Discussion in 'Games, Gaming & Game-demos' started by Ryman03, Nov 12, 2005.
Two new reviews. Next Level Gaming - 92%, IGN - 9.0
From IGN review:
7 reviews = 92% average.
I'd like to know how it can 'look superior', given the two screenshots I posted, which look identical except for the X360 version having lower res textures and no AA or AF. If it runs at a higher frame rate, that's fair enough and not at all surprising given the poor job they did on the PC version.
Marks out of ten are completely irrelevant. Most of the amateurs that write for these sites still have the "average game = 7/10" mentality.
What exactly is the point you're trying to prove though?
lol, i guess u are so piss up that the xbox360 is superior. all 7 reviews are from gamers that knows much more about videogames than what we do, play videogames all the time, how can they all be wrong and u right, i guess u go by screenshot, but they are going by playing the ACTUAL games side by side, there's no way they're gonna be making an statement so big without doing side by side comparation.
i guess this tread ended, XBOX360 COD2 IS THE CLEAR WINNER. EVEN IF U HATE TO HEAR IT.
Denial is a terrible thing brother. You really need to get over it. And where are you getting this low res textures no AA or AF stuff from?? An old screenshot? And how can you call these guys amateurs? Who do you write for? Are you suggesting that you know more about the game based off a couple of screenshots then 7 professionals that have actually played the game? Sad, really, it is.
As to your question, you should really be asking that of yourself.
The textures don't look worse due to being lower res only due to not having any AF. I saw that screenshot a while ago so I guess the new builds have AA because the 360 apparently gives "free" anti-aliasing so they'll probably use it if that's true.
They're basically the same except the PC version can look better by having more AA/AF addded.
I wish people here would stop having dick size wars and let this thread die.
think of it this way.
how many times have you read an article about something you know a lot about (lets say, you fly radio control airplanes), and the author gives you some 'preofessional review' where he blatantly says things that are obviously wrong, and anyone who knew his **** would know.
screenshots don't lie.
they're what you see when you play the game.
you can't say it looks amazing side by side, but *magically* it turns to **** when you take it at any one moment.
did you maybe consider that the reviewers ran the pc version with not-that-amazing settings, and on not-that-fast PC's?
it's obviously poorly coded for the pc, so it's not unlikely the reviewer simply ran it at crap settings to make it comfortable to play.
360 = 1 quality ALWAYS
PC = maxxed settings are AS BEST AS IT GETS
all we know is :
maxxed pc looks better than standard 360
maxxed pc looks ancient and unimpressive (looks 1+ years old at least)
maxxed pc runs like crap
standard 360 runs just fine
people saying "omg COD2 looks awesome!" makes my jaw drop is awe... where do they come from? have they lived in a box the last year? we're comparing the graphics of two ****ty looking games. wtf does it even matter.
it's like :
"omg half life 1 looks way better than quake 1 !!!!!!11111oneoneone"
(given that for some reason both those were coming out today, after hl2 and doom3)
so what. it's 2005. ...
compare the graphics of something worth comparing today. something that can make people go 'wow, that's really something', _today_.
There you go - dozens of NEW screenshots full of blurred textures and jaggy edges. The shots have been scaled down from 1280x720, but the jaggies are still clearly visible.
No, I am suggesting that I have actually taken the time to compare the two versions side by side and point out some obvious differences, unlike the lazy journalist.
Look at the stone wall and the grass/dirt texture right in the front of the shot. It's clearly lower res, and it's too close to be affected that much by filtering.
Deny, Deny, Deny
When you've actually played both games side by side using the PC of your choice with the settings you like then you can talk. Otherwise STFU!!
Let’s give this a rest and I will tell you why.
Call of Duty 2, Need for Speed Most Wanted, King Kong, etc… ALL these games
are currently coming out for ALL systems not JUST X BOX360. Therefore the full graphical power of the XBOX360 wont show thru as these are not exclusive to the console.
so you may call these mid-gen games i guess.
Comparing how Call of duty 2 looks on your PC as to how it looks on the 360 can be argued till hell comes but in the end the differences are NOT going to be night and day.
I think this thread can be officially restarted once Gears of War comes out. THERE you will have an exclusive XBOX360 game that will truly separate the men from the boys.
It all boils down to that moment when a GoW Demo is released for the PC and then we can truly see how our systems compare to the XBOX 360.
On a sort of side note…So madden 06 is out now..and I’m wondering why they didn’t make the PC version look as graphically good as the XBOX360…or nba2k06..whatever it’s called…hmmmm…
just so i understand, what am i denying?
plz don't say i'm denying COD2 looks awesome...
because that would just be reflecting on your low standards and/or low expectations.
I'll take that to mean that you saw the Gamespot screenshots, and are too much of a dick to admit I was right.
No, what that mean is that I'll take the word of 7 gaming journalist who've actually played the game over an ass like you who just want to compare pictures.
Yeah, just keep denying man. See, I can play that game too.
I still don't know what your original point was and why you have such a problem with this, but to be honest I'm not interested any more and as far as I'm concerned this "discussion" has reached its conclusion.
Well, lets just say that while you are intitled to you opinion your rant that CoD2 looks like crap would put you in the minority because most people think the game looks great. So according to you I guess the majority of us have low standards and/or low expectations. Either that or you're in denial.
Thank God for small favors.
Why does the Xbox 360 run smoother? Simple, lower resolution, less texture detail, less AA/AF.
Lower resolution, well yeah I'll give you that. The PC can certinally go higher then 1280x720. Less texture detail, no this is wrong. The devs and the reviews have all said that the detail is as good as the PC. Less AA/AF. I'll give you that too. AFAIK CoD2 is only using 2x AA and I don't know about AF. So, the question is, how smooth would a high-end PC set at 1280x720 with 2xAA and only trilinear filtering run?
COD 2 for 360 use 4xAA