Top
530°

Modern Warfare 3 Looks Disappointing on Maxed Out PC Settings

With Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 now launched worldwide, its PC version has finally made its way into gamers’ possession; the shooter’s PC version wasn’t showcased much during preview and press events.

Read Full Story >>
gamersmint.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Shanks2170d ago ShowReplies(1)
badz1492170d ago

anyone expecting mind blowing graphic from a CoD title these days?

Autodidactdystopia2170d ago

But I like My games Covered In a inch thick layer of Grease.

dillydadally2169d ago

Your guys bias and hatred for the series make you say such ridiculous things. It's so much improved from MW1. Have you even played it? I've played MW3 and it looks incredible in action. On PC, it isn't BF3 for sure, but MW is a console focused series, and is still no slouch on PC.

I dare you to name 5 xbox titles that are as graphically impressive as MW3. I'll bet you can't. (I'll give you a hint. BF3 isn't one of them. BF3 on consoles was hugely disappointing graphically after those amazing promotional videos)

awi59512169d ago

@dillydadally

UHHH call of duty started on PC first Man the original one never came to console.

badz1492169d ago

"It's so much improved from MW1"

you mean THAT game from 2007? hello, this is already Nov 2011! and by "improved" you mean DX11 kinda improved or just the same stuff from 2007?

Urbz78702169d ago

@ dillydadally LOL MW3 graphics better then BF3? My older brother 2yr old son drawing looks better then MW3.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2169d ago
cannon88002170d ago

Their potato engine that's powering this game is like nine years old or something. They could easily invest in a new engine. Heck they could freaking but the unreal engine and use that if they wanted. Lazy buttholes.

Heartnet2170d ago

Yeh but they change parts of the engine over the years lol.. if u compared this engine to the one they used at the beginning their will be alot of difference...

and the UNreal Engine is just as old -_- and then they would have to pay royalties to epic so it makes alot of sense to use the one there familiar with :) makes development time alot quicker and easier if ur familiar with the tools :)

dillydadally2169d ago

These comments are so stupid. Have you played it? I've played both BF3 and MW3 on xbox and MW3 looks better (unbiased opinion). Calling it a Potato engine is either insane or ignorant. Not to mention it runs so much smoother and has so fewer graphical glitches than BF3. I would be disappointed if MW3 was on the BF3 engine.

I've currently played the first 3 levels on MW3 and it looks mind blowing, especially in action with all the particle effects and everything going on.

On PC, yes, BF3 is unbeatable graphically - you'd be just as ignorant or insane to say MW3 touches BF3 graphically on PC. But I'd hardly call MW3 disappointing on PC seeing as how on the ages old XBOX it looks incredible! This is blind fanboyism at its worst. The MW3 engine is vastly improved from MW1 and unless you're unbiased, I can't think of many games that compare graphically on consoles (at least on xbox).

Iroquois_Pliskin2169d ago (Edited 2169d ago )

@dailydadally

your comment is so retarded that i dont even know what to call you a dumbass for

ATi_Elite2170d ago

they use the same cheap engine so they can crank out COD faster than McDonalds can crank out burgers but it's sad that Activision has made billions off of this game and can buy the CryEngine 3 and use it if they wanted to but they choose to be CHEAP.

I don't think skipping a year to make a really graphical and kick but COD would hurt if anything it would boost sales.

Heartnet2170d ago

Cheap? Activision have probz spent millions creating the CoD engine and u want them to throw that all away and then pay Crytek so they could use their engine? get real lol

and a realistic looking CoD wouldnt be CoD and risks losing a chunk of its audience because of that...

STONEY42169d ago

The COD engine is a modified Quake engine made by iD. Millions spent creating engine my ass.

dillydadally2169d ago

You obviously have no idea what goes into programming and altering an engine. First off, it cost money originally to license the engine. Second, it is so drastically altered now by years and years of development that it without a doubt has cost them millions. You're stupid if you think this is anything similar to the old quake engine still. And the only engine I can think of that can run at 60 fps and look this good is Rage.

bviperz2169d ago

The multiplayer graphics are horrendous. Someone said they stretched low resolution textures to fit higher resolution monitors. I use a 30 inch and I am highly disappointed. I think they sacrificed too much for solid frame rates and screwed PC gamers over.

AAACE52169d ago

I don't know... my Tv said the game was running at 1080p.

hadriker2169d ago

I don't really see how thats possible, considering both console only support 720p

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2169d ago
JebusF2170d ago

Depends really, what is more important, high fidelity visuals, or 60fps?

LightofDarkness2170d ago

PCs can do much higher fidelity with 1080p/60FPS and 4XAA. BF3, for example, will do this on my computer on ultra settings (depending on the map), as do many other games.

This still looks like a 2006/2007 game. Not that anyone expected any differently, really, only a fool would think that they'd put some actual effort into a COD game, nevermind the PC version of a COD game.

Heartnet2170d ago

Yeh but they have to make it look good on all consoles.. and not everyone wants to put in, what im going to call mandatory, a 1.6gb install just to make it look slightly decent...

and BF3 looks like shit without that texture pack on console..

TLG19912169d ago

@HEARTNET

yeah battlefield 3 looks bad without the pack compared to the pc version and what even worse is MW3 looks even worse than BF3 without the texture pack!

the thing is if people thought hmmm wait if i skip this game this once activision will see a massive decline in sale and realise its time to update there engines and designs. but they see it as they are still making billions from this franchise as it is so why bother spending money well its still making the best profit in the video game indsutry.

JsonHenry2170d ago

LOL! High fidelity or 60fps? how about 80+FPS running across 3 monitors?

Nitrowolf22170d ago (Edited 2170d ago )

"high fidelity visuals, or 60fps?"

PC can do both and Beyond (not trying to start anything there). Your comment is pointless and just plain stupid

capcock2170d ago (Edited 2170d ago )

ummm this is on PC not console. I'm pretty sure that an average gaming PC from 2008 can max out this game @60fps since it isn't demanding at all.

papashango2170d ago (Edited 2170d ago )

Fps its not a factor comparing titles. Those that want 60 or higher fps, will get 60 or higher. I play bf3 on high at 75ish fps

cannon88002170d ago (Edited 2170d ago )

It doesn't matter how high your controller sensitivity is, a mouse will always be faster and more accurate. Even if cod runs at 60 fps, a 30 fps pc running cod will still be better.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2169d ago
Majin-vegeta2170d ago

You can polish a turd but it's still a turd.

NYC_Gamer2170d ago

never expected this game to have beautiful visuals with that old engine

psb2170d ago

@Jebus: Both can be achieved, at least you should try to improve. Activision's offering the same package in a brand new wrapping for a few years now. Appalling how people still fall for this crap.

smh.