CoD 2 XBox 360 Review - 94% [Archive]

bapenguin

11-12-2005, 04:58 AM

TotalGames.net (http://www.totalgames.net/pma/22280) has the first review up for Call of Duty 2 for the XBox 360.

The first thing to note is that even when the console game is running side by side with a top of the range PC version, outputting in as high-resolution as it can muster, the 360 version has the edge visually. Perhaps this will change as graphics cards evolve, but for now, the console game runs more smoothly, has far quicker load times, and looks generally better than its poor home computer cousin. This means that visually, Call of Duty 2 is absolutely jaw dropping, especially when it's played on a high definition Widescreen TV. However, even without such wallet-sapping technology in your home, the glory of the graphics is there to be seen in every second of the game, whether you're charging suicide-style into the midst of a hail of German bullets to defend Stalingrad in the Russian campaign, or desperately trying to gain a foothold in Normandy during the American missions, it's clear that Infinity Ward has polished this game to the nth degree. Proudly boasting an incredibly solid 60 frames per second, along with all the usual technical refinements that subtly contribute towards making the game as slick as possible (such as anti-aliasing and 720p output), Call of Duty 2 plays like a dream - never skipping to load in the enormous levels, never stuttering during moments of intense combat, and never faltering when all you can see is fire, bullets and blood. Put simply, the look of Call of Duty 2 is flawless.
I think it really depends on your PC, I thought CoD2 had a SLIGHT advantage over the PC, not the jump TotalGames is saying. What's nice though is the 360 version is running at silkly 60fps all the time, something most PC gamers are finding is tough to do with it.

Suicidal ShiZuru

11-12-2005, 05:05 AM

I would need to play it to be able to fully believe it. My guess is its just the fact that its on a huge screen that makes the visual quality seem better, of course that would give it an edge. I get over 60fps constantly and it looks great, its not the best looking game out but it still looks good. As for the overall rating, its a great game for any platform.

Morratut

11-12-2005, 05:10 AM

I was gonna get this on 360 anyways even though i have good pc.

Good news :)

Qoz

11-12-2005, 05:11 AM

"never faltering when all you can see is fire, bullets and blood."
Blood? I played some of CoD2 and never saw any blood from the 100+ soldiers I killed.

Suicidal ShiZuru

11-12-2005, 05:12 AM

Blood? I played some of CoD2 and never saw any blood from the 100+ soldiers I killed.

The author seems to be trying to hype the game/console to no end. All the blood is just quick mist when someone is shot.

Kelegacy

11-12-2005, 05:30 AM

bapenguin

11-12-2005, 05:45 AM

You know, I just realized I keep forgetting that the next crop of consoles will be a bit more powerful than current PC's. I keep thinking that the same game on the PC will look worse on the consoles (because right now in this gen, that's true). I have trouble getting excited about the next gen, thinking about the huge leap into Tomorrow, and it bothers me a bit. Sometimes I think it's due to the boring name schemes of 360 and PS3, which do not invoke a sense of "newness" over their previous incarnations. Or maybe I've grown too jaded and don't feel the same worm of excitement that, in the past, burrowed deep into my soul and writhed and writhed while I stole glances at screenshots, reread the same articles in monthly mags until the glossy pages tore and crumbled, and quivered in anticipation. The obvious change in any new console is graphics, and it might be that I just don't care about how a game looks anymore, at least not to the degree that I used to.

Shouldn't I be a bit more excited? I've just sat here for 10 minutes trying to understand why I don't feel the same way I did when the PS1, Nintendo 64, or Dreamcast came out, which were the last machines to truly make me froth at the mouth and whip out my wallet prematurely (or a relative's wallet). Sigh. What's wrong with me?

The reason is in general we've hit a graphical wall. What we used to look for as our main reason to go to the next generation of consoles isn't such a big jump anymore. With the high end PC, you can easily acheive the graphical quality of a 360. But...we have yet to see what a real next gen game looks like. Remember these are launch titles, lets see what happens come E3 time. We'll developers starting to really utilize 3 cores (or 7 in the PS3 case). We'll see amazing feats in AI, in physics, and interactivity. We've also become a bit older...a bit wiser. It takes a bit more to impress us. There are lots of factors...and as long as the games are still fun...I'm happy.

KamaItachi

11-12-2005, 06:36 AM

I remember when 4 years was a loooong time. Like when they were talking about the Saturn and Playstation they seemed so far in the future, so unobtainable. Even when the megadrive/genesis was out, I remember going down to the local Virgin Megastore, staring whistfully at the display units. When the Dreamcast came out, I made certain I took my parents to see it, pointing at it like an excited monkey going "THIS is what I need! This will make me COMPLETE!" The wait 'til Christmas was unbearable.

I bought my cube on a whim, my xbox was a present from the wife, because she didn't think of anything to get me for passing my exams. I got my DS on opening day and am picking up my 360 the day it comes out... but there's no real sense of anticipation about them anymore.

It could be because now I'm "an adult", have a disposable income and can buy these things when I want them that their allure has diminished. Maybe it's because now we're swamped with info, all day every day. Every snippit of info is there wheras before there was that rush of getting a new magazine and devouring everything inside for as much onfo as you could wring from it. Far from leaving us hungry, we're being saturated in our hobby.

TheHulk

11-12-2005, 07:00 AM

I saw this running on the display at Best Buy this week and thought my eyes were going to pop out of my head. Too bad I didn't preorder.... Guess it helps that it was running on a $1500 LCD screen also. I've been on the fence with the 360 but that demo pushed me over for sure.

CapnBob

11-12-2005, 07:22 AM

Running at a solid 60 fps all the time? They must have made improvements over the demo I played yesterday, it visibly dropped frames every time I turned around.

EvilBob46

11-12-2005, 07:25 AM

That review does seem to hype the game and console a bit too much. COD2 got 8.5 on IGN and 8.8 GameSpot which isn't exactly as breathtaking as this review seems to suggest.

Taco

11-12-2005, 07:58 AM

It seems like the graphical gap between the PC and the console closes a bit every new generation. Or maybe my expectations are to high.

Wonka

11-12-2005, 08:00 AM

I have seen this game demoed at a few random places now, and it seems to consistently attract a big mob. Reactions seemed quite positive, with a lot of people declaring that they had to find a way to get their hands on it... Of course maybe all those people (including my friend who preordered it from amazon right after trying it) are actually all paid "influencers"... I mean a launch game can't possibly be any good can it? Everyone has assured me that all the launch titles will be crap. How can this possibly be????

Hmmmmm.... Can I trust my friend or not???? I might just have to go play it myself to find out.

Taco

11-12-2005, 08:01 AM

A reaction like that is generated from the graphics more than anything.

TheEpicOfTyler

11-12-2005, 08:03 AM

Running at a solid 60 fps all the time? They must have made improvements over the demo I played yesterday, it visibly dropped frames every time I turned around.

That was my experience with it as well, I couldn't get used to the controls either. I'm used to playing them on the PC.

Frogleg Special

11-12-2005, 08:56 AM

Control gives the PC version an edge. Without auto-aim, most won't survive the Hill 400 mission (and I heard the devs are fiddling with the AI response time in X360 to compensate controller "response" time). Some people say controller emulates the way people are shooting. I say that's pure balooney: no real-world shooters aim with their thumbs. They aim with their arms. But k/m itself is no real shooting emulator either.

Ergo: FPSes in console is tacked on. They're there because consoles are popular. Or some companies sponsor them to be in console (exhibit 1: Halo). Yet, I still play RE4 because friggin Capcom doesn't have the cojones to put a real version on the PC. Yeah, the real version where the AI could be smart and fast because the player doesn't have to aim and shoot like an idiot.

edit: Konami -> Capcom

The Iron Weasel

11-12-2005, 09:02 AM

Well as long as it runs at a better framerate then the PC version. I don't think it ever got above 50.

CapnBob

11-12-2005, 09:05 AM

Yet, I still play RE4 because friggin Konami doesn't have the cojones to put a real version on the PC. Yeah, the real version where the AI could be smart and fast because the player doesn't have to aim and shoot like an idiot.

Ummm... maybe you didn't understand the point of RE4. And maybe you shouldn't give Konami such a hard time about it seeing as how they didn't make the game.

bapenguin

11-12-2005, 09:06 AM

Running at a solid 60 fps all the time? They must have made improvements over the demo I played yesterday, it visibly dropped frames every time I turned around.

I played quite a bit of the full version at NYC (3 or 4 full levels) and it was a solid 60 then. That was a month ago...I have no doubt it'll be a solid 60. The demo in the kiosks is the same as the PC demo level right? (destroy guns on the shore) If so, I played through that entire level and that one never dropped.

Frogleg Special

11-12-2005, 09:20 AM

Ummm... maybe you didn't understand the point of RE4.

The feeling of helplessness because you can only aim and shoot while standing? Hope they change the archaic mechanic in RE5.

The Iron Weasel

11-12-2005, 09:26 AM

I got over the inablility to strafe 5 minutes after I started playing the game.

bobbler

11-12-2005, 09:27 AM

I honestly don't think the reviewer played the PC version of the game, and if he did he must have an old PC because the Xbox360 version didn't look upgraded in comparison to what I could play on my PC (which isn't all that new, but not outdated).

The Xbox360 version doesn't even have any AF, only trilinear filtering, so it seems. As best I could tell it was 2x AA too (if there was any at all -- didn't bother me, but as I was trying to compare it to the PC version I noticed it on the kiosk). The textures also looked poor in some places (I can't remember how the PC's versions textures are, so I'll assume they are the same).

With that said, the game was just as fun as the PC version, so if you like that then it shouldn't disappoint. If you've got the PC version and a 6800/x800 era card (or newer) then you won't be seeing an upgrade. If you dont a relatively new comp or an overpriced vid card and you tried to play it you'll probably be quite happy with how it looks, I'm not sure you'll have an orgasm like the reviewer though.

This review is more about excitement for new stuff than it being a fantastic game (or better than what you can get on the PC, for that matter). The ~8.5 reviews seem much more accurate.

The Iron Weasel

11-12-2005, 09:36 AM

I personally think that CoD2 deserved at least a 9. And if you have a badass PC (like myself) you can play it at the max settings (except 4xAA). And you'll see that the game is absolutly spectacular looking.

51|RandoM

11-12-2005, 09:42 AM

hahaha, that cracks me up. If you want as smooth a framerate on your pc as the console, all you gotta do is drop it down to their resolution.

I prefer 1920x1200 though, and played through it just fine.

Rafer

11-12-2005, 09:44 AM

It seems like the graphical gap between the PC and the console closes a bit every new generation. Or maybe my expectations are to high.

It seems to me the price gap between consoles and PCs are closing, nowadays a $1000 PC is considered mid-range, ten years ago I remember a $2000 PC was considered mid-range.

1995: $300 console vs $2000 PC
2005: $400 console vs $1000 PC

Though we're always going through this cycle, when the xbox came out it looked better than the PC, then a couple years later PC games like KOTOR or Call of Duty looked better, then games like FarCry and Doom 3 come out that look way better.

Taco

11-12-2005, 09:46 AM

Indeed we always go through the cycle, but the difference is not as profound as it used to be, I think.

Zanzibar

11-12-2005, 10:08 AM

It seems to me the price gap between consoles and PCs are closing, nowadays a $1000 PC is considered mid-range, ten years ago I remember a $2000 PC was considered mid-range.

1995: $300 console vs $2000 PC
2005: $400 console vs $1000 PC

Though we're always going through this cycle, when the xbox came out it looked better than the PC, then a couple years later PC games like KOTOR or Call of Duty looked better, then games like FarCry and Doom 3 come out that look way better.

Well, not to quibble, but a mid-range PC ain't gonna run CoD2 at full-res anytime soon. You'd want a top-of-the-line video card and lots of high-speed ram, which ain't cheap.

UnderHero5

11-12-2005, 10:26 AM

The problem I see with this review is that it's the same game as the PC version and they praise it as if it's somehow many times better. The graphics may be better (compared to someone who can't run the PC version at full everything) but that doesn't make the game better.
Besides, I have CoD2 and I played the 360 version just yesterday at a near by WalMart and while it did RUN very nice, some of the textures looked more washed out than they do on my PC (the wooden crates in the demo level). Obviously it still looked VERY nice, mostly because of the nice smooth framerate, but it wasn't anything spectacular, and definitely (other than framerate) didn't look better than the PC version running at max settings.

Not to mention the developers said the PC version is bugged and the reason it runs so bad in DX 9 is because of Service Pack 2 (which makes no sense, but they claim it was built on SP1... which still makes no sense, but whatever, if they want to use a bad excuse that's up to them). I'd say wait for a patch that is bound to come for the PC version that will increase performance.
Hell, the PC version was practically unplayable in DX9 when I first got it... then Nvidia released updated drivers that fixed it a little. It runs at playable speeds now in DX9 for me, at 1280 x 1024, but still not a solid 60 FPS. I'm thinking once they FIX the game with a patch it will run a lot smoother in DX9.

I know it's not the PC's limitation because I can run the game in DX 9, put EVERYTHING on low, and it'll run the same as it does when everything is on EXTRA. Now if it was my graphics card limiting it, then it would run better on low. There's a problem with the game. Even people with 7800 GTX's have problems running it smoothly in DX9 and have to use the DX7 mode.

I personally made up a little conspiracy theory in my head, whether it's true or not remainds to be seen.
I think IW puposely made the game run like ass in DX9 mode to boost sales of the 360 (perhaps MS influenced that)... because I seriously get over 100 FPS solid in DX7 mode, but it makes the game look a lot worse... then in DX9 mode I'll get maybe 50 FPS max. I'm better we won't even see a patch for it fixing this until a month or two after the 360 is out.

That's just my own little conspiracy theory though. I have no proof of this, but it's the only reason I can come up with about why it runs so shitty in DX9 mode. The SP2 excuse doesn't even begin to make sense... considering SP2 has been out for over a year now. They never bothered trying the game on an XP machine with SP2 installed durring that whole time???...... yeah. Sure IW.

And why would they put a DX7 mode in... and not a DX8 mode.... hmm? Makes no sense.

Magnanimous Gnome

11-12-2005, 10:37 AM

Kelegacy
KamaItachi

I'm in the same boat as Kelegacy and KamaItachi. I just can't get excited over games and new systems the way that I used to. I remember seeing Mario 64 in the store with a friend. We had to pick our jaws up off the floor and get a mop to clean up all the drool. I also had to swing by the clothing department and pick up some new boxers. I just don't get that feeling anymore.

Another, more recent example occured when I first popped in Shenmue. My jaw hit the floor. It just looked amazing. I never get that feeling anymore. I can't even get excited in the least about new screenshots and game previews, things that I used to eat up daily. Hell I knew every detail about DK2 before that game came out. Now I avoid those kinds of things like the plague - the hype is just deafening.

slothy

11-12-2005, 10:38 AM

Not to mention the developers said the PC version is bugged and the reason it runs so bad in DX 9 is because of Service Pack 2 (which makes no sense, but they claim it was built on SP1... which still makes no sense, but whatever, if they want to use a bad excuse that's up to them).

Where on earth did you see that? We've never said anything like that.

Here's the truth - the game uses a lot of pixel shaders, and you cranked up your resolution, so there are millions of pixels on your screen. Your card is pixelshader bound, so lowering texture quality and other settings, as you found, isn't helping. You need to lower the resolution and then you'll see a big boost in framerate. The game is GPU bound, not CPU.

You should try using the optimized settings for your card that we auto-select. You'll get a good framerate with those settings.

There is no conspiracy. DX7 mode is there so the game will work with cards going back to the geforce4mx. DX8 added pixel shaders and such, which are much improved in DX9. DX7 is the no-vertex shaders, no-pixel shaders renderer, DX9 has the magic.

Taco

11-12-2005, 10:42 AM

I've never seen an autoselect that didn't gimp settings to level far below optimal.

In any case, thanks for the post slothy ;). That whole SP2 thing seemed kind of shady to me.

The Iron Weasel

11-12-2005, 10:43 AM

I have a 7800 GTX, and yes it doesn't run well. So no its not a problem on our sie, its on their side.

Wow, wow, wow, theres a guy from infinity ward that posts here?

slothy

11-12-2005, 10:48 AM

I have a 7800 GTX, and yes it doesn't run well. So no its not a problem on our sie, its on their side.

And you're using the auto-selected settings? Or did you crank up the resolution? How much ram does your 7800 GTX have?

slothy

11-12-2005, 10:50 AM

Wow, wow, wow, theres a guy from infinity ward that posts here?

Of course! EA rocks! There are a few that read this site every day, although a lot of us try to keep quiet :)

UnderHero5

11-12-2005, 10:51 AM

Where on earth did you see that? We've never said anything like that.

Here's the truth - the game uses a lot of pixel shaders, and you cranked up your resolution, so there are millions of pixels on your screen. Your card is pixelshader bound, so lowering texture quality and other settings, as you found, isn't helping. You need to lower the resolution and then you'll see a big boost in framerate. The game is GPU bound, not CPU.

You should try using the optimized settings for your card that we auto-select. You'll get a good framerate with those settings.

There is no conspiracy. DX7 mode is there so the game will work with cards going back to the geforce4mx. DX8 added pixel shaders and such, which are much improved in DX9. DX7 is the no-vertex shaders, no-pixel shaders renderer, DX9 has the magic.

Well I stand corrected about the SP2 thing then (glad to hear that's not true).

I must say I didn't hear it straight from the horses mouth, so I probably shouldn't have believed it, but where I heard it is from several posters on the PlanetCallofDuty forums, I didn't bother looking for the actual words from IW, people said that the devs said it on one of the forums.

Anyway. I have to ask... why didn't you guys put a DX8 mode in? or 8.1... why 7?
DX7 offers nearly no special effects.

And what shaders are causing my overclocked 6800 GT to slow down so much in DX9? Is the entire engine just shader effects?
I know it's a different game/engine, but I can play Quake 4 and Doom 3 at 1280 x 1024 at 60 FPS... and it's ALL completely bump/normal mapped... Is there a problem with your engine? Why should people with top of the line cards get crap performance? What's the point of even upgrading our PC's when games are released that can't support high resolutions because they were built that way.
Build games for NOW, not the future, because by the time cards come out that can actually play the game in high resolutions with everything maxed, no one is going to CARE about that game any more, since it will be a couple years old. There are very few games that have a lrge player base several years after launch. Especially FPS's, with the amount of them that come out.

I'm not saying you guys did a bad job. It's a very fun game, but it just seems like the industry in general is taking this route... release games that LOOK amazing but run like crap even on top of the line hardware.

Should I really need to run CoD2 at 800 x 600 for a framerate near 60 FPS when I have an Athlon 64 3700+, 2 GB PC3200 ram, and a GeForce 6800 GT overclocked to Ultra speeds?
This graphics card is barely over a year old... and I've read MANY peoples complaints who have 7800 GTX's and claim the game runs bad for them in DX9...

If your game runs bad on the newest hardware, it's your fault for making it require more than is available currently. People shouldn't have to scale down their graphics when they own absolute top of the line hardware, that's rediculous.

Sorry to sound like a dick, but that's how I feel.

Edit: Oh, and why not give us the options to turn some of the shader effects off in DX9?
For example, I'd like to keep the normal mapped surfaces on, like the textures on the player models, and environtments, but maybe turn off that heat haze effect and other effects like that. Or keep specularity on and turn some other things off. At least give SOME options to do that. I like my games in at least 1280 x 1024 and running at a smooth framerate. To acheive that with CoD2 I am FORCED to run the game in DX7 mode, which honestly makes it look pretty much like CoD1....

Now explain to me what the sense in that is... You said lowering texture settings won't help our framerates at high resoltions... so why not include some options that WOULD?....

The Iron Weasel

11-12-2005, 10:56 AM

And you're using the auto-selected settings? Or did you crank up the resolution? How much ram does your 7800 GTX have?

Yeah, I cranked up the resolution! it has 256MB of video ram.
I have one single problem with running this at 1024x768. is that the game looks blurry. Its not that it has the jaggies, but its blurry. Its like your wearing beer goggles. BTW. I have a AMD Athlon 64 FX-57, Asus nVidia Geforce 7800 GTX, 2 gigs of Corsair XMS TwinX Gaming Ram, and a Creative Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS Platinum.

The Iron Weasel

11-12-2005, 11:03 AM

Also, I was wondering is it hard to keep quiet when you see people complaining about your game? Do you just wanna yell stuff like, NO NO NO, YOU'VE GOTTA USE THE GARAND THERE YOU FOOL!

Taco

11-12-2005, 11:05 AM

It was obviously developed for the 360 UnderHero and I'm happy to have it on the PC.

Sorry to sound like a dick, but that's how I feel.

Well, you're a dick.

UnderHero5

11-12-2005, 11:07 AM

Yeah, I cranked up the resolution! it has 256MB of video ram.
I have one single problem with running this at 1024x768. is that the game looks blurry. Its not that it has the jaggies, but its blurry. Its like your wearing beer goggles. BTW. I have a AMD Athlon 64 FX-57, Asus nVidia Geforce 7800 GTX, 2 gigs of Corsair XMS TwinX Gaming Ram, and a Creative Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS Platinum.

I have the same problem in 1024 (or lower)... textures look very blurry. Edges look very blurry... everything does. Hence I like running at a higher resolution (as I'm sure you do to). This is exactly my point. You have, I would say, a very top of the line PC. The only thing more you could do would be buying a SECOND 400 dollar 7800 GTX... and that, in my opinion, is an absurd thing to have to do to run a game at a high resolution in this day. I haven't had to run a game in 1024 x 768 in about 4 years... I'll be damned if I'm going to start now, when I have the most powerful hardware I have ever owned. Built games around the hardware, don't build the hardware to keep up with the games : (
What's the point of making a game with such pretty graphics if literally no one can take advantage of them (okay, not literally... but I'd guess around 1 - 3% of the target audience).

Well, you're a dick.

Meh, regardless, I don't mean to SOUND like one ; )

Taco

11-12-2005, 11:09 AM

Most of the target audience will buy it on the 360. I can't figure out what you're whining about, you'd rather they just not release it on the PC at all?

UnderHero5

11-12-2005, 11:10 AM

Most of the target audience will buy it on the 360. I can't figure out what you're whining about, you'd rather they just not release it on the PC at all?

Umm... no, I'd rather them do what I just suggested in my previous posts. That's why I said those things.

Edit:Oh, and sorry to not expect a gimped version of a game that was originally for the PC. What was I thinking. Here's an idea.... optimise it for PC's!! *gasp*...

And as far as I knew both the PC and 360 version were developed alongside eachother. I wasn't aware that the PC version was a port of the 360 version.

Taco

11-12-2005, 11:12 AM

I'm sorry, I focused on the other 5 or 6 paragraphs pre-edit where you scolded them for releasing it for the PC.

UnderHero5

11-12-2005, 11:17 AM

I'm sorry, I focused on the other 5 or 6 paragraphs pre-edit where you scolded them for releasing it for the PC.

I guess you didn't read it correctly. I never scolded them for releasing it for PC. Read it again.
I scolded them (and all devs that do this, as it's becoming common occurence) for releasing games that people can't run at the highest settings at a decent resolution even when they have the best hardware in existence.
F.E.A.R. is another example. I've heard that even people with 2 7800 GTX's in SLI can't run the game with everything at it's highest including soft shadows at a decent res and get a good framerate. I actually read that it would take 4 7800 GTX's in SLI to do so.

If that sounds right to you, then fine. The fact is, there is a target audience FOR THE PC VERSION as well at the 360 version. If they didn't want people to buy it for PC it wouldn't have been released on PC.

The Iron Weasel

11-12-2005, 11:19 AM

I'm pretty sure you can't use 4 GTX's, but maybe I'm wrong. :)

UnderHero5

11-12-2005, 11:25 AM

I'm pretty sure you can't use 4 GTX's, but maybe I'm wrong. :)

No, you can't, you're right. That's just what they said you would NEED to play the game like that. A kind of theorhetical thing.

sithspaun

11-12-2005, 11:25 AM

I have played this on the high-def screens they have at best buy (or at least I was under the assumption it was in hd) and played it on my pc, and this claim is most certainly untrue. I have a radeon x850 pro, and while this isn't the top of the line, cod2 certainly looked better on the pc than it did on the 360. The only explanation I can think of is maybe the TV I played it on wasn't as good as the rep proclaimed, or that totalgames.net are just wrong.

The Iron Weasel

11-12-2005, 11:26 AM

Oh, ok.........

slothy

11-12-2005, 11:26 AM

Okay, okay. Quick summary:

Let's stay away from anecdotal complaints. If YOU have bad performance, that's fine. But don't pull out the "I heard of a guy saying he had XXX and had bad performance." We have no way of knowing if it's true, what "bad performance" means, or what they did.

The truth is that we wanted to make the game gorgeous, so in our huge outdoor worlds we have normal maps, spec maps, color maps, and sometimes cosine maps on every pixel. Distortion effects, soft shadows, too! We went all out on making the game look spectacular and realistic. We also made the engine capable of running on all hardware back to the geforce4 mx (aka the crappy one). For cards that can't handle doing the specular maps, cosine maps, normal maps, color maps for every pixel, there is the directx 7 renderer, which draws just the color maps. On the other end, if you have a 512 meg card, we'll use it and you'll get super crisp normal maps and spec maps. The game scales to whatever you have, and will continue to scale up on the next generation of hardware.

So other engines run better on your hardware. The most likely reason is that they aren't drawing the huge outdoor draw distances that we're doing in Call of Duty 2. Doom 3 in particular was drawing no more than a couple rooms at a time. In CoD2 we'll draw an entire city, with hundreds of thousands of polys per frame. Doom 3 was not an outdoor engine game, and the models are noticably lower poly count than the characters in CoD2. As for Quake IV, I suspect it's a similar answer, but I haven't played it yet. It's not just an issue of "you're both doing normal maps, how come one is slower?". You'd have to draw the same data in both engines to see which one is really faster. I can tell you that Raven, id, and IW all worked with ATI and NVidia to optimize things as much as possible - for instance, NVidia found a trick to remove one op from our smoke shader.

On why we allow people to change their texture settings, it sounds like you misunderstood. YOU are bound by pixelshader performance. Other people might be texture bound (128 meg cards, etc), CPU bound, etc. Definitely if you crank up the resolution you're going to be pixelshader-bound. Are you saying that if the users cranks up the resolution we should remove the other options from the settings screen?

slothy

11-12-2005, 11:32 AM

Taco

11-12-2005, 11:32 AM

If that sounds right to you, then fine. The fact is, there is a target audience FOR THE PC VERSION as well at the 360 version. If they didn't want people to buy it for PC it wouldn't have been released on PC.

I guess I am still having trouble readin you. This is you saying they shouldn't of released it for the PC. I'm not sure what else to take away from it. Graphically, it was developed for the 360. It is what it is and they are not going to cripple it for a smaller market. And I, the console hater of EA, am fine with that.

As for FEAR, that's just not true. You need to make sure you have the latest drivers, or it will run dog slow. And soft shadows is just a piece of crap, they should of left it out of the game. It doesn't run that good and will cause any system to crawl. Their only mistake was giving you the option to run their shitty "soft shadows" solution.

I'm running it pretty damn near maxed out on a single 6800 and a FX-53 @ 55 FPS. Have to run it a notch below 1600x1200 though. As a side note, before I updated my drivers it would run under 30 at these settings.

The Iron Weasel

11-12-2005, 11:35 AM

Whatever, I thoroughly enjoyed the game, and very, very, VERY, few games rendered as much action on the screen as CoD2. Those russian levels had hundreds of units on screen weather effects, artillary, explotions, smoke, and gunfire sparks, all on screen at the same time, and kept it around 30 FPS.

UnderHero5

11-12-2005, 11:42 AM

On why we allow people to change their texture settings, it sounds like you misunderstood. YOU are bound by pixelshader performance. Other people might be texture bound (128 meg cards, etc), CPU bound, etc. Definitely if you crank up the resolution you're going to be pixelshader-bound. Are you saying that if the users cranks up the resolution we should remove the other options from the settings screen?

I thank you for your answers, while some of it was common sense. I'm well aware of why you can't directly compare engines. I was giving you examples of how my PC performs at running those other games so you'd have an idea of what my PC is capable of. I wasn't saying your game should run as good as their, sorry if it came off that way.

About people posting their bad performance... maybe this is something most developers aren't getting... but READ FORUMS. People post their specs and what kind of performance they are getting. Obviously they could be lying, and people have different opinions on performance, but when someone lists their specs, what settings they run the game at, and what their average framerates are.... I don't see how that doesn't indicate people's performance. All you have to do it go to most any CoD2 forum and search the words "Direct X 9" and you'll get MANY threads about people who get horrible performance in DX9. I don't understand how you can say people DON'T get bad performance when there are so many complaints, and so few people saying they get good performance in DX9.
That said, I gave you my specs and if you honestly think I should have to run the game at 800 x 600 with my hardware, then I've lost a lot of hope in you guys. I don't know what you consider bad hardware, but I'd say mine is pretty above average. You do realise, that most people who play games are still using stuff equivalent to a GeForce 4, right?
All you have to do is look at the Steam survey they have done over the past couple years... it's millions of players, and while it's just for those using Steam, I'd say it's a pretty accurate judge of what kind of hardware peopel have.

And about the part I quoted you on. You must have seriously misinturpreted me. I never said to take ANY options away from ANYONE. Those texture options SHOULD be there. I said to give MORE options to the people who are limited by the pixelshaders!! I don't know how you misinterpreted the following...
Oh, and why not give us the options to turn some of the shader effects off in DX9?
For example, I'd like to keep the normal mapped surfaces on, like the textures on the player models, and environtments, but maybe turn off that heat haze effect and other effects like that. Or keep specularity on and turn some other things off. At least give SOME options to do that. I like my games in at least 1280 x 1024 and running at a smooth framerate. To acheive that with CoD2 I am FORCED to run the game in DX7 mode, which honestly makes it look pretty much like CoD1....

I quote clearly said we should have more options, not that any should be taken away.

slothy

11-12-2005, 11:43 AM

I'm glad you enjoyed it.

Final note - the game was not developed "for 360", at least, not any more than it was developed "for PC". Neither one is a port, there are two teams working on the game. Activision can tell you that the PC platform is critical, and believe me we spent a LOT of time making sure the game would play great on all hardware.

On PC, we take advantage of its strengths. We scale to all sorts of hardware configurations, and for things like MP, we can take advantage of high-bandwidth dedicated servers to allow huge player counts online. For 360, we added splitscreen MP to take advantage of its support for multiple controllers. Every platform has strengths, and it's our job to take advantage of them.

UnderHero5

11-12-2005, 11:45 AM

Oh, and about the "the game should look as good as possible on the current hardware" thing. It DOES! But if you turn the resolution up too high, the framerate suffers.

Given that the refresh rate and resolution scale up and up and up and up, where is the "as good as possible" mark? 1280x1024? 1600x1200? It sounds like you really want game companies to standardize on your particular hardware as their target high-end machine. Hey, I'd love that to happen for mine, too :)

I'd like to have them standardize EXISTING HARDWARE as their target, yes.
NOT hardware that DOES NOT YET EXIST!!

The game scales to whatever you have, and will continue to scale up on the next generation of hardware.

slothy

11-12-2005, 11:48 AM

I'd like to have them standardize EXISTING HARDWARE as their target, yes. NOT hardware that DOES NOT YET EXIST!!

Can you give me an example of what you mean? A high end card can run the game with maxed out effects. Just not at the resolution that YOU want to play it at. Nobody is FORCING you to run in DX7, you are doing it because you obviously value resolution over image quality. Everyone has their own preferences, and I think the problem here is that you assume everyone shares your own.

Twigz'N'Berries

11-12-2005, 11:53 AM

A reaction like that is generated from the graphics more than anything.

WTF?? I played the game during IGN Live and got to sample several levels. The games is awesome. I even got to play four player deathmatch and it rocked. There is a difference in being jaded and simply being petulant and many sound like the latter.

People bitched at games they didn't think were graphically impressive. Now, when they haven't even played the game, they dismiss the reports of great graphics and excellent gameplay as propaganda or a lie.

When 360 announced there would be 213 gamers BC at launch with more scheduled later, some complained that their favorite title wasn't there and that MS can go 'f' themselves. Give me a break. 213 titles was way more than I thought it would be...and most of us here would say the same thing if they were being honest.

Call of Duty 2 is a sweet game and I can't wait to play more of it on 11/22. The xbox 360 had no system variables and that had to make it easier to develop on.

UnderHero5

11-12-2005, 12:07 PM

Can you give me an example of what you mean? A high end card can run the game with maxed out effects. Just not at the resolution that YOU want to play it at. Nobody is FORCING you to run in DX7, you are doing it because you obviously value resolution over image quality. Everyone has their own preferences, and I think the problem here is that you assume everyone shares your own.

I'm assuming that people with the best hardware available didn't buy that hardware to run their games at 1024 or 800x600. I'm certain that if you did a poll you would find that to be correct. Could I be wrong? Yes. But I'm pretty sure most enthusiests who spend 1.5k - 2k on their PC's to play games don't spend that money to run their games in a low resolution.

*sigh* I can see this is going nowhere.

Because, you know, the same can be said about you. You're assuming people don't mind running their games at 800 x 600 blurr-of-vision. Do either of us have any proof of this? No.
But I'd say the massive amount of people complaining about DX9 performance is a small indicator of how some people feel.

I'll end this right now by saying you guys make good games. I like the gameplay, don't get me wrong, and that is what's most important (that's why I run the game in DX7 at a higher resolution... to keep gameplay smooth and be able to make those long shots (having a higher resolution lets me make out distant enemies a lot easier than in 800x600 where most small objects in the distance are VERY blurry. Even at 1024 this is true).

I just don't know what game developers these days expect from us consumers when we tell them we have bad performance then they pretty much ignore that we say that ("But don't pull out the "I heard of a guy saying he had XXX and had bad performance." We have no way of knowing if it's true, what "bad performance" means, or what they did.") then continue to build games with graphics that our current generation isn't capable of pulling off very well.

Maybe I am expecting too much, but to me the PC industry is just getting more and more silly... buy graphics cards that keep getting more expensive every year... to run your games at a lower resolution than you did the year before. Like I said, maybe I'm expecting too much, but I don't pay all this money for a PC to run my games at 800 x 600...

Pixel Shaders must die (or we should be given the options to customize our visuals a bit more, ala F.E.A.R.... ran like crap with Soft Shadows and Virtex Lighting (was it?)... but I had the ability to shut those off and still have it look beautiful/run great at a high resolution.
If we're limited by pixel shaders, give us the option to shut some of them off to boost our performance in high resolutions... and DX7 isn't really a very nice option if it's the only one available. That's pretty much "all or nothing".

And with that I am done stating my opinion and I apologise for being so vocal. I know I sound like a dick, as I said before, but oh well, I'm disgruntled and backed into a corner.
It's either play my game in a low resolution with effects on. Play it in a high resolution looking like crap, or play it on an overpriced console that I don't want where it runs nice and look nice.

I hate FPS's on consoles, so the last isn't an option.
The reason I hate FPS's on console (wasn't always this way) is because most devs these days leave out the simple option of Southpaw for us Left Handed people. I suppose I should just bend over and relearn a control scheme I've been using since the N64 though... (though I have tried, for years... it's like writing with my right hand, it just doesn't work, no matter how much I practice, it feels wrong)...

slothy, do you know if the console version will have a Southpaw configuration? I need the truth too... last time I asked a dev this question (Psy-Ops on Xbox) they said it would. I buy it... and it doesn't. So I fumble my way through most of the game barely enjoying myself.

goc_sin

11-12-2005, 12:14 PM

I just finished the PC version and a group of us have been playing the multiplayer on Fridays. It's great fun! I have to say that the single player game was much better than COD 1, and I enjoyed that one too. They did a great job! I can't wait for COD 3.

slothy

11-12-2005, 12:23 PM

For the record, we definitely aren't pushing one platform over another. The 360 version has two different southpaw stick configurations, depending on which stick you'd rather use to look up and down and which to move forward and back. Hopefully one of the two platforms will be what you're looking for and everybody's happy :)

Anyways, no hard feelings. You were right that I totally misread your post earlier about texture settings - my apologies on that, too many posts to read and remember :) I can totally appreciate your desire for having the game running great and knowing that nobody has a version that is any prettier. You put a lot of money into your rig and want games to kick ass on it. I can understand completely. Believe me that I'm going to ask the graphics guys if there's any way to give more options for controlling the dx9 pixelshader performance. No promises on a resolution, but it definitely won't be ignored either way.

goc_sin

11-12-2005, 12:32 PM

Since everyone says it runs so much better on Xbox 360, I hope they will plan to make COD 3 for the PC. All I hear is how consoles sell so much more what's the point in a PC version.

bapenguin

11-12-2005, 01:32 PM

I'm installing this for PC as we speak....holy shit 6 CDs. That's crazy.

Taco

11-12-2005, 01:43 PM

Since everyone says it runs so much better on Xbox 360, I hope they will plan to make COD 3 for the PC. All I hear is how consoles sell so much more what's the point in a PC version.

The PC version still sells.

goc_sin

11-12-2005, 01:52 PM

The PC version still sells.
Lets hope so, cause they'll have pry the mouse from my cold dead fingers before I switch to a console. ;)

Achilles

11-12-2005, 02:30 PM

The game should have gotten a 9.0+ for the PC version as well. The Gamespot review was a joke. 8.5? That’s almost as bad as the 8.2 they gave SC3 while giving Tekken 5 a 9.2.

For the comparison, I’ll be able to run it on PC maxed out and the 360 version on the same TV in a week and change and we’ll see which is better looking. It seems these days reviewers have some pretty weak computers since they complained about the performance of both this and FEAR, which run completely smooth on my friend’s new computer.

My computer's old but at least I don't blame the games for not running well on it.

51|RandoM

11-12-2005, 02:44 PM

fx-55, 2gigs of ram, 7800gtx sli at 1920x1200.

Even on that machine, there are a couple places it gets laggy. Felt almost like a memory leak instead of not having enough horsepower.

My fault for wanting to run the panel at native res, I suppose. I could've dropped to 1600x1200 with no scaling(to prevent blurry interpolation) and it probably would've been smooth as butter through the entire game.

That said, it wasn't bad enough to get me to reduce either image quality, or resolution. :-)

mulligan

11-12-2005, 03:53 PM

Why don't you guys patch the engine to do PS 3.0 in order to use Dynamic Branching? since you are using pixel shaders and normal maps like crazy, wouldn't that boost a significant amount performance?

slothy

11-12-2005, 04:13 PM

Why don't you guys patch the engine to do PS 3.0 in order to use Dynamic Branching? since you are using pixel shaders and normal maps like crazy, wouldn't that boost a significant amount performance?

Dynamic branching allows you to write some really complex shaders that do specialized operations. For us, we're doing things like normal mapping and specular mapping, which don't really require branches in the shader, it's just a branchless algorithm the card needs to execute for each pixel. So for us, the branching support wouldn't help afaik.

MasterKwan

11-12-2005, 04:28 PM

Give it up Slothy. You can't give him any right answers. I really enjoyed your comments though.

I sell shareware I wrote myself, do pretty well at it too. It's a pretty basic multi-threaded program that does some network access. It won't run on more than about 95% of the PC's out there because there are so many F'd up PC's in the world. People run Norton and wonder where their performance went, people install ZoneAlarm and forget then bitch when new programs can't access the net. There are endless interactions between programs and clueless users who install stuff without even knowing why they do it. Some of my users have 2 and even 3 firewalls installed and wonder why the machine locks up from time to time. I'm sure it's 100 times worse for game developers.

You have no clue if Underhero's machine is F'd up or not so, any complaints he has are pretty suspect. My rule of thumb is, if it works on most people's PC's the way I expect then it's a user issue. They don't like it when I tell them that but, what the hell. UnderHero's PC could be overheating, he could be infected, he could be running Norton. Who knows.

As for limiting the settings in a game to what the current hardware can support. Don't make me laugh. Why build in obsolesence? I prefer games where, when I upgrade my video card to the latest hot lick, I can just turn the settings up and enjoy new video quality.

Don't take this the wrong way Under, I'm not singling you out. The question you should be asking is whether other people have the same problems you do and if they don't, what's wrong with your PC?

UnderHero5

11-12-2005, 07:18 PM

Oh, I'm not taking it the wrong way, don't worry. You're right and a lot of people do things like that (having spyware, running apps in the background, not defragging, etc) but I can assure you I keep my system extremely clean.
I don't run anything when I play games. Nothing. I even have a lot of Windows visual effects disabled (not that it would make much of a difference, just saying). I keep all of my drivers up to date (assuming the newest drivers work best). I'm using Nvidia's latest beta drivers. Latest Audigy drivers, etc.

No spyware. No virus', etc etc...
I don't want to open this back up, I'm just saying, I know what you mean.

Oh, and as I said, the many, many forum posts indicate that it's not just my machines problems.

trip1eX

11-12-2005, 08:03 PM

It seems to me the price gap between consoles and PCs are closing, nowadays a $1000 PC is considered mid-range, ten years ago I remember a $2000 PC was considered mid-range.

1995: $300 console vs $2000 PC
2005: $400 console vs $1000 PC

Yeah I've been saying this for awhile. PCs are cheaper than ever. Funny how the gaming media never points this out. They always use the $5000 figure for the latest Alienware model when comparing the price of a pc to a console. They also never figure in things like $50/yr for Live.

Anyway CoD2 on the 360 looks like a pc game now PcGamers will disappointed if they are expecting a visual upgrade. They might be impressed that a console finally gets hi-def. Personally the controls hold me back from really being interested in the 360. Maybe MS can license that Nintendo controller.

Twigz'N'Berries

11-12-2005, 08:11 PM

Personally the controls hold me back from really being interested in the 360. Maybe MS can license that Nintendo controller.
Have you played the Nintendo controller? I'm just saying that I will reserve judgement until I get my hands on it.

The Iron Weasel

11-12-2005, 08:13 PM

I'm installing this for PC as we speak....holy shit 6 CDs. That's crazy.

You shoulda got the DVD version!

jspeak32

11-12-2005, 11:15 PM

You know, I just realized I keep forgetting that the next crop of consoles will be a bit more powerful than current PC's. I keep thinking that the same game on the PC will look worse on the consoles (because right now in this gen, that's true). I have trouble getting excited about the next gen, thinking about the huge leap into Tomorrow, and it bothers me a bit. Sometimes I think it's due to the boring name schemes of 360 and PS3, which do not invoke a sense of "newness" over their previous incarnations. Or maybe I've grown too jaded and don't feel the same worm of excitement that, in the past, burrowed deep into my soul and writhed and writhed while I stole glances at screenshots, reread the same articles in monthly mags until the glossy pages tore and crumbled, and quivered in anticipation. The obvious change in any new console is graphics, and it might be that I just don't care about how a game looks anymore, at least not to the degree that I used to.

Shouldn't I be a bit more excited? I've just sat here for 10 minutes trying to understand why I don't feel the same way I did when the PS1, Nintendo 64, or Dreamcast came out, which were the last machines to truly make me froth at the mouth and whip out my wallet prematurely (or a relative's wallet). Sigh. What's wrong with me?

You're getting older. More specifically, your senses are getting dulled because you've experienced this "next-gen" launch a few times before.
(let me guess. Action movies don't give you that same sense of adreneline rush as they used to either, do they?)

jspeak32

11-12-2005, 11:21 PM

The feeling of helplessness because you can only aim and shoot while standing? Hope they change the archaic mechanic in RE5.

If they added side-stepping into the game, it would way unbalance it and make the game WAY to easy to play...
if you want side-stepping that bad, go play those other countless FPS games that allow it.. However, if you want something different, play RE4.

The Iron Weasel

11-12-2005, 11:34 PM

When do I get to be jaded?

bapenguin

11-13-2005, 05:34 AM

When do I get to be jaded?

By the power invested in me, I deem thee, The Iron Weasel, a jaded gamer.

Congrats!

Magnanimous Gnome

11-13-2005, 08:14 AM

When do I get to be jaded?

Afterall we inevitably break up and you are left crying for days.

Trust me, after that you will be jaded and curse men for at least a few months.

Wait, what are we talking about here??

H.Bogard

11-13-2005, 10:08 AM

Ergo: FPSes in console is tacked on. They're there because consoles are popular. Or some companies sponsor them to be in console (exhibit 1: Halo). Yet, I still play RE4 because friggin Capcom doesn't have the cojones to put a real version on the PC. Yeah, the real version where the AI could be smart and fast because the player doesn't have to aim and shoot like an idiot.

edit: Konami -> Capcom

Masterful!

About this article -> What kind of idiotic website did you pick this up from? they are clearly hyping the console beyond their buttholes....its FRIGGIN OBVIOUS!

Quote:
Originally Posted by slothy
The game scales to whatever you have, and will continue to scale up on the next generation of hardware.

I'd like to have them standardize EXISTING HARDWARE as their target, yes.
NOT hardware that DOES NOT YET EXIST!!

You should play the PC version of Matrix: path of neo.....thats what you deserve then.

The Iron Weasel

11-13-2005, 10:35 AM

By the power invested in me, I deem thee, The Iron Weasel, a jaded gamer.

Congrats!

God, I feel so....ALIVE!

Kelegacy

11-13-2005, 12:51 PM

I saw some guy playing COD2 for the 360 today in WalMart. All I can say is WOW, it was beautiful. I haven't seen it running on a high powered PC, but I think I was nearly sold on the Xbox today. I was sold on the Dreamcast when I saw Powerstone running. Maybe I'm not so jaded afterall. Plus, I really dig the controller, though I didn't get to hold it in my hands yet. Maybe I'll become an Xbox fanboy next gen...or not. It would be easier if the company wasnt Microsoft, that's for sure. And had mass Japanese support. Oh well.

Magnanimous Gnome

11-13-2005, 01:30 PM

I want to try the 360, but everytime I'm at Wal-Mart the thing is surrounded by annoying tykes and drooling, dark-clothed gamer nerds. I'll probably have to swing by at 3am or something just to be able to even see the monitor.

In-store kiosks kind of frighten me though - the amount of grease and grime on those controllers within just a few days is pretty scary.

The Iron Weasel

11-13-2005, 01:57 PM

Kelegacy

11-13-2005, 02:45 PM

Whats wrong with dark cloths? I wear fucking Slipknot sweaters, and shirts is that a problem for you. Seriously buddy, just because someone wears a mother fucking black shirt doesn't mean they're crazy or something.

Scientists have proven that dark clothes are a sign of hidden homosexual urges that are struggling to break free, but are at odds with societal norms. Recent studies also found that black shirts and other clothing, along with piercings and tats, do in fact promote insanity, and this choice of attire is one of the first signs of diminished cognitive thought and the steady deevolution into sociopathic mania.

The Iron Weasel

11-13-2005, 03:16 PM

Well, slap my ass, and call me a bitch! :D

KamaItachi

11-13-2005, 04:20 PM

God, I feel so....ALIVE!

You're out of the club. Youthful exuberance is not tollerated.

bobbler

11-13-2005, 07:27 PM

I just played the PC demo again after playing it at a kiosk (one that is set up correctly) and they are quite comparable -- my comp with a 6800GT and 2.4ghz A64 was able to play it fine with settings maxed and 2xAA/Trilinear filtering (thats what I'm assuming until I hear it from the horses mouth -- only a few launch games are using AA at all, let alone 4xAA, and 2xAA looks about what I saw at the Kiosk -- I don't imagine slothy can say?).

With that said, if I can pick up an Xbox360, I'll be picking this game up. My original statement about it being an 8.5 should be changed to a ~9.0 and maybe even a ~9.5 -- replaying the demo made me rethink it a bit. I love the music in it as well; if you devs are still peaking around: the small amount of music that was in the demo game was wonderfully chosen -- I love the Lisa Gerrard-esque opening.

Magnanimous Gnome

11-14-2005, 01:33 PM

Whats wrong with dark cloths? I wear fucking Slipknot sweaters, and shirts is that a problem for you. Seriously buddy, just because someone wears a mother fucking black shirt doesn't mean they're crazy or something. I get enough stares around here. I can't wait to see the looks after I get some piercings and tatoos. *sigh* I hate people.

I never said that anything was wrong with dark clothes. However, if you are one of those types who thinks that they are a badass or a "rebel" for wearing dark clothes, then that's just sad. Not saying this is the case with you, but I see way too many people walking around in dark clothes with scowls on their faces, acting as if they have somehow rebelled against the system or something. This isn't the Matrix. Your angry reply tells me that you may just be part of this group. No judgements though bud.

Besides, bright colors are fun!! Why else would I love Nintendo games so much?

Well, slap my ass, and call me a bitch! :D

With pleasure! :D