I just dnled the COD 4 SP demo. I've remember why I hate the COD series' SP so much. It's too painfully obvious that it's scripted. The point of the game is just to try to figure out where the triggers are, because killing enemies is 100% useless unless they happen to be in your way or are explicitly part of an objective. There's 0 leeway to do things the way you want. The lack of health makes this problem even worse. You have to be exactly where you're supposed to be when you're supposed to be there, and your actions have very little effect on the out come of the battle, yet somehow it's progress is entirely dependent on you getting to the right place. Raising the difficulty setting only increases the restrictiveness. I'm not complaining about linearity, I loved HL2. It's just that in CoD you aren't playing a game. You're just add libing in a carefully orchestrated play where everything around just waits impatiently for you to catch up. It's one thing for a game not to be tactical. It's another for you to have to follow a script.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Call of Duty 4 - best game ever
- Thread starter cerebrex
- Start date
In every situation you can take a different path to attack the enemies. In COD the designers wanted to give you a feeling that you were taking part in the real deal. Games like GTA and other open ended games never achieve this... they have simple cut scenes, and then they dump you right into the street... theres no transition, no seamless playing. I feel COD4 accomplished this perfectly. By your definition, every game on the planet is scripted. If you can beat it, it's scripted. Theres NOTHING wrong with that. In every game, there are triggers, you can't just have a game where everything is completely random - it's impossible. I suggest you anyone to just go out and buy this game, the demo doesn't do this game justice at all - at ALL - its probably one of the most boring missions in the whole game.
And despite that, it runs FANTASTIC... I run the game completely pegged out with every setting and I get very good frame rates.. I couldn't be happier. And in my opinon, it annihilates crysis as far as visuals go (and runs 4x faster).
some screens I took:
some screens I took:
Oooo ^^^ that looks good, however WTF are people saying that "Oh, I think this games looks better than Crysis"? I mean... ?
Crysis is the best looking game ever. Period. It has so many things that CoD4 does not, WTF am I writing this, it's should not be talked about - it's obvious.
Crysis is the best looking game ever. Period. It has so many things that CoD4 does not, WTF am I writing this, it's should not be talked about - it's obvious.
Why are people posting marketing ads from crytek in this thread? Open your eyes, shit, do a side by side. I can run Crysis pegged at about 10fps ultra high everything with AA cranked. And honestly, it looks good, but it runs like shit? I mean it really runs like total shit. You can't even play this game at all no matter how much money you have. My damn E6850 is at 4.4GHz on water, with a watercooled 8800Ultra and I'm I can't play it pegged, literally 10fps. at the same resolution, completely maxed out with AA cranked - I get 50 average fps in COD4, up to 120fps. You can actually play the game like that, in order to even get crysis playable, it looks like the quake3 engine - and I mean that. I don't see any reason to reward that travesty of optimization any credit at all. I firmly believe Crysis will be a colossal failure. It is Farcry don't fool yourself - they are feeding you back the same shit again. I am SO damn tired of hearing about this game. The active LOD and degradation is TERRIBLE - the damn engine is changing models 10 feet in front of you, you have boulders increasing in size almost 2 fold, it's a laughably terrible attempt at optimization. I spend every day modeling, texturing, and game testing the title I work on, and it's a DX10 based engine with the exact same abilities as the Crytek engine, and I'm putting 1-2 million polys on the screen just like crysis - sometimes more, and I'm able to optimize it to 50fps... It's just laziness on their part. It's not because its so damn "advanced" its because it's horribly optimized - and we have SO SO many fanboys that can't grasp this, they never will. Hell, I'll have them arguing with me in a few posts with their experience about the subject limited to adjusting detail settings in the GUI. It's not how many polygons you can throw at the user. It's how few you can throw at the user without them noticing - through normal mapping, specular mapping, etc. Crysis looks like total shit at medium. I play the game screaming "Where the fuck are all my resources going?! How in the hell could they have possibly shipped this?!" Crysis is a very interesting marketing ploy - all of the developers (and really the publishers primarily) are watching it closely - we all want to see just how well you can sell a half-assed game on screenshots and hype alone.
Crysis looks stunning in stills, but won't run well at those settings. CoD4 looks stunning in motion, but only "good" in stills.
Well... I honestly know nothing about how games are optimised and how the recourses are shared. However IMO Crysis looks better than CoD4 judging from the demos and, CoD4 runs at about 45 FPS with maximum in-demo settings and Crysis runs at about 20-45 FPS, and it looks substantially better.
You said that the demo does not do any justice to the game, maybe. I've seen that before. However Ijust generally did not enjoy the gameplay... I LOVED CoD2 and the feeling it gave me, but CoD4... meh....
CoD4 also does not seem to have the level of freedom Crysis has, in all ways - destruction, interaction and gameplay. That is just my opinion. Crysis is a spectacular game, less so if you have the lower end hardware, but it is s next-gen game, a truly next-gen game which pushes the boundaries of PC's, even more than Far Cry did...
Well, as I said I have not played the full game yet, but from the demo it looks pretty good, but not stunning.
I can't get 45fps in crysis staring at a wall at full settings. I think even saying 20-30fps would be pushing it.
You know, on my PC, COD4 looks better at playable settings (40-50 FPS average) than Crysis.
So, until there's a $200-$250 graphics card that can play Crysis at those uber-high settings at 45 FPS average, COD4 looks better than Crysis.
Well, Crysis @ medium settings, looks better than many games out there @ high, so I fail to see what everyone has to say against how Crysis looks.
As for performance, you can't get the visuals @ very-high, without some pretty awesome graphics power. This is a true next-gen title. Performance may suck now, as the game pushes graphics cards to their max, but this is a revolutionary title, in terms of graphics and hardware we'll need to catch-up.
On to the gameplay, I only played the demos for both titles and even though I enjoyed CoD 4, it's more of the same. I saw absolutely nothing I have not seen in other CoD titles. Of course the setting is different, but the rest is the same. I definitely like the cinematic experience that CoD titles always provided, but it brings nothing new. Crysis however, expands what Crytek did in Far Cry. Linear in story telling, as most other games out there, but completely non-linear in how you accomplish your goals. Much more fulfilling in my view. Replayability is present for a long time and that's a big plus in my book. CoD games I played once and they were fun. But I didn't play them again.
As for performance, you can't get the visuals @ very-high, without some pretty awesome graphics power. This is a true next-gen title. Performance may suck now, as the game pushes graphics cards to their max, but this is a revolutionary title, in terms of graphics and hardware we'll need to catch-up.
On to the gameplay, I only played the demos for both titles and even though I enjoyed CoD 4, it's more of the same. I saw absolutely nothing I have not seen in other CoD titles. Of course the setting is different, but the rest is the same. I definitely like the cinematic experience that CoD titles always provided, but it brings nothing new. Crysis however, expands what Crytek did in Far Cry. Linear in story telling, as most other games out there, but completely non-linear in how you accomplish your goals. Much more fulfilling in my view. Replayability is present for a long time and that's a big plus in my book. CoD games I played once and they were fun. But I didn't play them again.
I can't even finish Crysis - I have no will do continue playing it. Crysis is one of those games where you encouter a difficult part, you step away from it, and 4 months later you realize you'll never play it again and uninstall it. COD4 is the first game I've started over again to reply.. to try and find all the intel to unlock the extras.
The problem is, you don't progress by defeating enemies. You progress by standing in the right spot for the right amount of time until the endless waves of enemies stop spawning. It tires to makes you feel like you're just a small part of a large battle even though the battle is entirely dependent on you. This makes the scripting stick out like a sore thumb. Scripting should complement what you do not constrain you. I like that they try to make you part of a large battle but the implementation is really bad. It's still just like CoD2, which I managed to get 3/4s of the way through before realizing that I was bored stiff.
There are so many situations where I want to pick off the guys who are shooting me before dash across an open area, only to find that the game, in the interest of atmosphere and pace wants to keep moving, and every time I realize that, it drops the immersion to 0.
That's not how to progress. In my experience, the endless wave of enemies is just that - endless. Perhaps I haven't sat in one spot long enough.
You generally progress in COD4 by advancing to certain trigger points, at which point certain spawn locations stop spawning and new ones start. Many locations require you to "clear" an area, but this works by advancing far enough to trigger the "stop spawning" action and then kill the remaining baddies.
I had this same worry also, but actually last night I was replaying a mission and that is not how the triggers work. I assumed that there was a predermined amount of enemies to kill, then you hit the trigger, and you got more enemies. It was actually on the mission shown in the demo. I did not go to the lower floor like they wanted you to, I stayed up top and sniped all the enemies, probably about 40-50 enemies, then I went to the initial trigger, but I had already killed them all, instead of the troops screaming and throwing names into the firefight, I hit the same trigger when all the enmies had already been killed, and instantly the troops advanced to the next position. So, you should give them more credit - the game is not as linear as you might presume.
I think COD 4 looks decent. From what I can tell, the graphics as far as textures and models don't look all that new from anything we've seen before. The biggest difference is in the foliage. It's like each chunk of foliage (not broken all the way to each blade of grass) is rendered as a separate item. You can notice this in maps where there isn't much foliage. You'll get better fps.
On maps with a ton of foliage such as Overgrown, your fps will drop. I use the older graphics drivers that don't render the textures on all the grass, leaving it mostly black. No do they render the player models (sometimes they do...but most of the time not), or some walls or items such as some vehicles and boxes/debris in the street. While it can be difficult to play like this especially when someone is, say, lying in the grass, it does yield great framerate. On most maps, I'm typically locked at 125fps (/com_maxfps 125) with occasional dips to 90 or so in overgrown on my setup in my sig.
As far as Crysis goes, it seems from reading all the threads on it that most of the people that really like the game are people playing it with 8800GTXs sli and some insanely fast processor. Even then, they barely get 50 or so FPS. Still, that's like what...100 people MAYBE that have a setup like that that play Crysis. I hope it catches on some day though. Cuz in 20 years, when systems exist that can play Crysis at 125 fps, it might be a good abandonware game to play.
On maps with a ton of foliage such as Overgrown, your fps will drop. I use the older graphics drivers that don't render the textures on all the grass, leaving it mostly black. No do they render the player models (sometimes they do...but most of the time not), or some walls or items such as some vehicles and boxes/debris in the street. While it can be difficult to play like this especially when someone is, say, lying in the grass, it does yield great framerate. On most maps, I'm typically locked at 125fps (/com_maxfps 125) with occasional dips to 90 or so in overgrown on my setup in my sig.
As far as Crysis goes, it seems from reading all the threads on it that most of the people that really like the game are people playing it with 8800GTXs sli and some insanely fast processor. Even then, they barely get 50 or so FPS. Still, that's like what...100 people MAYBE that have a setup like that that play Crysis. I hope it catches on some day though. Cuz in 20 years, when systems exist that can play Crysis at 125 fps, it might be a good abandonware game to play.
I can tonight if no one else does.
Opps - sorry Crysis was on high, yeah on very high people with similar setups to me get about 20FPS, or a chopfest.
The first part might be true I'm not the one to decide
, but you don't need to run Crysis on the highest settings for it to looks better than CoD4, and that awesome card that enables you to play Crysis well at high for $300 is the 8800GT.Something is horribly wrong with my system, then, because my 8800GT at 675 MHz can't play Crysis at 1680x1050 on high settings at 45 FPS average.The first part might be true I'm not the one to decide
Well let me compare a few things then...
Crysis has THOUSANDS of breakable trees and objects all around...COD4 doesn't. (therefore it'll also run faster, obviousely)
Crysis has tens of thousands of objects all over...COD4 has basic walls and flat ground all over, so of course it runs faster.
COD4 has respawning enemies and scripted gameplay...your team mates will always hide in their specific places, behind specific walls, etc. no matter how many times you replay that level. In Crysis, enemies hide behind DYNAMIC objects, such as trees you can break, etc. They'll call for backup, bring in vehicles, aircraft, etc. based on how you play, not just during cinematics. (the tank crushing the car in COD4, helicopter crash, etc. will always play out the same no matter how many times you replay that level)
I'm sorry but although COD4 is a great game, it has nothing new. Literally everything it does gameplay-wise was in COD1, 2 and 3 as well as in many other games. When's the last time you saw NPCs adapting to a changing environment in an FPS? Does COD4 have wide-open levels where you can go just about anywhere you want and do things however you please instead of doing what the radio voice tells you to while sticking to your main road/path?
COD4 is a good linear game with no replayability offline, but Crysis has mainly non-linear levels and even in reviews people take off points because it has 2-3 linear levels (or they don't even rate the multiplayer) while giving COD4, Halo 3 and Bioshock perfect 10's. Give me a break. They're all good games, but to say COD4 is groundbreaking and Crysis has nothing new is just wrong.
?I just posted a pic up off an 8800 ultra
ALL of thos ethings are clown shoes - come on - breakable trees and objects? seriously... clown shoes - whooptie doo... When this is a keystone accomplishment, you better know you have a problem. How about a playable framerate.. that apparently was second to "destructable foliage."
Well I was just describing the objective in the demo where you had to hold out for awhile. The rest of it went like you said, and honestly, it a really bad implementation.
There's a big difference between optimized now technology, and simply old technology.
Does Crysis look better than COD4 on max settings? Sure... does a photograph of a jungle look better than Crysis? Yes... do both have the same playability?..... Yes. When you get Crysis down to a level that's playable, COD4 runs away with the show.
I almost forgot about the couple of situations where you must resist the spawning enemies for a set amount of time
Yeah, I guess so.
One is playable at high settings on current hardware and the other might be at some unspecified point in the future.
I almost forgot about the couple of situations where you must resist the spawning enemies for a set amount of time
Such a bitter perception of game design. they don't just "continually spawn" there is a set amount of enemies you must defeat in all games. the designers set the amount and your mission is to beat them... since the programmers don't have the time to engineer a system when the enemies are born, educated into being terrorists, given the demeanor to hate US troops, and then given the funds to purchase a weapon, join a terrorist faction, and then organize themselves into groups to assault the player... you have to just spawn them. Why don't you spawn them all at the same time? framerate and resources. Once you understand how games are designed, you'll see that COD4 is just like every other game out there. I don't know where this perception comes from. There are a couple missions where you have to wait for a helicoper to arrive.. however don't think the game will just spawn as many enemies as you kill. It's not running some sort of quota as to how many live enemies must be present, it's just spawning a preset number, if you're really efficient at killing them, you can push them back. Just like any game, the developers choose an amount of resistance to throw at the player, it's not smoke and mirrors. And when it's all said and done? COD4 will be remembered as a better game than crysis... I've already had the opportunity to play through the majority of Crysis, and I'm already too bored to finish it. I simply don't give a shit about the creatures on the island. So however people describe COD4 and how "crude" it is... it doesn't matter, it works real well.. and that is the point... to have a fun and memorable experience... isn't it?
First off: I love COD4. It's my favorite PC game of the year. I will probably spend countless hours playing MP.
Now... the game doesn't have a set number of enemies. The enemies continuously spawn until you advance to the trigger point. The faster you advance, the fewer enemies there are. It has been this way since the original Call of Duty. You can watch enemies run into rooms from an unseen location over and over or you can advance into the room and they just stop appearing.
There might be some "maximum" number of enemies that can come from a single spawn point, but I haven't sat watching one to find out.
I'd personally prefer a set number of enemies who are smarter and must be taken out more tactically and carefully, but that's what I get with Search and Destroy multiplayer, so I can forgive the single player this shortcoming.
I tested that pretty thoroughly last night, and they eventually stop coming. And, regardless of where I was located, my arcade score was the same - leaving me to believe it's the same preset amount regardless. If they were infinitely spawn, the amounts would be different - but they are not.
blendingnoise
Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2006
- Messages
- 912
I wish this game had a cover system like R6Vegas. It would complete it I think. Sucks that enemies can fire from cover and you got to jump out all the time.
Cobalt2112
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2002
- Messages
- 1,177
I finished COD4 single player in 2 days. W/O cheating using the 2nd difficulty level "Private" or something. My bro-in-law and I took turn on the missions.
Machine is Pentium4 540, WinXP, X1650pro 256MB @ 640mhz, 1 GB DDR2, 1024x768, 2AA
World detail, FPS and playability was fine. Ran so smooth on this machine that I didnt bother installing it on a PC that has a X1950gt (all other specs the same)
Machine is Pentium4 540, WinXP, X1650pro 256MB @ 640mhz, 1 GB DDR2, 1024x768, 2AA
World detail, FPS and playability was fine. Ran so smooth on this machine that I didnt bother installing it on a PC that has a X1950gt (all other specs the same)
SHIBALSL1CKZ
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 71
My honest opinion about this game is that it is a total copy from BF2. It's almost the same thing. Also the maps are so tiny, expected more from this game. However, the graphics are good. A friend of mine, came over and he doesn't play any games, asked what game it was, since it looked so "realistic". I thought it looked like a shiny version of CounterStrike Source.
I did not say what resolution, nor did I say what FPS, Crysis can be pretty smooth even at 30FPS. At that resolution and settings you might get 20-35FPS.
NO U NOOB ITS TO HAVE TREES YOU CAN SHOOT DOWN. LOL. WAT IS YOURE MALTHFUNCTION, MANN? WAT SORT OF MORON R U
what in the hell? Where do you people come from? Counterstrike, BF2? Those are completely different genres.