Top
940°

Dissapointing Modern Warfare 2 graphics

PS3-Sense writes: "Earlier today a second teaser of Modern Warfare 2 was released with a few cinematic videos of the game. At first it all seemed nice, but upon a closer look we noticed something. The textures of the snow are nowhere to be found and all the other graphics aren't all that exciting either. It's not just us, the entire NeoGAF forums are filled with posts coming from people saying the exact same thing."

Read Full Story >>
translate.google.com
Oculus Quest Giveaway! Click Here to Enter
The story is too old to be commented.
ToastyMcNibbles3812d ago (Edited 3812d ago )

im looking forward to modern warfare 2 just as much as the next guy but i do somewhat agree that it doesnt look that great graphically...i understand its still way too early but judging from the video so far its not that impressive...still cant wait regardless believe you me...i know the graphics will improve but just judging from the video its understandable for some people to think it doesnt look all that impressive...lol haha wait wasnt it Mart that said modern warfare 2 was going to surpass killzone 2 in visuals and show the 360's power?

JhawkFootball063812d ago

Wow guys, its just a teaser..

3812d ago
ShabzS3812d ago

dirty beaver ... open zone ------>

Perjoss3812d ago

when you play CoD4 it does not take an idiot to see that they spent more time actually making a GOOD game rather than faff around with the game engine. Some companies like Valve (thank god) think its more important for a game to be fun and varied with interesting characters and good event scripting rather than a good looking linear point and click bore fest.

Trebius3812d ago

No one is saying the game will suck cause the graphics are bad...the fact that it doesnt look so great kind of makes some questions surface...

Like, why does the game seem too look the same if not worse than the last? Because they had to make compromises? Or because they rushed it? Who knows?

All we know is the game isn't really up to par visually (the teaser) and people are just wondering why. The game will undoubtedly be amazing, Itd just be nice to know why the graphics were compromised.

Alcohog3812d ago

The COD series was never a groundbreaker in terms of graphics, why would you expect it to be now?

Halochampian3812d ago

Not being able to get it's full potential; same could be said for it being on either ps3 or 360.

I hope I dont need to clarify what I mean. I assume people can understand the point I am making.

Oh and the open zone is that way ---->

Difference of opinion is one thing but there is no room for illogical thoughts and name calling of "turd sixty"

I_am_rushin3812d ago

This Fall/Winter is going to be all M.A.G. for me.

SL1M DADDY3812d ago

If the game makes any leaps over the last Modern Warfare. All I care about is getting to play on some new maps and play more Modern Warfare. The game is just so good that graphics is not as important.

Kleptic3812d ago

MAG looked extremely early, but didn't look a whole lot different than this from what I could tell...

its very clear MAG has a long way to go before release though in terms of polish...so maybe MW2 does too...IW is definitely a great developer, so i'm sure they'll be able to get the game at least competitive with other modern shooters right now...CoD 4 still looks 'good'...nothing overly special, but solid throughout...but the fact that its more or less going to be the same engine as before...we all pretty much know what to expect...

but to anyone that said MW 2 was supposed to surpass Killzone 2 visually...now would be a good time to contact your attorney...

solidt123812d ago

From the video I saw it looked as good as COD 4. I wasn't expecting it to look better than Killzone 2. Killzone 2 is a PS3 Exclusive so I expect it to look better than a Multi-Platform Title. Either way I can't wait to get on one of those snow mobiles

iHEARTboobs3812d ago (Edited 3812d ago )

Everyone here cares about graphics. Whether it be a little or a lot, everyone cares. But I don't think everyone here is saying that graphics > gameplay. People are just disappointed that it doesn't seem to be a great graphical jump over the last one. It's too early to really tell how it'll end up looking. I would be happy with MW 1.5 graphics as long as the gameplay was a good improvement over the last MW.

Labwarriorbot3812d ago (Edited 3812d ago )

People should get a sense of reality and realism. Graphics like KZ2 is almost impossible to do on even a super rig computer.

And yet somehow these delusional fanboys think a multi platform game is going to achieve that level in the same year on less powerful hardware?

L O L

Pulease. Crysis is run at gigs thats costs 3000 dollars and it cant even do HALF the things you see in Killzone 2.

Thats right, graphics is not just the shiny.

But somehow Killzone 2 like graphics is going to appear again soon, right? Not unless its from Sony in house developer, little kid.

s8anicslayer3812d ago

What matters people is gameplay, sure graphics are a bonus but graphics wont keep pulling you to play that game it's the content of gameplay

darthv723812d ago

Why does every game sequel released within the same generation of the previous installment need to be graphically superior? I can understand subtle touch ups here and there to accommodate for the gained experience from having finished the previous one but come one. We do not need a full generation upgrade (quality wise) to make a great sequel.

A game sequel by definition is merely to continue the gameplay and story and other key factors that made the first a great game. Graphics are but one factor but not the sole one to define it. The firt MW is great in its execution of playability over graphics. TBH...when you are moving about looking for your opponent you should be more pressed about not getting your head shot off than looking at the textures that make up the grass.

People need to get off the image is everything train because there is more to be had from enjoying the gameplay and replay value of a game than its visuals.

Jaces3812d ago

Tell that to the 1+ million people who bought KZ2.

cmrbe3812d ago

Expected MW2 to look much better than MW1 Lets not forget that MW2 is using the same engine as MW1 so people will only see some improvements but not that much. Also considering that its a Multi-plat, it will be even harder for IW to improve the visuals much more.

Its true that gameplay is more important than Graphics. however grepahics is the first thing you see and in this case people are looking at graphics first and are not too impressed.

What will most likely happen is that MW2 will be more of the same with just minor improvements and gamers and critics alike will praise it to the high heaves. It doesn't have to revolutinise FPS. Only PS3 exclusive are suppose to do that.

From this early vid. MW2 has alot of catching up t do to be on the same level as Kz2 visually. I doubt they will ever be able to. KZ2 afterall is a PS3 exclusive.

AKNAA3812d ago (Edited 3812d ago )

"The COD series was never a groundbreaker in terms of graphics, why would you expect it to be now? "

I don't know about you, but when COD4 first came out I thought the graphics were freakin' awesome!
Now, it looks outdated ever since Gears of war 2 and killzone 2 came out.

@darthv72- "Why does every game sequel released within the same generation of the previous installment need to be graphically superior?"

Blame it on Hiiii-Hi-Hi-Hi-Hi-Hiii-Hi-defi ninition.

3812d ago
IrishRepublicanArmy3812d ago

would blow killzone to away. now maybe it will be better i certainly hope so but it will find it hard to
blow it away when its already behind in terms of graphics!!

Halochampian3812d ago

the first COD still trumps Killzone 2 and most if not all FPS's.

Why does it have to be ahead in graphics to be the better game? there is no reason.

Infinity Ward are AMAZING developers. I do feel it may be the best FPS this year.

Killzone 2 was good, well, the multiplayer aspect of it was.

Aquanox3812d ago

Another Sony boy looking for an excusve to talk about KZ2, PS3 graphics and't nonsense like that.

It awes me people jump into conclusions without even watching a good quality video.

IrishRepublicanArmy3812d ago

and the single player was excellent. itsa online also has none of the laggy problems cod4 has.

Sarcasm3812d ago

I honestly wonder what kind of additions and changes will be for the multiplayer?

I can still hop on to COD4 after all this time and still have a blast.

Rapture3333812d ago

You've got to be kidding me, are people this ignorant to not realize that this is a teaser trailer?! Not made for graphics YET.

3812d ago
Jaces3812d ago

....and yet Uncharted is yet to be surpassed by any game out there, which is pretty sad seeing how long it's been out.

God the PS3 is so complicated and slow, ugh.

/sarcasm

Raptors3812d ago

lol you guys go ahead and gripe about its graphics. Im gonna thoroughly enjoy MW2.

kwicksandz3812d ago

want to know what people love about COD more than its GFX?

60fps - locked. HALO 3 AND KZ2 are both 30fps and feel slow in comparison. Id rather 60fps and acceptable visuals than 30 with the sliders turned up in any FPS.

GCNSeanFoster3812d ago

A 15 second clip and people are already bashing this game. LOL... Are you kidding me? I swear some people need to step away from the computer/TV and get out more and get a life. Just wait until E3 to see the game in action before passing judgment.

SinnedNogara3812d ago

Just remember the game isn't done.

And that means they can add a SMAW, a MGL and a FN SCAR before launch!!

Arnon3811d ago (Edited 3811d ago )

Rofl.. I don't think you even realize what you just said.

If you are somehow implying that a $3000 Super Computer can not make Crysis look as good as Killzone 2, then you are sadly mistaken. In fact, Crysis DOES look better. What YOU are referring to.. is the art direction. Which I can agree with. Killzone 2's art direction is a lot better than Crysis', since Crysis goes for pure realism.

The pretty graphics you're experiencing are not because the PS3 has some massive CPU in it.

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Sorry.. but imo, the CryEngine completely dominates the Guerrilla Engine.

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

(I didn't post it for comparisons... I did it just to show off the engine. Since it's the longest version I could find.

TheAntiFanboy3811d ago (Edited 3811d ago )

Obviously you know nothing about the difference between developing a game on a console platform. On a console, the game is OPTIMIZED to run on its hardware since it will ALWAYS, GUARANTEED, be the same hardware no matter what. When developing for PC, you not only have to deal with running it alongside a dozen or more processes in the background (including, most importantly, an entire operating system), but also that you have to develop for a wide variety of PC's of varying specs.

Fanboy moron. Just quit the internet and stop using the computers that you know nothing about.

morganfell3811d ago

People did expect MW2 to look a great deal better. All we read around the KZ2 launch was how MW2 would become the graphics crown, blah blah blah. Sheer comedy.

Gameplay matters most but in some cases graphics are gameplay. In addition they bear directly on immersion. There are a certain brand of Sony haters that like to pretend graphics - something concerning which they bragged nonstop until they were trounced relentless PS3 titles - now no longer matter. Guess what? Some of us have a memory.

At it's best COD4 is a relatively shallow experience with the highlight of the game being the incident where you die. Other than that the multiplayer merely requires twitch reaction with little to no tactics involved. Run and gun, shoot die once in a while, rinse and repeat. It is brain candy with a high decay factor where tactics and teamwork only exist as a fairy tale.

TheAntiFanboy3811d ago (Edited 3811d ago )

Actually, I've been a part of the gameplay > graphics movement ever since I got into gaming about 10 years ago. I preferred the N64 over the PS1 then, the GBA over the PSP as well, and the PS2 over the Xbox. This is something I've been a part of for years. So I have every right to claim gameplay > graphics. Mind you, since I find the 360 and PS3 to be on virtually equal footing, I haven't taken sides in this console war... I think. The Wii isn't a console, right? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought it was some goofy exercise machine...

All of these great platforms and the experiences they have shown us have proven on multiple counts that the gameplay is far more important than some silly bloom effects and soft shadows. Of course, graphics do matter in the immersion department, but some games can be plenty immersive without having ground-breaking graphics or a great presentation. Fallout 3 looked terrible, yet I felt so truly part of the world because of how fleshed out the characters and the culture was, and how much it changed depending on your choices. Such a dead landscape felt magnificently alive. And all of this despite the meh textures, the so-so effects, the three or four voice actors that compromised the 50+ NPC's in the game, and the animations that made me want to gouge my eyes out.

Not to mention, some games try too hard to be immersive and end up being terrible. Look at Assassin's Creed. You could tell they put a LOT of thought into that game's remarkably solid presentation, and I don't just mean the graphics and effects. I have never seen a game present itself so well as Assassin's Creed; the camera angles, filmography techniques, scene transitions, loading screens, effects... everything. And yet the gameplay, while great on paper, ended up being utterly repetitive and bland, wrecking any of its potential lasting value.

Graphics aren't everything. They're part of the equation, most certainly. But they're not everything. I think this generation has relied far too heavily on graphics in order to justify their purchases of game systems. Whatever happened to beauty not simply being skin-deep?

Though I suppose that in the end it all really just depends on personal choice. Arguing the issue from an academic standpoint may be worthwhile, but everyone has their own preferences, and thus arguing it with quality and enjoyment in mind is moot.

Graphics whores will indulge in their Killzone 2's and Gears of Wars, lorefags will immerse themselves in their Warcrafts and Fallouts, jocks will stick to their Maddens and Fifa's. And you can never change that. That's the way the cookie crumbles.

(Yes, the above were crass generalizations, but I'm trying to make a point here! Leave me alone.)

morganfell3811d ago

Assassin's Creed is a wholly different animal from COD4. One thing is key, AC had more than graphics on which to hang it's hat. COD4 does not. That said the restoration of weapons throughout AC was not enough to keep it fresh as every mission played out in a similar fashion. And as much as a wraith as these Assassins were supposed to have been, every mission became a quite public brawl. Perhaps the bar should have been raised that anyone able to complete every single mission objective would have had a shot at a truly secretive kill.

COD4 has some good mechanics but over all the design degrades the game into a relatively simple shooter. In the end graphics were one of the few things the game has going for it.

bullswar3811d ago

MW2 Graphics sucks ... Come on IW, what uve been doing for last 2 years. I wont let u thug my money. Better Graphics God Damned ... I wish I could write in your language to make u understand.

I need graphics comparitive to Killzone 2.

I cant spend $60.00 on slightly improved or few added perks just release new maps as DLC.

OR DO SOMETHING SO THIS GAME BECOMES GRAPHICS MASTERPIECE. KILLZONE 2 DEVELOPERS DID IT ... SO YOU CAN.

TheAntiFanboy3811d ago (Edited 3811d ago )

Yes indeed it is a wholly different animal, and you're right, the game did have a lot of flaws, but either you misinterpreted my statement or you're intentionally walking off the beaten path. My point in bringing Assassin's Creed wasn't to begin a discussion about what ultimately led to the game's overall lack of quality, my point was to use it as an example as a game where the developers put too much emphasis on the presentation, and not enough in the gameplay. Which then plays into my argument of, "gameplay > graphics".

Please read my statements in greater detail before responding.

Oh yeah, by the way, I actually thought CoD4's graphics were horrendous. It was too pixelated, the textures were blurry, the color palette encompassed maybe three colors, and the game was in desperate need of anti-aliasing. Despite all of this, I still enjoyed it. Probably because it ran silky smooth and didn't suffer from spontaneous bouts of slowdown. Whether the mechanics were of high quality or not is up to opinion, really.

In response to the following quote:
"COD4 has some good mechanics but over all the design degrades the game into a relatively simple shooter. In the end graphics were one of the few things the game has going for it."

That's pretty much all you can say about any shooter on the market at this point, be it Killzone 2, Gears of War, Call of Duty, whatever. The genre itself is becoming ridiculously stale, and yet it receives enormous focus just because of the pretty graphics.

Again, beauty isn't simply skin-deep.

DaTruth3811d ago (Edited 3811d ago )

Killzone 2 should not be a part of this conversation; a better comparison would be Uncharted. Being that both were released at the same time with their second iteration due for similar release dates. And what we have seen of Uncharted thus far has been mindblowing, to say the least.

It also fits good into the graphics vs gameplay argument because Uncharted has no sacrifices in both categories. They both use their original engine so it should not be difficult to show us some decent screenshots and videos, which Uncharted 2 has been doing for some time now, bigger and better with obvious improvement where none was necessary. Also a fully functional and graphically incredible beta is near.

So, given that MW2 has been unable to show decent footage as of yet, I would be concerned, but given IW's track record we could probably put those to rest.

And please save the complete changes in gameplay for new I.P.'s! If I wanted to play a completely different game I would buy a completely different game we don't need another R2(where people complain about aspects of the game, they make "Halo: fall of man" and people complain "it lost it's soul"), but minor upgrades are necessary to make it a updated sequel, cause there would be almost no point in buying a new one otherwise(think EA sports).

actas1233811d ago

I LOL everytime I see someone say KZ2 has better graphics than COD4. I really don't see what is the big deal with KZ2 raphics and why ppl are still hyping them even though they are not that great. Surfaces look washed out, limited colors and environments, and it is a recipe for a good headache. Even the sound effects are not as good as some ppl hype them. I mean I liked bad company's SE better. Seriously get over it ppl, KZ2 is not that good.

aksmashh3811d ago

But They Should Of Made It On The PS3 & Then Ported It Down
Because Its Seems That Its Not Going Get Anyway Near Killzone Graphically

Its Going To Sell, Just Look At How Many People Play The Average WAW
For Me Its Going To Be All Down To The Design Of The Multiplayer Maps & Perk System (Ranking Up).

But One Team In This Generation Which Can Pull It Off Is Infinity Ward
Imagine They Let Them Bulid Game Exclusively For The PS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

+ Show (38) more repliesLast reply 3811d ago
-YLoD-3812d ago (Edited 3812d ago )

No wonder this article doesnt make sense.

It was a trailer for crying out loud. I bet the textures and physics will be improved from the cod4 engine. The cod4 engine still looks good after 2 years

GAMEPLAY > GRAPHICS

360 man3812d ago

ps3 sense are idots.

they already know infinaty ward is going for 60fps smoothness over 30fps detail.

Alcohog3812d ago

Hearing you say that just makes me shudder with sadness at the loss of PC exclusivity for the COD series. Graphics haven't improved at all since COD2 with the exception of some effects. Such a shame.

Halochampian3812d ago

it's sad to see that so many people on hear care about

Graphics > gameplay

I guess you all are still playing Crysis?

evrfighter3812d ago

"I guess you all are still playing Crysis?"

I lol'd

Seriously there's a reason why counterstrike is still played by tens of thousands of people everyday

Halochampian3812d ago

yea.. exactly.

I would take gameplay over graphics any day.

CoxMulder3812d ago

I'll take BOTH thankyouverymuch...

Traveler3812d ago

Guys, I think most people would agree that gameplay trumps graphics. Nevertheless, the optimal situation is when you have great graphics and gameplay. Why do people always make it out to be an either-or proposition? Either a game has great graphics or it has great gameplay...what nonsense. I have played lots of a games that have both qualities in abundance.

I think you guys are reading into things incorrectly. When somebody expresses disappointment over the graphics in MW2 that doesn't mean that they don't think it is going to be a good game. You guys are just jumping to conclusions.

So far, I admit that the graphics don't look that impressive, but they aren't bad either. But I think we need to see more before we can say for sure. In any case, Infinity Ward can be trusted to make a quality shooter and I am looking forward to it.

Bathyj3812d ago

Just because people like graphics, doesn't mean they dont like gameplay.

Its not unreasonable to expect a small improvement in both from a sequel thats had 2 years to improve on the work done in the original.

TheAntiFanboy3811d ago (Edited 3811d ago )

Gameplay > graphics.

Pretty paintings are often very boring to look at.

Oh, and I for some reason am still the only one who felt both CoD4 and CoDWW were ugly, low-res, pixelated as hell, and in desperate need of anti-aliasing. No seriously, both games look terrible to me. Despite the fact that, you know, they're both really f*ckin' fun.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 3811d ago
ShabzS3812d ago (Edited 3812d ago )

microscope any image thats what you get for snooping... its still a video game ... watching it in motion it looks beautiful ... and it probably still an early build

Parapraxis3812d ago

Agreed, just like Killzone 2 right?
Although most close inspection shots for KZ2 look fantastic as well.

ShabzS3812d ago

killzone 2 is fully developed and on shelves since february... this is a 18 second teaser of a game releasing in november?... my god !!

Parapraxis3812d ago

My point is, people did the same with both games with the first in-game trailers (most games really).
I'm sure MW2 will look fantastic when it's released.

free2game3653812d ago

Why would they promote the game with an early build? It's just a 60fps console game, you can't really expect much out of it visually.

jkoz3812d ago

Uh, why don't we try the simple fact that THE GAME ISN'T OUT YET?! It still has 6-7 months of development and the core focus during that time is refining the game's MECHANICS. Graphics are important and take time too, but they're going to take last priority always. Unfinished products don't need to be held to the brutal graphical expectations of today.. when the game comes out in November everyone will look back on this and just be like, well that was stupid. Because it is. Anything for hits these days.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3812d ago
Nelson M3812d ago

Just not up to PS3 Exclusive Standards

chidori6663812d ago (Edited 3812d ago )

he... killzone 2 still the best grapcks at now.

edit: 1 disagree?? COOL! i hope bots stiil playng halo 3 in 640p only game i have in years...

Sanzee3812d ago (Edited 3812d ago )

For half of you, mama must have been hittin the bottle and smokin the crack pipe on a daily basis during the pregnancy.

You're making assumptions about MW2's graphics based on a short *PRE-first-look* TV-SPOT running only 10-seconds long, which in fact was only aired to announce (or tease) the REAL "first-look" trailer coming on May 24th? In other words, the teaser for the teaser. Judging the first-look video on May 24th would be disgraceful enough... but this? Good God, are there no true-gamers left?

ambientFLIER3812d ago

I think they're disagreeing with you because you're a douchebag in general, and not because of what you said in your comment.

outlawlife3812d ago (Edited 3812d ago )

amazing, the game hasn't even been shown beyond a few seconds of gameplay and some idiot is out to downplay it already

talk about hit phishing

60fps + unparalleled gameplay >>>>>>>&g t;>> frivolous eye candy

who cares if it doesn't look like killzone, a lot more people liked cod4 than killzone

Sony Rep3812d ago (Edited 3812d ago )

At least it looks better than Halo 3

that's not saying much thou

and where in the article did it mention Killzone?

Nathan1233812d ago

Seriously... The article doesn't even mention KZ2 anywhere. The 360 bots just require something remotely related to KZ2 to bash it up. Is it KZ2's fault that it's the best looking game out there?

If you expected COD:MW2 to have KZ2 like graphics then sorry the game will disappoint all. If it was a PS3 exclusive then it would have been a different case... But it isn't so deal with it.
COD4 was great due to it's online... Not graphics. Expect the same from COD:MW2.

Oh ya... @Outlawlife... I enjoyed KZ2 as much as COD4. I even thought the campaign was better than COD4. Just cause you don't like it doesn't mean the people who have bought it don't like it.

outlawlife3812d ago (Edited 3812d ago )

i was referring to comments above....read

generally cod4 also outscore kz2 on metacritic fyi

general appeal > most anyone's opinion including mine

as for the campaign i have yet to play any fps that has a mission cooler/better than guillie in the mist and the ensuing chase afterward

Nathan1233812d ago (Edited 3812d ago )

Ok.. so now bring along Metacritic scores. COD4 came out a long time before KZ2. At that time, the online was a revolution. I am sure KZ2 would have yielded similar results if the dates were swapped. Any way does it even matter. KZ2 scores 94 on metacritic and COD4 scored 96.... As if that 2 points difference would shake mountains. COD4 being multi-plat has sold nearly 12 million units... whereas KZ2 has just sold around 1.7 mil in 2 months.. Obviously mass appeal goes to COD4 (and obviously half of them being 360 fanbot bash KZ2...)

As far as I know, KZ2 was a perfect blend of graphics and gameplay. The 360 fanbots might disagree, but the game has raised the bar for future FPSes.... All FPS are going to be compared to COD4 and KZ2 (look... right now people are comparing KZ2 with COD:MW2... this itself shows that it's a successful FPS) deal with it. Just cause you don't own a PS3 and can't play KZ2, doesn't mean that the game sucks.

I reacted to your post mainly cause you pulled KZ2 without any need. Whenever the word 'graphics' pops up, people unnecessarily pull in KZ2 in the discussion. If people were expecting COD:MW2 to be as good looking as KZ2, then they forgot one main fact.... the game is multi-plat. Only PS3 can pull off another KZ2.

Hoggy19833812d ago

Massive overeaction. The guy simply drew reference to KZ2 because the article is about graphics and KZ2 is seen as a pinacle of this at present. He then makes a valid point that alot of people prefer COD4 to, the very good by all accounts AND GRAPHICALLY SUPERIOR, KZ2. Big deal. You obviously prefer KZ2, thats ok!

ape0073812d ago

it looks absolotely spine chilling and awe inspiring

No Way3812d ago (Edited 3812d ago )

And, no where did anything mention Halo 3, little buddy.
You're just adding to the "flame" by replying in such a way.

Besides, I'd rather take the fun of Halo 3 over the graphics of Killzone2 any day..
But, then again, I'm one of the weird gamers.. I prefer gameplay over graphics. :O

aaronisbla3812d ago

its as if its required to mention KZ2 with some of you guys, just let it go, we are focusing on MW2 here, not CoD4, not KZ2, and not metacritic.

Its like you have to find a reason to bring KZ2 down because it is indeed one of the most impressive looking titles to hit home consoles "bu..bu..but it has a lower metacritic score than CoD4"
But really, who gives a damn? its only by 3 points and who says metacritic is a good way of judging how most gamers think anyways? Plus the extra 3 points CoD4 got doesn't negate the fact that KZ2 is pretty damn good looking, and generally fun to play.

Anyways, its only a 17 second teaser, maybe it will look better but im not expecting it. As long as its just as fun as CoD4, i will buy it, but i wonder if it doesn't innovate in anyway will it get docked for points in some reviewer's eyes.

Traveler3812d ago (Edited 3812d ago )

Trying to back up your preference for COD4 by saying that more people play it so that means it is a better game is based on really pathetic reasoning.

For example, far more people have bought Wiis than any other console this generation, does that mean that it is somehow the best console? Absurd.

Face it guys, it comes down to a matter of preference. Which qualities does one prefer? Many of us love Killzone 2 and its particular mix of ingredients (although I love COD4 as well), while some people's taste is best satisfied by COD4.

Also, saying that you are somewhat disappointed by the graphics in MW2 does not in any way equate to "oh, this game is going to be no good". There is no contradiction in a fan saying that they were hoping for better