Words like improved "Subdivision," and "real time lighting" are thrown around as a means to justify what Activision is calling a "new and improved" Call of Duty Experience. Okay, you don't need to be a game designer to see the graphics haven't really improved. I'm still playing MW3 and I'm having trouble seeing much of a difference between the two.
In what cases is the game using real-time lighting? It seems to me all the textures have shadows already baked into them as the past CoDs have done. I guarantee when I view these textures I'm not going to see any difference between Ghosts and BO2. There was also mention of the models and their geometry as well as the shaders they use. Again, what is so efficiently different between this Call of Duty and its predecessors? The geometry, although higher-poly, will be of no great stride and improvement from the past games. Every CoD goes up in polys and texture resolution as pretty much every game does when advancing to the next number.
Sure, I can get in there and pick apart every different piece of geometry and probably find some minor improvements but who gives a crap about the technical stuff when the game looks the same as MW3 from the gamer's perspective.
So someone tell me. Why is this better? Why was one of the key points mentioned in this game's release about the "Next Gen" graphics? To say the game has improved graphically seems to be an overstatement. Given this game has a lot more to offer than visual quality, I pick this topic because it interests me and I want to know what warrants Activision saying this. So, how come Activision is saying this?
I didn't expect a large graphical improvement on the current systems. Even then I figured next gen will be slight improvement until next year once they've optimized more...and who knows...maybe the completely new engine people have been begging for.
It's not a new Engine though. It's the engine that Quake uses. Also, I play on the PC so I'll be experiencing better graphics than the Xbox One. I am also assuming what we've seen is as good as it gets. Unless of course their trailers were rendered in a quality less than what they could have been rendered in. I wont hold my breath on that.
I didn't expect a huge graphical improvement either. Would it have been wrong to expect one though? That's a good question that I have. It only makes sense the game's graphics being on a next generation system would provide more than a minor improvement over the previous games.
My problem is that it does not and it could but they choose not to. It's on Xbox One and it isn't what we can rightfully expect from a Next Gen Game. Very much has been recycled over and over and over again. I am still seeing animations from Call of Duty 4.
The current-gen consoles have nothing more to give, the developers have squeezed an amazing amount of graphical fidelity out of the hardware. Ghosts had to make sacrifices just to run properly on current-gen. No groundwar and a maximum of 2 player splitscreen. Realistically speaking you shouldn't expect improved visuals on current-gen.
If you're looking for those improvements they're talking about then look to the next-gen or PC version. If you can't afford to upgrade to either of those or don't want to at the moment, then be content the game even runs on current-gen.
Is it a new engine? Technically no, however it is the biggest overhaul they have done to the COD engine since MW2. BF3 really brainwashed some people into thinking COD NEEDED a new engine, sad thing is Frostbite 3 itself was not a new engine, just an upgrade of the Frostbite 2 engine, which was an upgrade of the original Frostbite engine. But people didn't do their own research, they took the DICE/EA marketing scheme and just slurped it up.
I also find it hilarious how amazingly similar BF4 is to BF3, yet DICE takes no heat, why? Because COD is the popular thing to hate on currently.
I don't care about consoles. Activision promised me the moon with this call of Duty. What this comes down to is what Activision has said. One of their key points to mention has been the graphics. The graphics I see display no improvement.
I'll ask again, what warrants have been made to back their statements of promised improvement for this next generation and the PC Community. I see none. Isn't it reasonable for me to ask what it is they did to this game to make the graphics better? I do hope the examples I mentioned aren't the only "improvements" made to this game.
Use common sense, that's about all I can tell you my friend.
Common sense? If the answer was, for example, a Sub Surface Scatter Shader for all skin textures in the game it would be a feature not easily observed from the trailers. If my question only required common sense I wouldn't be asking the question in the first place.
Are you even aware of what Sub-D is or the difference between real-time lighting and standard lighting? How about Hi-res textures vs low-res textures? 2of the 3 of these are not easily noticeable. Sub-D basically means things become more detailed the closer you get to them, instead of less detailed. Also how often are you going to sit there and look for a shadow texture to move slightly? Rarely if ever. Current-gen consoles don't support the hi-res textures that PC/next-gen does.
In short, yes, I know exactly what I'm talking about. They are noticeable. Subdivision basically means hi-poly. Subdivision modeling you are saying hi-poly modeling. You are describing Polygon Scaling - which basicly swaps out different variants of a model with different levels of detail as you get closer or further away. Polygon Scaling deals in performance for the less fortunate gamer who can't handle High LOD Models.
Furthermore, I don't need to closely inspect a shadow to know if it's dynamic. I can easily figure it out through judging the various faked shadows in the game. Why fake dynamic lighting and shadows if it's already present in the game? It's not present in the game to any degree of quality surpassing that of the other CoDs. To suggest this as an improvement is an overstatement.
"For next gen, tools like Sub-D, Displacement Mapping and Dynamic lighting, give us the tools to create this new world."
My point is, it doesn't F***ing matter if I need to closely observe things in the environment or not. It doesn't matter if I need to extract the models and textures from the game myself to know if they made an improvement or not. The fact of the matter is that they mentioned better graphics. F***ing amazing Next Gen Graphics and I was lead to assume were going to be an improvement. They are not. They are not an improvement. I am here, on these forums to give feedback. I am discontent with the graphics and I've come here with a question. I want to know how they've improved and where?