PDA

View Full Version : First review for CoD2 on the XBox360 just in......


Pages : [1] 2 3

JamesDax
11-11-05, 04:50 PM
And it gets a 94%. Check this qoute from the review.

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

You can check out the rest of the review here-> http://www.totalgames.net/pma/22280
:D

brady
11-11-05, 06:30 PM
Me want.

LiquidX
11-11-05, 06:51 PM
I really didnt expect to hear the 360 version looks and runs better after hearing from some who tried it.

jAkUp
11-11-05, 06:53 PM
Yea, I've played it at 3 different places

(walmart and 2 different Best Buy's)

One of the Best Buy's it looked terrible, the other one it looked ok, although still noticablly more jaggies, and there seemed to be no AF at all compared to the PC. I did notice though, that it runs very smooth.

And does the Xbox have anything special for loading maps? Because honostly, how on earth can an optical drive load maps faster than a 7200 or 10K RPM hard drive??!! That does not make any sense, and is just not possible.

GamerGuyX
11-11-05, 06:59 PM
Yea, I've played it at 3 different places

(walmart and 2 different Best Buy's)

One of the Best Buy's it looked terrible, the other one it looked ok, although still noticablly more jaggies, and there seemed to be no AF at all compared to the PC. I did notice though, that it runs very smooth.

And does the Xbox have anything special for loading maps? Because honostly, how on earth can an optical drive load maps faster than a 7200 or 10K RPM hard drive??!! That does not make any sense, and is just not possible.

So they are lying? :rolleyes:

You ever stop and think for a moment that the 360 demo of CoD2 that you played was an old build? Obviously it was seeing as how this review counterdicts your every point in every way possible.

Oh and yes, it IS possible for a console to be more powerful than current high-end PC's at the time of launch. It happens with every generation of consoles.

JamesDax
11-11-05, 07:01 PM
Yea, I've played it at 3 different places

(walmart and 2 different Best Buy's)

One of the Best Buy's it looked terrible, the other one it looked ok, although still noticablly more jaggies, and there seemed to be no AF at all compared to the PC. I did notice though, that it runs very smooth.

And does the Xbox have anything special for loading maps? Because honostly, how on earth can an optical drive load maps faster than a 7200 or 10K RPM hard drive??!! That does not make any sense, and is just not possible.

How did I know that you would continue to be in denial. lol

jAkUp
11-11-05, 07:03 PM
Hey it very well could be an older build, who knows. And in all honosty, why would they show and older, uglier looking early build to such a large audience?

Maybe it does look better, I am just giving my opinion on first hand experience. Some people here went to the IGN live event, which also had COD2 there, and most of them said it looked terrible also. That should be a newer build.

There is no disputing that the "Beta" version of COD2 is inferior to the PC version though. Are the developers trying to dissapoint us this early? Or lure people to buy their game? I think the choice is obvious.

Anyways, I just want to know about that optical drive, does the XB360 have something specific for loading game maps? Because honostly, I don't see how its even possible for an XB360 to load a game faster when its streaming from an optical drive.

Nitz Walsh
11-11-05, 07:21 PM
Obviously if Bill Frist is reviewing the game, don't expect accurate results. :)

As for the 360 loading faster, the fact that it is streaming may be the reason - one CPU core could work on decompressing the data perhaps, although what I've heard from the developers is that all 3 cores are used at once in the game. The PC version doesn't use streaming to my knowledge for some reason.

I'd like specifics on exactly _why_ it looks better than the PC version, however the PC version does exhibit some odd behavoir at times - ie setting the resolution high will automatically drop the textures to a lower res to fit in 256 meg cards.

Ruined
11-11-05, 10:14 PM
Hey it very well could be an older build, who knows. And in all honosty, why would they show and older, uglier looking early build to such a large audience?

The demo movie of NBA 2K6 on the same demo disc as Call of Duty 2 looks like an N64 game compared to the final release movies we've seen recently.

|MaguS|
11-12-05, 06:53 AM
I will wait for a reputable site to actually do a review... not some BS site such as this... I mean they gave Republic Commando a poor score and SSX Tricky an even worse one...

A site that gives Republic Commando and SSX Tricky poor reviews is just not worth my time. Two of the best games on the Xbox IMO.

PS: They also gave Riddick an 84%, LAME!

lIqUID
11-12-05, 08:59 AM
played COD2 and King Kong, nothing special.....Ill pass.

MrSavoy
11-12-05, 09:08 AM
I saw COD2 at my local walmart 2 days ago and I fooled with it on the xbox360. It looked good, but the PC version with everything maxed out with aa/aniso looks superior. I played alot of COD2 untill just a few days ago on my rig since I love the game and let me tell you this site is full of ****. Theres no way in hell it looks better on the 360, mind you it looks good but not better than the way I play it all the time. I've replayed several maps 2 or 3 times now and I know it looks superior on my rig. Sorry 360 fan boys, but its true. :)

Let me also say the fps does dip into the 20's -30's at times during intense firefights, however I never once found myself thinking that it wasnt smooth or affecting my experience in any way. It always felt smooth to me no matter what the fps was showing.

Ruined
11-12-05, 11:11 AM
I\
SSX Tricky poor reviews

Amped >> SSX

Mr_LoL
11-12-05, 11:28 AM
http://totalgames.net/pma/22279
Only 78% Looks like a great game from what I have played from the demo.

|MaguS|
11-12-05, 12:08 PM
Amped >> SSX

You can't really compare the two games directly since one aims to be realistic while the other aims to be outragous and as wild as humanly possible.

But if you want lame physics, bad controls, so so graphics and just boring gameplay. The game aims to be 100% realistic and falls flat, its more punishing then it is fun. SSX is better on all levels, and by a huge margin when it comes to style and tricks.

Not going to mention the graphics because if you would have bothered to play both games you would know that SSX is superior with this aswell.

I honestly can say that MS should stay out of the sports genre (Glad they killed the NFL Fever Series)... every title the have made in the field has been worse then the compitition by far.

Rakeesh
11-12-05, 12:20 PM
And does the Xbox have anything special for loading maps? Because honostly, how on earth can an optical drive load maps faster than a 7200 or 10K RPM hard drive??!! That does not make any sense, and is just not possible.

Well, the maps themselves are relatively small, and shouldn't take long at all to "load" into memory. I think what takes longer on the PC is doing file paging, loading, and all of the meshing simultaneously.

jAkUp
11-12-05, 12:28 PM
Well, the maps themselves are relatively small, and shouldn't take long at all to "load" into memory. I think what takes longer on the PC is doing file paging, loading, and all of the meshing simultaneously.

Well yes, but what about COD2? Essentially isn't it the same game?

jAkUp
11-12-05, 12:31 PM
Oh and yes, it IS possible for a console to be more powerful than current high-end PC's at the time of launch. It happens with every generation of consoles.

It does not happen with "every generation of consoles" Everyone always says that, but its just not true. The PC had way higher resolution, thus much less jaggies.

Unreal Tournament was a PS2 launch title, and looked nowhere near the PC version, even when you don't factor in the jaggies. MotoGP was another launch title, and looked roughly the same on PC (the PC version still had less jaggies though) Destruction Derby on PC and PS looked exactly the same. (I had both)

For the XBox, Max Payne looked nearly identical on both system, the PC had a slight edge in textures, and didn't load in the middle of chapters. Don't even get me started on Rallysport Challenge (another Xbox launch title) The PC version blew it away in every way possible, and Rallisport Challenge on the PC still has good graphics. In NHL 2002 the PC version of the game actually had 3D polygonal characters in some scenes for the characters in the stadium, the Xbox version used only sprites.

I could go on and on, but you get the point.

Rakeesh
11-12-05, 01:20 PM
Well yes, but what about COD2? Essentially isn't it the same game?

Cosmetically, yes, but I would imagine that there are numerous engine specific changes.

Mr_LoL
11-12-05, 01:25 PM
It seems to me that developers optimize console games better because they are working to one specfic hardware not like the PC where you have to cater for different hardware specs. I mean look at Grand Turismo 4 on the PS2. It looks fantastic for a 5 year old console.

Edge
11-12-05, 02:14 PM
It does not happen with "every generation of consoles" Everyone always says that, but its just not true. The PC had way higher resolution, thus much less jaggies.

Unreal Tournament was a PS2 launch title, and looked nowhere near the PC version, even when you don't factor in the jaggies. MotoGP was another launch title, and looked roughly the same on PC (the PC version still had less jaggies though) Destruction Derby on PC and PS looked exactly the same. (I had both)

For the XBox, Max Payne looked nearly identical on both system, the PC had a slight edge in textures, and didn't load in the middle of chapters. Don't even get me started on Rallysport Challenge (another Xbox launch title) The PC version blew it away in every way possible, and Rallisport Challenge on the PC still has good graphics. In NHL 2002 the PC version of the game actually had 3D polygonal characters in some scenes for the characters in the stadium, the Xbox version used only sprites.

I could go on and on, but you get the point.
Well, the issue of resolution isn't a big factor anymore since all Xbox 360 games support 720p (and eventually AA hopefully). But in general, consoles are more powerful, or at least more capable, than any PC availible when their released. How many videocards from 1996 supported anti-aliasing like the N64? How many PCs could produce graphics on the same level as Soul Calibur or Sonic Adventure when the Dreamcast was released? Obviously PCs always surpass consoles eventually, but at their release developers can almost always get more out of consoles than the PCs of the time. Hell, for years the Shenmue passport disc had the most impressive tech demos I'd seen. It wasn't until Dawn that I saw character models as good as that.

However, ports are never a good example of how "powerful" a platform is. Look at Halo: it looks marginally better on the PC thanks to higher resolution, but requires a PC about 4 times powerful than the Xbox to run it smoothly. The issue of "power" and "optimisation" are two different things.

GamerGuyX
11-12-05, 02:22 PM
You can't really compare the two games directly since one aims to be realistic while the other aims to be outragous and as wild as humanly possible.

Obviously you haven't seen the newest trailer for Amped 3:

http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?id=8380&pl=game&type=mov

;)

Not going to mention the graphics because if you would have bothered to play both games you would know that SSX is superior with this aswell.

Last time I checked Amped 2 supported 720p. So no, the most graphically advanced SSX has not had better graphics than the most graphically advanced Amped.

Besides, you work for EA... of course your going to talk about how good SSX is. :rolleyes:

Rakeesh
11-12-05, 02:23 PM
How many videocards from 1996 supported anti-aliasing like the N64?

Back then videocards weren't as mainstream as they are now, but many did support it. Take the voodoo 1 for example; arguably the first "enthusiast" 3D video card. Before that even, the powerVR ("3d rendition verite") cards were around, and I think those were the first consumer level cards to support bilinear filtering of textures.

GamerGuyX
11-12-05, 02:26 PM
I saw COD2 at my local walmart 2 days ago and I fooled with it on the xbox360. It looked good, but the PC version with everything maxed out with aa/aniso looks superior. I played alot of COD2 untill just a few days ago on my rig since I love the game and let me tell you this site is full of ****. Theres no way in hell it looks better on the 360, mind you it looks good but not better than the way I play it all the time. I've replayed several maps 2 or 3 times now and I know it looks superior on my rig. Sorry 360 fan boys, but its true. :)

Your an idiot. We are not arguing whether or not the 360 CoD2 demo is inferior to the PC version. What we are arguing about is that the final version of CoD2 for the 360 is more graphically advanced than the final PC version. According to the review posted in this thread it's true. Sorry PC fanboys. :)

JamesDax
11-12-05, 07:00 PM
More important is the fact that everyone here seems to be ignoring. And thats that the developers themselves said that the 360 version would be more graphically advanced then the PC version.