Originally Posted by Vhati
enjoy your complete console port on a peer to peer connection, along with terrible graphics and animations, the same multiplayer for the last 4 games.
I wish you the best of luck. Ill be flying jets and choppers, driving tanks through buildings in 64 player maps. Flying entire squads in to an objective and parachuting in with you squad and working as a team. Along with genre leading graphics, animation, and sound. Free map packs and social networking, along with 60+ FPS framerates.
I don't really want to defend COD, but..
-P2P Iwnet isn't confirmed. fourzerotwo has denied any rumors and has stated that the PC features will be announced within the next week or so.
-Some people like me could care less about graphics if it's built on a proven engine with fairly decent reg. Blackops was sadly just a copy paste by Treyarch that runs horrid on dual cores and I'm honestly hoping it doesn't turn out that way since Raven/IW have always had decently optimized PC titles.
-MW3 has the potential
of becoming a decent competitive title, but as you said it doesn't look that good if they're going to cater to the console audience and or activision's greed.
As for BF3, I'm not saying anything bad about it because it looks like it's going to be a great game, but you simply can't compare the two regardless of which direction they've gone.
Originally Posted by Ironcobra
Yea cause Bf series is always poorly optimized
, and call of duty always runs great and never needs 20 patches the first 3 months
No dedicated servers lol ur funny man
please man stop trolling
BC2 was also a console port that ran like crap for the first week. COD games never really had optimization problems until 3arch released BO.Edited by Skylit - 6/7/11 at 4:52pm