Yeeeeeeeah, after the BF4 footage yesterday, I think it's fair to say DICE has this by the bollocks on a technical level, and that's being lenient. Stick a fork in it, Activision. Yer done!
Commented on 2013-08-21 19:12:50 In reply to MrWhite
Posted by MrWhite
Yeeeeeeeah, after the BF4 footage yesterday, I think it's fair to say DICE has this by the bollocks on a technical level, and that's being lenient. Stick a fork in it, Activision. Yer done!
I disagree. If you read into what the Call of Duty engine actually tries to do, you'd understand that there's more to this than frames. Battlefield 4 looks real fancy with all of it's PP and stuff, but the assets aren't mind blowing on consoles, and I don't know that we've actually seen it running at 1080p on consoles.
Call of Duty looks very different from Battlefield, and it's not supposed to be motion blur filled, super post processed, etc. Battlefield is trying to be pretty, Call of Duty is trying to be smooth and just as importantly, responsive. That means very low latency while probably still using vsync. That means they have to avoid a lot of fancy effects and focus on making the game run flawlessly in the way they want it to run.
The game looks fine. Pretty sharp if you ask me. The textures look great even in the environment, which is actually pretty dense and full of stuff going on. The weapons and characters look really damn sharp. That shadows are pretty nice looking as well, nice and sharp and smooth.
Call of Duty never tried to be especially excellent in terms of fidelity. But they still manage to look pretty good for what they are going for, which is rock solid performance and very low latency.
I'm a little tired of everyone comparing BF4 which we don't even know will actually run at 1080p and 60fps on consoles. All we know is they WANT that to happen. They've jumped around so much on that point that until it comes out and it never drops a frame, the comparison doesn't stand for me.
Obviously on a PC, the comparison will be different, as latency will be a lot less of an issue on a bad ass rig, and BF4 is a PC game, where as Ghosts is more of a console game.
Looks pretty good to me. I dont really get people saying bf4 looks way better than this, considering that base geometry has to run on 60 fps on 4-player split-screen on current gen consoles.
Because BF4 has much larger scale maps, actual environment destruction that isnt "as" scripted as this, and has 64 players online and has ground and air players controls not ground + AI airstrikes...etc.
I am talking about next gen Ghosts and BF4, not current gen.
PS. BF4 is now gonna run 60fps on next gen consoles, so COD has no excuse to look like this and say we do it because we got 60fps to think of.
Commented on 2013-08-21 19:54:49 In reply to MordeaniisChaos
Do you actually believe the horseshit you just wrote? FB 3 isn't a technically superior engine capable of 60fps at 1080 on a console? Not only do you just require a pair of eyes to know this, but DICE confirmed that it is indeed 60fps at 1080.
Looks about on par with titan fall on a technical level. Ie, still obvious it's an old engine buffed up a bit. The tessellation is nice at smoothing out the guns, but aside from that. Meh.
Commented on 2013-08-21 20:02:14 In reply to MrWhite
Posted by MrWhite
Do you actually believe the horseshit you just wrote? FB 3 isn't a technically superior engine capable of 60fps at 1080 on a console? Not only do you just require a pair of eyes to know this, but DICE confirmed that it is indeed 60fps at 1080.
Wait, DICE confirmed that BF4 will be 60fps at 1080p on next gen consoles? I know they confirmed 60fps but no word on the resolution.
Commented on 2013-08-21 20:26:07 In reply to KORNdog
Remind me of Titanfall as well. Both are current gen games built on current gen. tech with certain visual improvements and solid gameplay mechanics which can crawl through due to a scarcity of lauch titles and overal confusion surrounding whole next gen thing.
I'm still wondering why Infinty Ward can't simply rename it to "CoD: 2013" and begin from there. Would make any argument on series stagnation irrelevant.
Commented on 2013-08-21 20:35:30 In reply to MordeaniisChaos
Posted by MordeaniisChaos
I disagree. If you read into what the Call of Duty engine actually tries to do, you'd understand that there's more to this than frames. Battlefield 4 looks real fancy with all of it's PP and stuff, but the assets aren't mind blowing on consoles, and I don't know that we've actually seen it running at 1080p on consoles.
Call of Duty looks very different from Battlefield, and it's not supposed to be motion blur filled, super post processed, etc. Battlefield is trying to be pretty, Call of Duty is trying to be smooth and just as importantly, responsive. That means very low latency while probably still using vsync. That means they have to avoid a lot of fancy effects and focus on making the game run flawlessly in the way they want it to run.
The game looks fine. Pretty sharp if you ask me. The textures look great even in the environment, which is actually pretty dense and full of stuff going on. The weapons and characters look really damn sharp. That shadows are pretty nice looking as well, nice and sharp and smooth.
Call of Duty never tried to be especially excellent in terms of fidelity. But they still manage to look pretty good for what they are going for, which is rock solid performance and very low latency.
I'm a little tired of everyone comparing BF4 which we don't even know will actually run at 1080p and 60fps on consoles. All we know is they WANT that to happen. They've jumped around so much on that point that until it comes out and it never drops a frame, the comparison doesn't stand for me.
Obviously on a PC, the comparison will be different, as latency will be a lot less of an issue on a bad ass rig, and BF4 is a PC game, where as Ghosts is more of a console game.
You can turn a lot of the post process effects off on the PC version of BF3 and it still makes Ghosts look bad. BF3.
BF4 will run at 60fps on consoles. Even if it doesn't hit 1080p there's no comparison here worth making.
Now.. if you want to talk about gameplay. Here's an area where IW jumped the shark a long, long time ago :D
One gripe I've always had with CoD games is the total lack of rich contrast. There is dark and light but no black unless you really fuck around with your tv settings. The colors and light just seem so dull. Gameplay will be the same fun formula I'm sure but bf4 still looks much better and more fun as well.
All that being said this doesn't look nearly as bad as all the haters claim.
Commented on 2013-08-22 00:16:52 In reply to MordeaniisChaos
Posted by MordeaniisChaos
I disagree. If you read into what the Call of Duty engine actually tries to do, you'd understand that there's more to this than frames. Battlefield 4 looks real fancy with all of it's PP and stuff, but the assets aren't mind blowing on consoles, and I don't know that we've actually seen it running at 1080p on consoles.
Call of Duty looks very different from Battlefield, and it's not supposed to be motion blur filled, super post processed, etc. Battlefield is trying to be pretty, Call of Duty is trying to be smooth and just as importantly, responsive. That means very low latency while probably still using vsync. That means they have to avoid a lot of fancy effects and focus on making the game run flawlessly in the way they want it to run.
The game looks fine. Pretty sharp if you ask me. The textures look great even in the environment, which is actually pretty dense and full of stuff going on. The weapons and characters look really damn sharp. That shadows are pretty nice looking as well, nice and sharp and smooth.
Call of Duty never tried to be especially excellent in terms of fidelity. But they still manage to look pretty good for what they are going for, which is rock solid performance and very low latency.
I'm a little tired of everyone comparing BF4 which we don't even know will actually run at 1080p and 60fps on consoles. All we know is they WANT that to happen. They've jumped around so much on that point that until it comes out and it never drops a frame, the comparison doesn't stand for me.
Obviously on a PC, the comparison will be different, as latency will be a lot less of an issue on a bad ass rig, and BF4 is a PC game, where as Ghosts is more of a console game.
What the CoD engine tries to do is something that has been used for years now. They just try to present this new features as revolutionary, when they're not.
For example reverbering audio is something that a ton of games have had for a long time.
BF4 looks way better than CoD, whether is PC CoD or console CoD. CoD's geometry looks plain, buildings and stuff just look like 2D objects sometimes, they don't have enough depth.
You're implying looks can't be paired with smoothness, which it isn't right. BF4 will run great on next-gen consoles, 60FPS, and I'm sure they'll find ways of lowering the latency for input. The only thing that I think is not confirmed for consoles is the framebuffer size, even if they downscale it a bit it'll look better than CoD. From a certain distance from your TV you won't notice 1920x1080 vs 1792x1008 (just an example).
CoD's Textures look okay, not impressive. And shadows look horrible, way too static and flat, it seems as if they need more volume, I don't know how to explain it, they're just too square.
The game (CoD) doesn't look good for what it tries to do. You could have said that years ago, not now. People need to stop being fanboys.
The engine looks horribly outdated, you can tell is just an antique engine with a new coat of paint.
This is why I will never support this game. They have the money (really they do have a lot, all know this) to create a new engine, even if it takes them too long, just assign a small team to work on it, but they don't want to make it or they can't.
They're afraid that if they change it the gameplay will never be the same, they're afraid of change and progress (unlike DICE). Or they're just too lazy to invest in a new engine because they know they'll sell millions.
Just accept it, the game is old. Even gameplay is lame, hitboxes are huge, it's one of the reasons it's so popular on console, huge hitboxes + autoaim = fit for consoles.
Honestly every FPS game is better on PC, because of KB+M primarily.
That is an unexpected comment from you. Every multiplayer game uses lag compensation, else you would not be able to hit anything. BF3 has lag compensation, but because the game is slower paced and their lag comp system is better programmed, you won't notice it as much as in a cod game.
No, no, no. The way developers are executing lag compensation is a lie. And it encourages people to play on servers where they're pinging in the 200-300 range, because it appears to function fine. But they'll still breaking the game for everyone else. Low pings should always be rewarded. Encourage people to play on central servers in their own territory. A game like Battlefield 3 should be unplayable with a 200 ping. Call of Duty was at its best in COD4, echoing netcode of the past (Quake 3 Arena) and it was nearly perfect for it.
Seriously. BLOPS2 and Battlefield 3 both have horrible net code. High latency is practically rewarded in BF3.
The best part about all of that: all of the idiots that cry about lag with their half second of lag they brought into the server.
In reply to
This message and account have been deleted at the user's request
I don't agree that people with low ping should be rewarded though. I agree they should be able to play on low ping servers. And that is where dedicated servers are needed, so the admin can kick people with high pinging.
I'm not really suggesting that there's no need for some lag compensation, but lag compensation as it is implemented in modern games is bad. It's sad that we've regressed in a way. Quake 3 Arena still has the best net code around. The lack of LAN support is also pretty disheartening. And I'm mostly okay with linear performance. High latency should very well be unplayable. This has always encouraged people to play on centralized servers in their own territory in the past. What's wrong with that? I was playing Battlefield 3 this morning and there was not a single player on the enemy team with a ping under 100.
Ridiculous!
It's partly the communities fault for playing on foreign servers and allowing high pings on servers.. but the net code encourages it by fooling people into thinking their high ping is okay. And yes, in some cases rewarding them for it. These games are designed for high ping players. Which is sorta shitty. It would be more understandable if these were all peer-to-peer scenarios, but they are not.
Driftwood
Download is now functional again on Gamersyde. Sorry for the past 53 days or so when it wasn't. (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
Another (French) livestream today at 2:30 CEST but you're welcome to drop by and speak English. I will gladly answer in English when I get a chance to catch a breath. :) (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
GSY is getting some nice content at 3 pm CEST with our July podcast and some videos of the Deus Ex Mankind Divided preview build. :) (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
For once we'll be live at 4:30 pm CEST. Blim should not even be tired! (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
More Quantum Break coverage coming in a few hours, 9:00 a.m CEST. (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
We'll have a full review up for Firewatch at 7 pm CET. Videos will only be tomorrow though. (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
Tonight's livestream will be at 9:15 GMT+1, not GMT+2 as first stated. (> 3 Months ago)
Patreon
All comments (26)
Commented on 2013-08-21 18:01:18
Commented on 2013-08-21 18:21:44
Commented on 2013-08-21 19:12:50 In reply to MrWhiteCall of Duty looks very different from Battlefield, and it's not supposed to be motion blur filled, super post processed, etc. Battlefield is trying to be pretty, Call of Duty is trying to be smooth and just as importantly, responsive. That means very low latency while probably still using vsync. That means they have to avoid a lot of fancy effects and focus on making the game run flawlessly in the way they want it to run.
The game looks fine. Pretty sharp if you ask me. The textures look great even in the environment, which is actually pretty dense and full of stuff going on. The weapons and characters look really damn sharp. That shadows are pretty nice looking as well, nice and sharp and smooth.
Call of Duty never tried to be especially excellent in terms of fidelity. But they still manage to look pretty good for what they are going for, which is rock solid performance and very low latency.
I'm a little tired of everyone comparing BF4 which we don't even know will actually run at 1080p and 60fps on consoles. All we know is they WANT that to happen. They've jumped around so much on that point that until it comes out and it never drops a frame, the comparison doesn't stand for me.
Obviously on a PC, the comparison will be different, as latency will be a lot less of an issue on a bad ass rig, and BF4 is a PC game, where as Ghosts is more of a console game.
Commented on 2013-08-21 19:18:50
Commented on 2013-08-21 19:28:25I am talking about next gen Ghosts and BF4, not current gen.
PS. BF4 is now gonna run 60fps on next gen consoles, so COD has no excuse to look like this and say we do it because we got 60fps to think of.
Commented on 2013-08-21 19:54:49 In reply to MordeaniisChaos
Commented on 2013-08-21 19:57:51
Commented on 2013-08-21 20:02:14 In reply to MrWhite
Commented on 2013-08-21 20:10:10*full disclosure* I pre ordered Ghosts.
Commented on 2013-08-21 20:26:07 In reply to KORNdogI'm still wondering why Infinty Ward can't simply rename it to "CoD: 2013" and begin from there. Would make any argument on series stagnation irrelevant.
Commented on 2013-08-21 20:35:30 In reply to MordeaniisChaosCall of Duty looks very different from Battlefield, and it's not supposed to be motion blur filled, super post processed, etc. Battlefield is trying to be pretty, Call of Duty is trying to be smooth and just as importantly, responsive. That means very low latency while probably still using vsync. That means they have to avoid a lot of fancy effects and focus on making the game run flawlessly in the way they want it to run.
The game looks fine. Pretty sharp if you ask me. The textures look great even in the environment, which is actually pretty dense and full of stuff going on. The weapons and characters look really damn sharp. That shadows are pretty nice looking as well, nice and sharp and smooth.
Call of Duty never tried to be especially excellent in terms of fidelity. But they still manage to look pretty good for what they are going for, which is rock solid performance and very low latency.
I'm a little tired of everyone comparing BF4 which we don't even know will actually run at 1080p and 60fps on consoles. All we know is they WANT that to happen. They've jumped around so much on that point that until it comes out and it never drops a frame, the comparison doesn't stand for me.
Obviously on a PC, the comparison will be different, as latency will be a lot less of an issue on a bad ass rig, and BF4 is a PC game, where as Ghosts is more of a console game.
BF4 will run at 60fps on consoles. Even if it doesn't hit 1080p there's no comparison here worth making.
Now.. if you want to talk about gameplay. Here's an area where IW jumped the shark a long, long time ago :D
Commented on 2013-08-21 21:00:46All that being said this doesn't look nearly as bad as all the haters claim.
Commented on 2013-08-21 21:03:49TitanFall looks poor on a technical level too but looks much more fun.
Commented on 2013-08-21 22:04:02But what ever, I can't say I care for COD as game anymore.
Even Battlefield to extend. BF4 looks very in the same vein as BF3, even it obviously looks alot better.
Commented on 2013-08-21 22:55:59
Commented on 2013-08-21 23:30:32It's a source engine game and it looks decent, but graphically it's nothing special. Would need to see alot more of it.
Commented on 2013-08-22 00:16:52 In reply to MordeaniisChaosCall of Duty looks very different from Battlefield, and it's not supposed to be motion blur filled, super post processed, etc. Battlefield is trying to be pretty, Call of Duty is trying to be smooth and just as importantly, responsive. That means very low latency while probably still using vsync. That means they have to avoid a lot of fancy effects and focus on making the game run flawlessly in the way they want it to run.
The game looks fine. Pretty sharp if you ask me. The textures look great even in the environment, which is actually pretty dense and full of stuff going on. The weapons and characters look really damn sharp. That shadows are pretty nice looking as well, nice and sharp and smooth.
Call of Duty never tried to be especially excellent in terms of fidelity. But they still manage to look pretty good for what they are going for, which is rock solid performance and very low latency.
I'm a little tired of everyone comparing BF4 which we don't even know will actually run at 1080p and 60fps on consoles. All we know is they WANT that to happen. They've jumped around so much on that point that until it comes out and it never drops a frame, the comparison doesn't stand for me.
Obviously on a PC, the comparison will be different, as latency will be a lot less of an issue on a bad ass rig, and BF4 is a PC game, where as Ghosts is more of a console game.
For example reverbering audio is something that a ton of games have had for a long time.
BF4 looks way better than CoD, whether is PC CoD or console CoD. CoD's geometry looks plain, buildings and stuff just look like 2D objects sometimes, they don't have enough depth.
You're implying looks can't be paired with smoothness, which it isn't right. BF4 will run great on next-gen consoles, 60FPS, and I'm sure they'll find ways of lowering the latency for input. The only thing that I think is not confirmed for consoles is the framebuffer size, even if they downscale it a bit it'll look better than CoD. From a certain distance from your TV you won't notice 1920x1080 vs 1792x1008 (just an example).
CoD's Textures look okay, not impressive. And shadows look horrible, way too static and flat, it seems as if they need more volume, I don't know how to explain it, they're just too square.
The game (CoD) doesn't look good for what it tries to do. You could have said that years ago, not now. People need to stop being fanboys.
The engine looks horribly outdated, you can tell is just an antique engine with a new coat of paint.
This is why I will never support this game. They have the money (really they do have a lot, all know this) to create a new engine, even if it takes them too long, just assign a small team to work on it, but they don't want to make it or they can't.
They're afraid that if they change it the gameplay will never be the same, they're afraid of change and progress (unlike DICE). Or they're just too lazy to invest in a new engine because they know they'll sell millions.
Just accept it, the game is old. Even gameplay is lame, hitboxes are huge, it's one of the reasons it's so popular on console, huge hitboxes + autoaim = fit for consoles.
Honestly every FPS game is better on PC, because of KB+M primarily.
Commented on 2013-08-22 01:54:27 In reply to MordeaniisChaos*facepalm*
Commented on 2013-08-22 02:09:37
Commented on 2013-08-22 04:08:28
Commented on 2013-08-22 11:01:52Seriously. BLOPS2 and Battlefield 3 both have horrible net code. High latency is practically rewarded in BF3.
The best part about all of that: all of the idiots that cry about lag with their half second of lag they brought into the server.
Commented on 2013-08-22 22:41:25Ridiculous!
It's partly the communities fault for playing on foreign servers and allowing high pings on servers.. but the net code encourages it by fooling people into thinking their high ping is okay. And yes, in some cases rewarding them for it. These games are designed for high ping players. Which is sorta shitty. It would be more understandable if these were all peer-to-peer scenarios, but they are not.