Modern Warfare 3 Graphics Suck?

fps4ever said:
My biggest gripe is if they are making money hand over fist why can't they update the PC graphics as well like they did with BF3? Obviously there are a large number of people that love the game play that would appreciate a modern makeover as well...how could that not be beneficial to everybody?
Click to expand...

Because that requires work and investment. Something that Kotick doesn't want. Not to mention these games are made for the consoles first, PC's as an afterthought. Anyone with a low IQ can see that :p

But, mark my words. This will be the last MW game with this engine. If they have learned anything, it's that the current gen of consoles is on it's last legs, and with competition like BF3 showing everyone how you can make a modern game with modern graphics is done, they will make a new engine, at least for the new consoles that will be coming out. If they release a new MW next year with the same engine, that will prove that humanity isn't worthy of saving.
 
Best review so far of MW3

5FJjk.png
 
kcthebrewer said:
The issue isn't the graphics only. The issue is that this is COD4 with a new SP campaign at full price. I treat this as the same sort of thing as all those people that buy the new Madden every year except that the new Madden actually tries to improve every year.

This SP part of the game is nothing but a DLC pack for $60. The multiplayer changes are nothing more than what used to be a regular game patch - which should be free.
Click to expand...

And I feel just the opposite. I feel like people who buy a new Madden every year are buying the same game over and over. Different strokes for different folks I guess.
 
Remember these games all used id tech 3 engine, the Quake 3 engine. Sure it has been modifed but it is still 12+ years old.
 
I'll take a fully featured 60+FPS DX9 nice looking game over a bloated, nice looking sub 30FPS DX11 "slideshow" anyday... That's not to say my computer is a slouch.
 
Pretty sure the multiplayer offers many refinements, and the single player game is all new. Sure the general point and shoot and cover mechanic hasn't changed, but the set pieces are new, and it's a decent campaign.

If people think it's worth their money, who are you to say it isn't?
 
qkool said:
Steve, here's the problem. hardocp's testing calls 30fps adequate. I'd like to see what bf3 looks like at 150fps.
Click to expand...

At least we know you did not read the recent BF3 articles.
 
For the casual gamer like me (used to be hardcore) MW3 is perfect. I can get on the 360 and in 30secs be in a game with all my friends with fast paced action. Its fun, thats the main thing. Yes the graphics are dated but who cares
 
eon said:
MW1 was great but people expect more out of a sequel than a freaking copy/paste clone. If you are going to do that, sell it as an expansion pack for $20.
Click to expand...

I paid $40 for Call of Duty: United Offensive back in the day and I feel it brought more to the table than MW3 does.
 
CKMorpheus said:
Pretty sure the multiplayer offers many refinements, and the single player game is all new. Sure the general point and shoot and cover mechanic hasn't changed, but the set pieces are new, and it's a decent campaign.

If people think it's worth their money, who are you to say it isn't?
Click to expand...

Remember when a good SP game was 15+ hours? You can beat all three MW games in that amount of time.
 
Buxaroo said:
Sounds like they are just trying to rev themselves up and not get buyers remorse to convince themselves they got a "new" game.

Or they are just stupid average console players. My bet's on the ladder.
Click to expand...

and you say ladder. Way to not prove your point.:p
 
I will admit I have always found the MW games to have engaging single player experiences. I played about 1-2 hours of BF3 single player before going strickly to multiplayer, and wont care if I ever finish it. But the MW games I always completed just because it was that fun.
 
eh, I never bought mw2 or black ops for PC so I said why not and got mw3. Only paid $35 after i used my $20 amazon promo credit from bf3 and I also got the $10 promo for a future downloadable game to use later on so I can't complain. Indeed, my 2600k and 2x crossfire 5850s eat up this game
 
Lawl.

I won't completely disagree with all the "wah wah CoD4 map pack" BS, because there's a grain of truth to it.

And it is undeniably a (highly successful) cash grab by Activision.

But it has great MP gameplay, no crippling PC issues like BlOps did, and is Just Fucking Fun.

I would love MW3 running on the Frostbite 2 engine, but to be honest, when it comes to competitive multiplayer FPS games, gameplay trumps graphics 12 ways to Sunday. I'd prefer to have both, naturally, but Activision is too greedy for that.

Which is a shame, because I've always despised the Battlefield gameplay (fuck objectives, fuck real teamwork, and fuck slow pacing), but love the look of BF3.

MW3 is by far the best CoD game so far from a pure gameplay perspective. Most of the major issues that plagued MW1 and MW2 have been addressed/mitigated, but I'm sure in time MW3's own issues will crop up. I am amused by people who say it's too "casual", because the word they're really looking for is "approachable". It is easy to get into, but requires quite a lot of skill, actually, to be good at.

Not even going to comment about SP since I didn't finish that game mode in any of the MW series, but I buy games like Mass Effect or Deus Ex for the SP. I'd much rather not play another samey military shooter for the story, I'd rather play it because it's going to have the biggest group of people to play against in MP.
 
Frankly, I think its a lack of first hand experience. I convinced a friend to buy BF3 with me, and after playing the multi-player with him, he blatantly asked, "Why would anyone play CoD [multi-player] over this?"
 
I don't get how all these people say BF3 SP sucks... yeah, its not like the MP, but its a good story with great scenes and stuff, and the game is pretty tough on "hard" -- maybe you guys are being cheesy and playing on medium or easy and thats why you are not so entertained with the SP?

I am loving both the SP and the MP. of BF3 Both are great fun and a GREAT time waster, and it clearly looks like BF3 is the better looking game, to me. I never liked COD, it was more a kiddish game where you play as much as you can to leve up, don't use skill, just hold W and spray and pray, as they say to get the most kills. The maps in CoD are not huge and realistic, at ALL. In COD, the maps (if you can even call them that) are rather a closed in small room thats outside, with invisible walls to keep you from wondering outside the majority of the action.

BF3 FTW. And the graphics are awesome in BF3 compared to this?

I don't see why they even released this game so soon AFTER another war game.... pretty stupid on their part. Yeah it will get more "sales" than Battlefield, as usual.... because every kid sees it on MTV and Nickalodeon. Battlefield gets its users by making a good game and having a mature fanbase, and not really from advertising in a spamtastic apple/fbook manner like COD (obviously) does.

Spamming ads all over and getting sales DOES NOT make it a good game.......
 
Does this game just play worse on AMD hardware?

I fired up MW3 briefly this morning. Settings at 1920x1080, max settings, 2x AA

During the initial firefight I was only getting ~45fps.
 
Buxaroo said:
Sounds like they are just trying to rev themselves up and not get buyers remorse to convince themselves they got a "new" game.

Or they are just stupid average console players. My bet's on the ladder.
Click to expand...

Why would you put your bet on a ladder?

I'll wait for MW3 to land on a Steam Sale, I just don't see myself spending $60 on 1 game...
 
SomeoneElse said:
skipped out on the DLC and everything since MW2 when they charged $15 for the ported maps form MW1. I would like to see some innovation in games not the same shit re-wrapped a force fed to me thanks. I play BF3 now
Click to expand...

Just want to point out the irony here since the first BF3 map pack is 4 recycled BF2 maps. :p
 
dexvx said:
Frankly, I think its a lack of first hand experience. I convinced a friend to buy BF3 with me, and after playing the multi-player with him, he blatantly asked, "Why would anyone play CoD [multi-player] over this?"
Click to expand...

This. A bunch of friends got Black Ops and wanted me to play, I said no, so one gifted me a copy on Steam. I played a few days said man...here let me get you BC2 - for $7.50. :D Never played Black Ops again.
 
Buxaroo said:
Sounds like they are just trying to rev themselves up and not get buyers remorse to convince themselves they got a "new" game.

Or they are just stupid average console players. My bet's on the ladder.
Click to expand...

LOL... its not LADDER, its LATTER :p

And they say 420 people are 'brain dead' :D ;)
 
pigwalk said:
Just want to point out the irony here since the first BF3 map pack is 4 recycled BF2 maps. :p
Click to expand...

Atleast the DLC will be free unlike the first DLC for MW2 which had 2 new maps and 3 recycled MW 1 maps for $15.
 
Greene420 said:
LOL... its not LADDER, its LATTER :p

And they say 420 people are 'brain dead' :D ;)
Click to expand...

And here I thought I was the one that was stupid because I had not idea what he was talking about....
 
Omophorus said:
Which is a shame, because I've always despised the Battlefield gameplay (fuck objectives, fuck real teamwork, and fuck slow pacing), but love the look of BF3.
Click to expand...

Kids these days, sheesh...always needing that instant coolguy gratification!~
 
pigwalk said:
It's 14.99 if you didn't pre-order/get the LE, or something like that. Still funny. :)
Click to expand...

Right, so when you pre-ordered the game it was free.....i pre-orderd MW2 and didn't get ANYTHING for free. Whats your point here? As far as i know nothing else comes free with the Pre-order of MW3 You even have to pay 50 bucks for the "premium" stats tracker.
 
I also understand that you get the DLC for 10 bucks cheaper....still that 50 A YEAR and there is already talks of another COD next year.....so think about it...thats another $60 for another game.
 
Haha. I like how they've been advertising it as the most highly anticipated game of the year, but the only attention that I have seen given to it has been its own commercials. Oh and this thread.
 
sitheris said:
Kids these days, sheesh...always needing that instant coolguy gratification!~
Click to expand...

Someone described BF as a war sim and MW as street fighter with guns.

That's pretty apt, and I prefer the latter. Purely preference.

Then again, I've always come down on the Q3, UT, etc. side of the house. Games that are pure run-and-gun nonstop action. Games where the focus is on killing the other team, and winning means killing more of them than they kill of you.

Objective-based games are fun in moderation, but racking up kills is more fun, to me, than completing some arbitrary objective, whose completion might involve the killing of a couple people on the other team.

I didn't buy BF3 because after buying BC2 and MW2, I found myself with about 50 hours of MP play time in BC2 and about 600 in MW2. That, and having to use Origin, which I'm still none too excited about.

p.s. Hardly a kid, though I know you're speaking metaphorically. The first FPS game I played heavily was Wolf3D on DOS, and I kinda miss when games could not take themselves seriously. The whole premise and story for each episode were so ridiculous, but back then it didn't matter.
 
Bought the game yesterday since I was already there picking something else up. Got home, immediately hopped on BF3 with some buddies. After a few hours I decided to try MW3 and man... the graphics are by far the worse piece of crap I have ever seen in any CoD game. No AA, textures are muddy, resolution looks jacked up. I'm running at 4800x2560 and the resolution looks warped or squashed. Turned the game off before the first checkpoint. Back to BF3...
 
After WaW, I discover that the feeling of getting ripped off totally ruined the immersion for me so I haven't touched any of these games since.
 
Ritorix said:
Played MW3 all night. Game is fun as hell.
Click to expand...

I'd have to agree. I own both BF3 and MW3. Being busy with work most of the time, I only game on the go with my 13 inch laptop nowadays. MW3 is perfect for a quick fix. BTW I'm just talking about single player, havent had time to multiplay yet. I think its much better than BF3 single player. I got bored real quick with the BF3 single campaign.

As for graphics, I bet if I played it on my desktop at home, it might not look so hot. But on my 13" laptop it looks amazing maxed out.
 
Mister Natural said:
This will be a reoccurring theme with any game that focuses on outdated console playability and considers the pc as a secondary platform. All we can do as pc gamers is to vote with our wallet and ignore games like this.
Click to expand...

The less you buy PC games the less the developer will care about developing games for the PC. If you produced and sold rubber thimbles and people stopped buying rubber thimbles would you still produce them? The execs at these companies aren't reading Hardforum or other gaming sites. They're looking at numbers and making decisions based on those numbers. Low PC sales doesn't translate into them dumping more money into the PC version. It translates in to "ahh, it's not selling. Fuck it, dump it".
 
Omophorus said:
Lawl.

I won't completely disagree with all the "wah wah CoD4 map pack" BS, because there's a grain of truth to it.

And it is undeniably a (highly successful) cash grab by Activision.

But it has great MP gameplay, no crippling PC issues like BlOps did, and is Just Fucking Fun.

I would love MW3 running on the Frostbite 2 engine, but to be honest, when it comes to competitive multiplayer FPS games, gameplay trumps graphics 12 ways to Sunday. I'd prefer to have both, naturally, but Activision is too greedy for that.
Click to expand...

But in a game you want something that warrants many hours of playtime so you expect a bit of creativity on account of the developers. We've grown way too accustomed to mainstream, completely linear FPS gameplay. For example, all the MW games have the same maps but with different colors. The weapons don't differ all that drastically, either.

I wasn't too pleased with BF3 either. it is a fantastic looking game graphically, but I'm not sure it will have that appeal and complexity I'm looking for. A game that you can play for years trying to master and still have much to learn. Frankly, I don't think I've ever played an FPS game that quite matches up to CS (pick any version other than source). The FPS games that required a bit of thought along with quick reflexes. Though I think BF3 is better in that regard, I still think that both games fall flat on their face.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top