Quote:
Yeah I knew it used the id Engine. It's supposedly heavily modified. It works really well though, so I don't care.Originally Posted by icehotshot 
Graphics are one thing, but like i said, they need to go back to their roots. And if you don't know what going back to their roots means, then you obviously haven't played the original and realized why it was such a great game to begin with and how it came to be. If it wasn't for CoD and CoD:UO there wouldn't be any of this crap modern warfare stuff. The game (original CoD) would have failed if it wasn't AWESOME, but it went from being PC only to consoles where it is now a cash cow and nothing more.
I can't imagine how awesome the series of games would be if they never went to consoles........
Quote:
Some great effort they put into this.The engine was first used for Call of Duty 2 in 2005 under a proprietary license of id Tech 3 created by id Software in 1999
Graphics are one thing, but like i said, they need to go back to their roots. And if you don't know what going back to their roots means, then you obviously haven't played the original and realized why it was such a great game to begin with and how it came to be. If it wasn't for CoD and CoD:UO there wouldn't be any of this crap modern warfare stuff. The game (original CoD) would have failed if it wasn't AWESOME, but it went from being PC only to consoles where it is now a cash cow and nothing more.
I can't imagine how awesome the series of games would be if they never went to consoles........
I'd prefer it to stay Modern Warfare or move to future warfare. I just don't find WWII games interesting. There is more of them than there is of modern warfare games, but they've been on the decline since the rise of modern warfare, and that's how I'd prefer them to stay. This is all my opinion of course, so it should be taken with a grain of salt.
Quote:
An FPS is different. In GT5 and Forza, you're moving faster than you are in an FPS, so they get away with blurring things and the such. There's also less going on at a single time than your average modern FPS. It's more than skin deep ya' know.Originally Posted by andrews2547
Enough said, both of these games are on console, both run at a stable 60fps and both are at a higher native res than CoD
Enough said, both of these games are on console, both run at a stable 60fps and both are at a higher native res than CoD
Quote:
This, kinda.Originally Posted by scumty
pls go
You cant seriously compare forza or gran turismo to call of duty in terms of performance.
Car games have less moving objects, it's more CGI and less real time.
COD has more moving objects, so theres more being done on screen than in car games.
pls go
You cant seriously compare forza or gran turismo to call of duty in terms of performance.
Car games have less moving objects, it's more CGI and less real time.
COD has more moving objects, so theres more being done on screen than in car games.
But I don't really see the point in debating this anymore, I like Call of Duty, and that's that. Nothing's going to sway my opinion.
I'm not a huge BF3 fan though. Perhaps if I had it for 360 I would like it more since I would probably be much better at it than I am on the PC version.
Also, why haven't the mods warned us for going off topic? Sure it's still Call of Duty, but we're debating whether or not CoD (previous titles, as we know next to nothing about this one) is a crap game instead of discussing this new leaked game.
Retribution.
(21 items) |
|
Retribution.
(21 items) |
