Hmmmmmmm, Nice post btw, ghost should be more like battlefield i think

But yet, you have a "MW3" avatar??

People just seem to forget that Call of Duty also runs with 60 frames per second as well. I'm sure this takes away from space or power that could be used to fuel the graphics. MW3, along with it running at 60 FPS and only requiring one disk for the entire game and no downloads, was state of the art at the time. This isn't a major arguing point, but Battlefield 3's graphics for their guns has to be some of the worst graphics I have ever seen. The environment does look nice in Battlefield, but I actually wouldn't want Call of Duty looking like that. There are different styles of graphics that look good and that fit in with that game's universe. The Battlefield style just isn't Call of Duty. I'm sure the people of Infinity Ward and Treyarch feel that gameplay is more important than graphics anyway. Their games always run smooth. Sure, there are some balancing issues, but all games have them. Battlefield and Call of Duty aren't really comparable games anyway. Compare Ghosts with MW3 or BO2 and that is why a lot of people are amped for it. I don't see what is so wrong about the engine comment either. If you update something enough, it does become something new. It doesn't have to be built from the ground up. All in all, the game is still being made so why complain now? Did you notice that in one of the first clips of MW3 a soldier was thrown a magazine that was solid plastic that had no rounds in it? Guess what? They went and fixed that up before the game released. They have time, give it to them.

Reap wrote But yet, you have a "MW3" avatar??

I didn't say MW3 was a bad game, in fact the Campaign was very good IMO but I don't think the graphics were good and just an upgrade on the graphics on a next gen console isn't adequate.

Yin wrote People just seem to forget that Call of Duty also runs with 60 frames per second as well. I'm sure this takes away from space or power that could be used to fuel the graphics. MW3, along with it running at 60 FPS and only requiring one disk for the entire game and no downloads, was state of the art at the time. This isn't a major arguing point, but Battlefield 3's graphics for their guns has to be some of the worst graphics I have ever seen. The environment does look nice in Battlefield, but I actually wouldn't want Call of Duty looking like that. There are different styles of graphics that look good and that fit in with that game's universe. The Battlefield style just isn't Call of Duty. I'm sure the people of Infinity Ward and Treyarch feel that gameplay is more important than graphics anyway. Their games always run smooth. Sure, there are some balancing issues, but all games have them. Battlefield and Call of Duty aren't really comparable games anyway. Compare Ghosts with MW3 or BO2 and that is why a lot of people are amped for it. I don't see what is so wrong about the engine comment either. If you update something enough, it does become something new. It doesn't have to be built from the ground up. All in all, the game is still being made so why complain now? Did you notice that in one of the first clips of MW3 a soldier was thrown a magazine that was solid plastic that had no rounds in it? Guess what? They went and fixed that up before the game released. They have time, give it to them.

It seems that the creators of the biggest FPS seem to put little effort into it though, they have the technology to improve the graphics dramatically, they should be making a new engine and should have the best graphics to compete with the other FPS.

For a game that runs at 60 fps, the graphics look great. But just because a game has good graphics, doesn't mean it is fun or has good gameplay. Look at minecraft. I prefer gameplay over graphics because what is the point of playing a game with good graphics but is boring and has sh*tty gameplay?

SasukeUzamaki wrote

Yin wrote People just seem to forget that Call of Duty also runs with 60 frames per second as well. I'm sure this takes away from space or power that could be used to fuel the graphics. MW3, along with it running at 60 FPS and only requiring one disk for the entire game and no downloads, was state of the art at the time. This isn't a major arguing point, but Battlefield 3's graphics for their guns has to be some of the worst graphics I have ever seen. The environment does look nice in Battlefield, but I actually wouldn't want Call of Duty looking like that. There are different styles of graphics that look good and that fit in with that game's universe. The Battlefield style just isn't Call of Duty. I'm sure the people of Infinity Ward and Treyarch feel that gameplay is more important than graphics anyway. Their games always run smooth. Sure, there are some balancing issues, but all games have them. Battlefield and Call of Duty aren't really comparable games anyway. Compare Ghosts with MW3 or BO2 and that is why a lot of people are amped for it. I don't see what is so wrong about the engine comment either. If you update something enough, it does become something new. It doesn't have to be built from the ground up. All in all, the game is still being made so why complain now? Did you notice that in one of the first clips of MW3 a soldier was thrown a magazine that was solid plastic that had no rounds in it? Guess what? They went and fixed that up before the game released. They have time, give it to them.

It seems that the creators of the biggest FPS seem to put little effort into it though, they have the technology to improve the graphics dramatically, they should be making a new engine and should have the best graphics to compete with the other FPS.

They do so because they know people will buy it anyways.. doesn't matter how bad it is.

SasukeUzamaki wrote

Yin wrote People just seem to forget that Call of Duty also runs with 60 frames per second as well. I'm sure this takes away from space or power that could be used to fuel the graphics. MW3, along with it running at 60 FPS and only requiring one disk for the entire game and no downloads, was state of the art at the time. This isn't a major arguing point, but Battlefield 3's graphics for their guns has to be some of the worst graphics I have ever seen. The environment does look nice in Battlefield, but I actually wouldn't want Call of Duty looking like that. There are different styles of graphics that look good and that fit in with that game's universe. The Battlefield style just isn't Call of Duty. I'm sure the people of Infinity Ward and Treyarch feel that gameplay is more important than graphics anyway. Their games always run smooth. Sure, there are some balancing issues, but all games have them. Battlefield and Call of Duty aren't really comparable games anyway. Compare Ghosts with MW3 or BO2 and that is why a lot of people are amped for it. I don't see what is so wrong about the engine comment either. If you update something enough, it does become something new. It doesn't have to be built from the ground up. All in all, the game is still being made so why complain now? Did you notice that in one of the first clips of MW3 a soldier was thrown a magazine that was solid plastic that had no rounds in it? Guess what? They went and fixed that up before the game released. They have time, give it to them.

It seems that the creators of the biggest FPS seem to put little effort into it though, they have the technology to improve the graphics dramatically, they should be making a new engine and should have the best graphics to compete with the other FPS.

They don't need graphics to compete with anyone. They blow the competition out of the water without the best graphics. Again, for 60 frames per second, their graphics are one of the greatest. Bi-yearly releases also does not give them time to make the game perfect in the sense of what the console can do. They will improve year by year until it finishes off with the best they can do. Why waste time on making a brand new engine when the one they have works perfectly fine and sells millions? That is a giant gamble for little to no reward. They can ruin a game and the series with a new engine.

Yin wrote

SasukeUzamaki wrote

Yin wrote People just seem to forget that Call of Duty also runs with 60 frames per second as well. I'm sure this takes away from space or power that could be used to fuel the graphics. MW3, along with it running at 60 FPS and only requiring one disk for the entire game and no downloads, was state of the art at the time. This isn't a major arguing point, but Battlefield 3's graphics for their guns has to be some of the worst graphics I have ever seen. The environment does look nice in Battlefield, but I actually wouldn't want Call of Duty looking like that. There are different styles of graphics that look good and that fit in with that game's universe. The Battlefield style just isn't Call of Duty. I'm sure the people of Infinity Ward and Treyarch feel that gameplay is more important than graphics anyway. Their games always run smooth. Sure, there are some balancing issues, but all games have them. Battlefield and Call of Duty aren't really comparable games anyway. Compare Ghosts with MW3 or BO2 and that is why a lot of people are amped for it. I don't see what is so wrong about the engine comment either. If you update something enough, it does become something new. It doesn't have to be built from the ground up. All in all, the game is still being made so why complain now? Did you notice that in one of the first clips of MW3 a soldier was thrown a magazine that was solid plastic that had no rounds in it? Guess what? They went and fixed that up before the game released. They have time, give it to them.

It seems that the creators of the biggest FPS seem to put little effort into it though, they have the technology to improve the graphics dramatically, they should be making a new engine and should have the best graphics to compete with the other FPS.

They don't need graphics to compete with anyone. They blow the competition out of the water without the best graphics. Again, for 60 frames per second, their graphics are one of the greatest. Bi-yearly releases also does not give them time to make the game perfect in the sense of what the console can do. They will improve year by year until it finishes off with the best they can do. Why waste time on making a brand new engine when the one they have works perfectly fine and sells millions? That is a giant gamble for little to no reward. They can ruin a game and the series with a new engine.

Yin..
You know as well as I do (hopefully) that is already ruined. The only reason they sell is because of the gullible customers. I have to admit, they are really smart.

-Hardly fix problems in the game.
-Promise to fix problems next game
-Fix problems, add more.
-Boast about brand new game
-Game comes out (or before), admit it's the same engine, only updated.

It's about the profit. In reality, the engine should be revamped with the new hardware coming out. But like they said, 2 years is a short timeframe. That's why the should just reduce it to every 2 years per company or something, make better games hopefully.