Frictional Games Forum (read-only)
Why i think call of duty is shit. - Printable Version

+- Frictional Games Forum (read-only) (https://www.frictionalgames.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Frictional Games (https://www.frictionalgames.com/forum/forum-3.html)
+--- Forum: Off-Topic (https://www.frictionalgames.com/forum/forum-16.html)
+--- Thread: Why i think call of duty is shit. (/thread-16968.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

RE: Why i think call of duty is shit. - palistov - 07-14-2012

LOL ANDY.

I like how you pigeon-hole Call of Duty as either shit or mediocre. There are some people who love that series. I've always liked it, because it was the first action-packed adrenaline-pumping unrealistically awesome modern combat game I've played. Well, MW1 was.

I'm not sure if my bias for CoD is because it was the first one I've played and all others I play just seem to try and copy that fast-paced epic combat gameplay style, or because the other games are genuinely not fun.

To address your first point: 1) Yes, graphics do improve. Here's a comparison of an M4A1 in MW1 and an M4A1 in MW3. If you can't distinguish the two because you've either never played them or don't have any attention to detail, MW1 is on top, MW3 on bottom.

[Image: cod4.jpg]

[Image: Modern+Warfare+3+screenshots+4.jpg]



2) Multiplayer is supposed to be the same. Why? Because though they retain the same basic game modes as the original MW3, each game has introduced new equipment, new progression mechanics, new maps, etc the point of the multiplayer is to engage in fast-paced war combat with other people. That's like complaining about Amnesia: TDD and Amnesia: AMFP having the same single-player mechanics. That's the point...



3) Have you even played all three of the MW campaigns? All the way through? They connected the storylines BEAUTIFULLY at the end of MW3. I was used to thinking CoD singleplayer campaigns were all about giving the player an epic non-stop action experience, but it turns out they can bring together the stories of all three of the MW games pretty well.

Also, a lot of focus probably goes into multiplayer to prevent your 4th complaint from coming true.


4) Unfortunately, this is the case with a lot of multiplayer games. There's ALWAYS going to be some setup which is inherently better than others. Even if only slightly. But it also probably depends on your playstyle. Quickscopers will do much better with faster aim-down-sight perks. LMG users will do better with a vertical grip. Tubers will do great with a scavenger-type perk. Etc.


So I will not even grace your rudely biased poll with an answer. Call of duty has always been one of my favorite games, and will remain to be so.


EDIT: 999 :O

RE: Why i think call of duty is shit. - eliasfrost - 07-15-2012

Quote:cod's running off a 15 year old engine.
That's pulling facts out of your arse. The engine was developed for CoD2 and it was released by 2005, and it's being constantly updated with new features, compatibility and graphical improvement (albeit slightly minimal ones). Just like source (2004), and Unreal engine(1998), and the HPL engine. What's your point?

RE: Why i think call of duty is shit. - eliasfrost - 07-15-2012

(07-15-2012, 10:51 AM)Robosprog Wrote:
(07-15-2012, 10:34 AM)nackidno Wrote:
Quote:cod's running off a 15 year old engine.
That's pulling facts out of your arse. The engine was developed for CoD2 and it was released by 2005, and it's being constantly updated with new features, compatibility and graphical improvement (albeit slightly minimal ones). Just like source (2004), and Unreal engine(1998), and the HPL engine. What's your point?
Actually, it's not, the IW engine which has been used since Cod2 was made in 1999, so rounding to the nearest five is 15 years. So, yeah, it isn't. Just because it wasn't used until 2005 doesn't mean it wasn't around before then.
And the fact is, look at the screenshot from Cod MW1, and MW3/2. Look at the buildings etc, they look the exact same as they did in MW1, they just updated the models. So the point is, the engine is vastly under developed, and HPL is nowhere near as old, and Source, is constantly developed by Valve to become better, (ahem, Half Life 2 - Portal 2) as with the unreal engine. Activision only really update models - I can get comparison pictures if you want.
You're referring to the ID tech engine which is the engine that IWE spawned from. It's not the same engine. At it's core yes, but so are many other engines out there. The difference between the two engines are too vast to make a direct comparison. It's kinda like comparing GSRC with Source (which is a spawn from the GSRC engine, which in turn spawned from the Quake engine), at it's core it's the same engine, but the make-over that the engine has gone over has made it into the independent engine that it is today.

RE: Why i think call of duty is shit. - eliasfrost - 07-15-2012

(07-15-2012, 11:08 AM)Robosprog Wrote:
(07-15-2012, 11:05 AM)nackidno Wrote:
(07-15-2012, 10:51 AM)Robosprog Wrote:
(07-15-2012, 10:34 AM)nackidno Wrote:
Quote:cod's running off a 15 year old engine.
That's pulling facts out of your arse. The engine was developed for CoD2 and it was released by 2005, and it's being constantly updated with new features, compatibility and graphical improvement (albeit slightly minimal ones). Just like source (2004), and Unreal engine(1998), and the HPL engine. What's your point?
Actually, it's not, the IW engine which has been used since Cod2 was made in 1999, so rounding to the nearest five is 15 years. So, yeah, it isn't. Just because it wasn't used until 2005 doesn't mean it wasn't around before then.
And the fact is, look at the screenshot from Cod MW1, and MW3/2. Look at the buildings etc, they look the exact same as they did in MW1, they just updated the models. So the point is, the engine is vastly under developed, and HPL is nowhere near as old, and Source, is constantly developed by Valve to become better, (ahem, Half Life 2 - Portal 2) as with the unreal engine. Activision only really update models - I can get comparison pictures if you want.
You're referring to the ID tech engine which is the engine that IWE spawned from. It's not the same engine. At it's core yes, but so are many other engines out there. The difference between the two engines are too vast to make a direct comparison. It's kinda like comparing GSRC with Source (which is a spawn from the GSRC engine, which in turn spawned from the Quake engine), at it's core it's the same engine, but the make-over that the engine has gone over has made it into the independent engine that it is today.
I'm not, I'm referring to the IW engine which was created in 1999, not the ID tech engine, if I was referring to the ID tech engine I'd say that engine instead of the IW engine.
Then you got your facts wrong. Because the engine that CoD 1 was made with is a modification of the ID tech 3 engine. Then IW revamped and almost rewrote the engine later to be used in 2005 for CoD2 (now known as IWE). It's a different engine, though with the same core as the ID tech engine.

RE: Why i think call of duty is shit. - Bridge - 07-15-2012

(07-15-2012, 11:23 AM)Robosprog Wrote:
(07-15-2012, 11:21 AM)nackidno Wrote:
(07-15-2012, 11:08 AM)Robosprog Wrote:
(07-15-2012, 11:05 AM)nackidno Wrote:
(07-15-2012, 10:51 AM)Robosprog Wrote: Actually, it's not, the IW engine which has been used since Cod2 was made in 1999, so rounding to the nearest five is 15 years. So, yeah, it isn't. Just because it wasn't used until 2005 doesn't mean it wasn't around before then.
And the fact is, look at the screenshot from Cod MW1, and MW3/2. Look at the buildings etc, they look the exact same as they did in MW1, they just updated the models. So the point is, the engine is vastly under developed, and HPL is nowhere near as old, and Source, is constantly developed by Valve to become better, (ahem, Half Life 2 - Portal 2) as with the unreal engine. Activision only really update models - I can get comparison pictures if you want.
You're referring to the ID tech engine which is the engine that IWE spawned from. It's not the same engine. At it's core yes, but so are many other engines out there. The difference between the two engines are too vast to make a direct comparison. It's kinda like comparing GSRC with Source (which is a spawn from the GSRC engine, which in turn spawned from the Quake engine), at it's core it's the same engine, but the make-over that the engine has gone over has made it into the independent engine that it is today.
I'm not, I'm referring to the IW engine which was created in 1999, not the ID tech engine, if I was referring to the ID tech engine I'd say that engine instead of the IW engine.
Then you got your facts wrong. Because the engine that CoD 1 was made with is a modification of the ID tech 3 engine. Then IW revamped and almost rewrote the engine later to be used in 2005 for CoD2 (now known as IWE). It's a different engine, though with the same core as the ID tech engine.
I never talked about the first call of duty though did I? So how did I get my facts wrong when I was talking about the engine Cod2 used? It was made first in 1999, then used for Cod2 in 2005, what they'd of done is just revamp etc it between then and 2005, but how on earth was I talking about the first call of duty?
By your definition Amnesia is running on a 6 year old engine, because the HPL2 engine is just the same as the HPL1 build used in the Penumbra Tech Demo, right?

Also, what they did was not just "revamp it", they heavily modified an already heavily modified version of the id Tech 3 engine. It doesn't matter how old it is, they are constantly improving upon it and in theory a well designed engine can be used forever.

RE: Why i think call of duty is shit. - eliasfrost - 07-15-2012

(07-15-2012, 11:23 AM)Robosprog Wrote:
(07-15-2012, 11:21 AM)nackidno Wrote:
(07-15-2012, 11:08 AM)Robosprog Wrote:
(07-15-2012, 11:05 AM)nackidno Wrote:
(07-15-2012, 10:51 AM)Robosprog Wrote: Actually, it's not, the IW engine which has been used since Cod2 was made in 1999, so rounding to the nearest five is 15 years. So, yeah, it isn't. Just because it wasn't used until 2005 doesn't mean it wasn't around before then.
And the fact is, look at the screenshot from Cod MW1, and MW3/2. Look at the buildings etc, they look the exact same as they did in MW1, they just updated the models. So the point is, the engine is vastly under developed, and HPL is nowhere near as old, and Source, is constantly developed by Valve to become better, (ahem, Half Life 2 - Portal 2) as with the unreal engine. Activision only really update models - I can get comparison pictures if you want.
You're referring to the ID tech engine which is the engine that IWE spawned from. It's not the same engine. At it's core yes, but so are many other engines out there. The difference between the two engines are too vast to make a direct comparison. It's kinda like comparing GSRC with Source (which is a spawn from the GSRC engine, which in turn spawned from the Quake engine), at it's core it's the same engine, but the make-over that the engine has gone over has made it into the independent engine that it is today.
I'm not, I'm referring to the IW engine which was created in 1999, not the ID tech engine, if I was referring to the ID tech engine I'd say that engine instead of the IW engine.
Then you got your facts wrong. Because the engine that CoD 1 was made with is a modification of the ID tech 3 engine. Then IW revamped and almost rewrote the engine later to be used in 2005 for CoD2 (now known as IWE). It's a different engine, though with the same core as the ID tech engine.
I never talked about the first call of duty though did I? So how did I get my facts wrong when I was talking about the engine Cod2 used? It was made first in 1999, then used for Cod2 in 2005, what they'd of done is just revamp etc it between then and 2005, but how on earth was I talking about the first call of duty?
No they didn't, the IWE engine was written for CoD2 after the release of CoD1. Between 2003 and the release in 2005. Not 1999. Before that, it was the QuakeEngine mod used for CoD1, which is not the same engine. The IWE engine was developed during 03 and 05.

RE: Why i think call of duty is shit. - Bridge - 07-15-2012

(07-15-2012, 12:00 PM)Robosprog Wrote: post
[Image: ibeKeIjkLpC88v.png]

I'm in no way a CoD apologist, but these are major changes that require a lot of code to be edited to be implemented properly. So, IW are definitely not just adding higher quality textures and higher-poly models to the game.

RE: Why i think call of duty is shit. - Bridge - 07-15-2012

(07-15-2012, 01:03 PM)Robosprog Wrote: If we ignore Cod2 and 4's progress as I was referring from after 4 that's not a whole lot changed other than World at War, hell, they added the same technology twice and we don't even know if Black Ops 2 will keep those features, games have promised before technologies that never made it into the actual game. (fable)
A couple of lighting tweaks and texture streaming (added twice, wut) isn't what I'd call major changes, and in terms of what you can actually see, yes, it effectively is, hell, it was proven by Palistov screenshots earlier, the scenery (buildings forest both barely changing in terms of texture, quality etc).

Infact, quite a few of the features that are anywhere near major were added recently when other engines have had them for years.
Back in 2004 when Valve said they were going to utilize HDR technology in Half-Life 2 it was big news and they even created a new mod just to show it off. Not the first to do it but I am fairly certain it was a first for a 3D game.

CoD may be late to the party when it comes to some of these advanced lighting features but that doesn't mean it isn't complicated to implement them and they did it on an engine that didn't support them natively.

P.S. The reason why they introduced texture streaming twice is because if you look closely Black Ops actually uses the World at War IW 3.0 engine, now IW 4.0. As I said, I'm not a fan of Infinity Ward at all, but I recognize that the new CoD games are well made.

RE: Why i think call of duty is shit. - wolfmaster1231 - 07-15-2012

(07-15-2012, 01:56 PM)Robosprog Wrote:
(07-15-2012, 01:31 PM)Bridge Wrote:
(07-15-2012, 01:03 PM)Robosprog Wrote: If we ignore Cod2 and 4's progress as I was referring from after 4 that's not a whole lot changed other than World at War, hell, they added the same technology twice and we don't even know if Black Ops 2 will keep those features, games have promised before technologies that never made it into the actual game. (fable)
A couple of lighting tweaks and texture streaming (added twice, wut) isn't what I'd call major changes, and in terms of what you can actually see, yes, it effectively is, hell, it was proven by Palistov screenshots earlier, the scenery (buildings forest both barely changing in terms of texture, quality etc).

Infact, quite a few of the features that are anywhere near major were added recently when other engines have had them for years.
Back in 2004 when Valve said they were going to utilize HDR technology in Half-Life 2 it was big news and they even created a new mod just to show it off. Not the first to do it but I am fairly certain it was a first for a 3D game.

CoD may be late to the party when it comes to some of these advanced lighting features but that doesn't mean it isn't complicated to implement them and they did it on an engine that didn't support them natively.

P.S. The reason why they introduced texture streaming twice is because if you look closely Black Ops actually uses the World at War IW 3.0 engine, now IW 4.0. As I said, I'm not a fan of Infinity Ward at all, but I recognize that the new CoD games are well made.
First off, ignoring the engine talk.. well made? I seriously hope you don't mean in the design sense as I could pick out a hundred flaws in the game.

Anyway, didn't notice that, and complicated or not, being late to the party by about five years or whatever is still inexcusable.

The game is also totally unbalaced and the age of gamers ar like 10-12 years old shouting in mics

RE: Why i think call of duty is shit. - Bridge - 07-15-2012

(07-15-2012, 01:56 PM)Robosprog Wrote:
(07-15-2012, 01:31 PM)Bridge Wrote:
(07-15-2012, 01:03 PM)Robosprog Wrote: If we ignore Cod2 and 4's progress as I was referring from after 4 that's not a whole lot changed other than World at War, hell, they added the same technology twice and we don't even know if Black Ops 2 will keep those features, games have promised before technologies that never made it into the actual game. (fable)
A couple of lighting tweaks and texture streaming (added twice, wut) isn't what I'd call major changes, and in terms of what you can actually see, yes, it effectively is, hell, it was proven by Palistov screenshots earlier, the scenery (buildings forest both barely changing in terms of texture, quality etc).

Infact, quite a few of the features that are anywhere near major were added recently when other engines have had them for years.
Back in 2004 when Valve said they were going to utilize HDR technology in Half-Life 2 it was big news and they even created a new mod just to show it off. Not the first to do it but I am fairly certain it was a first for a 3D game.

CoD may be late to the party when it comes to some of these advanced lighting features but that doesn't mean it isn't complicated to implement them and they did it on an engine that didn't support them natively.

P.S. The reason why they introduced texture streaming twice is because if you look closely Black Ops actually uses the World at War IW 3.0 engine, now IW 4.0. As I said, I'm not a fan of Infinity Ward at all, but I recognize that the new CoD games are well made.
First off, ignoring the engine talk.. well made? I seriously hope you don't mean in the design sense as I could pick out a hundred flaws in the game.

Anyway, didn't notice that, and complicated or not, being late to the party by about five years or whatever is still inexcusable.
We can't ignore the engine talk because that's all I'm talking about. I only briefly played CoD 4 at an internet cafe and MW2 at a friend's house for an hour or so and I found it to be satisfying enough. Not something I'd choose to play because I'm into more strategical shooters but everything worked and looked like it was supposed to. I disagree with the design on a fundamental level though, and it most certainly is unbalanced. But a lot of work went into the engine and you need to accept that. I don't know where people get off undermining other people's work. I'm also not a fan of CGI overuse but I've done 3D modeling before and it's a lot of hard work and you need to put in a lot of time for relatively small results. The things some of these animators do is simply amazing on a technical level and I appreciate that. It's not like they "just did it in a computer", because drawing these things by hand would have been a hundred times quicker. I just disagree with CGI on an artistic level when it is used for no real reason.