GR - "Now, before PC and Xbox 360 cry that they're getting the short end of the stick, Vahn has confirmed this won't give any "significant performance gains" to the PS3. It's there to keep the PS3's Blu-ray lens to wear out."
Non of the versions should be bragged about. Cod is starting to look current gen though.
CoD has looked "current gen" for awhile now.
Since when? Last I checked MW3 looked very COD4
pretty sure cod4 came out this gen...
Removes comment and quietly walks out room.
Cod4/waw look nothing like mw3, those of you that think it does must not have played it for a while. They use an older engine and it clearly shows.
One of the most succesful profitable franchises in the industry, two studios working on it... and they can't update the freaking engine and fix well known issues?
He didn't say it uses a different engine. He meant it uses an older revision of the engine and he is right. All those like updates every year might not seem like much but if you play cod4 now which i did recently then you'll see its improved a lot. Anyway there's not much wrong with the visuals. They may not be as hot as bf3 but they are more competent than most others. No real point in sorting a new engine so close to next gen. Im sure someone at activation is working on that.
If I was Activision, I wouldn't bother with upgraded engine either. Next generation is upon us and I would use all my resources on that now as evident by Wii U. Put the remaining resources on improving the game and adding content. Graphics is overrated this far into the generation, and there aren't many (if any) that can run 60fps (buttery smooth) with that kind of visuals that CoD does. Keep in mind that 60fps is half the time to do work that a 30fps game like BF3 has. In addition, there are certain things that have fixed time constraint, i.e. 60 fps doesn't decrease it's time needed to do work, so that means it is even tighter. It is amazing what Activision has achieved with 60fps on consoles. When you ignore details (or doesn't understand game programming), you make quick conclusions based on incorrect assumptions.
It has improved no doubt, but how much? MW3 is no big leap from Black ops, which was no big leap from MW2, which was no big leap from WAW which was no big leap from COD 4 < which was the only big leap in gaming for COD. Activision needs to learn to take risks. Heck, making a new engine is no risk at all. I'm sure everyone would welcome top notch graphics. I really do want to like COD, but I'm struggling. I borrowed MW3 from my cousin and yes I do play it, however there is so much that could be done to make it awesome. I still believe Activision will take a big leap, however I doubt it's this Gen...
Theres is not a single game engine on the industry that runs 60 frames per second on consoles and also feels so smooth when you play it! I know theres a lot of games out there that look better but none of them feel as smooth as CoD (the Modern Warfare part of the franchise at least) You can hate all you want on CoD because it has the user base your game of choice dont have. The truth is that for a game to beat the CoD franchise in sales they have to do something revolutionary in the industry like CoD 4 did when it first came out! Remember Goldeneye wasn't the best looking game when it came out but was the funnest to play with friends.
You do realize we're now experiencing the current generation, right?
I'm pretty sure he's saying that COD is starting to reach current gen graphic levels... Meaning it hasn't yet.
Um...it has, if you know anything about framerate and how it's achieved. Any current gen COD looks damn good for running at 60fps. If they ran it at 30fps like Battlefield, it would look stunning, just like Battlefield...
And if it had three legs it would be a tri-pod. . . But it doesn't and isn't. CoD has looked like crap for a long time now. There is no reason to expect that to change. Just go buy it like you know you will (you people know I'm talking to you).
@ Biggest I completely disagree with you. In NO sense does CoD look like "crap". It may be using an outdated engine but the game still looks good. Not great but good. Out of all the franchises released this gen, CoD is IMO among the top 10 best looking "franchises" this gen. I just don't get you people. This must be your first generation gaming and you must not play many games this gen. There are by far MUCH worse looking games released this gen then CoD and I would say some that have been recently released. CoD may not look as good as Battlefield 3, but it looks just as good as MoH if not better. It's just foolishness to say CoD looks like crap. "Crap" is a serious over-statement.
@Lvl_up_gamer top 10 best looking "franchises" this gen??? maybe top 10 worst looking franchises this gen...
@ Lvl_up_gamer CoD looks great to me too, i mean for a game that runs 60 fps with as many options and players it looks great. I think a lot of people here jump on the Hate Hype train and copy and paste what other posters put on here without actually playing the game themselves.
many players??? you do realize that it's 9 vs 9 on console right? now look at MAG... cod graphic is a little better but cannot justify the difference in number of players and maps size.
does it also have an install to stop the pathetic amount of lag?
You would think with as much money they have made of this franchise they would throw some dedicated servers up to kind of help the issue or throw everyone with their dial up broadband in one region and modern broadband in another. Sick of playing with kangaroos when I have a 30meg connection they bounce around everywhere killing you cause they are leeching or downloading shit to have an advantage.
@LOOK_AT_THIS Your 30 mb of bandwith has literally nothing to do with lag or lack thereof. I played online (Killzone 2, Motorstorm, BC2) for a couple of years on a 256K DSL connection and had no more lag than anybody else. Now that we've got decent broadband -- 10 up, 2 down -- I can download stuff way faster, but lag is the same. Your ping, on the other hand, matters a lot. Edit: Actually, the one place where bandwith matters is if somebody else in your house is downloading stuff or streaming a movie or something like that. With my old connection, anybody who so much as fired up a browser woudl turn an online game in to a lag-fest, so I'll give you that one.
Now thats just plain silly /s :3 Its because its COD that people point out its not a graphical marvel.
Its game play is nothing to brag about either. Ever since CoD 4 it's gone downhill. MW2 was OK, Treyarchs cod's were pretty good, not amazing, but mw3 was garbage.
Tell that to the wii u crowd that found out gameplay will be sacrificed for graphics they didnt seem to mind, plus cod games gameplay has been bad since everygame after cod4
Thank you! Regardless of the game being discussed. THIS is ALWAYS true.
Just to add something to your argument guys, you all seem to forget the fact that running on an older engine ensures the company that the game can be played on almost any computer hardware, laptop or desktop, regardless of how old they are. The COD engine may not be the graphical masterpiece Frostbite 2 is, but it is a highly optimized engine, thus it can run smoothly enough on almost any computer, even on the not so new ones. That of course, enables them to reach to a wider audience on the PC paltform, widening the target market even further.
I'll believe it when i see it.
Yes, I am also taking it with a few grains of salt. I don't plan on getting Black Ops 2, but I think this is a step in the right direction. Is this enough to win back some of the PS3 owners who have felt neglected? Probably not, but it shows some initiative on their part. Not really a fan of CoD, but hopefully BO2 is enjoyable for all, and hopefully those who aren't getting it are preoccupied by the many games coming out (Dishonored, AC3, Halo 4 etc.)
not the first time this has happened. BF3 had a downloadable hi-res texture pack, i believe skyrim on X360 had this as well, but i may be mistaken on that one - it might have just been a bug with installing the game to the HDD versus running it off of the disc.
Black ops has the worst net code out of all the cods he played? Has he not played MW3?
Have u ever played black ops on ps3? It's horrible.
I only have a ps3 wish I had a 360 for other reasons. Yes, it isn't as bad as MW3. Blackops was bad compared to MW2 but to MW3 blackops is freaking smooth on ps3. If you play ground war like I use to play all the time than you will most likely get bad lobbies but MW3 is the worse so far!
I don't even know where you're getting this from. I've played Black Ops extensively on both systems and there is no difference.
It was horrible at launch, I never had connection problems since near end of 2010
I've put +300 hours into BLOPS and I can tell you it's fine. maybe caus I bought it 6 months after it launched after patching but I never quite understood where this hate stemmed from.
they all use the same servers... PS3 and Xbox. 0_O
I dont know much about networking but does servers have to do with netcode? Seriously, can someone explain that?
@SuperStrokey1123: I will help you out, but you should try google next time. The simple answer is netcode is the "code" (or better known as the program) that co-ordinates, sends and decides what happens when communicating with other players. In essence, this means for you what the rules are for when somebody is killed, damaged and in general co-ordinating what happens on the map. The server does most of the netcode work, i.e. it decides who wins in a draw, who is hit based on information sent by the clients i.e. your console. Keep in mind that one of the players can act as a server. CoD does this, while BF3 has a separate computer act as a server. Many people incorrectly blame netcode for lag and etc, but in most cases netcode has the least effect especially on big games like CoD as they have been well tested. It is most likely the bad connection to the internet and lack of dedicated server.
HAHA, COD textures? what textures!?
Must not... bow... to the logic of... THIS AWESOME POINT!
He's talking about the same textures they have used since cod 4... Damn cod copy pastas.
I make better textures in Ms paint 2001.
HAHA So true
This is *really* great news :)
Finally, this has been requested since World at war.
but why? It doesn't do anything for the overall graphics nor performance.
To save your BD drive.
It could provide faster loading at least.
I bet the graphics will look just like Xbox version. Notice how its only for the PS3 version. Treyarch think they slick :P.
That right there is the next major project for the lens of truth site. FULL CREW ON DECK. Lolololol.
Lens of Truth must have really cleaned up on this gen's console war. It's like shooting a zombie in a box.
"Now, before PC and Xbox 360 cry that they're getting the short end of the stick" lol...how would pc be getting the short end of anything dedicated servers vs garbage peer to peer 2560x1600 vs dirty 1024x600 perfect, butter smooth anti aliassing vs a mess of jaggies hmmmm.....no.....consoles always, ALWAYS get the poopy stick end in every multiplat game!
Always? I take it you never played Dead Island on PC.
He probably hasn't played vanilla Dark Souls or Street Fighter x Tekken either on PC either.
He definitely hasnt played red dead redemption on pc either ;)
I have dead island on pc, what problems do you think it has? Game looks awesome on 1080p
@mysword and vortis dead island on pc, sure, got it for $5 on steam sale, lol...what you pay for it?? it looks and runs 40x better than it does on console i run it in 1600p at 60 frames with 16x aa nvidia aa on console its sub-hd, a jagged mess, runs at 15-20 frames per second often and looks miserable you have nothing! lol.... darks souls....hmmmm....well i got the game for $23, got all the dlc you will need to pay $15 and am downsampling 4k resolution, it makes the console version look like a gameboy advance game pc; http://www.youtube.com/watc... console; http://www.youtube.com/watc... always, and everytime, console players get the doodoo stick on multiplats it sucks, but hey, you want a cheap system, you get cheap looking games, they still play the same, so honestly, who cares, but the pc version of any multiplat....99.999999% of the time will utterly and totally demolish and decimate the console version.
pc takes more up the butt than any console. pc players pay hundreds of dollars for gpus only to save 10 dollars off new games! Talk about steam prices being cheap yea if your willing to wait. hell I could wait for amazon too. Another thing pc players forget some are willing to pay 15 dollars a month for mmo's! Hmmmm that 3 times live plus they still have to buy the game. Not only that you got to hope your card will work(more ways then one) you know like rage. What about multipats that hit 1-3 months later. Anyway all 360 games can be install on the HDD to save the lens. Its not even new
LMAO exactly. It's funny. "Now, before PC and Xbox 360 cry that they're getting the short end of the stick" Well, I guess people didn't know but PC games run of the HDD completely -_- So OBVIOUSLY the textures are on the HDD.
So playing to much cod wornes out the lens.
The lens is least of your worries for me it's the hidden perk called host pro when someone has host connection and they can even pull of bullets that bend round corners and tactical enemy respawns which are always behind you
cod ? who cares even with next gen graphics, who cares
Oh, just the 11 million people who bought the first Black Ops.
But those people dont count here remember?
Make that 10,999,999. I bought the first and could give a @#$% about the second
ok wait so it hd textures or better lighting? i dont get it.
Not like it matters. People will buy BLOPS 2 in droves with or without HD textures. I'm predicting 6 mill the 1st day and it'll more than likely outsell its predecessor as usual. Now the question really is...how long can activision keep this up? Will MW4 sell more than BLOPS2? How about BLOPS3 vs MW4? It just seems like a never ending series. Its almost like a sports game lol