Modern Warfare 3
#626
Posted 15 November 2011 - 07:53
In terms of both games, I don't think its worth in comparing the 2 games. BF3 is more team oriented and u can't win with Rambo style heroics. You need a good team to win. In COD the individuality matters a lot. One star player can change the game. The 2 game play types have their own strengths and weaknesses in their own right IMO. If EA wants to compete with COD directly, they should concentrate more on MoH IMO.
#627
Posted 15 November 2011 - 13:13
#628
Posted 15 November 2011 - 13:39
Camille, on 15 November 2011 - 13:13, said:
Well, when the engine is a testament to the stagnation of video games ability to progress. It doesn't prevent the game from being fun, but it leaves a sore taste in the mouth.
Quote
Imagine a group of people who are all blind, deaf and slightly demented and suddenly someone in the crowd asks, "What are we to do?"... The only possible answer is, "Look for a cure". Until you are cured, there is nothing you can do.
And since you don't believe you are sick, there can be no cure.
- Vladimir Solovyov
#629
Posted 15 November 2011 - 14:10
Actually, the change of engine is part of a problem here. It seems to have been based on Treyarch's Black Ops engine rather than IW's MW2 engine and as such some people are suffering extreme lag and desync issues, even if the ping is not very bad. All hosts lag internally though.
The developers are obviously not IW anymore. They took quite a few thing from Treyarch and these things all make the game worse. Though the game is a great improvement in terms of gameplay and overall design compared to MW2, I have to admit it lacks a certain IW shine, especially the maps and some of the gameplay mechanics.
A game composed of CoD 4 mechanics and maps, MW2 maps and weapons, and MW3 hardpoints, perks, gametypes, customisation and graphics (yes, the models and environments still look noticeably more polished) would be completely ideal.
If only the game was moddable....
The brave hide behind technology. The stupid hide from it. The clever have technology, and hide it.
—The Book of Cataclysm
#630
Posted 15 November 2011 - 14:11
Camille, on 15 November 2011 - 13:13, said:
I was primarily responding to the comments regarding the Frostbite's performance.
Apart from that, part of a game's appeal lies on its Visuals. Also the engine's support towards the game's design ultimately have a hand in the games enjoyability. In the they all contribute to the game's fun factor.
----------
I think Chyros posted while I was typing my initial reply. IMO the main reason why the game engine did not change for COD is the consoles. They would not be able to induce so much effects, explosions in a newer engine for the current consoles without suffering performance hits. IW might be making a newer engine already targeting the next gen consoles.
Edited by Raven, 15 November 2011 - 14:15.
#631
Posted 15 November 2011 - 14:24
deltaepsilon, on 15 November 2011 - 02:28, said:
General, on 14 November 2011 - 20:41, said:
Might be because your hardware is too shitty to run BF3's more advanced engine, compared to MW3's engine which has been used since 2007.
If you want to talk about objective opinions, don't go talking shit mate.
You are a bit right of the objectivity issue but seeing people bash MW3 just because they won't see complete new game than previous one and play a sequel ( which is how it must be since it is continuation of MW2 ) I tend to get annoyed and feel sorry for the game designers who worked hard to create that game.
BUT, I will not upgrade my PC just for the sake of one game when its rival is better and runs smooth on my current specs.
BF3's requirements are ridiculous, thats why we have LOW and HIGH choices on PC, thats what I am trying to say, BF3 at low settings completely rubbish, feels like ps2 games, while MW3 can be played on same hardware with highest settings and it looks awesome enough if not as good as BF3's high settings.
I do respect the hardwork of the artists who did BF3, graphics on Highest settings ( which how it should be ) looks amazing but that is all, nothing more, gameplay is not fun ( IMHO)
#632
Posted 15 November 2011 - 22:56
#633
Posted 16 November 2011 - 14:24
#634
Posted 16 November 2011 - 19:20
in all seriousness though, there's a plethora of stuff that the frostbite engine is doing when rendering the game. i'd say physics are the least of it's trouble.
i think that what makes it run worse is the fact that it runs soft lighting, ambient occlusion, soft shadows, radiosity etc PLUS a shitload of maps and filters to look the way it looks. lighting calculations like these are crazy intensive graphics processes.
#635
Posted 16 November 2011 - 20:53
#636
Posted 16 November 2011 - 21:27
hence the smiley and "in all seriosuness".
#637
Posted 16 November 2011 - 22:58
#638
Posted 17 November 2011 - 14:50
Wanderer, on 16 November 2011 - 22:58, said:
dude,
i know. really didn't you catch my joke?
3 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users