On the other hand...so what are we to do keep buying the garbage so they can pump out more of the same crap? That makes no sense as well...
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Modern Warfare 3 Graphics Suck?
- Thread starter FrgMstr
- Start date
On the other hand...so what are we to do keep buying the garbage so they can pump out more of the same crap? That makes no sense as well...
If a PC title is not selling, it usually means it doesn't deserve to be sold on the PC. If Activision decides to stop selling us its shovelware, I'd be ok with that.
Companies like Blizzard, Valve, and dare I say is EA , have shown that with a little effort, you can make HUGE money on the PC still.
inglewood78
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,465
It's just unfortunate that a game that innovates and pushes the boundaries of graphics and technology (BF3) makes a fraction of the $$ that a map pack expansion does (MW3). What is a developer to do?
The only thing us consumers can do is voice our opinions with our wallet.
You speak as if EA took a loss or something. Last time I checked, BF3 shattered EA's records with how many/how fast it sold. Most AAA devs would LOVE a piece of that action
Lord_Exodia
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2005
- Messages
- 7,008
HardOCP doesn't do gaming reviews, you evaluate the technology in the game and report how it will run on current hardware to give gamers an idea of how it'll run on their pc's and graphics hardware. This game has a solid campaign. I watched a good 1/2 of it on youtube last night, will watch the rest later tonight. I think it's single player campaign will be better that battlefield 3's as you can tell a lot of focus was put on the campaign in COD. Other than that the graphics look like poop.
Guys please don't waste your time spending resources on this crappy engine anymore. 99% of your readership should be able to run this game at 1080p with higher than 60 fps so let's just move on. I'm sitting this one out as you can tell from me watching the campaign via walk though on youtube. I simply cannot bring myself to give these developers any more of my hard earned money until they update the engine to bring me something that makes me feel my investment on my hardware was well spent and that they are pushing to innovate and advance graphics technology. I hope many others boycott this game on consoles and pc's alike. It's a pipe dream of mine but nonetheless... PRE-ORDER CaNCELLED!
Guys please don't waste your time spending resources on this crappy engine anymore. 99% of your readership should be able to run this game at 1080p with higher than 60 fps so let's just move on. I'm sitting this one out as you can tell from me watching the campaign via walk though on youtube. I simply cannot bring myself to give these developers any more of my hard earned money until they update the engine to bring me something that makes me feel my investment on my hardware was well spent and that they are pushing to innovate and advance graphics technology. I hope many others boycott this game on consoles and pc's alike. It's a pipe dream of mine but nonetheless... PRE-ORDER CaNCELLED!
WorldExclusive
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 11,548
If BF3 is $20 a year from now, MW3 will be $50. Cost equals quality according to your logic.
EA doesn't give a shit about getting full price for their games unlike Activision.
Pat yourself on the back for getting raped without the reach around.
I'm glad BF3 pushed the boundaries of graphics and technology for a shooter, but what would've given them my money would be if they'd done more innovation on the gameplay side.
Neither MW3 nor BF3 does anything to reinvent how FPS games (especially multiplayer ones, since that's where the bulk of peoples' playing time is spent these days) are played.
Both are evolutionary tweaks of their existing paradigms, but I've seen nothing new in the game mechanics of either that makes me go "holy shit, that's amazing, why doesn't every game have this?".
Which one a person gravitates towards will largely be preference, but I can't help but think of both as highly polished turds. DICE polished the looks of BF3. IW (and the cast of developers behind them) further polished the gameplay that made the previous CoD games popular.
Domingo
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2004
- Messages
- 22,632
Oh PC gamers...this place makes me laugh every time a new game comes out.
DeathPrincess
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 18,205
The realm of eternal damnation doesn't sound particularly fun... Mostly being tortured with fire based things and poked in the ass with spikey things...
...Definately steering clear of MW3...
inglewood78
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,465
It's all a matter of perspective. $3M in BF3 preorders - $5M total sales to date...$9M in MW3 pre-orders.
BF3, although not revolutionary, at least a evolutionary game.
MW3, nothing revolutionary, nothing evolutionary...basically a MW2 map pack.
You tell me what is the better "business" case. Other developers will look long and hard at these numbers and decided which pathway yields better "return on investment."
inglewood78
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,465
and WTF is so great about the MW3 "gameplay" and SP. Its just a bunch of brainless set pieces...
1) sitting in an open door chopper and landing (like MW1, like MW2) - check
2) swimming in scuba gear (like MW2) - check
3) sniping dressed like a bush (like MW1, MW2) - check
ITS ALL THE SAME $HIIT...repeated. Boggles the mind...
1) sitting in an open door chopper and landing (like MW1, like MW2) - check
2) swimming in scuba gear (like MW2) - check
3) sniping dressed like a bush (like MW1, MW2) - check
ITS ALL THE SAME $HIIT...repeated. Boggles the mind...
Diseaseboy
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2001
- Messages
- 1,206
Yep- aught to be even more fun when Skyrim and Batman come out.
The title of the thread is about how MW3's graphics suck so who cares which game sold how many $$ worth. The outdated graphics are freaking terrible, it's like they put less and less effort into every new release...pathetic console crap. PLEASE STOP PAYING FOR REHASHED GARBAGE! If you have MW2 then play that with your friends and save $60..
Diseaseboy
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2001
- Messages
- 1,206
Then WTF is BF3? Please explain how BF3 is significantly different then last years Bad Company 2 and Medal of Honor- both mp done by DICE. I'm not talking graphics- I'm talking game play. I see BF3 and MW3 no different. Just because BF3 legitimizes having a $1000.00 worth of video cards in your PC people suddenly become blind.
Have you never played a Valve game? This kind of thing is more common than you think.
Agreed and I happen to LIKE the Battlefield series. The Battlefield series with the feel, control, and player movement of Call of Duty, would make for an unbeatable fps.
BF3 is the sequel to BF2. BC2 was just some bastard child console port that found it's way into the mix. BF3 makes important updates to all the components of BF2. Besides a new graphics engine which was sorely needed, it adds many more weapons, an achievement/unlock system, more interesting vehicle dynamics, several new gameplay types, and all new maps. This is a worthy sequel IMO. I will not even speak of the Bad Company games since I do not believe them to be relevant when comparing Battlefield games, despite their obvious similarities.
I too prefer a "run and gun" type of shooter such as Q3, UT, etc. However the CoD series doesn't provide an experience to match those. It plays slower, has silly kill streak bonuses, limits how many weapons you can carry, and like every other "modern war" type shooter, most of the guns shoot simple bullets.
I want my rocket launcher, shock rifle, frag cannon, rail gun, plasma gun, etc. I want a health bar with health powerups on the map, I want futuristic and creative maps with multiple levels, etc. Running around the latest iteration of middle-eastern-stan with a limited selection of bland weapons is not the run and gun experience I want.
So they might as well throw in objectives and vehicles if the basic on foot deathmatch and team deathmatch gameplay can't compare to what we had on the PC 10 years ago.
As far as the graphics are concerned, that's what happens when the focus is put on consoles with their comparatively outdated hardware. I couldn't care less if a building model here and there was recycled, but at least improve the lighting, shadows, textures, etc.
BababooeyHTJ
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2009
- Messages
- 6,951
Any advertising is good advertising.
The first one used the Q3 engine, they made their own on COD2 I believe. Kinda like what Valve did with the Id's engine.
Shalafi
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2009
- Messages
- 22,956
I would consider it a victory if MW3 had sales so low that they decided to scrap selling on PC altogether.
I would consider it a greater victory if CoD fails like the Guitar Hero and Tony Hawk franchises that Activision oversaturated into the ground. Once that happens, PC gaming will gradually improve with the poison of Bobby Kotick removed from the PC gaming landscape.
Oh, and Blizzard needs to remove itself from it's merger with Activision, all they have done is managed to introduce Kotickization to Starcraft and Diablo, and now I'm not gonna buy the SC2 expansions or Diablo 3.
I would consider it a greater victory if CoD fails like the Guitar Hero and Tony Hawk franchises that Activision oversaturated into the ground. Once that happens, PC gaming will gradually improve with the poison of Bobby Kotick removed from the PC gaming landscape.
Oh, and Blizzard needs to remove itself from it's merger with Activision, all they have done is managed to introduce Kotickization to Starcraft and Diablo, and now I'm not gonna buy the SC2 expansions or Diablo 3.
That makes no sense. You support PC gaming, but actually WANT a game to fail on the PC, which in turn will mean less support for PC gaming. That is the most warped thing I have ever heard. If you care about PC gaming, you need to support it, not want things to fail. Activision needs to support the PC, I get that and I want that, but having a marquee title like Call of Duty fail on the PC is not the way to get them to have more/better support for PC gaming.
inglewood78
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,465
My point isn't that BF3 is different from MW3. My pt is that BF3 has made steps forward in some way, shape or form. There's no arguing that BF3 graphics, sound and sheer "immersion" factor is improved from the previous BF games. Sure, some might argue that SP is still shitty, but the fact is, you are paying for some sort of "improvement." If that's worth $60 ? That's just a matter of perspective.
MW3 is a f@cking map pack for MW2 MP wise. SP wise, its the same set-pieces over and over again. Name one thing that has been significantly improved over MW2? - and $60 is expected for this.
As a disclaimer, I played MW2 more than any other game this year. I thought it was an improvement graphically from MW1 and better SP, so I'm not a BF fanboy in any stretch of the imagination. MW3 I cannot stomach. for SP, I can watch youtube walkthroughs, for MP, I can just fire up MW2 and get the same experience.
That game would be incredible. Of course, whoever made it would have a monopoly and then the quality would decline.
I'll devils advocate it as well:
This one will sell 20-30 million copies, if not in exactly the same time frame, then shortly thereafter. So, yeah, it's a totally valid argument. In fact, it's the argument.
I'm going to play it on the Xbox, (thanks Gamefly!), and enjoy the story, if possible. I'll play the MP with my friends, and if it sucks and is full of bugs, glitchers, and bullshit, then back in the envelope it goes. If it's fun, then whee, I had some fun.
I've got BF3 to play when Karkand drops, and T.O.R. in December, so MW3 can suck or not and the world will keep on spinning.
This CoD argument/hater brigade will repeat itself ad nauseum on this forum until the day that Activision announces they're killing it like they did the Guitar Hero series, because they stuffed it up the collective assholes of the populace until their rectums burst, which will eventually happen.
No news here.
AbsintheGuy
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2008
- Messages
- 154
Won't be buying this title then, I'm a graphics whore.
I would hate to be one of those developers that had to pump out the same shit over and over again, using the same albeit heavily modified engine from 1999. I mean my line of work I do the same shit over and over but it is a far cry from being a game developer where you should be paid for creativity and originality. Basically Call of Duty has now become Guitar Hero without the guitar and guess who published that. Imagine if Battlefield 3 came out using the same engine from Battlefield 2 the whole gaming community would be up in arms. Everyone claims how fun Call of Duty is and that having the superior graphics of BF3 does not matter. Well I spit in their face because it does matter. When I shoot an rpg in a building I now expect that wall to be destroyed and that person on the other side of that wall to die or at the very least be injured. We need to stop repeating history and vote by not handing your wallets over to Activision every year. The amount of money they make each year they should be producing a product that blows us away!
NickJames
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 6,698
u mad?
kcthebrewer
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2004
- Messages
- 1,728
If you have a 30" monitor. Also, god forbid you lower the settings from max on lesser hardware...
Please go back to playing your 360.
ManofGod
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 12,863
Infinity Ward is no longer around. In fact, the last COD game they made was the original MW game. Please do not drag their name through the mud with this crap that is being sold in comparison to what they made.
DarkStar_WNY
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2006
- Messages
- 2,363
I love BF3 but I have to say, if this is the case then be careful where you fire your rpg in BF3 since there are many areas that it will have zero effect on the wall, column or whatever that it hits.
I have no issue with CoD, I played the first few when they were first released and then got sidetracked and didn't pick one up until this past labor day (got MW 1&2 during a Steam sale) and while I never really got around to the MP the SP story was engaging and fun and was worlds better then MoH, or what I've seen from BF3 so far.
Shalafi
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2009
- Messages
- 22,956
You dont understand how capitalism works. Activision is the modern day Acclaim Entertainment. Like Acclaim, Activision engages in oversaturation and overexploitation of their game franchises. Eventually so many were released and were below mediocre that Acclaim went out of business. Activision has already shut down Tony Hawk and Guitar Hero, victims of oversaturation and mediocrity.
If Activision, which only has Call of Derpy and World of Warcraft as its current profit mechanisms were to get out of the PC business, it would be a victory for PC gamers everywhere. Capitalism would function as intended and other studios, small indy and otherwise would step up and fill the void left behind by Activision. Life would go on, just like it did after the Acclaim collapse.
Remember, there was this studio that was staffed by a skeleton crew almost over a decade ago that made a game you might have heard of: Call of Duty.
Cr4ckm0nk3y
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2009
- Messages
- 847
Activision will keep getting away with repackaging the same game over and over because the consumer allows it.
Most console players are looking for quick run and gun matches with small maps. And since console players are trapped at 720/1080p most don't notice or care the MW3 engine is the same engine. Graphics suck because it is developed for consoles first. PC is an after thought.
However, BF3 had high expectations because it was initially developed for the PC as a sequel to the BF2. PC gamers have high expectations on all new games in terms of graphics and gameplay. They expect an improvement with every version.
Back to MW3. It is incredibly fair to call shenanigans and knock MW3, even to say don't buy, when it is the same played out game in new wrapping. No excuse for using engine from 2007 with no improvements.
Most console players are looking for quick run and gun matches with small maps. And since console players are trapped at 720/1080p most don't notice or care the MW3 engine is the same engine. Graphics suck because it is developed for consoles first. PC is an after thought.
However, BF3 had high expectations because it was initially developed for the PC as a sequel to the BF2. PC gamers have high expectations on all new games in terms of graphics and gameplay. They expect an improvement with every version.
Back to MW3. It is incredibly fair to call shenanigans and knock MW3, even to say don't buy, when it is the same played out game in new wrapping. No excuse for using engine from 2007 with no improvements.
ManofGod
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 12,863
It is clear then that you would have hated Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory. It was not only one of the best Multiplayer games ever in my opinion, but it was also given out for free. In fact, you can still play it with real players, not just bots.
zero2dash
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2007
- Messages
- 6,100
You're answering your own question. The consumer allows it.
It's Madden hysteria all over again.
"IT'S LAST YEAR'S VERSION +1 SO IT MUST BE BETTER! I MUST BUY IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!~!"
That's the problem.
Maybe this'll be the time that people actually stand up and say "you know what, it's the same game as before, just repackaged and sold for another $60 bucks". But that's doubtful. I can't really say I've seen a REVIEW of the game yet that has said anything close to this, and given that the general public either a) looks at reviews and believes them 100% or b) doesn't look at reviews and just buys the shit anyway....well I'm not holding my breath that the "change" will happen this time.
Whatever. I'm still happy with MW and I haven't seen anything yet from Activision regarding un-shafting PC gamers to make me consider lifting my "boycott" that a lot of us went under when MW2 came out and was gimped on the PC.
Valid point on the rpg damage, but still you can not deny that Dice's frostbite 2 engine affects the way you play the game. You can't guarantee that wall will effectively shield you from enemy fire. What's impressive is that the same structure that came crumbling down due to constant bombardment is graphically seen by all 64 players on the server. At the end of a round, using tree cover is no longer and option because it those same trees are no longer there. Hell I seen people use the destroyed remains of buildings to conceal their where abouts while launching rpgs at my tank. That is how graphics is used to enhance the overall gameplay and not the static crap we see over an over again. I voted with my wallet and haven't purchased a Call of Duty since the original modern warfare. Call of Duty needs to evolve rather than revolve around the same formula.
BF:BC2 was not just some simple console port. BC2 was one of the best shooters I have played in years before BF3 ever came out. Aside from some small bugs, I never had any issues. BC2 is all about teamwork though...BF3 you can pick up a gun and just start to shoot...