MMGN.com compares each Call Of Duty game from 2005 until 2012. How has the series' graphics evolved since then?
Wow, I wouldn't say it's a huge change...
Lol, they all look the same, except the further you go down the more Michael Bay there is.
good way to put it
lol, I dont see any change.. And I dont think that going into future style with fake weapons and everything is a good idea for COD game.....
The guns in black oops were fake. They didn't have rail systems, flip up BUIS, red dots, or any of that until the late 90's.
The Real question is, were all these images capture from the same Hardware? Are these from an xbox 360 or from a computer, or did we simply google screenshot and made an article from the search result. because if on PC, 2005 Hardware not the same as 2012 Hardware. Would be cool is someone would capture a screenshot of all these games running on the same hardware
Lol, how did Ask A Ninja put it? "ALOT more gore, ALOT less Verbinski."
@MasFlowKiller Just because you have more advanced hardware now, that doesn't mean the older titles will magically look better.
7 years, and they still fail to achieve that next gen jump in quality.
Wow, i can't believe it didn't change that much in 6 years/s we all know Treyach/Infinty Ward are the laziest developers on planet earth, everybody knows this.
I would say Infinity Ward put more work into their games then Treyach, but IW has said that some of their games were rush out before they can fully finish it. I like to see a COD make a huge step in graphics like BF3 did.
@Awesome_Gamer The hardware COD is designed to run on (consoles).. havent changed in 6 years. Activision is merely trying to get out 60fps from their game. If they want to keep 60fps then somethings gotta give. Shooters by nature are the most resource intensive games. How many shooters run at 60fps on console have a good MP mode and look good? None really. Hence if the hardware is old dont expect much from Activision either. They know they have a engine that can run the game at 60fps and its a smooth experience that no other shooter on console really provides. The game sells in millions, why should activision break a formula that works so well? If they are going to improve the graphics then the hardware wont be able to handle the 60fps. They would rather keep 60 fps and poor graphics.
@decrypt "Shooters by nature are the most resource intensive games." I don't think you could get much farther from the truth. (Most) shooters are pretty much static environments, static lightmaps, very little use of physics, no AI in multiplayer, and generally small areas (maps) compared to other game genres. And I only say most because BF3 bucks that trend with ambient real-time dynamic lighting, large maps, and tons of physics and destructable environments. Every CoD game since 2005 has been using the same IW engine, with some modifications in the newer titles. It works, and doesn't look terrible, but obviously doesn't hold up to any iteration of Unreal Engine, Cryengine, or Frostbite. It is not, as you say, resource intensive.
Completely agree, the jump between mw1 and mw2 is fairly significant but the only thing that seems to have changed since is the colouring of the environment. The 'Graphics' are virtually identical. Thank god I am not buying this game
Why is it that people like you are happy not to buy a good game just because the graphics aren't up to par where you want them to be? They sacrifice amazing graphics for amazingly smooth gameplay. There's aren't many games out there that do that well. Are you saying you would buy this game if they changed the graphics but same gameplay? Because that's what it seems like to me. If that's true your just a tool and I don't want someone like you on black ops 2 anyway. People need to stop assuming great graphics makes a great game. If assassins creed looked like crap would it really chance how great a game that is? No, it wouldn't. If your tired of playing CoD because of the style of game it is then thats fine. Whatever. I get tired of games too. But to say your not getting a game because of how it looks? Stop being a tool. It makes you look stupid.
LOL..NO Im happy im saving the money for a different game. And even if the graphics were better I dont think I would buy a call of duty game because they have not changed. You say call of duty is a smooth game, but multiplayer usually has quite a few bugs and flaws.
CerebralAssassin, So you like being shot around corners because of your host having a shitty connection, or a lag switch? COD still does not have dedicated servers and that blows. It completely negates the 60fps that everyone loves to trumpet around. How many fps the game runs doesn't mean shit if the game consistently lags. How about dumping an entire clip into someones FACE and then get knifed and the knife wins, yeah the 60fps really helps you there. The graphics and the gameplay need to change. I am happy they took quickscoping out, and I am happy they made the kill streaks point streaks to encourage less camping. I would have actually bought the game had they made it have dedicated servers though.
@FrangMnTagM..(Agree) Oh my I havent played any call of duty since like January and you reminded me why. The game just infuriates me, the amount of madness that occurs is just annoying. I have captured some clips of gameplay which makes no sense, it used to be on my youtube channel but i think it got taken down because activision made youtube take it down. But some of my deaths made literally no sense, even when watching kill cams the order in which they happen did not match what I saw from my screen. I play games to relax and have fun, dont get me wrong getting immersed into a clutch situation is exciting but not when the game's connection to players negates every feature of the game.
Which Evolution ?!!
@Vic_Mackey The game takes place from 60's-80's... Rail systems were invented in the 80's by A.R.M.S, red dot sights were first developed in the mid 70's by aimpoint, BUIS (developed by Knights armaments co. if im not mistaken) in the 80's as well, with widespread use in late 80's/early 90's as part of the SOPMOD kit... Every single weapon in the game is a real gun some fo the names are different... Olympia=Rottweil Model 72, Stakeout=Ithica 37, Enfield=SA80, Commando=M4, Stoner63=M63, and the China lake is actually a weapon developed at the china lake weapons development facility because the M79 was proven unreliable, the only thing fake about it is that in real life a skilled operator could fire off the remaining 4 rounds before the first one hit the ground, black ops obviously limits you to prevent grenade spam. But yea, nice try seriously... /rolleyes
Ikr, they should have named it the graphical evolution if the same game engine
thats due to console restriction my friend. get used to it.
Funny, I see other titles showing more improvements. Battlefield 2 MC to BF3 was a big improvement. I think its more a lazy developer then console restriction.
If high graphic games such as BF3, Gears of War, Deus Ex, Arkham City, and many others play on consoles, so can CoD if it had high graphics. I agree with everyone else. It's lazy developers.
BF3 isn't running at 60fps on consoles, none of those games are running at 60fps on consoles and they can't. Even online CoD is still able to pull 60fps even though yes you get lag. I can still tell a big difference in frames from BF3 or Halo: Reach online and switching over to Black Ops and playing that online. It has much faster pace to it.
They all look the same. Except for the last 2 actually.. Definitely a noticable improvement there though it may be just brighter colors.
The game itself has hardly changed either. http://i.imgur.com/sTd4C.jp...
I can honestly see a change between MW3 and BO2, BO2 looks much better in my eyes. Meh, this site hates CoD, I'll just get used to it.
and yet.. the same crappy engine. There isn't any graphical improvement at all tbh, just mere little tweaks here & there xD e.g. removing graphical effects & reducing texture detail to add in more eye-candy effects like lens flare in BO2, nothing more.
Thing is, it is the same engine, but heavily modified. They've done what they can to maximize it in Black Ops 2, but it is outdated. That's where the yearly releases come in, which are why the engine stays the same. This is probably the last year they can get by on this.
Hasn't really changed much at all since 2007.
Nothin to see here people move along please...
Always the same old tired jokes from the same old tired jerks. If you don't like the games move on and stop trying to spoil the fun for those that do.
I for one have only owned CoD 4, but I'd like to try out Black Ops, I.vn heard good things.
well you have understand that some people like me are bitter because it used be one of my favourite franchises during the cod4 days, now the series has been run into the ground and it's unfortunate that i have absolutely no hype. it's like seeing one of your best friends give in to drug addiction. I have only owned cod4 as well but i've borrowed and played more than enough of all the other games to have the right to display my dissappoinment. In fact i was among the first to introduce cod4 to my friends when they didn't even give a shit about the franchise. Now i see those same friends being sheeps, buying the game every year, defending it when they have no idea what they're talking about. I don't wanna degrade the game because it'll still be good, but f*** activision.
How can you sit there and compare the franchise to a friend succumbing to drugs and a couple sentences later say your not trying to degrade the game and it will be good? You sound like an idiot. What exactly is your problem with this franchise anyway?
@CerebralAssassin How can i not. First of all, I was talking about how i felt when I lost hype for the favourite franchise, it's a comparison of my feeling towards it, in terms of sympathy and hope that one day it amazes me as much as cod4 did. I was referring to the franchise as whole, the way activision split it into two so they can force out yearly releases. And i said as a stand alone game, black ops 2 will be good. No where in my comment did i call the game shit, that would be degrading it. And that's exactly what my problem is with the franchise. Their marketing is so transparent to people like me, yet it works on little kids and casual gamers. For the hardcore fans i have no problem because they know why they're buying it and they'll admit if they're dissappointed, which i don't really care about. What bothers me is when my little 12 year old cousin cries to his parents to let him preorder the game every year, just because his friends do it. I try introducing him to other games but COD is all he plays 24/7. He even hates on it when he wants but calls is the best game ever. Now before you go crazy on me, I realize he's a kid and I only used this example to point out the demographic activision targets to get them money, and every year they cash in. What this does is limits the developing time so the developers can barely make improvements, hence the recycled graphics. So the game will be good, but the franchise is in the shithole.
Well said. The series, from IW, can be so much more but Activision is holding it back for easy profit.
Has one of the best engines going, how many other fps games run at a silky smooth 60 fps, the game is getting boring now but the engine is good at what It does
Search up "Console games that run at 60 fps". You'd be surprised. An example can be Batman Markham Asylum, looks much better and runs at 60 fps.
Batman Arkham Asylum runs at 30 fps, don't make things up. I even searched what you mentioned and it didn't appear in any of the pages.
@AIndoria Norrison said he looked up batman at 60fps not console games and that list doesn't include it. Secondly, and this is a question- that list on the first page alone says bioshock and crysis 2 are 60fps on console. Is that true or has that list now come into question?
The game runs at sub-hd resolutions thats the reason they can get almost 60fps!Even so this game dont run at smooth 60fps!
It's running that fast because there is almost nothing to the graphics...
Call Of Duty: A Graphical Evolution 2005-2012" Evolution? this guy never hear the name "Darwin", right?
Definately not a huge change from cod4
I'm sure if the old IW team were still around, they'd change it up quite a bit. I miss them. :( In those pics, MW 3 actually looks worse than MW 2. :/
Would they really??? I don't think Activision would have allowed them to make a new engine and probably wouldn't have funded it.
I don't know about that, but I'd rather have the influence and talent of the team who originally created and successfully modernized the franchise rather than the current IW.
I agree aviator. I still play COD4 on the PC. I can't play MW3 at all. It is by far the worst entry in the series. I hated nearly everything about MW2, and then they take everything I hated about MW2, and amplified it in MW3. IW is nothing like it used to be.
It would be down to IW, not Activision. Activision will pay them an advance, and IW will make the game. What or how they decide to do that is up to them. Activision may give them certain deliverables but ultimately, it is IW's call on the engine.
I remember going to gamestop and playing COD 2 and i was like wow this is HD!? i was amazed
Cod 2-3: no improvement Cod 3-4: Big improvement Cod 4-5: Slight improvement Cod 5-mw2: Big improvement Cod mw2-bo: small improvement Cod b0-mw3: small-medium improvement Cod mw3-bo2: small-medium improvement?
MW2 look better than MW3 and BO
Same crap and gun sounds is horribly horrified
Yes,old CoD medicore its true. But MW-1-2-3 cool and Black Ops 2 little better. And haters!MW3 screens not AAA quality!No authentic! MW series and BO2 crap graphics?Absolutely No. -Only BF fanboy and haters say this- Go play guys Resident Evil 6.
There are many games out there that don't improve over the years or have small improvements. One game that comes to mind is Assassins Creed because I see small improvements and barely any noticeable jump in graphics. What I dislike is the bandwagon hate on CoD because it's not the worst game. It has its downsides but all in all, CoD is fun and that's why people like it. I barely play CoD anymore because I got bored of it. Reviewers give the game a high score is because the game itself is good and they don't give it a bad score because they rage at the multi player. The multi player experience is ultimately forged by the community.
I think people don't like COD as it dose not offer anything different each game. AC adds new ideas to the game COD games don't. They also add map packs to COD that were in the last game and sell them to the users. The biggest problem I find with COD is the MP is full of screaming kids. I know you can turn them off but just puts me off the game. Plus of you look at games like BF3 Halo 4 ect they are all improved over the other where COD games are not its the same menu system same text ect each game. For me I think AV would be better making each game a Download only game that gives you extra map packs and forget the SP side as I don't know anyone that plays it. I have no problem with the game as I under stand people love it but for me I want to see something new and its like the Iphone of the gaming world. Little updates each year and the masses flock to it.
So it went from Green to Green with abit of colours here and there :D TBH its on the same engine and COD2 looked pretty decent went it came out, you can't really expect major changes to a game engine every year.. If you look at COD2 and BO2 then you will see a major difference, looks like so much crap is going on in the background.
looks the same :(
If someone told me all those screens were from the one game and I had never played COD, I would totally believe them.