PDA

View Full Version : Call Of Duty 2 is amazing. Rant and questions.


Pages : [1] 2

aAv7
01-02-06, 11:45 PM
Wow. This game rules. I beat F.e.a.r, and it was "ok". Scared the crap out of me a few times, I will admit that, it's just...the atmosphere sucked. Wasn't very immersive. Felt like a been there done that type of game. Some very nice graphics, but I can see how this gets one play and then collects dust. Not a bad game, just not great either imo.

So today I went to the mall, to first discover ebgames threw all their pc games in a bin...no alpha order, just everything in a big bin scattered everywhere. Talk about the lowest point for PC Gaming. Looked like I was trying to catch a bargin and here I was digging through the PC game section heh.

Anyways, I grabbed COD2, and man, i'm very impressed. Now this game really sucks you into the world, the sound with this x-fi board is amazing. I love how the big crowds of people yelling sounds like its right there, crazy. The team battles are awesome, i'm loving it so far. (Put about 45 minutes into it.)
I like the old movie clips they threw in the begining of the game.

You have to realize one thing when I compliment it this way, I never played the first. I heard such great things, but the whole ww2 thing didnt interest me. This time around it does for whatever reason....guess I needed a war game...tired of the fear/hl2 look and the doom 3/quake4 look. This is perfect. The smoke effect in this game is just..wow...some parts of this game look like textures that were probably in the first one, which makes me scratch my head when the fps are only 39 in certain points where graphically, it looks like it should be at 300 lol. Then there are other points and spots, where the graphics really do look awesome. Graphics aside and not even really an issue cause the gameplay just really stands out for me. Anyone who hasnt tried this series should give this a shot.

Which drivers give the best performance with this game? If I remember correctly I swore I read a certain set of drivers helped boost the frames a bit.


Questions

Can anyone with a single 256mb 7800 gtx whose played this game tell me the best level of aa/af if any is possible with that card? I'm running it at 1280X960 0xaa 2xaf. Solid framrate dipped to like 27 once or twice during a decent sized battle. Is any aa at all a possiblility with this one? I know it supposedly runs like a dog. Any patches help performance?

jAkUp
01-02-06, 11:47 PM
No patches out yet, the game just runs terrible :( It pisses me off alot because it really effects your aiming. Right now I am playing the hell out of TDM, great fun, but I think I would enjoy it much more if I was able to get decent performance 100% of the time.

aAv7
01-02-06, 11:50 PM
No patches out yet, the game just runs terrible :(

Son of &^%$$!!! heh.

I think i'm gonna try 2xaa and 0xaf....I can live without the cleaner textures, I need those jagged edges to be straighter damnit. (xmasgrin)

Mr. Hunt
01-03-06, 12:08 AM
Son of &^%$$!!! heh.

I think i'm gonna try 2xaa and 0xaf....I can live without the cleaner textures, I need those jagged edges to be straighter damnit. (xmasgrin)

OMGZ WUT IS WIHT TEH NU AVABAR?!@#

u suxorz!@#

Rytr
01-03-06, 12:15 AM
I think I was playing it at 2xAA/8xAF, 1280x960, OK but at times aiming does give you fits! Don't think the AF will give you problems, AA might, but like jAkUp I thinks it's the game.

aAv7
01-03-06, 12:18 AM
OMGZ WUT IS WIHT TEH NU AVABAR?!@#

u suxorz!@#

=P

Pennyboy
01-03-06, 04:47 AM
yeah bring on the patches to fix the SLI bug.

jolle
01-03-06, 05:02 AM
I gave up and ran it in DX7 mode, doesnt look all that bad, and I get a fair chance to aim with high fps hehe..

toxikneedle
01-03-06, 12:20 PM
god knows if this game will ever be optomized right.... i even have a feeling IW are busy making an expansion atm. I just settled on playing @ DX7 so i can compete at least.

CaptNKILL
01-03-06, 12:51 PM
god knows if this game will ever be optomized right.... i even have a feeling IW are busy making an expansion atm. I just settled on playing @ DX7 so i can compete at least.
Wow, thats really scary to hear someone with 2 7800GTXs saying that :eek:

No wonder my friend with a 6600GT is pissed that this game runs so bad... I had NO idea that the performance was this terrible. What a bunch of lame asses, they had to have done this on purpose to make the X360 version seem better. I mean come on, it doesnt look that good...

jAkUp
01-03-06, 12:55 PM
Thats the sad part about it.

I mean, if the graphics were amazing, then I can understand the performance... but for a game like this, no dynamic shadows, no ragdolls, etc. It boggles my mind how it runs so terrible.

Fear runs better and is pushing all these super advanced features. How did that happen??

Marvel_us
01-03-06, 12:58 PM
Wow, this makes me think twice about picking this game up. If jakup's GTX's can't run it smooth then my 6800GT doesn't stand a chance.:thumbdwn:

agentkay
01-03-06, 01:02 PM
I finished the game (video rental), but yeah, the framerate wasnŽt amazing. IŽd say most levels averaged to the same performance like the demo. If the demo is unplayable for your prefered settings, then you know whats the deal. It was playable, and I enjoyed it, but at the same time it made me angry how ****ty it was running for what visuals it gave back.

CaptNKILL
01-03-06, 01:03 PM
Thats the sad part about it.

I mean, if the graphics were amazing, then I can understand the performance... but for a game like this, no dynamic shadows, no ragdolls, etc. It boggles my mind how it runs so terrible.

Fear runs better and is pushing all these super advanced features. How did that happen??
Yeah I remember thinking the same thing about Half-Life 2 when I ran it on my 2Ghz Athlon XP but at least it had an excuse (physics). As soon as I upgraded my CPU the game ran flawlessly with just about any graphics settings I tried. There is no reason this game should run like this...

I remember the demo running pretty bad too. Any more it seems like the only reason we upgrade is so we can play games that are more poorly optimized than last years :lame:

Morrowind was a big example of this (it finally runs well on the system in my sig). Battlefield 1942 was similar (anyone remember how hard this game was on systems in 2002\2003?). Battlefield Vietnam was terrible. FEAR runs pretty crapily for how barren the levels are.

I could go on and on... ;)

I guess its worth noting though that 10 years ago people were happy to get 20fps in a first person shooter at low details... but lets face it, things have changed, we expect a f*** of a lot more :rolleyes:

CaptNKILL
01-03-06, 01:06 PM
Wow, this makes me think twice about picking this game up. If jakup's GTX's can't run it smooth then my 6800GT doesn't stand a chance.:thumbdwn:
Yeah my friend just upgraded his system and he has an A64 3000+, 1gig PC-3200 and a 6600GT and the game runs slow at 800x600 with all of the lowest settings. Utter bulls**t.

jAkUp
01-03-06, 01:13 PM
The difference 10 years ago was the graphics were amazing but you were getting 10FPS, now the graphics are taking a step backwards and we are still at 10FPS.

Sadly, it being a console port I think has much to contribute to this. We should see this changed over the next few years when the console rush is over.

I think passionate graphic wh0res like Sweeney and Carmack will focus primarly on PC again when the new consoles start to look dated.

Marvel_us
01-03-06, 01:18 PM
Agreed, I just wish there was something we could do about it. We shell out a lot of cash for these systems and get shafted most of the time with poorly optimized code.

Curious, Captnkill do you own FEAR? You're system is somewhat similar to mine. I was wondering how it runs on yours if you have it and at what settings.

MaXThReAT
01-03-06, 01:47 PM
I don't know whats going on with this game but I just snagged the intel HT COD2 patch and running 1280x960 2xaa and ingame anisotropic set to on. I get around 30-20 FPS totally playable. Very very smooth. 82.12 set on quality. I think there is a mojor issue with AMD ATM. All other ingame setting maxed out. Before the patch it was 10-20fps with the same settings.

aAv7
01-03-06, 01:47 PM
Well, the game runs at a solid 30fps for me most of the time @ 1280x960 0xaa 4xaf. I have vsync on.

I think the performance is ala king kong...a half assed port thrown together to make that extra PC revenue. (If such a thing exists still) The problem is Cod2 doesnt even look as good as king kong (with the gamer add-on) and Kong didnt look all that spectacular with the patch either.

I think developers are trying to figure out how to port 360 titles and slowly they'll get the hang of it, m$ did claim the transition from 360 to pc would be ALOT easier than it has ever been for developers in the passed. Me thinks they're abusing this by strictly doing a blunt code job over rather than actually still taking extra time to tweak it.

CaptNKILL
01-03-06, 02:12 PM
Curious, Captnkill do you own FEAR? You're system is somewhat similar to mine. I was wondering how it runs on yours if you have it and at what settings.
It ran good most of the time but it had some really anoying slow downs in some areas. To get the best balance of image quality and performance I ran at mostly maxed settings but I set soft shadows off and volumetric light density at minimum... and Im thinking something else was set a little lower but it wasnt anything significant. As far as AA\AF and resolution, this is what kind of irritated me. I ran at 1024x768 with no AA and 4xAF to get it smooth. Thats not bad, but jaggies are really noticeable in this game so 1024x768 can look pretty chunky, and if I tried 1280x960 it was almost unplayable in some scenes. Overall the scenery was really bland as well, so it was a bit anoying that I had to use such mediocre resolution\AA\AF. It used some nice pixel shader effects here and there but the graphics didnt wow me anywhere near enough to justify such poor performance.

EDIT: For what its worth, Im also kind of picky about framerates in FPS games. Ill sacrifice a little image quality to get the game to run above 40fps as much as possible. This is a decently fast paced game most of the time, but the majority of the fights arent Quake 3 style so the framerate drops didnt kill the game for me.

toxikneedle
01-03-06, 03:37 PM
jakup is right about the console port fact about this game. the game's engine was spread out on 3 cores for the 360 and that gives it a huge boost, because i know my 2 7800s outperform 360's single gpu. I am sure it's hard to make an engine for both to run equally.... but like the original poster's points, there are parts in the game that don't look anything special and give bad FPS.... a clear sign of bad optimization. At the same time I bet the 360 COD2 outsold the PC one, so making an expansion would prolly be a wiser choise for IW than focusing on optimizing the PC version, we'll see... the first patch should be out soon.

aAv7
01-03-06, 04:30 PM
For those mentioning Fear, I just beat it a few days ago...was able to run max settings with exception of soft shadows which I kept off (didnt like the effect in the demo regardless)

I ran the game 1280x1024 2xaa 8xaf and kept @ or above 30 fps throughout the game. I think once or twice it dipped into the 20's briefly. But I agree, the game was way too plain to justify such performance. And with all the shader power both ati and nvidia brag about having, either card should have chewed up and spit out this game with it's heavy use of shaders with no problem.

Cod2 is obviously a bad porting job, this is my biggest gripe with PC gaming, $550 spent on a video card and we get a half-assed port to a blockbuster title. Microsoft wants to push PC gaming...what the **** are they waiting for? Do they want it to be dead and gone before they finally say ok..lets push it?

I've said it before, there is NO reason they need to wait till Vista to push Pc Games. They need to support and help advertise/market Pc games NOW, so come Vista, there will be more interest in that OS and what it can do for PC gaming...you cant just grab a guy off the street and expect him to be all wowed by what Vista can do...first you gotta show him the ropes and let him understand whats to be wowed about...so much momentum they can be building right now for pc gaming and vista, so when Vista hits..it could be the proverbial orgasm of pc gaming..but instead they're gonna let **** titles trickle out and let the genere sit in bargin bins at stores and then wonder in a year why they're having such a hard time bringing gamers back to this form of entertainment. Microsoft is weak here...this is something they cant just throw money at...it's about timing...and let's be honest, when it comes to anything except throwing money at a problem....they suck at it.

hemmy
01-03-06, 06:38 PM
Honestly, COD2 looks far better then FEAR, and doesn't suck ass like FEAR

jAkUp
01-03-06, 07:09 PM
No way COD2 looks better than Fear IMO. I guess everyone has their opinions but you are in the vast, vast minority.

COD2 looks marginally better than UT2004 to me.

No ragdolls, no dynamic shadows, the character models are rather simple. 2D Sprites like crazy.

It has some decent texture work, but thats about it. Oh, and the smoke looks pretty good, even though if you look at it, its basically layered sprites.

Roadhog
01-03-06, 07:26 PM
runs fine here.... 800x600, everything maxxed. 2xaa/6xaf. about 50fps average.