Report games here!

[-Archmage-]

Maybe he caught the mag upsidedown in that MW3 pic. It doesn't look like he's reloading, and MW2 had scenes where a guy tossed you a mag.
Not to make a big deal or anything, but you're comparing a shooter that doesn't even try to have all that good graphics to a shooter that constantly upgrades their engine.

Dude that duty calls video is a pretty back attempt to make fun of CoD. It's not even like CoD.

[Gabbe]

He didn't have you even seen the trailer? Making excuses for such retarded (either, optimization for consoles, hint, hint) mistakes. BTW, can you tell me what kind of missile that russian submarine is firing in the MW3 trailer? It looks like a pure white thing with no texture whatsoever.

Im comparing those who pushes the technology forward to those who stagnate until the last piece of dollar is milked out of the customer before upgrading. DId you know that MW3 will have destruction, vehicles and larger maps? They brag about it HAHA! not like BF have had it for some years now.. Oh, and call of duty are upgrading their engine just that it cannot be upgraded so much every time given the 1year release schedule they have, whilst DICE have developed FB2.0 for over three years now, rewriting just about everthing (thats talking like 90%) from scratch.

That Duty calls video my friend is an accurate representation of just about every new CoD game

[-Archmage-]

I've seen the trailer, yes.

Im comparing those who pushes the technology forward to those who stagnate until the last piece of dollar is milked out of the customer before upgrading. DId you know that MW3 will have destruction, vehicles and larger maps? They brag about it HAHA! not like BF have had it for some years now.. Oh, and call of duty are upgrading their engine just that it cannot be upgraded so much every time given the 1year release schedule they have, whilst DICE have developed FB2.0 for over three years now, rewriting just about everthing (thats talking like 90%) from scratch.

Blame Activision, not the game series, and the developers. Let me get this straight... You're saying CoD's engine is being upgraded, and they have vehicles, destuction, and larger maps. But you're also saying:

And since when was not cehicles mentioned? Vehicles are a must in next-gen games, alogn with destruction and large maps, none wich CoD fullfills.

Why do you have to be such a fanboy, Gabbe?
I like CoD, I like lots of games. But you're making me not want to get BF3 because you're trying to cram your opinions down my throat. I'll be getting MW3, and Assassin's Creed Revelations. I'll get BF3 later for christmas or something. Or maybe sooner if you wanna co-op with me. But I'm a bit more excited about AC4 and MW3. Also...I don't have that much money.

@Ishmaru: How your character moves in the fp view, heavily defines the feel of the game. If he runs and snaps his fingers at the same time, you're going to think? WTF?! Crysis 2 had a very realistic feel, because the fp animations were so accurate and real looking. Also I'm an animator I notice these things more. My friend didn't buy BC2, he'd played it and decided he didn't like it. I asked him why, and he said that it looked dumb, and the character walked like a retard.

[Gabbe]

They won't have any new vehicles, only the old killstreak ones. Yap confirmed, google is sauce. Destruction? Scripted, yap its in there, but scripted. Large maps? I simply don't belive they'll abandon theyr core fanbase wich enjoys the fast paced gameplay. Simply put a tad larger maps just to have it in there to compete with BF, but it won't even be close to BF3, yet again BF2 or the BC series.

Im not a fanboy, I don't know if you notice, but all my saying is fact, and when subjective opinion i state so and reason for that.

I want Skyrim, BF3 and Arma 3!! Maybe AC2:revelations later but those primarily, such a good game year this time! Oh and yes, it is AC2:revelations, not AC4, neither was bro'hood AC3, it was kind of an "expansion" on the already established storyline. Devs said so, look up on some oldposts on their facebook page if you care. Ubisoft will have the AC series have trilogies, confirmed at AC website. Ubisoft is kind of milking this series now, but not even as close as Activision is milking the CoD series.

All CoD fanboys bash on BF when something is a little out of place, whilst completely ignoring the glitch in their own precious masterpiece of jewel(fake). The running in MW1/BO/MW2/WaW and will most likely be in MW3 because animations don't change in any CoD games, take notice of this, slides on the ground, it has close to no contact with the floor, dynamically speaking, whilst BF series have the armatures react to a hill or a flat plane. Obviously both games have some things they would like to change, but BF series is yet again superior because of the fact that they have technology advatage. MW2 running looks more realistic, given if you slide on ice or something (wich doesn't occur any often/at all). BC running looks the same, but it includes dynamical allocation of ground to calculate armature position.

On the other hand I would like BF series to include more game modes, seriosuly more game modes, anything but TDM would be awesome. And removal of that stupid k/d ratio that makes people camp, hell this makes me think of something, CoD is a camping game, you are rewarded to sit in a corner with you stupid sniper or MG and kill people on spawnpoints, what a brilliant idea! Rewarded by killstreaks and a high score.

------

Anyways the R&C seris are best, especially up your arsenal! Hell I've had so much fun with those MP maps <3 <3

[-Archmage-]

Assassin's Creed 3: Brotherhood
Dude Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood may be the 'name', but it is without a doubt the third major game in the entire series. Thus why it can be refered to as AC3.

Gabbe: I don't know if you get this, but as much tech as BF may have, I've always found CoD more enjoyable than BF. Graphics don't make the game.

What's the big deal with Arma... I've played it maxed out, I hated it. Way to many controls(had to keep looking them up) to do simple things, bland/meh graphics. I just enjoyed the helicopter(some) and running around listening to coltan blues.

I never said CoD was perfect, I just said I enjoy playing it. Dude BF movement ain't perfect either I've seen quite a few movement glitches in the gameplay vids.

Also Gabbe... Why do you hate Quickscoping? It's fun.

[Omega]

What's even the huge deal about graphics? I judge games by the following, in order of importance: Story > Gameplay > Depth > Controls > Graphics > Sound/Music/Voices > Multiplayer. Notice how Graphics are down near the end (though under sound because late night gaming doesn't let me use sound for anything but PC games, not to mention that sometimes the sound can be so annoying, particularly beeps when navigating menus). Multiplayer is low priority for me, largely because my internet will generally kick me, leaving only maybe one game in my entire arsenal multiplayer compatible. Even something where the massive ~600 ping won't matter, such as Glest fails because the connection tends to be "hiccuppy", and Glest doesn't have any way to reconnect after losing connection, like many other games do *poke*.

[Ishmaru]

I'm not against games realistic games, its just that being/looking realistic is not the only system to judge a game by.

For me a good game id defined by: gameplay, controles, graphics, music, story, sound

And by graphics meaning aestics, color, composition,  smoothness. Not weather or not there are bullets in magazine, or if a missle looks like a generic white missle.

The only part of story I care most about is characterization. I can live with a simple even if overdone hero saves world, as long is I like the characters.

At least its just me...

[John.d.h]

And by graphics meaning aestics, color, composition,  smoothness. Not weather or not there are bullets in magazine, or if a missle looks like a generic white missle.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/3201-Graphics-vs-Aesthetics

[-Archmage-]

Guys its the feel of the game, that's the turn-on or turn-off. The feel is generated by: 1 Story/Music 2 Graphics/Gameplay 3 Controls.
Different things matter different amounts for different games. Minecraft graphics suck the gameplay is meh, but the feel is so attractive, the feeling of infinite building possibilities. Crysis graphics are king, and it has a jungle shooter/sci fi thriller feel to it which makes it a really fun game. Assassin's Creed Brotherhood has an excellent storyline, a spectacular soundtrack, good graphics, and addictive gameplay. If Assassin's Creed played Screamo 24/7 I would either delete the game or turn off the music. I don't think you can put different things in order by how much you like them, because it usually varies a lot for each game. Something in the soundtrack may make you want to play forever, who knows.

[John.d.h]

Music made Halo, in my opinion.  The graphics and gameplay were nothing spectacular or innovative, but that orchestral soundtrack

[-Archmage-]

Ew Halo.... I'll check out the soundtrack though.

Edit: Soundtrack to Halo 1 is pretty good, but I think soundtracks from games like Crysis 2 and MW2 top it by quite a bit.

[Gabbe]

Guys its the feel of the game, that's the turn-on or turn-off. The feel is generated by: 1 Story/Music 2 Graphics/Gameplay 3 Controls.
Different things matter different amounts for different games. Minecraft graphics suck the gameplay is meh, but the feel is so attractive, the feeling of infinite building possibilities. Crysis graphics are king, and it has a jungle shooter/sci fi thriller feel to it which makes it a really fun game. Assassin's Creed Brotherhood has an excellent storyline, a spectacular soundtrack, good graphics, and addictive gameplay. If Assassin's Creed played Screamo 24/7 I would either delete the game or turn off the music. I don't think you can put different things in order by how much you like them, because it usually varies a lot for each game. Something in the soundtrack may make you want to play forever, who knows.

This exactely, a game with suckish graphics might be fun, but it will only be so if it is trying to stay to what it is. Minecraft would not be fun with a story or something. It would totally ruin the entire purpose of the game! Crysis was a, and still is a stress test for computers, there aren't many that runs it over 30FPS, but it looks extremely awesome and it has a unique gunfeel wich corresponds to the crystal clear graphics. Crysis with minecraft graphics would suck hard. Just admit it. Oh and while I think of it, there was this mission in warhead i belive, where you were to go through a tunnel cave with lots of alien and natural roots sticking out, and sure the graphics alone scared the shit out of me! It wouldn't be fun with lower graphics details, the graphics totally made the feel of the game.

Arma requires teamwork and patience, and if your a squad-leader or commander, it requires tactical skills. Everything in that game is dynamic, if you make a mistake, the whole mission changes. It fits perfectly for my playstyle basically, really, if you didn't enjoy Arma2 because of the massive amount of controls it has (I belive they use the entire keyboard almost), try OFP, it has arma hitsystem, but normal shooter walking and running around system. It has the arma shooting system, wich basically includes bullet drop, bullet impact etc. And i would say it is fairly realistic. It doesn't have as good graphics though.

Look, AC2:Brotherhood is a assasins creed 2. It just isn't like Battlefield 1(1942) Battlefield 2(vietnam1942) Battlefield 3(battlefield 2) Battlefield 4(2142) Battlefield 5(BC1) Battlefield 6(Heroes) Battlefield 7(BC2) AND now Battlefield 8(3)

Talk to the guys on some AC forums or something. Their facebook wall for example.

SOON E3 IS HERE AND WE'LL HAVE A TON OF FOOTAGE FROM EVERY UPCOMING GAME

I hope to see Battlefront 3 trailer now, man then i would...oh well...

[John.d.h]

I just finished beating Frogatto.  It was definitely the best platformer I've ever played, and another example of aesthetics vs. graphics.

http://www.frogatto.com/

I've also played through the Lugaru demo, and it's got me strongly considering buying it.  It's like Bugs Bunny meets Assassin's Creed, cross-platform for $10 (and the code is GPL).  If you enjoy stealth games and/or fighting games, this is definitely a title to check out (at least the free demo).

http://www.wolfire.com/lugaru

Edit: Lugaru gameplay video:

(click to show/hide)

[-Archmage-]

Bugs bunny meets AC.... Not really. More like Bugs Bunny meets Chuck Norris meets Ocarina of Time graphics meets low gravity ragdoll physics. I guess I would call him Bugs Norris.
Cool little game, but not something I would spend money on though.

[John.d.h]

It's only $10 and it's a fun little game.  I'll buy it if I can get the sound working.   They're working on a sequel, though.

http://www.moddb.com/games/overgrowth

[wciow]

Not sure I would buy Overgrowth tbh. The gameplay value looks severly limited. Seems more like an enviromental/physics tech demo with punch/kick buttons thrown in. But the enviroments do looks pretty awesome!

[Gabbe]

I've seen the trailer, yes.

Im comparing those who pushes the technology forward to those who stagnate until the last piece of dollar is milked out of the customer before upgrading. DId you know that MW3 will have destruction, vehicles and larger maps? They brag about it HAHA! not like BF have had it for some years now.. Oh, and call of duty are upgrading their engine just that it cannot be upgraded so much every time given the 1year release schedule they have, whilst DICE have developed FB2.0 for over three years now, rewriting just about everthing (thats talking like 90%) from scratch.

Blame Activision, not the game series, and the developers. Let me get this straight... You're saying CoD's engine is being upgraded, and they have vehicles, destuction, and larger maps. But you're also saying:

And since when was not cehicles mentioned? Vehicles are a must in next-gen games, alogn with destruction and large maps, none wich CoD fullfills.

MW3s destruction is scripted. It was just another Activision trick to hype up their game so that they can milk the series even more. I highly doubt that Vehicles are a real new feature, just another activision trick. Same goes for larger maps, co-op and everything, it will be just like MW2. Killstreak vehicles doesn't count.

I'd rather put it you are the fanboy defending CoD, so instead of acusing me (and im just giving information) for fanboyism maybe you should have a look at yourself.

[-Archmage-]

How am I at all a fanboy...
I don't care if the destruction is scripted. It's still destruction. It doesn't mean it's a BAD GAME gabbe. I will enjoy playing AC:R, CoD:MW3, and BF3, as they look like fun games. I don't care what you think you can "prove" to me. I play games for fun dude.

[Gabbe]

While we are talking destruction in this context that means dynamic destruction. Let me put it this way, destruction = fun. More destruction (dynamic) = more fun. Fun is not something constant, but subjective and it can be measured.

You are a fanboy in the same manner I am. Your accusing me of fanboyism, all I want is the games to compete so I can get the best possible product, but Activision is so damn lazy they don't make their game better tyhey just milk it for all its worth.

[-Archmage-]

While we are talking destruction in this context that means dynamic destruction. Let me put it this way, destruction = fun. More destruction (dynamic) = more fun. Fun is not something constant, but subjective and it can be measured.

Almost all other aspects of a the game matter more than the destructibility. Scripted destruction always looks nicer too.

Activision has a different idea of what's good. You want games to constantly upgrade their graphics and GRAPHICS GRAPHICS GRAPHICS. Activision wants a large amount of CoD games, with expanding gameplay(and money, but everyone wants that), and MW2 graphics were pretty awesome. MW2 graphics engine-wise were meh, but the content was really good, MW2 made really good use of shaders, not to mention how smooth the graphics are(as in high frame-rate). BF3 graphics are actually damaged by the fact that there's no rig that can max it out, it suggests bad performance. I can easily see BF3 recreated with the CryEngine, and having much better performance, (and vegetation bending...).
By the way, can you shoot down trees in BF?

[Gabbe]

While we are talking destruction in this context that means dynamic destruction. Let me put it this way, destruction = fun. More destruction (dynamic) = more fun. Fun is not something constant, but subjective and it can be measured.

Almost all other aspects of a the game matter more than the destructibility. Scripted destruction always looks nicer too.

Activision has a different idea of what's good. You want games to constantly upgrade their graphics and GRAPHICS GRAPHICS GRAPHICS. Activision wants a large amount of CoD games, with expanding gameplay(and money, but everyone wants that), and MW2 graphics were pretty awesome. MW2 graphics engine-wise were meh, but the content was really good, MW2 made really good use of shaders, not to mention how smooth the graphics are(as in high frame-rate). BF3 graphics are actually damaged by the fact that there's no rig that can max it out, it suggests bad performance. I can easily see BF3 recreated with the CryEngine, and having much better performance, (and vegetation bending...).
By the way, can you shoot down trees in BF?

Im not going to stagnate at todays technology, I want the technology to improve. CoD isn't expanding on anything! Thats what im saying, they are stuck in some hole it seems, tell me one thing they've improved since MW2. BO was a total fail, don't count it in. MW2 graphics engine is a modified QUAKE engine from 1999 ^^

Frame-rate is not graphics. If it can run 70FPS im fine. How can you say BF3 graphics are damaged by the fact there is no rig that can MAX it? Let me emphasize MAX. That means the top level of detail. The consoles run on the lowest possible settings, and DICE said its gonna look a heck of a lot better than other console games. That equals my rig can run this at 120+ FPS.

Sorry Seth, but you just have to let go of CryEngine being the best engine out there. FrostBite2.0 is just WAY more powerfull. Can you shoot down trees in BF? Which one? 1942? no. 2? sometimes. 2142? sometimes. bad company? Definately. Bad company 2? Definately. Battlefield 3? ALL surroundings are taking impact from explosions, bullets and movement. EVERYTHING is dynamic. If I want to blow down a building, I go in a empty server and use the hourse it takes to do so.

FrostBite 2.0 is superior in all fields.

[-Archmage-]

Say hello to consoles gabbe, they've been holding back graphical technologies for years. DICE is internal EA they have plenty of money, plenty of resources to borrow from, they can easily afford to develop 2 versions of the game. CoD just switched developers, I don't know how you can honestly insist that the new developers should try to improve the engine(yet).

No rig that can max it also means, bad performance.

The Cryengine is capable of just about everything done in BF, with better performance. Plus Cryengine can do lots of fancy vegetation physics( ). The problem is that DICE as stated above, has the resources and money to develop 2 versions of the game and fully utilize the engine, unlike Crytek. Crytek doesn't have a very good financial situation as far as I know. Crytek also can't borrow technologies from other games. They have to do every little damn thing themselves. Unless of course they pay another studio to help them.

[Gabbe]

Don't act like I don't know the consoles have been doing that since their release. EA doesn't want to spend the unecesarry money on making two versions, usually, somehow DICE convinced them it was a good idea. And don't you dare defending Activision, wich is worth more than EA, for their decision only to utilize the weakest of the platforms, the X360, as their main development platform. truth is Activision is a money hungry monster milking the shit wherever they can. I insist that Activision don't fire their emplyers right when a megasucces is going. Like they did under MW2 with half IW. IW was imrpoving their engine after MW, but then Activision fired them. Thats where the problem lies, not in there being new developers, like you are implying. Fact is Actvision is milking the crap out of ...

JUST WATHED BF3 AT E3 on TRAILER HOLY HELL!!! OMGOMGOMG

http://www.origin.com/

E3 LIVE FEED: http://e3.gamespot.com/press-conference/ea-e3/?tag=masthead%3Bcounter

Im now watching the game, Activision can go shi themselves im so *** sure MW3 never top this...

EDIT: E3 LAUNCH TARILER MP METRO MAP IN PARIS WOHO

[Omega]

Again, graphics mean very little. I'd rather have trash graphics and a very good game than have 100% photorealistic graphics and the game to suck. Or 100% photorealistic graphics and 1 FPS (slideshow). The way I see it, when it all comes down to it, both games have their pros and cons, and before saying Black Ops failed, bear in mind it's the best selling game ever, selling more than 7 million copies world wide in the first 24 hours only, and has made over a billion dollars in profit. Must be one heck of a fail, huh?

Now, please, can we not argue about the games? This topic should be more about reporting and discussing the games themselves, not pitting them against each other in a death brawl of which one is better, which will always be heavily seeded by personal preferences.

[John.d.h]

before saying Black Ops failed, bear in mind it's the best selling game ever, selling more than 7 million copies world wide in the first 24 hours only, and has made over a billion dollars in profit. Must be one heck of a fail, huh?

Popular ≠ Good

(I haven't played it -- just sayin'.)