cod SP also very linear. So its possible that its just because dev has more time to carefully tweak every aspect in SP?
Call Of Duty: Advanced Warfare
- Thread starter DavidGraham
- Start date
-
- Tags
- tig:advancedwarfare
It's also possible that the multiplayer designer might desire plainer effects for visibility and gameplay purposes with the bonus of making solid-60fps more easily attainable,
It's not quite like the shiny metal stuff is absent in the footage either (or the giant wave thing).
The SP is your summer blockbuster Michael Bay visual orgy versus... well... straight-up-dawg-time shootbang.
leaving network shenanigans to blame for poor K/D.
h4xx0rs!!!!!1111
It's not quite like the shiny metal stuff is absent in the footage either (or the giant wave thing).
The SP is your summer blockbuster Michael Bay visual orgy versus... well... straight-up-dawg-time shootbang.
I actually agree, a lot of multiplayer FPS are unplayable for me these days because of things like head bobing, "trauma effects" like blurred vision, lighting that is in your face and flashy rather than subtle and natural. BF4 is a prime example of visual effects obscuring your visibility considerably.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
COD:AW needs 55Gb HDD space on PC
No news on the install size for consoles but the PC version needs a whopping 55Gb install space, which does not bode well.
The other requirements are more modest:
No news on the install size for consoles but the PC version needs a whopping 55Gb install space, which does not bode well.
The other requirements are more modest:
- OS: Windows 7 64-Bit / Windows 8 64-Bit / Windows 8.1 64-Bit
- Processor: Intel Core i3-530 @ 2.93 GHz / AMD Phenom II X4 810 @ 2.80 GHz or better
- Memory: 6GB RAM
- Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 @ 1GB / ATI Radeon HD 5870 @ 1GB or better
- DirectX: Version 11
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 55GB available space
- Sound Card: DirectX-compatible
Totes ridic.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Indeed. I can't wait to see how this space is used. I wonder if it's like Titanfall and has a ton of uncompressed audio.
The game looks great for the most part… frame-rate looks solid, without any visible screen tearing. The only real negative at the moment is the ugly aliasing. Other than that, more than likely a PC purchase for me.
They've got no reason to mess with a winning formula.
Another reason MP graphics take a step back in COD is the games have always run in 4-player split-screen. It's one of the only current games to do that.
Another reason MP graphics take a step back in COD is the games have always run in 4-player split-screen. It's one of the only current games to do that.
Is it really a winning formula, or just something they refused to improve upon and that gamers came to except?
IMHO, every following COD game is just a rebranded package with more glitter/cinema appeal… the game mechanics rarely changing. Sure, one can argue the introduction of the EXO suits could offer a new way of playing… but haven’t we seen this already in other games?
Not that I’m trying to rip COD a new one… the series IMHO, just needs a serious rethinking dealing with gameplay and strategy.
The sales say the formula is winning. Ghosts was a bit of a mis-step, but at this point, COD's only competition is consumer disinterest.
I believe its 3 or is it 4 COD version in a row that have sold less than the previous so its definitely on the downward slope, though this next one Im guessing cold be bigger than the last (no battlefield competition) and it does look a lot better than ghosts, actually just see its current gen only (no ps360) so it will also sell less than the last COD
RenegadeRocks
Legend
Yup, somehow no interest in it. I was more excited when BO2 was announced, this has elicited no interest at all even though they are changing the mechanics quite a bit.
.
Similar threads
- Deleted member 86764
- Games