What do you prefer GFX wise? Halo or COD ?

Wow m8 if you think cod has the best graphics on console im guessing you have`nt played that many games LOL
Cod bo is much better looking on the pc than it is on either console and it still looks dated and basic when compared to other games in fact id go as far as to say there are better looking games on consoles than cod bo on pc and that does not happen often a console game beating a pc...............all i can say is if you think any cod is the best graphical wise on any system then

1: you dont know a lot about graphical effects and terms
2: you seriously have played a very very limited quantity of games
3: you are a massive cod fanboy
 
Last edited:
Jericho.u.k said:
Wow m8 if you think cod has the best graphics on console im guessing you have`nt played that many games LOL
Cod bo is much better looking on the pc that it is on either console and it still looks dated and basic when compared to other games in fact id go as far as to say there are better looking games on consoles than cod bo on pc and that does not happen often a console game beating a pc...............all i can say is if you think any cod is the best graphical wise on any system then

1: you dont know a lot about graphical effects and terms
2: you seriously have played a very very limited quantity of games
3: you are a massive cod fanboy
Click to expand...

Its fast and smooth with a great attention to detail and IMHO up there with the best, and actually if you bothered to actually look at the high rate it manages to move its onscreen images otherwise known as GFX, you too would probably notice how much work went into offering you a quality visual experience that you just brush off without appreciating.

Hey buddy, go spend another 400quid on the latest GFX card for your super PC.. It'll be money well spent. :rolleyes:
 
thedoc46 said:
Its fast and smooth with a great attention to detail and IMHO up there with the best, and actually if you bothered to actually look at the high rate it manages to move its onscreen images otherwise known as GFX, you too would probably notice how much work went into offering you a quality visual experience that you just brush off without appreciating.

Hey buddy, go spend another 400quid on the latest GFX card for your super PC.. It'll be money well spent. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...



Ok i think you have completley missed my point.
My post was not to start a pc vs console debate in any way infact if you actually bothered to look at my sig then you would realise that my pc is hardly a up to date ninja pc infact my whole pc was built from hand me downs.Add that to the fact i actually said that some console games beat cod bo on the pc on full setting as seriously cod bo is lacking graphically.

So by your logic a game that throws a lot of images about onscreen is good graphically? Well bayonetta throws just as much as any recent game and imo a much much superior game to cod bo and looks much better.

Cod bo is just not a very good looking game no matter how many set pieces and cool moments you put in it and to think its one of the best looking games on any machine is just laughable.

And before you think im a cod hater you are far from the truth......i loved cod 4 and still play online.......cod mw2 wasnt so good and bo is worse than either of them but none of them are anything special in the graphics department
 
FooAtari said:
No chance, I'd probably give it to Red Dead.

But as others have said there is a lot more going on in halo, it's just a bigger game in general. CoD is pretty simple so there is plenty of resources to dedicated to graphics. But, it doesn't even look that good. Doesn't play particularly great either. A solid but uninspiring game.
Click to expand...

wow you think Red Dead looked good? thought it looked shocking personally, like a PS2 job!

think in terms of visuals it goes something like this for me:

Halo: Reach (probably best looking)
COD: Modern Warfare II (second best without a doubt)
Halo III (somethings looked pretty good)
COD: Black Ops (something is just wrong with this game, bushes look like cuboids with foliage painted on them, not good at all, nowhere close to MW2)
 
thedoc46 said:
Its fast and smooth with a great attention to detail and IMHO up there with the best, and actually if you bothered to actually look at the high rate it manages to move its onscreen images otherwise known as GFX, you too would probably notice how much work went into offering you a quality visual experience that you just brush off without appreciating.

Hey buddy, go spend another 400quid on the latest GFX card for your super PC.. It'll be money well spent. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You seem to be almost taking this personally that no one in this thread agrees with you.

Oh and Reach is far better graphically in my opinion.
 
Pretty crap thread tbh. It's like saying which do you prefer? Cancer? or AIDS?

CoD is looking its age and I think even Call of Duty 2 on PC looks as good as the current engine does on consoles. Halo isn't much better either and just looks like cartoon ass.
 
Anewbe4u said:
You seem to be almost taking this personally that no one in this thread agrees with you.

Oh and Reach is far better graphically in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Well I'm have to say I am a little suprised that very few people give a hoot about the differences that 30fps compared to a game running at 60fps, does for how it 'looks' and feels. Hence my comments about developers not being pushed enough to improve.

Truth be told, i'll never get into a racer that only runs at 30fps. I think it looks and feels crap. Call me picky, and perhaps I'll agree. Regardless of how much detail I honestly think all 30fps games look and feel a bit crap. Unfortunately a lot of games only run at 30fps, so as a gamer, you have to turn a blind eye at times to allow yourself to get into the game. Example. Halo & Uncharted etc.... Good games, just a little let down by the 30fps framerate.

I also find, input lag and slower response times on a 30fps game. The lack of smooth movement is problematic to me. The slower rendering between frames makes all the jaggies seem much more apparent too.

Complete opposite for film mind.. I hate these new 120hz tv's that smooth out 24fps movies, and make them look like a documentary. Not as much as I dislike the look for 30fps games though ...

Anyway each to their own.. I thought it would annoy others as much as it annoys me, but obviously we all have our own standards.
 
thedoc46 said:
Hey buddy, go spend another 400quid on the latest GFX card for your super PC.. It'll be money well spent. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Misinformed post about overly expensive graphics cards...check
Console forum...check

How very unusual.


Gashman said:
wow you think Red Dead looked good? thought it looked shocking personally, like a PS2 job!
Click to expand...


Uhm, are you serious? I have a PS2 hooked up via component and to say Red Dead looks like a PS2 job makes me think you have the IQ of a brick and the vision of a bat.


thedoc46 said:
Well I'm have to say I am a little suprised that very few people give a hoot about the differences that 30fps compared to a game running at 60fps, does for how it 'looks' and feels. Hence my comments about developers not being pushed enough to improve.
Click to expand...


30 FPS feels fine on consoles, on PC it's an issue because no matter what if your game is spiking between 30-60 FPS then the difference between 30 and even just 40 feels dramatic.

At least the majority of console games are locked at that framerate so you don't feel the hit - except when it dips below 30.

With my mid range graphics card though I can much run every game I play at 60+ consistently so none of this is an issue for me. Metro 2033 included. ;)
 
Last edited:
haha cod looks awful, how can anyone say uncharted 2 is not the best looking console game. As for FPS's bad company 2 looks far better than black ops, killzone 2 maybe aswell?
 
Both Uncharted 2 and MGS4 have far better detail than either of the games discussed in the OP, and I've never had a problem with the frame rates on either.
 
Margaret said:
With my mid range graphics card though I can much run every game I play at 60+ consistently so none of this is an issue for me. Metro 2033 included. ;)
Click to expand...

That's pretty cool bro.

Halo Reach isn't consistent enough imo, some levels look decent some look poor in places. On average I would say it looks better than COD BO though.

Both in split screen look awful.
 
Nanoman said:
.

Both in split screen look awful.
Click to expand...

Quite the opposite. Was playing zombies split screen on the 360 ver of BO and I thought it done a splendid job of keeping the frame rate at 60fps for both, with only minor reductions in details.. As apose to Halo Reach, which is drastically reduces quality on split screen.

I don't know why you all think BO looks crap? Perhaps you are running it on a Chinese tv or something? Who knows. Perhaps you are all a lot younger than me, and didn't have the same upbringing on watching gfx improve from a block to what we have today? Perhaps the PS3 ver is not upto scratch? I did play the original MW last night at it was substantially worse than the 360 of Blk OPs, but still a far cry from crap. The word on the street was go with the 360 ver for blk ops, which is what I did and so far for what capabilites a console has, I can't fault it. Fluidity obviously doesn't count for a lot with console gamer of today. Its just one of those things that suprise me.. A little like the PC gamer who thinks no vsync is better, even though the image is tearing all over the place. But they'll swear blind they can't really notice the tearing??????? I scratch my head at that one too. Such a HUGE difference, yet many can't see it or just dont care.
 
Its not that we dont appriciate great graphics and constant framerates m8 its just that no matter what version of cod bo you look at it just does not look good by todays standards.
I was 40 last year so i have grown up with the advancements in graphics too

I`d like to know just how you know how the 360 version of cod bo runs at a constant 60fps even in split screen mode though?
 
They're both last gen in terms of quality so it just comes do personal preference. ie, which graphical style do you prefer. Prefer cod myself, more pleasing to my eye.
 
metalmackey said:
I`d like to know just how you know how the 360 version of cod bo runs at a constant 60fps even in split screen mode though?
Click to expand...

Is this question for real? You want to know how I know? Well if you can't tell then even at 40yrs worth of viewing experience, your eyes are not ones to judge.

But as they say, you are never too old to learn, so here goes! Since the electrical system is 60hz, (in the US or 50hz UK) TV's are designed to refresh their screens at the same frequency. Developers once use to set that as their goal to match frame rates to the TV refresh. Getting games to run at 60fps to match the TV frequency. The end result is a super fluid and smooth gameplay. Unfortunately too many short cuts are taken, and unless system resources are utilized to their max to be able to handle vsync on, which also has an overhead, then frame rates would fluctuate, so they lock them in at 30fps instead.. Saving them time and money. Which is evident in 80% of titles these days, to get 'em out the door in time. And no-one seems to care, or worst even see the difference. umm a little LIKE YOU !
 
Black Ops does not run at 60fps constant in either split-screen or single/multiplayer.

It runs at 60fps most of the time, but call in an airstrike and see what happens.

Split screen is worse as it constantly dips to around 25-30fps in places.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom