Call of Duty 2 (X360/PC) Screens

[RainOfTerror]

Call of Duty 2 is an all new epic title which delivers an unparalleled portrayal of the chaos and intensity that was World War II. CoD 2 is powered by a proprietary new engine featuring striking new visuals, advanced A.I. technology, the most realistic squad combat and explosive action in new historic campaigns.

Check out 2 new Call of Duty 2 screens (http://www.worthplaying.com/article.php?sid=26648) over at WorthPlaying.

[GigaFuzz]

I know it's been said before, but those smoke effects really do look significantly better than any other game I've seen. It should add to the immersion factor, as some decent graphics have often been spoiled by crappy smoke im my experience.

[ÜberJumper]

I have yet to see a game have smoke anything close to realistic.

[eatme]

Uh... is that first shot really in-game? And if so, what the hell kind of rig do you have to have to run it? Jesus.

[Thunderbrand]

That's why I'm taking no chances and getting it for Xbox 360.

[Paranoia]

To avoid potential bugs/compatibility problem, I think 360 version is the way to go.

[KNOTE]

It seems like the 360 is their lead platform anyway.

[thecrazyd]

Except you would have to play with shitty controls. PC for me.

[TheEpicOfTyler]

Shiny soldiers... yay. :|

[retsudo]

"Call of Duty 2 is an all new epic title which delivers an unparalleled portrayal of the chaos and intensity that was World War II. CoD 2 is powered by a proprietary new engine featuring striking new visuals, advanced A.I. technology, the most realistic squad combat and explosive action in new historic campaigns."

Bullshit. I bet any amount of money that it has (a) Not very good AI and (b) shitty unrealistic squad combat

[Abash Alarmist]

Yeah, since you have played it and all already, huh?

[riposte101]

I played this at E3. The graphics look every bit as good as it does in those screens. This is probably my most anticipated game for the X360.

[Zanzibar]

Is this gonna be ready for 360 launch?

[netcraazzy]

I've said it before but I'm having trouble getting excited about WWII games much any more, even the top notch games like this one.

[Roc Ingersol]

So is 'beach landing' the new 'lava board' then?

[StoneGut]

I have yet to see a game have smoke anything close to realistic.

Counter Strike: Source does a great job handeling smoke and simular effects.
Looks very very nice.

[Borys]

$400 (360 + CoD2) or $50 (PC version) ?

Hmm... tough choice. NOT.

[Phades]

$400 (360 + CoD2) or $50 (PC version) ?

Hmm... tough choice. NOT.

Don't forget to throw in that $600 for a video card to run it decently.

[Groo]

$400 (360 + CoD2) or $50 (PC version) ?

Hmm... tough choice. NOT.

Lemme fix your retard math for you.

$350 ($299+$50) vs $2550 ($2500 for a rig that can run it as well as the 360, plus $50 for the game).

[Knightshade Dragon]

I played this at E3. The graphics look every bit as good as it does in those screens. This is probably my most anticipated game for the X360.
If by 'played' you mean 'I sat in a booth and watched' then yea...you played it.

And the 'retard math' assumes he doesn't have a PC to begin with.

[Borys]

Lemme fix your retard math for you.

$350 ($299+$50) vs $2550 ($2500 for a rig that can run it as well as the 360, plus $50 for the game).

If your rig can run BF2 well it will run CoD2 well also. My does so I won't upgrade a thing for CoD2.

$49.99 + $0 (for the upgrades)
versus
$400 or even more (Europe) + $49.99

You do the math.

And stick your retarded "PC gaming costs $2500" argument up your... backdoor.

[Zanzibar]

$400 (360 + CoD2) or $50 (PC version) ?

Hmm... tough choice. NOT.

ROFL - And how much is your video card for it, Borys? Processor? Memory? You can rationalize that you can use your PC for other games, but aren't you spending a BUTTLOAD more for upgrades than us console gamers?

How much have you spent on PC upgrades in the last 2 years? $1000? $1500? That's about 20-30 games to play for me.

Upgrades? For my Xbox, I bought a coupla extra controllers. $60. And yes, I'll buy a 360 for $300-400. And I'll STILL be spending less than you.

[Zanzibar]

If your rig can run BF2 well it will run CoD2 well also. My does so I won't upgrade a thing for CoD2.

$49.99 + $0 (for the upgrades)
versus
$400 or even more (Europe) + $49.99

You do the math.

And stick your retarded "PC gaming costs $2500" argument up your... backdoor.

As I stated, how much did that upgrade to play BF2 cost ya, Borys? Or did the Gaming Fairy bestow that monster BF2-capable rig upon you?

[TheKeck]

Do the math however you like, I agree with the guy who commented on the sh***y controls. As long as X-Box doesn't give me a keyboard and mouse, PC is my fix.

[carneconcarne]

penis penis penis penis penis penis vagina

[Zanzibar]

Do the math however you like, I agree with the guy who commented on the sh***y controls. As long as X-Box doesn't give me a keyboard and mouse, PC is my fix.

Heh. If Microsoft supported keyboard/mouse for the X360, the PC community would be up-in-arms. "We're DOOOOOOOMED!!"

It's a no-win scenario, but one I'd like to see happen, simply for the comedy value.

[TheKeck]

If they DID support keyboard/mouse, I'd be running thin on reasons why PC is superior to console. I guess I'd still have better resolution....... =/

[Borys]

As I stated, how much did that upgrade to play BF2 cost ya, Borys? Or did the Gaming Fairy bestow that monster BF2-capable rig upon you?

Come on Zanzibar you are smarter than that. So now you are backing how much my PC cost? Hey, how much does your PC cost that one you are using to post at EA right now?

But I'll answer your question: around $1200 since 2001. And yes it runs BF2 well even with AA.

It's pretty silly to continue this discussion further. I'm not dense, I'm aware that my PC costed more than my PS2 for example. But that's not the point and I'm surprised a guy like you Zanzibar would argue about that. There are lots of pros and cons of having a PC, why should we go through this again?

As I said it will only cost me $50 to enjoy CoD2. There's no magic or cheating in that. I go to the store, buy, install and play it. My point stays.

Exclusives is what's important and what will eventually push me to purchase 360. Not games available on my PC. That's why I got Playstation 2 in the first place, for titles unavailable on PC.

I'm not forcing anyone to do the same. If your PC isn't exactly up-to-date you'd better get a 360 for majority of PC titles and a whole lotta 360 titles. But for me and me alone it's not worth it...

...yet.

[TheKeck]

penis penis penis penis penis penis vagina

Well stated, I'd have to disagree with you on a couple points, though. (penis and penis)

[kickmybum]

That second screen makes me think they're taking a page from the EQII book and playing with play-doh.

[TheKeck]

As I said it will only cost me $50 to enjoy CoD2. There's no magic or cheating in that. I go to the store, buy, install and play it. My point stays.

Now, as you may have already noticed, I'm a total PC gamer. However, I think your reasoning is a little flawed. It seems to me that most of these people are going to be buying an XBox 360, no matter what, the same way you or I feel compelled to upgrade our PC's as they begin to age. So, taking it for granted that they will own both a PC and an XBox, it comes down to $50 for PC or $50 for XBox. The fact that our PCs cost three times as much to begin with doesn't help your argument much.

[Zanzibar]

Now, as you may have already noticed, I'm a total PC gamer. However, I think your reasoning is a little flawed. It seems to me that most of these people are going to be buying an XBox 360, no matter what, the same way you or I feel compelled to upgrade our PC's as they begin to age. So, taking it for granted that they will own both a PC and an XBox, it comes down to $50 for PC or $50 for XBox. The fact that our PCs cost three times as much to begin with doesn't help your argument much.

Yeah, that's an extremely valid point. Well done.

[Cupelix]

There are all sorts of ways to skew this classic argument. I don't buy a top of the line PC - I've spent maybe $400 on my PC in the last 2 years or so, and that was an upgrade to a smaller case so I could travel with it easier. My rig runs BF2 just fine. This much, is somewhat irrelevant though. You could also look at it this way:

Cost to play all Console titles = ~$300-350 x 3 = ~$900-1050

Say those consoles have about a 4 year life span before the next gen comes out. I can definitely build a PC for about that much that will last me adequately for 4 years. Yes, PC exclusives are fewer and farther between, but there are some games I'd simply rather play on PC, and some games I'd rather play on a console. To really get the best of both worlds, you can easily spend similar amounts on each.

[thecrazyd]

Even if the 360 had keyboard and mouse support, the PC would still be superior. Give it 6 months, and I guarentee you that a top end PC will laugh at at 360.

[TheKeck]

Even if the 360 had keyboard and mouse support, the PC would still be superior. Give it 6 months, and I guarentee you that a top end PC will laugh at at 360.

Well, I for one hope you're right. Then I can laugh at my friend and say "told ya" (rather than having to hang my head in shame).

[Paranoia]

Even if the 360 had keyboard and mouse support, the PC would still be superior. Give it 6 months, and I guarentee you that a top end PC will laugh at at 360.

Don't bet on it.

[Borys]

A horse beaten to death.

Yes there are dozens of ways one can spin this but this is a topic as old as NES and 286s.

What I don't get is how people keep on telling me that it would be better for ME to spend around $400 than $50.
And that I am retarded in buying the PC version.

I fail to see logic in that, please take my own POV and a grain of brain into consideration before blasting my comment.

[thecrazyd]

Hah. Oh, I am willing to bet on it. Especially with new studies showing the 360 as being about twice as powerfull as the original XBox. Six months is being generous.

[Paranoia]

Hah. Oh, I am willing to bet on it. Especially with new studies showing the 360 as being about twice as powerfull as the original XBox. Six months is being generous.

What "new studies"? How they figured out the actual 360 power when they don't even have the final hardware?

[Oddmaker]

I hear this will be out before the xbox360 for the pc.. so thats good news for us pc fans.

[Syrinx]

$49.99 + $0 (for the upgrades)
versus
$400 or even more (Europe) + $49.99


Yes, because we all know people will only buy a PS3 or Xbox 360 for a single game :rolleyes:

[Achilles]

Uh... is that first shot really in-game? And if so, what the hell kind of rig do you have to have to run it? Jesus.
The first shot is PC, the second shot is Xbox 360. Would be nice to see the same shot side-by-side actually, though this is more about giving people an idea of what the game will look like, not fueling forum arguments on which platform will be prettier. A PC won’t be able to run this game as well as the xbox 360, so since I actually prefer using a controller to a mouse/keyboard (I know, I’m weird), I’ll be getting it for the 360.If by 'played' you mean 'I sat in a booth and watched' then yea...you played it.It was playable at E3, it was set up next to the Kameo demo in the 360's booth. I didn't play it myself but I saw others playing it.

[Borys]

Yes, because we all know people will only buy a PS3 or Xbox 360 for a single game :rolleyes:

Point............................................. ................You

However I can play your game:
Yes, because my PC is only for that one game. :rolleyes:

[Syrinx]

Point............................................. ................You

However I can play your game:
Yes, because my PC is only for that one game. :rolleyes:

Thank you. If you're going to take that point, then you can't say "$400 + $50" for the Xbox 360 version. If you do, then you must include the price of your entire computer so others arguments ARE valid. See how this game works?

[Paranoia]

As a PC gamer, I need to spend about $400+ just to upgrade my PC just so it could match the 360 version of CoD2. Sure, I could still play CoD2 on my current PC setup, but its very likely that I will play it with lower res, low texture quality, not to mention framerate problem.

[retsudo]

By the time any console comes out PC hardware is pissing all over it. That has always been the case and will continue to be the case in futures, especially since consoles can't even display games in a half-decent resolution (even on a HDTV).

Consoles specialise in quick, mindless gameplay and rough and ready graphics, controls and AI. Some games are all the better for that, some aren't. No system is the best at everything.

[RandomViolence]

By the time any console comes out PC hardware is pissing all over it. That has always been the case and will continue to be the case in futures, especially since consoles can't even display games in a half-decent resolution (even on a HDTV).

Consoles specialise in quick, mindless gameplay and rough and ready graphics, controls and AI. Some games are all the better for that, some aren't. No system is the best at everything.

Yep... I remember those Japanese RPGs being pretty quick and mindless. :rolleyes:

I don't recall seeing anything on PC that looked nearly as good as Halo did around its launch, or even a few months after it. Many hate the game, but the graphics were hard to fault.

Edit: I love PC games as much as the next, but I think dismissing either side as 'specializing in mindless gameplay' is ridiculous.

[thecrazyd]

Yep... I remember those Japanese RPGs being pretty quick and mindless. :rolleyes:

I don't recall seeing anything on PC that looked nearly as good as Halo did around its launch, or even a few months after it. Many hate the game, but the graphics were hard to fault.

Edit: I love PC games as much as the next, but I think dismissing either side as 'specializing in mindless gameplay' is ridiculous.
JRPGs may not be quick, but they surely fit into the mindless qualifier. And if Halo looks good to you, then you must not play many PC games.

[riposte101]

If by 'played' you mean 'I sat in a booth and watched' then yea...you played it.

And the 'retard math' assumes he doesn't have a PC to begin with.

It was out in the open at the Microsoft booth. Anybody could go up and pick up the controller and play.

[Zanzibar]

JRPGs may not be quick, but they surely fit into the mindless qualifier. And if Halo looks good to you, then you must not play many PC games.

2001. 'Medal of Honor: Allied Assault.' 'GTA3.' That was the type of game that Halo was up against in the first year of its life. And it literally wasn't until Doom 3 and HL2 came out that PC games TRULY passed the Xbox in graphical goodness. I have a feeling it's going to be the same way for the X360 - they will come out with jaw-dropping graphics on a gaming-only dedicated machine.

[Groo]

By the time any console comes out PC hardware is pissing all over it.

The hardware may be much more powerful, but the PC developers can't do shit with it. Could you even imagine running Halo 2 on a 733mhz Pentium III with 64megs of shared ram and a GeForce 3?

[KNOTE]

those damn nazis keep coming back for more!

[RandomViolence]

JRPGs may not be quick, but they surely fit into the mindless qualifier. And if Halo looks good to you, then you must not play many PC games.


2001. 'Medal of Honor: Allied Assault.' 'GTA3.' That was the type of game that Halo was up against in the first year of its life. And it literally wasn't until Doom 3 and HL2 came out that PC games TRULY passed the Xbox in graphical goodness. I have a feeling it's going to be the same way for the X360 - they will come out with jaw-dropping graphics on a gaming-only dedicated machine.

Thanks for clarifying my point, Zanzibar. Thecrazyd, I'd like to hear your definition of mindless if JRPGs qualify. What's a deep game?

[Achilles]

Thecrazyd, I'd like to hear your definition of mindless if JRPGs qualify. What's a deep game?Of course he means thoughtful and complex games like Unreal Tournament. Or maybe games that could never be done on a console like Pirates, Doom 3, Morrowind, Half-Life 2, Knights of the Old Republic, or Far Cry. The only defining attribute of PC games is that, with a few exceptions, they have lazy control layouts that are made up for by allowing the player to freely re-map keys. Console games with the exception of the strategy genre are every bit as deep and complex as their PC counterparts, and often are the same game as their PC counterparts. And in the strategy genre you may not find Hearts of Iron on the Xbox, but you will find Championship Manager which is just about as dry.

[TheKeck]

$400 (360 + CoD2) or $50 (PC version) ?

Hmm... tough choice. NOT.

Well Borys, I think this post led everyone to believe that you were saying that any rational person would buy the PC version rather than the XBox version. If you were talking purely about your personal situation, then that's fine, but we were all confused.

[retsudo]

1) Halo's graphics were not that good, especially since they were only running at TV resolution on the Xbox.
2) If you fucktards could read, there was a qualifier in the statement - 'specialise in.'
3) Games such as Hearts of Iron, the combat mission series, games whose main appeal is in mods for them, and simulation type games, don't work on consoles. FPS games don't work well on consoles either, for two reasons; no mouse and keyboard - there is no gamepad on earth that comes close to the level of control over an FPS from using a mouse; and resolution- consoles have very low resolution, inhibiting aiming still further.

The lights may look pretty, but console graphics are functionally terrible in most cases.
In other words, before some tard takes that the wrong way, games that play better with higher resolutions - FPS, for example - are always worse on a console.

[Achilles]

Halo's graphics were not that good, especially since they were only running at TV resolution on the Xbox.It was actually running at 420p which is a bit better than TV resolution. It’s a fact that no PC game of the time used advanced shader effects like bump mapping. So apart from it just being in a lower resolution which FPS that came out around 2001 would you say had better graphics than Halo?

I dug around and found these. I tried to get a screenshot that showed off the character model and some terrain. Something great that halo did was that even though you could display those PC games in a higher res, the textures were still blurred and terrible looking when you got close to them, but in Halo you could zoom in on the text on the side of an ammo box and it was completely legible. Halo had many more detail levels to their textures than any game that came before it, and most games that have come since. So I'm just not seeing the better graphics for PC games of 2001 thing.

Halo (http://media.xbox.ign.com/media/015/015922/img_1290182.html), Another Halo (http://www.bungie.net/images/games/Halo/screenshots/scrn_009.jpg)
Star Trek Elite Force (http://media.pc.ign.com/media/016/016284/img_1276676.html) (May 10 2001)
Serious Sam (http://media.pc.ign.com/media/015/015156/img_1382497.html) (March 23 2001)
Medal of Honor Allied Assault (http://media.pc.ign.com/media/015/015983/img_1411062.html) (Jan 22 2002)

To bring this back to the topic, I think that the xbox 360's Call of Duty 2 will have slightly better graphics than the PC version unless all you care about is resolution and you play the game in greater than 1280x720. From these screenshots though you can't tell; the PC one isn't remotely similar to the x360 one.

[Borys]

Well Borys, I think this post led everyone to believe that you were saying that any rational person would buy the PC version rather than the XBox version. If you were talking purely about your personal situation, then that's fine, but we were all confused.

Thanks for finally getting my point but as you can see it is already too late.

[RandomViolence]

1) Halo's graphics were not that good, especially since they were only running at TV resolution on the Xbox.
2) If you fucktards could read, there was a qualifier in the statement - 'specialise in.'
3) Games such as Hearts of Iron, the combat mission series, games whose main appeal is in mods for them, and simulation type games, don't work on consoles. FPS games don't work well on consoles either, for two reasons; no mouse and keyboard - there is no gamepad on earth that comes close to the level of control over an FPS from using a mouse; and resolution- consoles have very low resolution, inhibiting aiming still further.

The lights may look pretty, but console graphics are functionally terrible in most cases.
In other words, before some tard takes that the wrong way, games that play better with higher resolutions - FPS, for example - are always worse on a console.


I just don't agree, not with the specialized in portion. I fail to see how an FPS on PC, which is probably the most dominant genre, is infinitely more complex than the average console game. It's not the hardware, as someone pointed out earlier, it's the games. I will agree on the quick, perhaps accessible is a better word, part. Mindless, however, just doesn't fit.

Oh, and BTW, this fucktard recognized your qualifier if you'd care to actually read MY posts. Fucking hypocrite.

On to your other points about graphics. Resolution isn't everything. I played Outcast on PC at 512x384 resolution and that game managed to look gorgeous. I played Halo for a solid 2 years at (whiny voice) TV resolutions (end whiny voice) and it looked gorgeous. It was one of the first games to bump-map the hell out of nearly everything, and benefitted immensely for it. I still stand by an earlier statement of mine that Halo 2 should not be played with a mouse and keyboard, for gameplay reasons. Instant responsiveness and the ability to snipe at pixels 800 lightyears away because you're running in 2048x1536 are not defining qualities of good FPS gameplay.

[Frogleg Special]

Or maybe games that could never be done on a console like Pirates, Doom 3, Morrowind, Half-Life 2, Knights of the Old Republic, or Far Cry.


Which are heavily influenced by PC gaming mindset. Face it without PC influenced gameplay, Xbox will have braindead games like Wrestling Games, PGR-clones and dozens of Beat-em-ups made by Rockstar.


And in the strategy genre you may not find Hearts of Iron on the Xbox, but you will find Championship Manager which is just about as dry.

Again, Xbox can't find something original in terms of gaming complexity. PS2 is even more original with its exclusive turn based tactical games.

I'd like to thank Microsoft to keep the thinking gamer platform alive - PC.

[Groo]

Which are heavily influenced by PC gaming mindset. Face it without PC influenced gameplay, Xbox will have braindead games like Wrestling Games, PGR-clones and dozens of Beat-em-ups made by Rockstar.


There's one type of genre that consoles excel at: the platformer. Platformers cab be a LOT more deep and difficult that your typical FPS. While the Xbox isn't that great at platformers, the PS2 has stuff like Ratchet and Clank. Ratchet and Clank is better than ANY PC game I've played (and I've been playing since the early 90s).

And don't you dare call them "mindless." Cuz if you do, it's obviously because you don't have the mental capacity to play them.

The fact of the matter is, PC games are incredibly stale. They've been releasing the same FPS and RTS games since 1994, but with updated graphics and physics. The only games to offer and sort of real innovvation have been the Half Life games.

[retsudo]

Oh, and BTW, this fucktard recognized your qualifier if you'd care to actually read MY posts. Fucking hypocrite.

And if you learned to read posts slightly MORE carefully, you would have noted that the fucktard remark was directed at fucktards who didn't recognise the qualifier; in other words, you assumed you were a fucktard, although noone was calling you one. At that point.


On to your other points about graphics. Resolution isn't everything. I played Outcast on PC at 512x384 resolution and that game managed to look gorgeous. I played Halo for a solid 2 years at (whiny voice) TV resolutions (end whiny voice) and it looked gorgeous.
See an optician. There is something wrong with your eyes.

[retsudo]

It was actually running at 420p which is a bit better than TV resolution. It’s a fact that no PC game of the time used advanced shader effects like bump mapping. So apart from it just being in a lower resolution which FPS that came out around 2001 would you say had better graphics than Halo?
Almost all of them. Nice way of defining 'good' though.
Aside from the lack of profits, mr chairman, we did well!
Games of 2001 and before that look far, far better than Halo did:
Max Payne
Black And White
Operation Flashpoint: Resistance (and anyone who says otherwise is a complete idiot.)

To bring this back to the topic, I think that the xbox 360's Call of Duty 2 will have slightly better graphics than the PC version unless all you care about is resolution and you play the game in greater than 1280x720. From these screenshots though you can't tell; the PC one isn't remotely similar to the x360 one.
...Unlike at any other time in history, when PC games have looked better than console games?

[RandomViolence]

Almost all of them. Nice way of defining 'good' though.
Aside from the lack of profits, mr chairman, we did well!
Games of 2001 and before that look far, far better than Halo did:
Max Payne
Black And White
Operation Flashpoint: Resistance (and anyone who says otherwise is a complete idiot.)

...Unlike at any other time in history, when PC games have looked better than console games?

(Blinks) Those are your counter-examples? Max Payne? Are you serious??? I can appreciate Black and White as a competitor, that was a beautiful game, but to say it looked better is stretching pretty fucking hard. OFP - Resistance came out mid-02 and, sorry, doesn't beat it either. I'm glad to be an idiot in your book.

Right now, PCs are beating the shit out of consoles. In 2001, they didn't.

Edit: Did you PLAY Halo?

[Groo]

Almost all of them. Nice way of defining 'good' though.
Aside from the lack of profits, mr chairman, we did well!
Games of 2001 and before that look far, far better than Halo did:
Max Payne
Black And White
Operation Flashpoint: Resistance (and anyone who says otherwise is a complete idiot.)

...Unlike at any other time in history, when PC games have looked better than console games?

You are a complete idiot. Max Payne and Black and White don't look anywhere near as good as even Halo 1. Here's one simple reason why: the texturing in Halo is better. There are other reasons as well (Halo has better lighting and character and enviornment models and physics), but that's a big one.

[Achilles]

Again, Xbox can't find something original in terms of gaming complexity. PS2 is even more original with its exclusive turn based tactical games.Well what do you mean by gaming complexity? Are you talking about controls, options, how thick the menus are, how much the player can do?Almost all of them. Nice way of defining 'good' though.
Aside from the lack of profits, mr chairman, we did well!Well you already said that the resolution made them look better, I agree that resolution helps. I was wondering if you had a single other item apart from resolution that caused you to say they had better graphics and offered some things that Halo did that the PC games didn’t do. I guess you don’t have anything else though; what resolution you run the game at determines whether it has good graphics.

Thanks for listing examples though. Just to clarify Op Flashpoint: Resistance came out less than a year after Halo in June of 2002. Here’s a screenshot (http://media.pc.ign.com/media/477/477997/img_1557291.html) and a link to others so everyone can compare and decide for themselves. Personally I think the game was tragically ugly compared to Halo.Unlike at any other time in history, when PC games have looked better than console games?Yeah. How does your PC stack up to a machine with 3 3.2Ghz multi-threaded cores, a custom GPU which isn’t available in stores yet, and a unified memory architecture? Even if someone released a multi core PC, PC games couldn’t support it, same goes for multi-threading which has been on PCs for a couple years, yet there are no games that support it.

[Frogleg Special]

There's one type of genre that consoles excel at: the platformer. Platformers cab be a LOT more deep and difficult that your typical FPS. While the Xbox isn't that great at platformers, the PS2 has stuff like Ratchet and Clank. Ratchet and Clank is better than ANY PC game I've played (and I've been playing since the early 90s).


1-2 perhaps since the 90's? :) Devoting your whole time to the advancement of consoles stunted your PC gaming knowledge. It's a fact.


And don't you dare call them "mindless." Cuz if you do, it's obviously because you don't have the mental capacity to play them.


Mental capacity? Yes. Twitchiness? Well perhaps no. I can never be because I play both k/m and controller equally. I do have a PS2 and the latest Ratchet and Clank.


The fact of the matter is, PC games are incredibly stale. They've been releasing the same FPS and RTS games since 1994, but with updated graphics and physics. The only games to offer and sort of real innovvation have been the Half Life games.

How bout these, dumbo:
- Homeworld
- Europa Universalis
- Operation Flashpoint

If you haven't even cared or played PC games, shut up. That's only your observation and opinion from under your console gaming rock.

[Frogleg Special]

Well what do you mean by gaming complexity? Are you talking about controls, options, how thick the menus are, how much the player can do?

All. It's self explanatory afterall or you're pretending to be stupid?

[Frogleg Special]

You are a complete idiot. Max Payne and Black and White don't look anywhere near as good as even Halo 1. Here's one simple reason why: the texturing in Halo is better. There are other reasons as well (Halo has better lighting and character and enviornment models and physics), but that's a big one.

Just to show that I'm not a complete PC fanatic, he's right. MP and B&W can't match against Halo in terms of graphics.

[Achilles]

All. It's self explanatory afterall or you're pretending to be stupid?I just didn't want to misunderstand you saying that complex controls and spreadsheet-like menus are a good thing.

Ninja Gaiden has complex gameplay, you can do many more things in that game than you can in most PC games. Mercenaries and GTA have complex worlds which are very open ended. Steel Battalion has complex controls, but you know, I wouldn’t consider complex controls a good thing since it’s a barrier to entry. Complex controls are actually a problem that PC games have, along with complex menus. Championship Manager and most sports games have a very complex and deep franchise game with tons of options and acres of text. Madden is one of the deepest games out there in terms of stats tracking, options, create a character and that sort of thing. I'd say it's even on par with something like HoI or EU with the number of options you can maniupulate. Now I wouldn't blame you for not having explored the franchise mode of a football game, but it's there none the less.