Hamburger Helper Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 Because real world war looks bright and colourful? makes sense... AND, the frostbite engine was SIGNIFICANTLY improved over the course of the 3 iterations of the series the jumps of physics tweaks in the frostbite engine is rather obvious, I don't see why you are comparing Battlefield to CoD when that is not the point of anything I am saying.. but the engine behind CoD is all minor tweaks, nothing really notable was improved, CoD nowadays is a very Technically unimpressive game. The city missions of Battlefield 3 looked grey, white, and bland. I believe cities look a bit more colorful than that. While a significant improvement, it's still the same engine. Battlefield 3 was NOT on an all new engine the series has yet to be on before, just like COD. If you re-read my previous statement, you'll have a much better clarification as to what I stated. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndroidFox Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 (edited) The city missions of Battlefield 3 looked grey, white, and bland. I believe cities look a bit more colorful than that. That has nothing to do with the engine though, DICE just applied a blue filter to the game. Remove the filter on the PC version and everything looks bright and colourful. [media=] [/media]While a significant improvement, it's still the same engine. Battlefield 3 was NOT on an all new engine the series has yet to be on before, just like COD. If you re-read my previous statement, you'll have a much better clarification as to what I stated. The main difference being that Frostbite was completely overhauled in many areas. The Call of Duty engine hasn't been overhauled, it has just been improved slightly over the years with better anti-analysing, textures and lighting. None of that is very difficult to implement. Is the Infinity Ward engine built for next-generation consoles? No. Is Frostbite 2.0 built for next-generation consoles? Yes. That alone speaks volumes. Edited November 15, 2012 by AndroidFox 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parker Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 I have played and platinumed both games, and they look the same. The only difference is the level of destructability IMO. You liked Burning Skies, yet reviewers trashed that game. All I am saying is that the majority of users say it is a phenomenal shooter for the Vita, and a must buy. Try it, and you probably will like it!!! That is true, but I'm a fan of story and that is one of the reasons I liked Burning Skies. The story wasn't amazing or anything but at least it tried, and with CoD I'm getting the impression that it is like Unit 13 where you just play a bunch of missions that aren't really connected to one another. Not to say Unit 13 was bad (I enjoyed it too) but I think it would have been much better with an actual storyline. If I find a used copy at GameStop I may pick it up and try it, but I won't be buying it new. Just to revisit a point you made in the original post, Dan. You say that people on metacritic trash COD titles just for the sake of trashing COD titles? Ever stop to think that maybe they are just bad games overall? MW3 was a horrendous mess, that's probably why people on metacritic scored it as such. You honestly think that every user "review" posted on that site was from someone who actually played the game? I hope you're not naive enough to think that there aren't people out there that give a game a 0 because they don't like a series, without even playing it. While you may think the game was terrible, there are many more who loved the game and I'm sure some of those people went to Metacritic as well and gave it a perfect 10. The point I'm trying to make is user reviews are generally worthless on big websites like that because there is no way to prove if the person even really played the game or is scoring a game because of person bias. Parker 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeautifulTorment Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 (edited) You honestly think that every user "review" posted on that site was from someone who actually played the game? I hope you're not naive enough to think that there aren't people out there that give a game a 0 because they don't like a series, without even playing it. While you may think the game was terrible, there are many more who loved the game and I'm sure some of those people went to Metacritic as well and gave it a perfect 10. The point I'm trying to make is user reviews are generally worthless on big websites like that because there is no way to prove if the person even really played the game or is scoring a game because of person bias. Parker The easiest answer to this connundrum that you bring up is essentially the opposite of what you've said. Its entirely possible that the odd person gives it a 0 without playing it. Its equally possible, and likely occurs just as frequently, to have someone who has an undying love for the game to give it a 10, having not played it themselves, or played it for an incredibly short period of time. Outliers exist. Thinking that metacritic has at least a shred of integrity is not naivety. Naivety is assuming that every person who says bad things about a game, simply says it for the sole purpose of saying it; without having any solid reason to. I was bringing attention to the fact that hey, its possible that some people disliked the game. Edited November 15, 2012 by BeautifulTorment 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Incredible Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeautifulTorment Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 Some of the content in this thread has been tasteful conversation and debate. I think it would be more beneficial for a mod to delete some of the flaming and leave the thread open. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanielVT Posted November 15, 2012 Author Share Posted November 15, 2012 Just to revisit a point you made in the original post, Dan. You say that people on metacritic trash COD titles just for the sake of trashing COD titles? Ever stop to think that maybe they are just bad games overall? MW3 was a horrendous mess, that's probably why people on metacritic scored it as such. I disagree. The reviewers got it right, it was awesome. It was a great conclusion to the trilogy (even though the MW series will undoubtedly continue). The story was epic, and full of non-stop action, and best of all, the story made sense, and was easy to follow. The multiplayer was awesome, although I do admit that for some reason after awhile it got a bit stale. Treyarch MP games don't get stale for me....so I don't understand why Infinity Ward's was. Finally, COD: BLOPS II is the best COD I have ever seen or played, and it is doing well with the reviewers, and it is selling copies like no other COD (It sold 1 million copies during the midnight launch at Gamestop alone!) yet, users on metacritic are trashing it just to trash it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamburger Helper Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 (edited) That has nothing to do with the engine though, DICE just applied a blue filter to the game. Remove the filter on the PC version and everything looks bright and colourful. [media=] [/media]The main difference being that Frostbite was completely overhauled in many areas. The Call of Duty engine hasn't been overhauled, it has just been improved slightly over the years with better anti-analysing, textures and lighting. None of that is very difficult to implement. Is the Infinity Ward engine built for next-generation consoles? No. Is Frostbite 2.0 built for next-generation consoles? Yes. That alone speaks volumes. Still, they aren't completely new engines at all. http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-vita/call-of-duty-black-ops-declassified New reviews are up, sorry to show Dan, but a 29% is terrible. Edited November 15, 2012 by scotty243 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanielVT Posted November 15, 2012 Author Share Posted November 15, 2012 (edited) Because real world war looks bright and colourful? makes sense... AND, the frostbite engine was SIGNIFICANTLY improved over the course of the 3 iterations of the series the jumps of physics tweaks in the frostbite engine is rather obvious, I don't see why you are comparing Battlefield to CoD when that is not the point of anything I am saying.. but the engine behind CoD is all minor tweaks, nothing really notable was improved, CoD nowadays is a very Technically unimpressive game. E: I also noticed you refer to ''both'' battlefield games... my point exactly. You seem like a serious BF fanboy. Fortunately for me, I thoroughly love and enjoy BOTH COD and the BF franchise. They each have awesome things about it. Scotty is right, the Frostbite engine is merely updated, as is the engine COD uses. Both games are awesome, and both are visually impressive. Oh, and please do not tell me that BLOPS II is technologically un-impressive. I have never seen a game run so smoothly with so much incredible action on the screen at once. The graphics on COD are incredible, although I will admit that up close, textures on walls or on the ground absolutely suck, but then again, what game has great looking textures? lol The BLOPS II campaign is visually stunning/visceral, and by far the game of year in my book. Edited November 15, 2012 by Vote Mitt Romney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeautifulTorment Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 I wasn't posting something that you can disagree or agree to, Dan. I was saying that there are people that dislike it, and people that like it. You can't disagree with that, because its a fact. There are people who genuinely dislike COD. There are also people who genuinely like it. You are speaking as if every person who has ever voiced a negative opinion about COD is lying or something. Believe me, it IS possible for a few people to dislike them. They are not immaculate. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndroidFox Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 (edited) Still, they aren't completely new engines at all. I never said they were totally different, of course Frostbite 2.0 is built off the foundations of the previous engine, most game engines are. I was just pointing out that it's stupid to compare Frostbite 2.0 to the IW engine as the changes made to Frostbite are far greater. Doing so would be plain ignorant. You seem like a serious BF fanboy. Fortunately for me, I thoroughly love and enjoy BOTH COD and the BF franchise. They each have awesome things about it. Scotty is right, the Frostbite engine is merely updated, as is the engine COD uses. Both games are awesome, and both are visually impressive. Oh, and please do not tell me that BLOPS II is technologically un-impressive. I have never seen a game run so smoothly with so much incredible action on the screen at once. The graphics on COD are incredible, although I will admit that up close, textures on walls or on the ground absolutely suck, but then again, what game has great looking textures? lol The BLOPS II campaign is visually stunning/visceral, and by far the game of year in my book. You don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. Edited November 16, 2012 by AndroidFox 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mio Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 You seem like a serious BF fanboy. Fortunately for me, I thoroughly love and enjoy BOTH COD and the BF franchise. They each have awesome things about it. Scotty is right, the Frostbite engine is merely updated, as is the engine COD uses. Both games are awesome, and both are visually impressive. Oh, and please do not tell me that BLOPS II is technologically un-impressive. I have never seen a game run so smoothly with so much incredible action on the screen at once. The graphics on COD are incredible, although I will admit that up close, textures on walls or on the ground absolutely suck, but then again, what game has great looking textures? lol The BLOPS II campaign is visually stunning/visceral, and by far the game of year in my book. I find this hilarious, because you are missing one gigantic point in this whole argument, not once did I say Battlefield was better the Call of Duty. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanielVT Posted November 16, 2012 Author Share Posted November 16, 2012 I wasn't posting something that you can disagree or agree to, Dan. I was saying that there are people that dislike it, and people that like it. You can't disagree with that, because its a fact. There are people who genuinely dislike COD. There are also people who genuinely like it. You are speaking as if every person who has ever voiced a negative opinion about COD is lying or something. Believe me, it IS possible for a few people to dislike them. They are not immaculate. I agree that that is true, as I have seen that happen before. That's all. Trust me if you read some reviews whether a 0 or a 10, you can tell that the "user" never even put their hands on the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parker Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 The easiest answer to this connundrum that you bring up is essentially the opposite of what you've said. Its entirely possible that the odd person gives it a 0 without playing it. Its equally possible, and likely occurs just as frequently, to have someone who has an undying love for the game to give it a 10, having not played it themselves, or played it for an incredibly short period of time. Outliers exist. Thinking that metacritic has at least a shred of integrity is not naivety. Naivety is assuming that every person who says bad things about a game, simply says it for the sole purpose of saying it; without having any solid reason to. I was bringing attention to the fact that hey, its possible that some people disliked the game. Oh trust me, I agree with you 100%. All I'm trying to say is I don't personally use Metacritic user reviews as a basis of my opinion on high exposure releases because of the exact issues we're discussing. Some people just hate the series and give it a 0 and others love the series and give it a 10 when nether one really has any business reviewing a game. For the record, I've never thought that anyone who dislikes or says bad things about CoD does so with no purpose or basis for saying so. I was simply trying to point out the fact that there are many cases in which there are people saying bad things with no basis or purpose. It doesn't matter either way though because someone's opinion on a game won't change mine. Parker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 I just don't understand how MW3 could be so bad though. It was so predictable and boring. MW2, WAW and Black Ops were much more enjoyable. I'd rather play Duke Nukem Forever instead of MW3 again. Let's just say that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parker Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 I just don't understand how MW3 could be so bad though. It was so predictable and boring. MW2, WAW and Black Ops were much more enjoyable. I'd rather play Duke Nukem Forever instead of MW3 again. Let's just say that. I liked Duke Nukem and Modern Warfare 3... I will say that I think MW3 is by far the worst in the series but I think that is because of all the collapse of Infinity Ward. So it was basically a brand new developer who had some pretty big boots to fill. Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 I liked Duke Nukem and Modern Warfare 3... I will say that I think MW3 is by far the worst in the series but I think that is because of all the collapse of Infinity Ward. So it was basically a brand new developer who had some pretty big boots to fill. Parker I liked DNF too. I've always been a fan. DNF doesn't get the credit it deserves and the crowd today is too young for Duke. *lights cigar and smacks an ass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parker Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 I liked DNF too. I've always been a fan. DNF doesn't get the credit it deserves and the crowd today is too young for Duke. *lights cigar and smacks an ass DNF was certainly a fun game but I can see a lot of merit in the complaints. Video games gave advanced a lot since the last Duke Nukem game was released, but DNF played just like the previous games. If you're a fan of the older games like we are then of course we can see the fun in it, but if DNF is the first Nukem game you've played or you aren't a huge fan of the series and you expected a more modern shooter I can definitely see why people gave it low scores. I would actually really like to see a more modern Duke Nukem game because I think it could work well with this generation too. Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now