I'm making assumptions here, but from what I've read in GI and from what we've seen at E3, things are pointing in that direction (corridors, scripted, etc.).Bumblebeetuna said:How do you know any of this? We have seen a brief MP video and a brief section of one level at E3.
And it isn't a technical limitation, because other shooters are more open ended. It's about presentation and atmosphere.
Lagpsike_exe said:BTW 60 frames > resolution.
That's just not true.Asmodai said:The ironic thing here is that Infinity Ward could have said that it ran at 720p, and even the most hardcore graphics whore wouldn't be able to tell that it actually didn't.
Unless of course they have nothing better to do than be like one of those "pixel-counters" :lol
BattleMonkey said:But what about having both? WHOA!
Mind blown
Ultimo hombre said:Don't listen to them IW
Misterinenja said:What is it with the super aggressive PC elitism? We get it. :lol
I knew that the PS3 version of GTA IV wasn't running in 720p within five seconds of playing it.Asmodai said:The ironic thing here is that Infinity Ward could have said that it ran at 720p, and even the most hardcore graphics whore wouldn't be able to tell that it actually didn't.
Unless of course they have nothing better to do than be like one of those "pixel-counters" :lol
Now now, no need to get mad.Chiggs said:What the hell kind of a retort is this? You wrote a pile of crap and you're blaming me for not honing in on the "main point?"
Misterinenja said:What is it with the super aggressive PC elitism? We get it. :lol
BattleMonkey said:But what about having both? WHOA!
Mind blown
Pumpkins said:Make sure to never bring up Apple around those guys. It gets very awkward.
pizzaguysrevenge said:I knew that the PS3 version of GTA IV wasn't running in 720p within five seconds of playing it.
dojokun said:Now now, no need to get mad.
Pumpkins said:Make sure to never bring up Apple around those guys. It gets very awkward.
vocab said:
gnarkill bill said:they're not. :lol
mysticstylez said:PC gamers that are running out of reasons to champion pc FPS' over console FPS'.
Misterinenja said:What is it with the super aggressive PC elitism? We get it. :lol
Misterinenja said:What is it with the super aggressive PC elitism? We get it. :lol
GhaleonEB said:I'll caveat that I'm not especially interested in this game. That said, I can't understand why people care about this one bit. Different developers use different methods to reach different levels if fidelity for what they want to achieve. As long as the end results looks good enough for the goal, it doesn't mantter.
OK, noob question: from where did you get these two numbers: 922k and 614k? I'd like to know.ninjavanish said:You guys are thinking about this all wrong. You're looking at pixels per frame, 922k vs 614k. If you assume the 720p game is 30 fps and MW2 is 60fps you can calculate pixels per second.
720p game @ 30fps = 921k * 30 = 27 million pixels / second
600p game @ 60fps = 614k * 60 = 37 million pixels / second
33% more pixels/second from MW2 compared to a 30fps 720p game!
This teaches you three things: stfu and enjoy your games, numbers without context lack meaning, don't trust statistics.
RobertM said:I can't condone great presentation and atmosphere, but I really would love for a different experience each time I played the game. All those barriers and limitations hindered my engrossment with the game, not to mention that fast movement and pacing.
I commend IW for making 600p look as good as it does. COD4 is still one of the best looking games on a console. Sure if you put your nose into an odd texture you can find flaws, but playing through the game like a normal human being doesn't reveal anything sub par.
If not for those pixel sniffers I never would have known.
Judging by the CODWii thread, no, you really don't.Misterinenja said:What is it with the super aggressive PC elitism? We get it. :lol
...really?agaru said:OK, noob question: from where did you get these two numbers: 922k and 614k? I'd like to know.
Pumpkins said:After reading this thread, I dearly miss the days of the NES and SNES...
(Please don't bring up blast processing, thanks.)
OK, now it's clear. Thanks. Yeah, I asked because I didn't know. It's always good to learn.Haunted said:...really?
1280x720 vs 1024x600
agaru said:OK, noob question: from where did you get these two numbers: 922k and 614k? I'd like to know.
xenorevlis said:Are you serious? Go read his post again.
RESOLUTION is NOT the big selling point of their games on the PC.
agaru said:OK, now it's clear. Thanks. Yeah, I asked because I didn't know. It's always good to learn.![]()
Huttie0 said:So it mattered when Halo 3 was "sub-HD", but even when the resolution is lower than Halo 3 - it now is "Who cares about pixels?"
:lolTheHeretic said:
But the gunplay in the first game was horrible.Pimpbaa said:Buy Battlefield: Bad Company 2 instead.
Asmodai said:omg ur right its a conspiracy!1! Those damn haloz haters!
Wait, nobody ever cared about pixels? Yeah, that would be it.