How many more CoDs left in you?

[Gold Member]

why be mad for?

the difference is massively noticeable on any games running at 60fps as opposed to 30 and i dare say it's one of the main reasons why call of duty is so unbelievably popular.
it just FEELS so much better. (i don't care about what game vs what this is strictly framerate.)
denying it just look like a offended fanboy.


go play battlefield 3 on a high end pc and it will play/feel infinitely better than it does on console with its superior framerate.

Camo, the feel of a game has more to do with controller sensitivity than frame rate, a high end PC gaming mouse has adjustable dpi settings allowing for super fast and accurate movements. PC also has adjustable FOV which gives the illusion of faster gameplay. Also the Battlefield characters movement is programmed to include inertia unlike the hyperactive slotcar movements of CoD characters.

Also the CoD frame rate is not locked at 60fps. Most of the time you will be running at 48-52fps but 60 is the best case scenario. So to claim it feels crisper because of the 60fps frame rate reeks of being a offended fanboi.

 

[rideclutch]

From a PC perspective, CoD 1 was my favourite, CoD 2 was probably the best and CoD 4 is pretty solid, with still a strong following around today.

The others make a nice frisbee for your dog. I guess I'd enjoy them more on console. *shrug*

 

[JordanWCE]

Halo is also no faster paced than Battlefield 3 if you look at kills per minute.

Oh ok, do you actually have that stat? You have barely played anything but the campaign on Halo 3, but I guess I'll take your word for it.

Halo 2, Halo 3, Reach. All of them have been faster paced than Battlefield, Halo 2 being the slowest of the lot.

I guess you're shit out of luck, play the manically paced CoD series no matter now rehashed and buggy they are or play nothing.

How am I shit out of luck? Because I enjoy playing an action-packed fast paced arcade shooter compared to a slow, boring war simulator?

Every game has bugs, there was no point even typing that.

And unlike you and BF, I am actually capable of enjoying other Shooters, along with Halo, another brilliant series is Rainbow Six.

Going back to the thread topic, after Treyarch's next installment, I'll actually be also looking forward to R6: Patriots.

 

[00Stinger]

They need to faste forward 10-25 years and have a futuristic version. Something new!

How come they only make one a year isn't it only a cut and paste job?

They redesign the game engine evry 2 years. So MW2 will be the new edition and Black Ops is the copy and paste. then MW3 is the new design and so on and so on and so on.

 

[JordanWCE]

They redesign the game engine evry 2 years. So MW2 will be the new edition and Black Ops is the copy and paste. then MW3 is the new design and so on and so on and so on.

I'd say it's getting towards being the other way around now, Black Ops was a lot different to MW2, and then MW3 looks and feels the same as MW2.

 

[Ant_]

Most fun I've had with a console Online MP FPS shooter is

Halo 2
Battlefield 2 MC
.
.
.
.
Halo3 / 1st 6 mths of COD4 (before host migration)
BF3/BC2

 

[caMoGFC]

Camo, the feel of a game has more to do with controller sensitivity than frame rate, a high end PC gaming mouse has adjustable dpi settings allowing for super fast and accurate movements. PC also has adjustable FOV which gives the illusion of faster gameplay. Also the Battlefield characters movement is programmed to include inertia unlike the hyperactive slotcar movements of CoD characters.

Also the CoD frame rate is not locked at 60fps. Most of the time you will be running at 48-52fps but 60 is the best case scenario. So to claim it feels crisper because of the 60fps frame rate reeks of being a offended fanboi.

absolute crap.
the smoothness of a game is more due to the frames per second. that's what makes it feel better.
upping the sensitivity will only make you change aiming direction faster (which is to suit play ability/style).....it doesn't magically add double the frames making it feel/appear smoother

in fact, adding higher sensitivity actually has you missing a higher percentage of the turning animation so it actually makes it less smooth (yet faster).



i pose a question to you goldy.
if there are 2 picture flip books....one with 500 pictures (30fps) and one with 1000 pictures (60fps).
flipping through the books evenly which animation will be smoother....?

btw, i can tell you now that upping the sensitivity won't make those extra 500 pictures appear

 

[Gold Member]

Oh ok, do you actually have that stat? You have barely played anything but the campaign on Halo 3, but I guess I'll take your word for it.

Halo 2, Halo 3, Reach. All of them have been faster paced than Battlefield, Halo 2 being the slowest of the lot.



How am I shit out of luck? Because I enjoy playing an action-packed fast paced arcade shooter compared to a slow, boring war simulator?

Every game has bugs, there was no point even typing that.

And unlike you and BF, I am actually capable of enjoying other Shooters, along with Halo, another brilliant series is Rainbow Six.

Going back to the thread topic, after Treyarch's next installment, I'll actually be also looking forward to R6: Patriots.

Spent days and days on Halo 2 mp, was the only game I played back in the day hence why I missed CoD4. Halo 3 lost me with the bullshit bubble-shields and crap. Halo was definitely a slower game than CoD and is paced closer to Battlefield games than any CoD game.

I prefer to play one game at a time, play the shit out of it and become pretty good, as opposed to being mediocre at a lot of games.

 

[JordanWCE]

Fair enough then.

 

[Gold Member]

absolute crap.
the smoothness of a game is more due to the frames per second.
upping the sensitivity will only make you change aiming direction faster.....it doesn't magically add double the frames making it feel/appear smoother

in fact, adding higher sensitivity actually has you missing a higher percentage of the turning animation so it actually makes it less smooth (yet faster).



i pose a question to you goldy.
if there are 2 picture flip books....one with 500 pictures (30fps) and one with 1000 pictures (60fps).
flipping through the books evenly which animation will be smoother....?

btw, i can tell you now that upping the sensitivity won't make those extra 500 pictures appear

I pose a question to you Camo.

Ever go the the cinema because it offers a better experience that watching at home???

24 frames per second son, twice as much as the human eye can process.

 

[smiths]

Maybe 2 or 3 after mw3. Black ops was my 1st cod.

 

[calyam]

Put quite a lot of time in MW2 even though the balance was rubbish. At the end of the day the balance issues mostly made the game amusing as long as you didn't take it too seriously.

Didn't really get into the Black Ops MP despite really enjoying the SP.

And MW3 I probably wouldn't have gotten had I not received it as a present. So this could be my last CoD game - at least until the next generation.

 

[caMoGFC]

I pose a question to you Camo.

Ever go the the cinema because it offers a better experience that watching at home???

24 frames per second son, twice as much as the human eye can process.

so i take it you concede?

smart move.


your question has nothing to do with the feel/smoothness of animation (especially in fps terms) but i'll answer it anyway.

i go to the cinema because i enjoy the social aspect of going with friends for an easy night out to watch a movie i havn't seen before...? :S
i don't go to the cinema for the smoothness/feel of framerate lmfao


can't believe how offended you are about a CLEAR advantage cod has over battlefield
both games have advantages over the other...deal with it buddy boy

 

[weagles]

CoD will be always be good for a few days game time across SP, co-op and MP which is good enough for $55AU up here.

I don't expect anything more from Black Ops 2 + Halo 4, a new Assassin's Creed and GTAV will be more important than a 2nd rate Treyarch CoD game this November.

 

[Xtreme]

Black Ops left a sour taste in my mouth, i have not purchased MW 3 as yet and i don't intend to.

I started off hating the COD franchise, played the original on pc.... but i went back to MOH: Allied Assault quick smart. Did the same with COD 2, turned the corner with COD 3. Absolutely loved COD 4: MW, didn't enjoy WAW as much... the best thing about it was the local search on the 360 and having Kiefer Sutherland in the game . I thought MW 2 was good to play, but i wound up missing the maps from COD 4.

Going back to Black Ops, i purchased it at launch.... played online for a bit.... didn't enjoy it. Tried to play through the campaign, but was hit by too many game breaking bugs (getting stuck on walls, not being able to progress further etc).

 

[Gentlemen]

Honestly, buy one COD, stick with it, then when the next cut and paste game comes out don't buy it, stick with the one you have.

Without the shitty community Cod is now 20% better.

 

[HBK619]

Camo, the feel of a game has more to do with controller sensitivity than frame rate, a high end PC gaming mouse has adjustable dpi settings allowing for super fast and accurate movements. PC also has adjustable FOV which gives the illusion of faster gameplay. Also the Battlefield characters movement is programmed to include inertia unlike the hyperactive slotcar movements of CoD characters.

Also the CoD frame rate is not locked at 60fps. Most of the time you will be running at 48-52fps but 60 is the best case scenario. So to claim it feels crisper because of the 60fps frame rate reeks of being a offended fanboi.

Where did such a passionate hate for COD come from after so much time playing the series?

I don't really want to say it, but it seems like you're just hating on almost everything for the sake of it. Or just because you're becoming blinded by your Battlefield love. I honestly don't get how you can put weeks and weeks into a game and then suddenly hate it with an absolute passion.

COD most definitely feels crisper than Battlefield due to that higher fps, it's very easy to feel and pinpoint. And I have no allegiance to either title. I dislike both in measures on their own accord.

 

[pantskyle]

I played my brother MW3 online over Christmas and just thought "wow this is shit". Crap graphics and very easy. I basically dominated from the get go no challenge. In my eyes it has nothing at all on BF3/BC2.

 

[Frank Grimes]

I will have to see what they are doing for their next installment before looking at buying it. If it's more of the same I'll give it a miss. All in all I like MW3 even though there are things that still need to be fixed up.

What I like about MW3 is how it is nicely balanced. Adding the proficiencies to the weopons and the inclusion of the support/specialist killstreak is a plus in my book. I also like how destroying things like UAV's, SAM's and helicopters add to your killstreak. Even though they should have a system along the lines that destroying something like an attack helicopter will be worth two killstreak points and destroying the UAV being one. Destroying a bigger deadlier killstreak should not be the same as knifing a SAM. But at least it's a step in the right direction.

The things that bring the game down is the horrible spawning system they have. The maps seem bland compared to the other CODs. The lag compensation while not as bad as Black Ops, it's still very bad. Also I know it's a small thing but the scrambler's radius should have been bigger. It would be worth using if it was.

 

[Gold Member]

so i take it you concede?

smart move.


your question has nothing to do with the feel/smoothness of animation (especially in fps terms) but i'll answer it anyway.

i go to the cinema because i enjoy the social aspect of going with friends for an easy night out to watch a movie i havn't seen before...? :S
i don't go to the cinema for the smoothness/feel of framerate lmfao


can't believe how offended you are about a CLEAR advantage cod has over battlefield
both games have advantages over the other...deal with it buddy boy

I concede nothing.

I've posted facts about the frame rates of these games and you're giving me some flimsy shit about the feel. Mate it's the constitution, it's Mabo, it's the vibe. That's it.

Not to mention the fact your precious 60 fps game actually runs around 50fps 90% of the time does not seem to register.

No I am not offended about some placebo advantage you "feel" that CoD has, it's just shows how guillable the CoD minions are in regards to lapping up all the bullshit propaganda that IW, Treyarch and Activision feed you.

One day you too will see through it.

 

[Gold Member]

Where did such a passionate hate for COD come from after so much time playing the series?

I don't really want to say it, but it seems like you're just hating on almost everything for the sake of it. Or just because you're becoming blinded by your Battlefield love. I honestly don't get how you can put weeks and weeks into a game and then suddenly hate it with an absolute passion.

COD most definitely feels crisper than Battlefield due to that higher fps, it's very easy to feel and pinpoint. And I have no allegiance to either title. I dislike both in measures on their own accord.

I have previously posted that my feeling towards CoD are akin to those of a reformed smoker. Can't stand people who haven't yet seen the light.

You damn kids with your crispness. Crispness has more to do with character movement model than framerate. From controller input to on screen action the CoD character model moves instantly. Battlefield characters have inertia programmed into the game. FFS we all watch footy, we know the super athletes who play it can't change direction at top speed at the blink of an eye.

Everytime a CoD player is asked about Battlefield it's the same pre-programmed response: don't like the sluggish movement, must be the 30fps. Activision marketing has you brainwashed with the pretty colours and flashing lights like a child.

So you and Camo are so hypersensitive with framerates and such, but a year ago I was the only person to be able to feel the latency issues the lag compensation in Black Ops introduced. Now Mw3 has turned it up 10x worse and every second post is bitching about it yet you didn't notice it at all in Blops. Guess who was right at the end of that one.....

 

[Gold Member]

......

Freakie
I hate to say it but Goldmember was right

BF is far better.

Freakie
I hate to say it but Goldmember was right

BF is far better.

Freakie
I hate to say it but Goldmember was right

BF is far better.

Freakie
I hate to say it but Goldmember was right

BF is far better.

Freakie
I hate to say it but Goldmember was right

BF is far better.

Freakie
I hate to say it but Goldmember was right

BF is far better.

 

[Jobe Watson]

I'm getting sick of first person shooters all together. Battlefield, COD, Halo - they're all pretty much the same when it comes down to it.

I'll probably check out the next Treyarch COD because they usually add new features that improve the game, but after that I'll be done. Hopefully the next gen consoles give us more innovative online games.

 

[HBK619]

I have previously posted that my feeling towards CoD are akin to those of a reformed smoker. Can't stand people who haven't yet seen the light.

You damn kids with your crispness. Crispness has more to do with character movement model than framerate. From controller input to on screen action the CoD character model moves instantly. Battlefield characters have inertia programmed into the game. FFS we all watch footy, we know the super athletes who play it can't change direction at top speed at the blink of an eye.

Everytime a CoD player is asked about Battlefield it's the same pre-programmed response: don't like the sluggish movement, must be the 30fps. Activision marketing has you brainwashed with the pretty colours and flashing lights like a child.

So you and Camo are so hypersensitive with framerates and such, but a year ago I was the only person to be able to feel the latency issues the lag compensation in Black Ops introduced. Now Mw3 has turned it up 10x worse and every second post is bitching about it yet you didn't notice it at all in Blops. Guess who was right at the end of that one.....

Seen what light exactly? I've played Battlefield, online for more than 24 hours...I'll tell you, it ain't the bees knees. It's ok...that's about it. But no, I haven't seen this 'light'. I'm a COD Fanboy with my whole little over a weeks gametime since 2007 on all COD's combined...(How many hours had you played again? Months? Oh shiiiiiiiiiiiiii)

Now, Digital Foundry (GUYS WHO LOOK AT GAMING TECH FOR A LIVING) said this:

Call of Duty is a series that defines itself by the intimate connection between the player and the controls: the 60 frames per second target frame-rate is the key to the ultra-responsive controls and the great "feel" of the game.

Are they wrong too? Are you really telling me that there is zero tangible difference between a game that runs 40-60fps (which you'll actually find it is a lot stronger than you think in terms of how much it drops generally sticking to 60fps and only going to 50fps at worst in high action moments) than a game running solely at 30fps or below? Or are you just telling me that there's not enough for us to FEEL the difference?

This is the most definitive thing I can think of to tell you how the 'feel' is genuinely different. This is using as indisputable proof as I can find.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-modern-warfare-3-vs-battlefield-3
(Scroll down halfway to the vid)
Or read this:

Input lag tests for Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3. The figure of 50ms we see for MW3 makes it the most responsive first-person shooter we've ever tested on console - the ultra-fast response defining its gameplay. Battlefield 3 at 116ms is ballpark with other 30FPS titles including Killzone 3.

With input lag measured at 50ms - or three frames - Modern Warfare 3 simply feels so much more crisp and responsive than any other first-person shooter we've played on the current-generation consoles.

IS THIS NOT BECAUSE OF THE FRAMERATE? YES OR NO?

I don't know what the hell the lag comp has to do with anything. But I can tell you this, in Blops I could take down just about anyone in a one on one...MW3 not so much. The lag comp you spoke about was greatly exaggerated...even at worst on MW3 it's not 3 seconds and it's FAR, FAR, FAR worse than whatever Blops had I guarantee that. At worst it's a half a second lag I'd hazard a guess.

......

I hate to say this...but BF is no better or worse than COD overall, as a whole. Do you want me to repeat this a billion times for some reason?

Although COD4>Any BF I've played.

 

[Ochre]

What I like about MW3 is how it is nicely balanced.