Since the debut trailer for Black Ops 2 went online, everyone has been complaining about how outdated the visuals are in the trailer for Black Ops 2. Gamers who are complaining about Black Ops 2's visuals need to stop doing that.
is it invalid that a a game looks like crap when it comes to the graphics?
The graphics don't look like "crap". They just don't look top-of-the-line amazing. I have my PC hooked up to my TV. When I switch between a shooter on PC (say, Metro or Crysis or even Far Cry 2) and then sit down to play Resistance 3 or Killzone, does it look like "crap" in COMPARISON? Heck yeah. But does it look like crap? No, it still looks very good.
Not really a good example using Killzone 2 as a crappy looking game in comparison to metro or far cry 2 for the pc, since Killzone 2 still looks great to me even after seeing those other games on high end pc's... Does Black ops 2 look like crap in comparison to killzone 2 or Resistance 3, Hell yeah! (notice I used console to console vs.;-)) But on topic, the author is right! I'm sure the hardcore(including casual) COD fans ain't the ones complaining about the graphics, otherwise they would have stopped buying since MW2... It's probably random gamers that don't like COD to begin with..
For a game that's all about spectacle and wowing the audience michael bay style, this is a pretty stupid argument by vgarabia.
It's not invalid because it's closely related to the central issue : Recycling/refurbishing an old engine and ideas over and over and over and over and over.
It's invalid you are asking for the impossible. Current-Gen consoles are at their limit. The graphics can't go much higher without making sacrifices. Deal with it.
yeah sure vgarabia.com no one has the right to complain about outdated gfx in COD they can't take an advantage of ps3 or even the xbox360 let alone pc all their games look like a 2007 games and you want gamers to not complain about that ???!!!
I agree if you don't like the graphics or the game why look at it. It's simple Don't buy iy
consoles can run games at 60 fps and still look amazing. look at wipeout.ok well thats the only 1 i can think off lol. but still id rather have a better visuall world that puts u in the game alot more than a shity graphicall game with super smooth frame rate. frame rate is over rated. 30 is fine to the eye.
Unfortunately, 30 FPS is still not a standard. A lot of games dip down to the 20-25 FPS range, which IS noticable. And resolution matters, too. Playing a shooter at full HD and then switching to a sub-HD console shooter is VERY noticable.
Ratchet and Clank games. They look stunning and run at 60fps. Although I do agree, I'd rather have a steady 30fps and better graphics. All games will probably be 60fps next-gen with amazing graphics.
The arena battles alone get insane, with the number of enemies and weapon effects happening at one time. Not sure if it was tools or a crack in time. I would like to see any cod try to pull off anywhere near the action and effects of a r and c arena battle.
Wipeout isn't exactly comparable to an FPS game. There are some games that are played for their visuals and immersion, others are played for their competitive nature. (To be fair, CoD has lost its competitive nature quite a long time ago, but people still find it competitive) If you'd rather have better visuals at 30fps, then that's fine, there's plenty of games out there that do just that... but isn't it also good that people who like 60fps have a game to play too? Also, the reason 60fps is better than 30fps is due to the tighter controls that the higher frame-rate allows. If there's a fast-paced game (anything from a shooter to a fighter to a racer) you need 60fps. There's plenty of complaints that can be leveled against CoD, but as far as the visuals are concerned, they're not that bad considering the frame-rate and action that take place. Could it be better? Sure, but its hard to criticize them when no-one else has made a comparable engine. (I'd love to see a proper FPS multiplayer game using idTech5)
You can't run a game at 60 fps and have the same level of players on screen during multiplayer with current consoles. This is why BF3 had to scale back on the player count and fps. But the graphics were top notch. When dealing with today consoles you can't have it both ways. Something has to take a hit.
After viewing the preview video of BO2 looks to be a bit more colorful,but the game play seems to be for the most the part the same old CoD style of game play. Perhaps the series should take a year or so off between new releases. Although having 2 different studios working on CoD games I can see why there is a new release every year. What it all boils down is greed and making money! LOTS of MONEY!
Just goes to show that activision cares about nothing but your wallet$. But fuck them, because I will rent this game!
I don't get how it is "invalid" to complain about the graphics. They can easily make it run good with better graphics.
The biggest problem I have with this is that the devs have their priorities all wrong. I don't care if the game is running 30fps or 60fps if i'm lagging like crazy. I can jump in a game of BO and get a perfect connection until one of my friends join, and in MW3 my connection is crap unless I'm playin with him, and its the opposite for another friend. It's not even my internet; its their networking. 90% of the time people play COD its MP. There should be better networking especially for a MP oriented community.
Complaining about the graphics is invalid...how? There's no excuse for the crappy graphics that Black Ops had and Black Ops 2 will have, when the Modern Warfare graphics are improving gradually with each game.
Why should treyarch care? They know regardless of how poor or average the graphics look they are going to sell millions of copies day one. I just find it funny how sooo many people say it looks the same and they're not going to buy the next one, but every cod game sells more and more. The same will happen here. As bad as cod is you should respect just how much the franchise sells.
Defending the Undefendable
What a horrible argument: that you can either have better graphics, or 60fps. That's on an either/or when the devs have no desire to MAKE better graphics at 60fps. There is ZERO excuse for using the same engine for so many games in a row. Yet people still excuse it. And they'll somehow be excusing it next generation, too. And I'll be withholding my money from a purchase all the while.
Zero excuse? How about money? They are saving tons of money by using the same engine. The same can be said with any game that uses the Unreal, Frostbite, etc engine. you may not like it, and demand they use a new engine. But Activision is looking at profit and return. Not what fanboys say on the net. And with today consoles you can't have 60 fps and the high level of players the CoD boast. Again BF3 already proved this.
@maniac Bullshit money is not a excuse not after counting the profit from 10-25 million copies sold per interation. Greed i'll accept, the money isn't going into the mp because it still has issues. "And with today consoles you can't have 60 fps and the high level of players the CoD boast. " What 16-18 players wow that is incredible, yeah even mags training mode(simple tdm) does that or higher. And they aren't tiny maps either. Stop using the "limited console hardware" as a excuse for cod's dated engine and graphics, rage proved that argument is flat out bullshit. This is not a indie dev or niche franchise, there is no excuse why it is so badly subpar compared to it's competitors. But why care about making a quality product when, the idiot masses will happily lap it up even if it looks and plays like shit.
@madjedi "What 16-18 players wow that is incredible, yeah even mags training mode(simple tdm) does that or higher. And they aren't tiny maps either." And the graphics in MAG are even worse than CoD's. That was not a good example to bring up. Have you even played Rage? rage had a very limited multiplayer, they didn't even have a standard deathmatch mode. You are seriously kidding yourself. everything example you mentioned is why the console are limited. You just proved my point with your insane comments. Thanks
The engine is actually improved in each iteration, while still not compromising and going 30fps. And there is just about one FPS that actually supports 60fps and looks better: RAGE, which was in development for over half a decade. Other developers don't even try to aim this high.
Rage didn't have even half the multiplayer options CoD has and it doesn't even support more than 4(?) players in multiplayer. Again this is because of the limitations of the consoles. Maniac is right!
Who cares about the graphics as long as the game is still fun to play it's fine people who buy games just for the graphics are stupid.
People who think gamers buy games, just for the graphics are throughly stupid.
LAWL. Graphics or not, it doesn't matter this game could look like a bunch of gigantic turd running about on screen. It will still be a best seller and exceed that of the one before it. True story. Either way I have plenty of games that graphically look bad but play amazing and I have fun with. The one thing I can say about Treyarch that I can't say about IW is that they do change things. Look at the last 2 games..Substantially different from one another. Black Ops 2 is proving it will be vastly different than Black Ops (obviously). SO there is no arguing that. You cant say its the same recycled crap as before ...when its entirely different. Sure it may FEEL the same and in areas look the same, but Black Ops 2 is flexing a muscle that IW has been terrified to try, and that's to move forward with their series and not stay in the same loop.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.