DF vs. Titanfall (Xbox One/PC)

[Qbert]

COD 4 did. It is the only modern COD game that managed to keep up with other games in that period. All the others never really managed it.

All the CoD's by the original IW team were well known for having top notch visuals. Their last game, MW2, was also pretty tops in visuals....not the best, but still carrying it's own weight for its time.
That's pretty much almost all of their games, with the exception of MW2 is people want to argue that one.


MW2 IGN:

10
Graphics
What was already an impressive graphical engine has only improved over the last two years. More effects, grander environments, and a truly spectacular overall visual offering.

People tend to forget, but visually, they were pretty damn good, and for the type of game you got with the performance you got...not many games could beat it visually.

 

[TeKPhaN]

IGN?

Dat Q3 engine was beat years before by Unreal Engine that's how old it is.

 

[Qbert]

IGN?

Dat Q3 engine was beat years before by Unreal Engine that's how old it is.

Did I say it was the best visually? On console, there simply was not many games of this caliber visually. Fact. And that's MW2. The earlier CoDs from IW reviewed even better visually.

I'm talking about everything going, fps, effects, action, etc. Not many games. When MW2 was indeed review well and got many kudos for it's visuals....for you to claim the devs were not known for their visuals is laughable, especially considering that only one of their games was what some may consider visually lacking, even though....not many were better (just a handful).

 

[TeKPhaN]

Did I say it was the best visually? On console, there simply was not many games of this caliber visually. Fact. And that's MW2. The earlier CoDs from IW reviewed even better visually.

I'm talking about everything going, fps, effects, action, etc. Not many games. When MW2 was indeed review well and got many kudos for it's visuals....for you to claim the devs were not known for their visuals is laughable, especially considering that only one of their games was what some may consider visually lacking, even though....not many were better (just a handful).

Killzone 2 came out the same year as MW and RAPED it visually.
Q3 engine is like 1998 old and The Source Engine is I think 2004? The engines they used alone makes them NOT known for making good visuals. Now if you wanna say good art work...something I say TF has then I won't argue that.

 

[Troublegum]

I think the COD games look terrific. They are incredibly well designed within their engine's technical limitations. Look hard enough and you will see some of the smoke and mirror tricks but I really like the aesthetics and smoothness.

 

[TeKPhaN]

I think the COD games look terrific. They are incredibly well designed within their engine's technical limitations. Look hard enough and you will see some of the smoke and mirror tricks but I really like the aesthetics and smoothness.

Good Art and Tricks for sure...the added fact that they are running 60fps adds to the effect as well.

 

[Qbert]

Killzone 2 came out the same year as MW and RAPED it visually.
Q3 engine is like 1998 old and The Source Engine is I think 2004? The engines they used alone makes them NOT known for making good visuals. Now if you wanna say good art work...something I say TF has then I won't argue that.

Do you have a hard time with reading comprehension? Did I say MW2 was the best visually? However, it was rated as one of the better looking games that year.
And who cares about what the engine is doing, I'm talking about what we see visually. It was, and reviews show it, one of the best looking games visually, despite its old engine. That doesn't mean there wasn't other better looking games, but other better looking games doesn't = "IW wasn't known for good visuals".

 

[TeKPhaN]

Do you have a hard time with reading comprehension? Did I say MW2 was the best visually? However, it was rated as one of the better looking games that year.
And who cares about what the engine is doing, I'm talking about what we see visually. It was, and reviews show it, one of the best looking games visually, despite its old engine. That doesn't mean there wasn't other better looking games, but other better looking games doesn't = "IW wasn't known for good visuals".

No MW2 wasn't one of the better looking games ever. And I stand by what I said IW/Respawn have never been known for good visuals.

 

[Qbert]

No MW2 wasn't one of the better looking games ever. And I stand by what I said IW/Respawn have never been known for good visuals.

We could agree to disagree....reviews say otherwise.

 

[TeKPhaN]

We could agree to disagree....reviews say otherwise.

IGN? Who are you going to quote next game informer?

 

[Qbert]

IGN? Who are you going to quote next game informer?

I can go to a few of them. But dude, I'm working right now. Give me some time, and i'll get them for you.

 

[TeKPhaN]

Wouldn't be hard if it was well known for it.

 

[Hissatsu]

In the XB1's defense, there's plenty of frame rate drops on the pc version as well.

It's simply a poorly optimized game. On my hardware, BF4 runs butter smooth totally maxed out with 64 players. TF, quite often, dips into 40 fps territory.

Oh, and my gripe about the mouse seems to be echoed by many others. As someone elsewhere put it..."it feels like using a mouse adapter on console".

That one map with the water is the worse one for me. It's actually frustrating because my pc should be able to run 60 fps at all times but that map drops down in the 40's.

 

[Qbert]

Wouldn't be hard if it was well known for it.

didn't say it was hard to get....I said I was working


OXM
So far, so obvious. We knew Modern Warfare 2 would pack visuals to make your Xbox 360 purr, just as we knew it would carry punchy set-pieces to shotgun your senses.
✔Absolutely spectacular set-pieces

gamespy:
The fact that I didn't even get into the stunning visuals

Giantbomb:
Modern Warfare 2 is a sharp-looking game with a real dedication to keeping its frame rate up. Its smooth frame rate is a real asset that makes the action look great, but it's also backed up by some good, solid animation and large areas that fill up with enemies. All hell breaks loose at several spots in the campaign, and the technology behind the action is more than up to the challenge. While it isn't an order of magnitude greater than Call of Duty 4 at first glance, the larger scope of some areas feel like things that might not have been possible before, at least not without sacrificing texture or model quality.

destructiod
All this content is made to look pretty by some really stunning graphics. Modern Warfare 2 looks vastly superior to its predecessor, mostly thanks to a more vibrant color palette and some beautifully well-lit environments.


And, like I said....this was the last of the respawn team's CoD game. The others were more well received visually prior to MW2. So, pretty much almost all of their games were known for their visuals, with 1 still being pretty good looking for it's time.


With that said, I never said there weren't better looking games...but these games were still up there visually. Amount of details on screen were staggering at the time, with "not many" games rivaling it. Listing a handful of games that looked better doesn't somehow prove me false.

 

[TeKPhaN]

didn't say it was hard to get....I said I was working


OXM
So far, so obvious. We knew Modern Warfare 2 would pack visuals to make your Xbox 360 purr, just as we knew it would carry punchy set-pieces to shotgun your senses.
✔Absolutely spectacular set-pieces

gamespy:
The fact that I didn't even get into the stunning visuals

Giantbomb:
Modern Warfare 2 is a sharp-looking game with a real dedication to keeping its frame rate up. Its smooth frame rate is a real asset that makes the action look great, but it's also backed up by some good, solid animation and large areas that fill up with enemies. All hell breaks loose at several spots in the campaign, and the technology behind the action is more than up to the challenge. While it isn't an order of magnitude greater than Call of Duty 4 at first glance, the larger scope of some areas feel like things that might not have been possible before, at least not without sacrificing texture or model quality.

destructiod
All this content is made to look pretty by some really stunning graphics. Modern Warfare 2 looks vastly superior to its predecessor, mostly thanks to a more vibrant color palette and some beautifully well-lit environments.


And, like I said....this was the last of the respawn team's CoD game. The others were more well received visually prior to MW2. So, pretty much almost all of their games were known for their visuals, with 1 still being pretty good looking for it's time.


With that said, I never said there weren't better looking games...but these games were still up there visually. Amount of details on screen were staggering at the time, with "not many" games rivaling it. Listing a handful of games that looked better doesn't somehow prove me false.

Yeah like I thought bad references and LOL @ destruk saying it looks better then MW.

 

[Qbert]

Yeah like I thought bad references and LOL @ destruk saying it looks better then MW.

Umm....it did. MW2 introduced new little visual goodies that built upon MW1.


Not my problem you don't like my references, they are some of the more popular review sites. It's easy to just dismiss any site as "bad references" when they counter your claim.
I checked other sites as well, but there are simply too many. A lot of them don't really get into visuals, but none really say anything about game looking dated. So, we have sights that say the game looks great, looks good, or says nothing about visuals....but really can't find any putting down the visuals.



So, like I said, we can agree to disagree...but I, at the very least, have evidence to back up my claim.

 

[TeKPhaN]

no you don't

 

[Qbert]

no you don't

lol....I just posted them. Not my problem you dismiss what I present.



Let's see you bring up reviews telling us visuals do not look good or look dated.

 

[TeKPhaN]

lol....I just posted them. Not my problem you dismiss what I present.



Let's see you bring up reviews telling us visuals do not look good or look dated.

They weren't the best looking games any of the years they released. You think that if they looked so good that at LEAST ONE year they would win awards for visuals?
The sites you referenced are jokes and a bit of over exaggerating what some of them said on your part.

 

[Qbert]

They weren't the best looking games any of the years they released. You think that if they looked so good that at LEAST ONE year they would win awards for visuals?
The sites you referenced are jokes and a bit of over exaggerating what some of them said on your part.

Right, I forgot...in your mind, having great visuals means they need to win some obscure award for visuals. Great visuals doesn't need to be THE BEST VISUALS of that year. Shame that you really can't get that.

 

[TeKPhaN]

Right, I forgot...in your mind, having great visuals means they need to win some obscure award for visuals. Great visuals doesn't need to be THE BEST VISUALS of that year. Shame that you really can't get that.

But after like 10 games not one year were they known for having great visuals.

 

[Qbert]

But after like 10 games not one year were they known for having great visuals.

Really? MW1 and 2 were nominated in their respective years for visuals...one at ign the other at spike.
Seriously, though, those awards are meaningless, but since you brought it up, yes, the games were known for their visuals.
Again, not "the best", but certainly some of the better looking games.

 

[TeKPhaN]

 

[Qbert]

CoD2:

While many early Xbox 360 games are simple high-resolution versions of their current gen brethren, COD 2 was created in tandem with the PC version. This means that both versions demonstrate a hefty amount of special effects, visual polish and no visual compromise. The game looks especially crisp in 1080 and 720, and the level of detail and crispness is undeniably different when compared to the same game in 480p. In the higher resolutions, the texture work is often excellent, and in any mode it's complemented by both fluid moving characters and great animation. You run into a blown-up building and the crumbling walls show granular detail. Your feet kick up dust. Scrapes, scratches, and holes aren't repeated from building to building. And the fidelity of each object, whether it is a broken desk, a destroyed tank, or a torn apart building, is crisp and sharp looking.

 

[Qbert]

CoD 1:

Almost instantly when you enter the game for the first time you will be amazed at how great the game looks

The graphics are some of the best I’ve seen in a First Person Shooter (FPS). Realistic models, lighting, and textures make up each level. The wonderful sound and graphics, along with the great script and AI, really make you feel as if you are there. Your AI teammates will go back for wounded allies, dive to the ground to avoid mortars, provide cover fire, and work together to open up a tank and drop a grenade into it. Aside from very little gore, Call of Duty is the most realistic World War II experience out there.

 

[Qbert]

So yeah, ummmmm, your bone of contention with visuals in the recent CoD outings is understandable....but the majority of the respawn teams CoD games were visually good looking games, with MW2 being the weakest link the year it came out, and still being accepted as a good looking game.



So I'll let it die, simply because I'm done for the day and stepping away from pc, but you're free to find me anything from legit sources that reviewed CoD, CoD2, CoD4, or MW2 as being dated looking.

 

[pravus]

Is for me. I can't stand joining lobbies and seeing a few pings over 150 when everyone else is well below 80.

Good grief. I'm getting 16-20 ms to east coast servers.

COD 4 did. It is the only modern COD game that managed to keep up with other games in that period. All the others never really managed it.

I agree with this. Maybe CoD2 was good looking to people at 360 launch, but CoD4 is the only one that impressed me when it came out and everything after that was reskinned and was an incremental upgrade.

 

[TeKPhaN]

Anywayz TF looks better then any COD game.

 

[eVo7]

Call of Duty 4 was pretty good looking for it's time.

 

[Hissatsu]

Good grief. I'm getting 16-20 ms to east coast servers.



I agree with this. Maybe CoD2 was good looking to people at 360 launch, but CoD4 is the only one that impressed me when it came out and everything after that was reskinned and was an incremental upgrade.

Yea. Im in texas and I get 33ms from central us servers. I've never really experienced lag in TF.