Minimum PC requirments?

[Spik3d]

Re: Minimum PC requirments?

id Tech 3 engine, the same engine that was used on the very first call of duty. They have done a ton of work on it but so much of it still remains that they have to credit id in the credits. The engine is beyond geriatric and the games look horrible.

It's better than the frostbite engine. Unless your deciding factor to buying a game is whether the game's shiny or not.

[Anarchy1]

Re: Minimum PC requirments?

It isn't based on the Quake 4 engine, though...

You're right. It is actually the Quake 3 engine! As garand said, the foundations of the engine being used in CoD now is from that engine. I admit that the way I said something seems a little inaccurate. CoD1/2 are heavily based on the id Tech 3 engine. However, CoD4 has a proprietary engine, but that doesn't mean they created their own engine. What they did was take the id Tech 3 engine and modified it enough so that it was no longer considered id's engine. However, they foundations of the CoD4 engine are the foundations of the id Tech 3 engine. It is still the same Quake 3 engine with the same restraints, not as much gameplay wise as graphically wise. The reason why the graphics aren't really changing and mind-blowing and why the specs remain the same is that for that exact reason - they can't do anything more to it. For them to update the graphics to be up to par with games now, they would basically have to create a brand new engine.

It's better than the frostbite engine. Unless your deciding factor to buying a game is whether the game's shiny or not.

Err...they both have their advantages and disadvantages. The Frostbite engine does have some glaring issues, such as no console, it's really buggy, and the prone problem. However, graphically, it is fantastic, and the physics are amazing. It runs smooth enough, the gameplay is good (many of the gameplay problems are not due to the engine but to DICE).

Of course CoD will run a lot smoother than Frostbite. The engine has been out for over 5 years, so it has been fine tuned. But as I said, there are too many limitations on it. The graphics are horrible compared to the games coming out now. The few things it has going for it is the dev console and easy to use commands, smooth gameplay, and only a few bugs.

While I prefer CoD to Battlefield game-wise, engine-wise, I much prefer Frostbite.

[Spik3d]

Re: Minimum PC requirments?

Err...they both have their advantages and disadvantages. The Frostbite engine does have some glaring issues, such as no console, it's really buggy, and the prone problem. However, graphically, it is fantastic, and the physics are amazing. It runs smooth enough, the gameplay is good (many of the gameplay problems are not due to the engine but to DICE).

Of course CoD will run a lot smoother than Frostbite. The engine has been out for over 5 years, so it has been fine tuned. But as I said, there are too many limitations on it. The graphics are horrible compared to the games coming out now. The few things it has going for it is the dev console and easy to use commands, smooth gameplay, and only a few bugs.

While I prefer CoD to Battlefield game-wise, engine-wise, I much prefer Frostbite.

Frostbite's player movement is horrid, and that destroys the gameplay. Also, just because everything in CoD's engine isn't drowned in post-processing effects doesn't mean it looks bad. The limitations you're talking about sound to have come from BC or BC2's destruction and graphics, but that's it. You're focusing too much on visuals than gameplay. Sure, the CoD engine could be updated big time to have everything that gives you wet dreams, but it has a better base gameplay than Frostbite's (with most of its gameplay faults coming from the devs).

[[Expletive Deleted]]

Re: Minimum PC requirments?

There are solid reasons why two main engines are licensed more than others.
UE3 and idTech 3 are really versatile, stable, and optimized. They're also capable of some great visuals.

[Anarchy1]

Re: Minimum PC requirments?

Frostbite's player movement is horrid, and that destroys the gameplay. Also, just because everything in CoD's engine isn't drowned in post-processing effects doesn't mean it looks bad. The limitations you're talking about sound to have come from BC or BC2's destruction and graphics, but that's it. You're focusing too much on visuals than gameplay. Sure, the CoD engine could be updated big time to have everything that gives you wet dreams, but it has a better base gameplay than Frostbite's (with most of its gameplay faults coming from the devs).

I agree that the CoD engine has better gameplay, but in my opinion, Frostbite's gameplay isn't that bad. I have almost as much time on BC2 as I did in WaW and MW2 combined. Each to his own, I guess.

There are solid reasons why two main engines are licensed more than others.
UE3 and idTech 3 are really versatile, stable, and optimized. They're also capable of some great visuals.

Then where are these great visuals? I agreed with the versatile, stable, and optimized part. It's just the graphics are lacking. They aren't bad, but when you compare them to other games coming out, they are beat by almost all of them.

[[Expletive Deleted]]

Re: Minimum PC requirments?

MW2 looks just fine with everything maxed out.
There are plenty of UE3 games that look damned good. Even that Wolverine game was pretty. And Arkham Asylum was one of the best games I've ever played.

[Minmaster]

Re: Minimum PC requirments?

naw man MW2 by today's standards aren't really good visuals.

[Anarchy1]

Re: Minimum PC requirments?

MW2 looks just fine with everything maxed out.
There are plenty of UE3 games that look damned good. Even that Wolverine game was pretty. And Arkham Asylum was one of the best games I've ever played.

It looked good, but compared to almost every game out there, it was sub par.

And we aren't talking about the UE3 engine. That engine is completely different than the id Tech 3 engine. Plus the UE3 engine was HEAVILY updated in 2009 or so.