What do you prefer GFX wise? Halo or COD ?

Nymins said:
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.
Click to expand...

And I thought I was the picky one.. Yes ok occasionally you get a little slowdown, but for the most part, like 99% of the time its a constant 60fps. xbox 360, I hear there's more slowdown on the PS3 ver.
 
Nymins said:
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.
Click to expand...


Thank you this proves my point excactly:cool:

Your eyes must be blinking when seeing these big drops in fps i guess then eh? obviously your eyes are not the ones to judge.
All in all this thread started with why has halo been given a higher score than cod bo cos the graphics in your opinion(and only yours it seems) are way better in cod bo

Get over it bud the graphics in cod bo are dated and to be perfectly honest a bit crap nowdays and there is certainly no reason the framerate should ever drop below 60 in such a average looking game.

This whole thread now just smells of a cod fanboy at his best
 
Last edited:
thedoc46 said:
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 !
Click to expand...

Yes I know the TARGET fps for a console is 60 or 30fps. But how the hell do you know its a constant 60 and not say 51 or 46 in places?
 
metalmackey said:
Yes I know the TARGET fps for a console is 60 or 30fps. But how the hell do you know its a constant 60 and not say 51 or 46 in places?
Click to expand...

Cos it hardly stutters down to 30fps anywhere, and there's no screen tear, meaning vsync is enabled. Which means, going back to the refresh rates of your TV buddy, its running at 60fps for 99% of the time..
 
thedoc46 said:
Cos it hardly stutters down to 30fps anywhere, and there's no screen tear, meaning vsync is enabled. Which means, going back to the refresh rates of your TV buddy, its running at 60fps for 99% of the time..
Click to expand...

Sorry to tell you this bud but even in games where the framerate is way over 200 or below 60 that sometimes there just isnt screen tearing.....take for instance at xmas my bro bought a older stalker game where v-sync couldnt be turned on and it ran at over 400fps and still there was no screen tearing

So that asks the question again...Excactly how the hell do you know if any games drops to 55 for example or do you just have fraps in built in your brain?
 
thedoc46 said:
Cos it hardly stutters down to 30fps anywhere, and there's no screen tear, meaning vsync is enabled. Which means, going back to the refresh rates of your TV buddy, its running at 60fps for 99% of the time..
Click to expand...

Can I have some of what you are smoking? :D Vsync off doesnt allways result in screen tearing, just because the console refreshes the TV 60 times a second doesnt mean the game is updated at 60fps and a lot of games now use motion blur to smooth out dips in framerates and make then less noticable.
 
Jericho.u.k said:
Sorry to tell you this bud but even in games where the framerate is way over 200 or below 60 that sometimes there just isnt screen tearing.....take for instance at xmas my bro bought a older stalker game where v-sync couldnt be turned on and it ran at over 400fps and still there was no screen tearing

So that asks the question again...Excactly how the hell do you know if any games drops to 55 for example or do you just have fraps in built in your brain?
Click to expand...

See my post a few above. The one that i'm talking about scratching my head..

All in the same boat you are. ;)
 
metalmackey said:
Can I have some of what you are smoking? :D Vsync off doesnt allways result in screen tearing, just because the console refreshes the TV 60 times a second doesnt mean the game is updated at 60fps and a lot of games now use motion blur to smooth out dips in framerates and make then less noticable.
Click to expand...

See my post a few above. The one that i'm talking about scratching my head..

All in the same boat you are. :D
 
And you dont seem to be able to accept the fact that cod bo is at best a average looking game.

I appriciate anybodys personal opinion as to whether they like a game or not each to his/her own at the end of they day but to say cod bo looks good graphically in any way is just flat out rubbish

And from your op it does look like you are complaining that halo reach got a higher mark than cod as in a how dare they say that kinda way even though everyone on this thread seems to agree with what they say...........i myself cannot comment on halo as i have not played one since the 1st which i really didnt enjoy
 
Last edited:
Jericho.u.k said:
And you dont seem to be able to accept the fact that cod bo is at best a average looking game.

I appriciate anybodys personal opinion as to whether they like a game or not each to his/her own at the end of they day but to say cod bo looks good graphically in any way is just flat out rubbish

And from your op it does look like you are complaining that halo reach got a higher mark than cod
Click to expand...

I think you should re-read my OP... Anyway, TBH I wish i had the time to take a screenshot of the game and upload. Perhaps if someone points out (since you are blind to it) The level of attention this game has received graphically, and compare it to a game where everyone for some unknown reason, thinks its rec'd a high level of attention, (pick any Halo you want)then maybe, just maybe you will see light through the doorway.
 
Dude my point isnt whether halo is good or bad...........my point is cod bo is not really comparable to any game in a good graphics comparison.......i have played it at full settings on a pc and it still looks like crap and you and i both know that the console versions are far worse...........i said it before there are certain console games that look better thasn cod bo on full settings on a pc..............its that bad


Anyway im bored of this thread now so please yourself
 
Last edited:
LMFAO ive probably finished more games than you have ever played you ****......im not the one on here crying cos some review gave another game a better score graphically than cod bo............why dont you just do yourself a favour and either go get you and cod bo a hotel room or throw yourself off a cliff.

You tried to get all technical but your argument was disproved and fell flat on its face

No one cares about your crybaby arguments and everyone has given thier opinion on what they think about cod bo gfx but thats not good enough because they dont agree with you. get a life dude seriously and stop crying like a fanboy baby
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom