Comments (26)
Yodagamer  +   1140d ago
I think call of duty could have had better graphics at 60 fps, seeing that i haven't played a cod game in a year or two black ops 2 seems to be a pretty big improvement, while it's not perfect or as good as it could be
Neonridr  +   1140d ago
It will have better graphics (Wii U). Wait until the 360 / PS3 / Wii U comparisons start. The reason that the 360 and PS3 have uglier versions is because the hardware can't keep up. Sure you could bump up the visuals, but you'd be sacrificing frame rates in a twitch shooter game.
knowyourstuff  +   1140d ago
Honestly, I always prefer to have better graphics instead of 60 FPS. Like most people you won't care about the difference between 60 and 30 FPS, but you sure can appreciate the massive graphics leaps you can get with just 30 FPS, just look at Battlefield 3 and look at Call of Duty.
GuyThatPlaysGames  +   1140d ago
I would lean far more towards the framerate side than for graphics. Everyone these days are just screaming "GRAPHICS GRAPHICS OMG EVERYTHING LOOKS SO SHINY AND AWESOME". A good solid framerate outweights visuals in my opinion. What good is a visually spectacular game if it only runs 25-30 fps???
ninjahunter  +   1140d ago
Maby on pc. Using joysticks you might as well be aiming with your elbows. I honestly cant feel a "smoothness/responsivenes s difference between halo and call of duty (on console), ones at 30 the others at 60.
ATi_Elite  +   1140d ago
Consolers point of view = 60 frames per second is a MUST especially seeing how your not gonna get much better visuals outta COD anyway so i think it's smart to go with good frame rates especially seeing how COD console does NOT have dedicated servers so a good frame rate across the board helps keep things even.

COD console has a huge community like how Counter Strike on the PC has it's huge community and both games are NOT visual Benchmarks but do have the game play that each community likes.

PC Gamers point of view = I'm currently playing Planetside 2 Beta at 60 fps! What the hell is a Battlefield or Call of Duty?
IWentBrokeForGaming  +   1140d ago
COD had graphics to sacrifice?

COD 2 has been the best looking COD this gen TO DATE!
3GenGames  +   1140d ago

Honestly, comparing COD4 to each more modern COD, I still personally like COD4 looks a lot better. It looks like it has much higher resolution/better looking textures. While games like Black Ops looks like they took all the textures, and blurred them all.
#2.1 (Edited 1140d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(7) | Report | Reply
Yangus  +   1140d ago
CoD not CryEngine,Frostbite 2,id Tech 5 its true,but not ugly game,(MW 1-2-3 and maybe Black Ops 2)cool and 60 fps.

Next-gen CoD using new engine 100%.I wait.
Hazmat13  +   1140d ago
COD is like apple small improvements from lighting to facial animation cuz compare MW to MW3 there is a different. not much of one but a difference. black ops really focused on play control from vehicles to certain actions and a unique one, giving the player a voice and a face. but yes when it all comes down to the graphics could be better
taquito  +   1140d ago
what console game doesn't sacrifice graphics for framerate?

if devs tried to run 5 year old pc quality graphics on console it would either;

A. destroy the console due to overheat or

B. run at 2 frames per second

thats why all cod games are 1024x600 on console, low even for console standards
Neonridr  +   1140d ago
I doubt the Wii U version will run at that low of a resolution, but I understand what you are saying.
Christopher  +   1139d ago
That still doesn't explain why CoD games on the PC also look like crap, though.

Regardless, games on consoles still look really good. As good as HQ on PC? No, but still really good for 6-7 year old hardware. Better than what my PC from the same year can do (sans upgrades).
atticus14  +   1140d ago
This is just putting a spin on being lazy...I've never seen such a blurry mess, i was looking through PC video options thinking there had to be something wrong, but nope its that bad and theres nothing you can do about it.
Holeran  +   1140d ago
An incredible visual title that I can remember that also played at 30 fps was Killzone 3. Not many titles can have that kind of graphics and still play well at 30 fps.
StrawberryDiesel420  +   1140d ago
COD4 came out in 2007 running at 60FPS on consoles and looked gorgeous, it was so ahead of it's time.
nepdyse  +   1140d ago
Can't stand 60fps, <120 fps on a 120Hz monitor is the way to go.
ninjahunter  +   1140d ago
Wait until you try 240hz, you never go back.
Neonridr  +   1140d ago
agree with you there ninjahunter. I love my 240hz TV. 3D on a 240hz looks a lot better than on 120hz as well.
nepdyse  +   1136d ago
I played Bf3 for a couple of hours on my brother in law's 240Hz Samsung TV, suffice to say there wasn't any difference AT ALL as far as 2D gaming goes. The only benefit you'll see from a 240Hz screen over a 120Hz is 3D and I hate 3D. As a matter of fact he was the one who recommended a 120Hz monitor since I didn't want anything to do with 3D.
ninjahunter  +   1135d ago
It wouldnt make a difference unless you were playing at 240FPS which is not going to happen on 99% of computers, let alone console. Not to mention i was being sarcastic. XD
Intentions  +   1140d ago
They should just make campaign at 30 fps with better graphics and scale down/downgrade the graphics so it is 60 fps for multiplayer. So then it would shut up a small minority of people.

stragomccloud  +   1139d ago
I prefer 60fps to better graphics.
psvitamanfan  +   1139d ago
Call of Duty has become a franchise, which in turn means its a money maker. So don't expect Activision to invest in new technology to make a game better when they know it will sell just as well as the last one without having to spend more than the bare minimum.
GraveLord  +   1139d ago
The higher the frame-rate, the smoother the gameplay.

Gameplay > Graphics
Plain and simple. If you prefer graphics there's plenty of other alternatives out there. None of them have as much content and replay value as BO2 will though.
artdafoo  +   1139d ago
Lets keep it real kids, Wack Ops 3 will only have minor lighting tweaks if anyhing over Wack Ops 1.
Bobby Pubic Hair gas no interest on investing on a new engine period, as long as the dopes keep lining up every November they'll keep pushing the same thing.
As far as next gen is concerned im going on record as saying they will keep the same basic core engine and again do some tweaks like better textures and lighting but nothing to get terribly excited about. So please stop with the " the consoles have reached the limit thats why they wont make a new engine " bs. Then why does it still look shity on high end PCs ?
0neShot   1139d ago | Personal attack | show
0neShot  +   1139d ago
COD graphics for any COD game is actually on par with the rest of the top graphics games, yes, it is not the best but it is really good enough. COD graphics was only brought to the spotlight when COD haters aka Battefield fanboys pronounced to the worl the power of frostbite 2. The sad reality is that it is only good for PC. Look at MoH Warfighter, rugged at 30 fps and graphics on Xbox look like homefront SP, like a PS1 game.

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login