Littleberu
Banned
MGS4 spoiled us ALL.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
New CoD2 screens, movies, info (56k suck it)
- Thread starter newsguy
- Start date
Kleegamefan
K. LEE GAIDEN
Cant wait for Call of Doodie Too
I have it preorderd
I have it preorderd
maximum360
Member
Looks great and even better in motion.
Looks reallly..... um .... ugly.
This one looks like an xbox game;
http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360.../call-of-duty-2-screens-20050916083825500.jpg
This one looks like an xbox game;
http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360.../call-of-duty-2-screens-20050916083825500.jpg
Eel O'Brian
Member
siege said:
siege said:
and here's a blank for others who want to play along:
siege said:
You can use it for anything! It's an all-purpose quote!
Kabuki Waq
Member
Gek54 said:
err watch the interview and read the impressions fool.
Game looks fine to me except for that floor texture which seems like its at less than half the detail of everything else, but the thing that bothers me is that CoD seems to all be about scripted events, which while looking spectacular annoy me after you realise that it "didnt just happen like that." Id prefer something more dynamic when playing, otherwise it feels like im watching wrestling.
I really want to know where you are getting that idea as I have no played it myself. Based on the movies and the screens, it just doesn't look all that impressive. Everything is rather low-poly and relies too heavily on normal maps, the lighting is rather basic looking, and the animation isn't particularly special. There's something about it that just seems older.Chittagong said:
While less compex, I actually think Half-Life 2 on the PC looks quite a bit better in action. Hell, Far Cry with HDR looks a LOT better than this. CoD2 seems as if it is stuck between generations.
RR6, Kameo, and even NFS looked more impressive to me in video form.
Was it 60 fps, BTW? It did seem a lot smoother at TGS (E3's framerate was beyond awful, but it was still early), so that's a plus. If it's 60, I'd be more impressed. 30 fps isn't impressive, it's the minimum. Like I said, I think HL2 and Far Cry (SM30 version) still look more impressive overall AND run at much higher framerates than 30 fps on my PC.
I kinda think Quake 4 looks quite a bit better in motion (though the actual art direction is pretty ugly).
I kinda think Quake 4 looks quite a bit better in motion (though the actual art direction is pretty ugly).
the guy in the video said it is running at 60fps in high definition, and the video is very smooth, it doesnt drop a single frame even when there is a lot of action going on.
Btw is this their own engine the game is based on? it seems so judging by the comments and how good he thinks it is taking advantage of the hardware.
Btw is this their own engine the game is based on? it seems so judging by the comments and how good he thinks it is taking advantage of the hardware.
So it is 60 fps? Wow, they've come a LONG way over the summer.
OK, at 60 fps and 1280x720, it should really look pretty decent. This is their first game using any sort of modern engine (CoD was Q3A based) and they'll probably been working on the engine for a while (which is why it isn't quite up to date in some ways).
I've noticed that a LOT of 360 games are skipping out on a unified lighting model and the usage of the HDR for lighting. Those two features alone would have a very large impact on the appearance of the visuals in motion.
What graphics chipset was used in the alpha kits? I'm wondering if, perhaps, these games were built using older ATI hardware that did not yet include SM30 capabilities. nVidia's previous generation did support this, so PS3 developers could easily use that as a base...but if 360 developers were using previous generation ATI hardware, they would not have had access to it yet.
OK, at 60 fps and 1280x720, it should really look pretty decent. This is their first game using any sort of modern engine (CoD was Q3A based) and they'll probably been working on the engine for a while (which is why it isn't quite up to date in some ways).
I've noticed that a LOT of 360 games are skipping out on a unified lighting model and the usage of the HDR for lighting. Those two features alone would have a very large impact on the appearance of the visuals in motion.
What graphics chipset was used in the alpha kits? I'm wondering if, perhaps, these games were built using older ATI hardware that did not yet include SM30 capabilities. nVidia's previous generation did support this, so PS3 developers could easily use that as a base...but if 360 developers were using previous generation ATI hardware, they would not have had access to it yet.
Alpha was using I think X800 XT or X850 PE or something like that and G5 CPUs, that is quite awful for a developer.. Beta is basicly an underpowered Xbox 360, same graphic chip but slightly underclocked CPU. Element should verify this info as I am just typing stuff I vaguely remember.
Mr Gump said:
He talked about scripted events. He said that in the first game, the enemy always knew where you were at on the map. So it was easy to offer the scripted events as eye candy at predetermined stages in the game.
In COD2, the gameplay will be more open-ended, with multiple objectives and multiple ways of accomplishing them. IIRC, he said thats why they had to increase the number of scripted events in Call of Booty 2 because a player may or may not see these events in such an open-ended game.
EDIT: IIRC, he also said that they were running AI off of one core.
Similar threads
- Poll