MoH runs at 30fps on the consoles.
BlackOps runs at 60fps on consoles.
Considering that its the same engine being churned to different platforms, MoH would look better.
As far as PC gamers are concerned, it's better that a game runs at 30fps on consoles, cause the only difference to the PC gamer is it'll look better. (performance generally not an issue)
I suppose the same goes for most console gamers too, it's all about visuals to ...
Although destructible environments are cool, they won't work in CoD's play style.
Destructible env. + explosive weapon in small maps = RRRAAAEEEGGGGGEGEGEG
Eh?
How do you know Trey didn't do the best they could?
How do you know that it could have "easily been just as great as the 360 or better"?
Meh.
If both 360 and Ps3 versions were same, you'd have less people complaining. Seems people don't care about actual quality of a game... all they care about is whether someone else is getting a slightly better experience.
...Why not?
It was with the PC where CoD originally gained popularity. This was with CoD2, not CoD4 as most people seem to believe. (CoD1 actually brought in a crowd too, especially with UnitedOffensive, but the popularity mostly spiked with 2)
CoD2 is still actively played too.
All CoD4 did was release a version for the consoles that didn't fail, and hence getting more popularity. But it was the PC gamers who were the major group supporting the game till then.
Thousands of gamers aren't too happy with BlackOps as it is.
Cuba needs to get in line.
Though... assassination of a guy who's actually still living. Not a smooth move.
True friendship in its pristine form.
=)
Wonder what sale steam will have.
I didn't get the fifth reason.
It's worth the wait because the wait isn't a... wait?
... wait, what?
FPS isn't all about what the eye can detect, but rather how the game actually plays is a part of it too.
FPS and input lag have a close correlation.
With higher FPS, you get much smoother movement and the gameplay feels more fluid. Although anything beyond 150fps is harder to detect, there is a big noticeable difference between gaming at 120fps and being at 90fps.
... and there are plenty of games that can make even a modern PC cry some tears. Tho...
... I kept wondering why the enemies were so easy to kill, and why I only had so much little ammo despite all the looting I did.
... then I realized I was shooting currency. =/
It had a female fanbase?
O.o
To be fair, Activision's ignorance goes much beyond it's female fanbase. =/
...GLADoS?
Is it just me or did the HUD get heavier? (or was it a replay?)
Isn't Killzone3 running at 30FPS. That makes an impact too. =/
... so I take it you haven't played Crysis then?
It didn't have story, true... then again, FPS games generally don't have anything to write home about.
As far as innovation goes... you've got the suit, the art-style (Crysis doesn't have realistic graphics, but rather, they have a stylized touch and are appealing. That's art design), as well as a non-linear FPS gameplay.
But hey, atleast you said it was polished. Thats a compliment.
Crysis... mediocre as a game?
*sigh* Alright, if you say so.
I guess it really didn't innovate anything new in terms of FPS gameplay.
...and I guess companies don't care about PC because Valve and Blizzard seem to be borderline bankrupt too. Ah well.
>.>
Quake3 engine is serious business.
Its amusing how PC players argue amongst each other regarding higher frames-per-second in the nVidia vs ATI debates.
Whereas the console players argue over actual visual quality. (xbox being ATI and PS3 being nVidia)
Heh, anyways... seems 360 looks better in the first half. But the latter images look better on the PS3?
O.o
Especially considering that PC gamers have been playing GunGame on CoD4 since... well, a long time ago.
Atleast it's giving the game-mode some exposure. I'd like to see more games have that as a mode, it is fun. =)