Call of Duty 2013

Someone please tell your opinion of the multiplayer vs Black Ops.

Does it feel different and how so? Is it fun....more fun than BLOPS? I have read review but want your opinion.

 

Wouldn't include EA in that now, as they are the only publisher offering a no questions asked refund.

Different story when buying a Steamworks game though, been over a year since I bought a full price game that used that.

So when is this Nvidia patch supposed to arriving, looks interesting, though probably not enough for me to pay more than £20 for this.

 

http://www.dsogaming.com/news/this-is-why-our-call-of-duty-ghosts-performance-analysis-is-postponed/

It seems the in-game settings are ****ed somewhat. The highest texture preset isn't available for some reason.

What a mess.

 

They do work, or they do here at least, just that the textures are awful and then become OK, they don't start out looking OK and then become great.
(Or how to say, no super high res TGA files here.)

Normal: (There is no "low" setting for the base texture quality so I skipped that.)



High:


Extra:


There is a difference, between normal and high it's pretty obvious, between high and extra it's more subtle but you can still see it.
(Ground for example, hands too plus the weapon such as the scratches and text.)

 

Could someone reply to my last comment please.

 

Thanks for this Jonas.

So what is Dso-Gaming referring to ?

Anyway the game isn't ugly per se but it's pretty underwhelming accross the board. The space sequence is by far the most pretty scenes the game has to offer, it's a downhill from here.

 

I would say something but I have not tried the multiplayer modes yet so I can't comment on that since I have no experience other than what people say on the Steam forums.

EDIT:

I believe the game locks out the extra quality if you have less than 2 GB of VRAM but I have not found anything proving that other than posts on the official forums.

I have also seen people saying that the settings don't save but there's not been that many posts about it and I haven't been able to confirm that either.

It could also be that DSO simply expected a larger difference whereas there's nothing like that, I would assume that the normal texture quality is 512x512 with DDS compression, high is probably 1024x1024 DDS and extra is likely high with some 2048x2048 textures for increased detail on stuff like the weapon models, ground terrain and vehicles.

As you can see from other games offering a high resolution add-on such as as say Sacred 2 or Skyrim even in a direct comparison you won't see a big difference.
(Mostly for smaller less detailed clutter but taking Skyrim as a example there's little difference in the armor and weapon models since they are already at a higher resolution.)

Varies from game to game though and also depends on the game engine and the 3D model (UV mapping for example.) but going from 1024 to 2048 might not make a big difference unless the texture is completely overhauled or the 3D model improved.
(Such as with Millenia's reskins for Skyrim and Fallout New Vegas to take a popular example.)


EDIT: I don't know if 4K would make a big difference, it might be that you'll need a resolution like that to truly notice such changes.
(You certainly would need such a setup for 4096x4096 textures.)

 

any one else had the mouse lag problem with this game in windows 8.1

when I go to the menu, my mouse wont move at first, and same when alt-tab to desktop.

 

Interesting, there's something rotten somewhere.
I'm also skeptical about those "higher quality assets" that 4K supposedly enables. Shots posted on Geforce.com aren't all that impressive.

To be fair I wasn't expecting state of the art visuals from a COD game but as it stands (let's see what Physx brings to the table) Ghosts is simply not worthy of the "next-gen" monicker.

 

i did replied u while iam in office but now it looks like its GONE. no idea.

it is GOOD. not as fast as BO2 in terms of game play. BIG maps. slow gaming. bullets kill u instantly. perks and unlocks r cool. overal looks balanced well. not an easy game. if u r into MP FPS, this is a good game.

but, have issues. keeps freezing me. keeps crashing sometimes. nd perforamcne is utter sht. even on lowest setting i have fps drops.

when they patch this. it will be good. i love the game.

 

Thanks for the reply

 

you are welcome.

and anyone knows Which marksman rifle holds more ammo pls? i dont want to spend my Xps to experiment.

 

Those all sound like good changes imo. COD had become too fast imo and a bit larger maps is also good. So would you say it's a bit less arcade?

Is the combat smooth?

 

yes less arcade. jumping etc wont save ur ass. i saw a few people doing jump and gun. yea works but not as easy as BO2. prone works fast . they should nerf it too. but well. that is personal choice. i use it too sometimes. i mean instantly prone and save ur ass and kill the opposition.

 

I hate low FOV, especially BF4´s campaign...55! lol

Is this game FOV as bad as BF4 ? If so, is there a fix somewhere ? (singleplayer)

 

I just heard you can't turn down the music w/o turning down all the sound. That true?

 

That's indeed a shame if it comes to be true. I remember when i played COD4 MP and the music sound was really the worst part when i was trying to listen to the enemy footsteps.

 

Yes this is true, and the music is super annoying... I just dont get how they shrug off the pc population like an after thought...

 

Well that seals the deal for me. I'm not buying it until they change it.

No way I'm listening to the music the whole time.

Totalbiscuit is really ripping the game on youtube. I'm a bit disappointed really....have they said anything about fixing these issues?

 

lmao Totalbiscuit the muppet with 2 titans ?

saw his vid, every 30 sec he was mentioning bf4.. yeah srs bsns