SuperDowns
Banned
No one really plays these games strictly for the graphics anyways.
/donotcare
I'd MUCH rather have 60fps online.
/donotcare
I'd MUCH rather have 60fps online.
Modern Warfare 2 Will Render at 600p
- Thread starter lionelhutz
- Start date
Maximus.
Member
Call of Duty 4 looked amazing, im assuming no less for the sequel. Why are people such graphic whores, i mean cmon, gameplay is what matters over graphics, i rather have a fun enjoyable game, rather than watch somethin that is good looking, but is a piece of shit. Dont know why people make a fuss over silly things.
It's funny, but everyone in this thread is buying it. Admit it, haters. Admit that, secretly, you're going to create separate PSN/trial Gold accounts to play it so that your GAF friend list doesn't see you enjoying MW2.
Add me if you want to play. I won't tell GAF.
GT: soultron
Add me if you want to play. I won't tell GAF.
GT: soultron
I bought the first modern warfare for pc at launch and I can't imagine switching to consoles. It looked fantastic and played perfectly, not to mention some of the user maps were pretty neat.
Only thing I hope they fix for pc is the shitty server browser. That thing froze up on me way too much. In the end it's going to be great on every platform though, PC is just my preference for most FPS games.
Only thing I hope they fix for pc is the shitty server browser. That thing froze up on me way too much. In the end it's going to be great on every platform though, PC is just my preference for most FPS games.
Dolla Dolla
Member
600p?
I can no longer enjoy this game.
I can no longer enjoy this game.
NullPointer
Member
For Halo 3, sub-HD resolutions were an issue because of all the damn jaggies.
COD4 looked amazing, and better yet, completely smooth at 60fps. MW2 looks to be even better.
I don't see the problem.
COD4 looked amazing, and better yet, completely smooth at 60fps. MW2 looks to be even better.
I don't see the problem.
ad hominem...stuburns said:
The opposites of my post would have made it a "better game" i.e. open environments, some form of destructibility, competent a.i., no unlimited spawning (I heard they are working on this), just being able to approach the battlefield from multiple points. Of course there is some subjectivity to it, because some people actually like corridor shooters and being guided throughout the whole game, but I see it as a technical limitation of last gen not the current one.
The opposite of those things is what? Battlefield Bad Company probably? How did that sell compared to CoD4?RobertM said:
Why on earth would they change the things that made their franchise among the biggest in gaming?
Personally for me CoD4 was all about the MP, and 60fps was essential in making it the best MP this generation.
Gamecocks625
Member
Activision is finally catching on to the fact that HDTV adoption rates just haven't hit the sweet spot yet. Good news for SDTV owners
Bumblebeetuna
Banned
RobertM 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.
:lol at the graphic whores.
If resolution and visual fidelity are all you care about, go play Crysis at 1980 by 1080 and never play another game.
The multiplayer footage looked much better than I was expecting for a game that runs at a consistent 60 FPS. If upping the resolution means dropping the framerate to 30 or compromising in another area then screw that.
Oh, and remember games like Too Human? Apparently that ran at 720p consistently. So if the native resolution is all that matters to you, I guess you should probably go and play Too Human. The people without weird tech fetishes will be playing MW2, I would guess.
If resolution and visual fidelity are all you care about, go play Crysis at 1980 by 1080 and never play another game.
The multiplayer footage looked much better than I was expecting for a game that runs at a consistent 60 FPS. If upping the resolution means dropping the framerate to 30 or compromising in another area then screw that.
Oh, and remember games like Too Human? Apparently that ran at 720p consistently. So if the native resolution is all that matters to you, I guess you should probably go and play Too Human. The people without weird tech fetishes will be playing MW2, I would guess.
BattleMonkey
Member
Asmodai said:
You mad
Lagspike_exe
Member
Since it has anti aliasing, this isn't a HUGE issue.
BTW 60 frames > resolution.
BTW 60 frames > resolution.
Gully State
Member
wow @ PS3/360 fanboys playing the gameplay is all that matters card. You sound like a bunch of wii fanboys.
On a 720p screen I doubt anyone will see the problem. On a 1080p screen though it's very obvious. I've got a native 1080p projector and COD4 looks pretty poor tbh. It's obvious it's running a sub-720p resolution. It still looks fine though, and it isn't going to stop me enjoying the game, but the people saying it won't be a visible difference are very wrong
I own a gaming PC, 2 PS3s, 360, and a Wii. I believe what matters is a combination of gameplay, controls, visuals, and various other things.Gully State said:
Though I have a gaming rig and a 360, I'm getting COD:MW2 on PS3 because I like the PS3 controller better than the 360's for this type of game (I use the D-pad a lot for switching to/from explosives), and I like the lower number of players on PS3/360 games instead of higher numbers on PC games. I also want to game in my living room as I love relaxing and playing Modern Warfare, and it's not convenient for me to set up a HTPC in my living room.
By contrast, there is another FPS I like to play on PC instead of 360 or PS3. It's called TF2, and I think KB+M is better on TF2 because of all the different things I need to do in that game. I can change classes much more quickly by pressing two numerical buttons. I can change weapons quicker that way, too. And on top of that, for a game like TF2, I WANT to have as many players as possible. On TF2, I like playing in my room instead of in the living room because I don't relax when I play TF2. I play this game with high energy due to the nature of the game and sitting back on a couch would work against me.
Each game is good for its own reasons, and different platforms complement that different. So I wouldn't use resolution as some way of making fun of console gamers. Besides, the best games on PC are typically Valve or Blizzard games, and neither company goes for high resolution in their games.
Nizz
Member
As long as that framerate is solid, that's all that matters. COD4 looked great, still looks good. It had a sharp/crisp look to it. Image wasn't blurry at all.
Only reason I knew it wasn't running in 720p was hearing about it here on GAF. I have yet to play a game where I was shocked at how blurry the image was.
Though I'm playing on PS3 and I heard Ghostbusters was pretty bad...
Only reason I knew it wasn't running in 720p was hearing about it here on GAF. I have yet to play a game where I was shocked at how blurry the image was.
Though I'm playing on PS3 and I heard Ghostbusters was pretty bad...
killer7ITA
Banned
Mmm... i don't like this.
Xbox360 and Ps3... OLDDDDDDDDDDDDD... X'D
Xbox360 and Ps3... OLDDDDDDDDDDDDD... X'D
CharminUltra
Member
I love high rez as much as anyone, but I'd take 60FPS over HR any day.
Still getting it for PC though =P
YuriLowell
Member
Chiggs said:
Half Life episode 3 and starcraft 2 to be locked at 600p confirmed.
Window that shit.
gnarkill bill
Member
O GAWD.
Gully State said:
Again, if visuals are the most important aspect of a game to someone, that someone should go out and buy the latest quad core gaming rig equipped with dual GTX 295s or whatever. Then they can experience games in all of their 16xAA glory.
But that would make sense. So instead they just whine incessantly on internet forums about how incomprehensibly horrifying the idea of a game running at 600p is.
Gully State
Member
Pumpkins said:
The difference b/t 1080p and 600p isn't as noticeable as the difference b/t 600p and 599p.
ninjavanish
Member
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.
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.
xenorevlis
Member
Are you serious? Go read his post again.Chiggs said:
RESOLUTION is NOT the big selling point of their games on the PC.
Silly.Mikey
Banned
Man, you people care about the stupidest things. I saw the MP footage and it looks amazing. Who cares what the number is?