Activision wouldn't waste money for that. There are plenty of morons out there to do the work without being pushed.
Swedishs are really pround of DICE and their games, and they can be.
It's not only about the stunning graphics, every bit of information I get about the gameplay also feeds my eagerness. I really like that they've not forgotten they work on Mirror's Edge because that was a really good game.
I think like you've said in many other articles that the real culprits are CoD fanboy trolls like Raven_Nomad & Warprincess.
After all the positive reactions of PS3 fanboys from this site, and the silly comments of CoD fanboys claiming "oh, I'm gonna be happy with CoD on 1080p & 60FPS", it's crystal clear... They don't just blacklash DICE, they give a bad image to PS3 owners!
"Ok and that article does not provide proof that what you said happens in COD."
There you go, from the expert of gaming tech themselves:
http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...
I think CoD developers could have bring fresh graphics if they dropped the frame-rate to 40, that's still butter smooth.
@Raven_Nomad
Wow, you CoD fanboy don't know anything about gaming tech do you? How would you expect a 720p native rez game with real-time calculated destructible environment, huge scale, vehicles and cutting edge visual quality to run at 60 FPS? The consoles of this gen are so old that making the game run at 60 FPS alone would cut down all of these features.
Why Call of Duty can do it? Because it has a native resolution of 1024x600 which isn't even HD...
It took me some time to consider the PS3 footage on Jimmy Fallon as good. I can't say that I wasn't disappointed with it while not expecting a quality matching to PC (well, I must admit though I thought we would not see that much difference on website vids, just some lesser effects).
But I think the TV quality didn't do justice, and I would really like to see a gameplay footage directly from DICE.
Furthermore, after what they've accomplished on Bad Com...
Well sometimes realistic games offer more interesting gameplay like Brothers In Arms which I think was underrated (at least the first two installments).
You're shooting at the enemies, but with the recoil, you never hit them like you would in Call of Duty or even Battlefield (again, at least in the first two ones). It's not a duck hunt where you kill 50 guys in a minute, which could be fun but could become boring and cheap as time passes.
In BiA, I fi...
Never been there in real life but... bring back memories^^
"I see a very creative company that gives its developers the tools and the resources they need to do great things, that isn’t afraid to [delay] games if that’s what it takes to get them right.”
Little exercise boys: find the two unfitting words with "Activision" in this statement.
Anyway, didn't Kotick said he liked to be considered as the Darth Vader of gaming industry? I thought I read it somewhere...
But you know, in Jap...
Off topic but this level looks much like one of the Call of Duty 2 level where you also play as a Soviet sniper...
Maybe they both recreated an existing place...
Anyway, interesting stuff.
It's better than: "Battlefield 3 will be 30 FPS on console", "Battlefield 3 on console will have half the frame-rate of PC", "Battlefield 3 won't be at 1080p on consoles"...
I just don't get how this article was approved more that the quality of MW3 itself.
Yeah all of this is getting repetitive with every hour an article with slight iteration on this subject getting submitted and then 48 PC guys commenting "wow, every PS3 fanboys thought they could run the game at a PC settings?".
Look at that article. A dozen of paragraphs that sums up to "MW3's gonna be awesome" with invented facts that doesn't add up anything to what we already know.
While MW3 could have some valid key-selling points, the article is just useless...
If I was told by an ignorant PS3 fanboy like the dumb guy on twitter or the author of this article that I could've done better if I had studied even more the console and while I had actually done considerable work and research on it, I would've said more than "bullsh*t".
They've done a presentation on deferred shading specially for the PS3 at the GDC:
5349d ago 7 agree0 disagreeView comment
"the extremely interactive environment of Modern Warfare 3"
lol, wut?
@Baka-akaB
I think the E3 demo alone was a proof. It wasn't just about the performance (which was marvelous) but also how they achieved to bring scary atmosphere in this heaven-like tropical environment.
Erm, I think lip-sync is more difficult than shooting face mocap and recording the voice at the same time (well, that's traditional acting + beans and golf ball all over your face/body).
Reznov in Black Ops was very good too although I doubt Gary Oldman took the time to shoot performance capture for the game and only did voice over (which defies the purpose of performance capture but the lips were very well synced and Gary Oldman's performance fit perfectly with the f...
According to Digital Foundry, Modern Warfare 3 will be the smoothest CoD since the fourth, rarely dropping the frame-rate during the sub-marine level:
http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...
Still, I had enough of fast-paced shooter since Call of Duty 4 and W@W that I've played the shit out so I'll stick to BF3 and I'll play on PC anyway...
As long as they are two games, as long they are two shooters, they will always be comparable.
But the value of each of them will indeed depend a lot on the taste and profile of the gamer.