSCENES[/QUOTE] No, it will be bloated textures and audio files.

[QUOTE=Delta616;45654511]No, it will be bloated textures and audio files.[/QUOTE] You keep shitting on Call of Duty but Titanfall, the exact game you're praising is 52GB (48 without the DLC/updates), it's on the Source Engine, no campaign, like 15-20 maps and it has bloated textures audio files.

[QUOTE=Korova;45654923]You keep shitting on Call of Duty but Titanfall, the exact game you're praising is 52GB (48 without the DLC/updates), it's on the Source Engine, no campaign, like 15-20 maps and it has bloated textures audio files.[/QUOTE] Which has great gameplay, the audio files size aren't bloated, they are simply large for high quality audio outputs, the textures aren't bloated, they made something pretty out their Modified Source Engine. So what if it didn't have a proper campaign? Regardless of all that game play is pretty damn fun. I'm shitting on COD for fake system reqs, Titanfall's system reqs aren't fake. Would love to see where I praised it though, I enjoyed the hell out of the game, still do occasionally but it certainly wasn't perfect. [IMG]http://puu.sh/aO3sg/fe77b41cc2.png[/IMG]

To be fair, there was no reason for Ghosts to have such a huge file size. I mean it looked very identical to the graphics of Black Ops 2. I think IW is just lazy and keeps every file uncompressed

[QUOTE=OH-SNAP!;45660770]To be fair, there was no reason for Ghosts to have such a huge file size. I mean it looked very identical to the graphics of Black Ops 2. I think IW is just lazy and keeps every file uncompressed[/QUOTE] Exactly my point.

[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;45637067] They look bad to me anyway, they just create a jarring contrast in the difference in visuals and if there was no difference they wouldn't need to be prerendered[/QUOTE] Not always. Especially not in Naughty Dogs games. The cutscenes are rendered with in-game visuals, but they're not running in-engine so that the next level can load in the background.

[QUOTE=Nasspray;45639030]WTF is with shitty "next gen" games suddenly requiring 3/4GB GPUs? I'm not long after buying a 2GB GTX770 and now it appears it's already obsolete according to Watchdogs and COD. From what I gather, 2GB is still the norm. 4GB editions seem to be aimed at people with a 4k or multi-monitor setup.[/QUOTE] Cunt lazy ass developers what more to be said, AC4BF got worse and worse for me with every new patch with the last one making the game almost unplayable with the stutters and below 30 fps when on land, so I uninstalled it glad I completed the story before installing the first patch. I hope they stick their shit together with Unity this time. Thief 4 is also a perfect example of an unoptimized piece of shit, sometimes it ran good sometimes it just decided to stutter like shit also the gameplay oh god I got bored halfway through. I'm sorry but if I cannot play your shitty game with maxed out ultrametatextures,spectralbloom and other crap without aa, at a playable rate I hope your company goes bankrupt. Went kinda off topic there, but I refuse to play any other call of duty other than 2 and I will never touch 4 since it distanced itself so much from the reasons why I loved 2. And the fact that it was so mainstream is the reason cod has been stale for so many years.

[QUOTE=paul simon;45661578]Not always. Especially not in Naughty Dogs games. The cutscenes are rendered with in-game visuals, but they're not running in-engine so that the next level can load in the background.[/QUOTE] No, they aren't. They use hugely higher quality models and assets. It's very obvious when they're cutscenes.

Anyone else remember gamers complaining incessantly about games pushing graphics for its own sake and not actually working on the gameplay? Now there's a CoD that might be bringing something new to the table in terms of gameplay (power armor), but it's bad because... it's not pushing the technical requirements of the series? Yet if the requirements were beyond those of the previous game I'm sure the thread would be full of comments complaining that it'll be all flash and no substance. CoD has never tried to push the limits of graphics technology, I don't see why this is a big deal, and it seems like people will latch onto the silliest reasons to hate on the popular games.

[QUOTE=Delta616;45660801]Exactly my point.[/QUOTE] I agree with you but there's no excuse for roughly ~35GB in audio either. Both games are equally bloated.

[QUOTE=catbarf;45662645]Anyone else remember gamers complaining incessantly about games pushing graphics for its own sake and not actually working on the gameplay? Now there's a CoD that might be bringing something new to the table in terms of gameplay (power armor), but it's bad because... it's not pushing the technical requirements of the series? Yet if the requirements were beyond those of the previous game I'm sure the thread would be full of comments complaining that it'll be all flash and no substance. CoD has never tried to push the limits of graphics technology, I don't see why this is a big deal, and it seems like people will latch onto the silliest reasons to hate on the popular games.[/QUOTE] Such are gamers.