That's the opposite of what you said Felipe. You're not fooling anyone with your barbarism.
The opposite of what? Are you really THAT THICK?
The POINT (KEYWORD: POINT) is that BOTH (KEYWORD: BOTH) launches were bad. For some Blops1 was worse, for others Ghosts was worse. How bloody hard can that be to understand?
Are you READING (KEYWORD: READING) the keywords?
Damn, it's like talking to a 5 year old. On that subject, how old are you really? Maybe you are real young and me here trying to explain things thinking it's an older person.
How can you accuse me of being illiterate? Saying "black ops launch was even worse than Ghosts" is contradictory to saying "Ghosts launch was as bad as Black Ops". Anyone with eyes can see that.
And then you say you aren't defending Ghosts when you have to constantly retcon and flip-flop about what you said? Sure Felipe. CoD is clearly a sensitive subject for you, considering the amount of angst you bring to each CoD thread.
That's the opposite of what you said Felipe. You're not fooling anyone with your barbarism.
The opposite of what? Are you really THAT THICK?
The POINT (KEYWORD: POINT) is that BOTH (KEYWORD: BOTH) launches were bad. For some Blops1 was worse, for others Ghosts was worse. How bloody hard can that be to understand?
Are you READING (KEYWORD: READING) the keywords?
Damn, it's like talking to a 5 year old. On that subject, how old are you really? Maybe you are real young and me here trying to explain things thinking it's an older person.
How can you accuse me of being illiterate? Saying "black ops launch was even worse than Ghosts" is contradictory to saying "Ghosts launch was as bad as Black Ops". Anyone with eyes can see that.
And then you say you aren't defending Ghosts when you have to constantly retcon and flip-flop about what you said? Sure Felipe. CoD is clearly a sensitive subject for you, considering the amount of angst you bring to each CoD thread.
I give up.
I don't know if ur trolling or you really have issues reading and understanding points.
I'll try to remember these problems next time I dare respond to one of your posts, which I shouldn't since it's a waste of time.
Instead of following a conversation and discussing points, all you seem to want to do is make your opinion the only one valid.
PS: and lol at "angst to each COD thread". Who was the one that derailed it initally? You my friend.
You're the only people who sit around and complain about people you don't like using the forums. It's the epitome of childish behavior.
No, we complain about people that:
1- don't read posts properly and then respond with whatever to make it look like they are always right I'm reading properly, you just aren't writing properly. I'm the one quoting back your own contradictions to yourself. How am I supposed to properly read your posts when you're constantly in disagreement with your own words?
2- think that their experience with a game is the only experience that matters I'm the only one quoting other threads of Ghost's customers stating their dissatisfaction with the launch.
3- think that their experience with a game is what happens to everyone else Once again, I'm the only one with sources of dissatisfaction. Can you find any threads full people praising Ghost's launch performance or their satisfaction with the game? No, because they probably don't exist, or you're just a lazy poster
4- do not respect other people and their tastes. If they don't like a game, anyone else that likes that game is an idiot or inferior. I don't respect the taste for poorly made ports. I don't think many people do. Most of us like to see the standards of their platform raised, not lowered. Perhaps I want IW to realize their lack of attention to the PC platform and try harder next time? You obviously don't give a crap about the quality of the products you buy.
You fall under ALL (KEYWORD: ALL) those categories.
Felipe, do you even know what you're arguing about anymore? We both agree that Ghosts is a poor port right now. The only thing we disagree about if it's going to change with patches.
That's the opposite of what you said Felipe. You're not fooling anyone with your barbarism.
The opposite of what? Are you really THAT THICK?
The POINT (KEYWORD: POINT) is that BOTH (KEYWORD: BOTH) launches were bad. For some Blops1 was worse, for others Ghosts was worse. How bloody hard can that be to understand?
Are you READING (KEYWORD: READING) the keywords?
Damn, it's like talking to a 5 year old. On that subject, how old are you really? Maybe you are real young and me here trying to explain things thinking it's an older person.
How can you accuse me of being illiterate? Saying "black ops launch was even worse than Ghosts" is contradictory to saying "Ghosts launch was as bad as Black Ops". Anyone with eyes can see that.
And then you say you aren't defending Ghosts when you have to constantly retcon and flip-flop about what you said? Sure Felipe. CoD is clearly a sensitive subject for you, considering the amount of angst you bring to each CoD thread.
I give up.
I don't know if ur trolling or you really have issues reading and understanding points.
I'll try to remember these problems next time I dare respond to one of your posts, which I shouldn't since it's a waste of time.
Instead of following a conversation and discussing points, all you seem to want to do is make your opinion the only one valid.
Finally evidence that you indeed are a Troll. Shame you are on this forum and shame you live such a sad life. I actually feel sorry for people like you, hopefully one day you can grow up and get past it. Good luck.
Finally evidence that you indeed are a Troll. Shame you are on this forum and shame you live such a sad life. I actually feel sorry for people like you, hopefully one day you can grow up and get past it. Good luck.
So much for giving up.,. Not too bad of evidence of your contradictory nature, don't you think?
Finally evidence that you indeed are a Troll. Shame you are on this forum and shame you live such a sad life. I actually feel sorry for people like you, hopefully one day you can grow up and get past it. Good luck.
So much for giving up.,. Not too bad of evidence of your contradictory nature, don't you think?
I'll never give up on people who need help. But they need to realize first that they need help, and you're not there yet. Let me know when you are.
Finally evidence that you indeed are a Troll. Shame you are on this forum and shame you live such a sad life. I actually feel sorry for people like you, hopefully one day you can grow up and get past it. Good luck.
So much for giving up.,. Not too bad of evidence of your contradictory nature, don't you think?
I'll never give up on people who need help. But they need to realize first that they need help, and you're not there yet. Let me know when you are.
All CoD games are optimized for gamers that do not own decent gaming rig, I can run it on 60fps+ on my laptop which isn't for gaming.
You're not gonna run Ghosts at 60 FPS at a high resolution with settings cranked on a laptop that isn't at least $1500 in stores, now. So if you're running it at 1366x768 with low settings (and Ghosts looks bad at low settings), then fine.
@mabblebrox said:
Is it just me or are the textures in COD Ghosts really low-res? I barely see a difference between Low and Extra settings. Unless something is wrong with my computer/install?
Take the advice already offered. The difference in quality between low and high settings is significant in terms of visual appeal and clarity. This is particularly noticeable at a higher resolution.
All CoD games are optimized for gamers that do not own decent gaming rig, I can run it on 60fps+ on my laptop which isn't for gaming.
Except Ghosts which for some weird reason has excessive system requirements.
I think Blackops 1 performed pretty badly on pc too
I'd say it still does, provided one only has mid-range hardware. MW3 runs better than BO. I also found BO2 to be choppy initially, and still cannot crank it on my laptop (i7, 5870m).
@PredatorRules said:
All CoD games are optimized for gamers that do not own decent gaming rig, I can run it on 60fps+ on my laptop which isn't for gaming.
You're not gonna run Ghosts at 60 FPS at a high resolution with settings cranked on a laptop that isn't at least $1500 in stores, now. So if you're running it at 1366x768 with low settings (and Ghosts looks bad at low settings), then fine.
@mabblebrox said:
Is it just me or are the textures in COD Ghosts really low-res? I barely see a difference between Low and Extra settings. Unless something is wrong with my computer/install?
Take the advice already offered. The difference in quality between low and high settings is significant in terms of visual appeal and clarity. This is particularly noticeable at a higher resolution.
@KHAndAnime said:
@FelipeInside said:
@KHAndAnime said:
@FelipeInside said:
@alan_carter said:
@FelipeInside said:
@PredatorRules said:
All CoD games are optimized for gamers that do not own decent gaming rig, I can run it on 60fps+ on my laptop which isn't for gaming.
Except Ghosts which for some weird reason has excessive system requirements.
I think Blackops 1 performed pretty badly on pc too
Yeah, the launch of Blops1 was awful, even worse than Ghosts. I remember I couldn't play it properly for the first 4 weeks until they finally fixed it with 2 or 3 patches.
At least Ghosts with the first patch is a lot better and playable now.
What made the launch of BLOPS 1 worse for you? BLOPs 1 worked perfectly for me at launch (in fact, I got to max level and got bored of the game by the end of the first month). No bugs, no crashes, no poor optimization. Multiplayer worked perfectly, better than any Battlefield game at launch. Benchmarks at game's launch showed that modest systems could max the game at 60 fps. For Ghosts on the other hand, I have a really decent system and benchmarks are showing me that I wouldn't even be able to play Ghosts at high settings. People complaining about lack of players online on Youtube and the forums. Doesn't sound like a better launch to me :(
So it ran perfectly for you then it must of ran perfectly for the rest of the planet right?
I had issues on both my PCs, my friends also had issues. One of my friends for some reason could run it at a playable rate but still not perfect. There was outrage all over the internet about the port (just like when Ghosts launch), I guess you didn't have internet that month to read those comments?
After about a month and a few patches they fixed it up and it ran fine.
Ghosts' launch was also awful. I have a decent system and it kept crashing, performance problems, bugs galore etc. After they released the first patch 3 days after launch (I've explained this to you 10 times already but you seem to ignore it), the game now runs at a playable rate on 4 different PCs I am witnessing. Perfect? far from it. They still need to keep optimizing and fixing bugs etc.
As for lack of players I don't know since every time I connect it finds a match straight away, and if you play at low population hours you now have Squads to play which only needs another human player and the rest are bots so lag is not an issue.
I don't know why you keep insisting and commenting on this game since you don't even own it so
1) you have no idea how it would run on your PC
and
2) you haven't played the actual game to see it's features and gameplay. Simple really.
Benchmarks are completely indicative of the performance I'd get on my PC (that's why they exist). Scanning the forums and people's reactions to that patch you're talking about...
Yeah, game still stutters like a bitch after the patch.
There was a 200mb patch last night but the game still runs like shit for me. *shrugs*
Did something happen? It's performing even worse online right now. Starting to stutter anytime anyone fires a gun in a 10m radius around me. Went from nearly unplayable to stupid broken.
Patch seems to have done nothing, still runs like shit and controls like shit.
How does me seeing the features and gameplays effect its atrocious bugs and optimization? :| I don't buy games that barely run and look like ass.
Also, lol @ low population hours. Shouldn't even have to think about low population hours in a brand new MP-centric game (that is supposedly popular).
Other research on the game's poor performance....
Ok so, from the beginning I suspected all this was RAM Related (in my case at least) It's a 64bit game with a minimum required of 6GB and it stuttered like hell while it was streaming stuff from the HDD.
So I decided to buy additional 8GB of DD3 2400Mhz RAM (for a total of 16GB) and guess what...
The game now runs smoothly, I've only noticed one very brief moment of
HDD streaming stuttering
in the Intro Chapter. And how much better does it like when it runs they way it's meant to. I'm guessing moving it to the SSD will completely eliminate Stuttering.
Checking it out, I've figured I'm using above 10GB - 11GB with Chrome + Neogaf opened - when running COD Ghosts (and I've closed a lot of resident programs before doing so) So the belief that the 6GB requierement is absurd because the game only gets to use 2GB is... errr... Absurd.
IW must absolutely know what the problem is, but they don't really want to drop a bomb saying their game demands that much memory to run properly.
source for all
I'm not in the "ungodly amount of RAM" club like you Felipe, looks like I'm going to have to buy twice as much RAM if I ever plan to play the game.
Think I'll pass.
What makes you think that a game being new somehow changes the behavior of a society? As @FelipeInside has already stated, people go to work, school, etc. Ghosts being new doesn't mean that plenty of gamers are skipping our of their responsibilities.
@returnedbro: I didn't mention graphics settings, of course on low, but it is playable, that's the main part of the idea - every crappy laptop/PC CAN run it pretty smooth on low graphics, that means all of our friends can play together on a 60$ title, I think they did their best to draw from most of us money.
@returnedbro: I didn't mention graphics settings, of course on low, but it is playable, that's the main part of the idea - every crappy laptop/PC CAN run it pretty smooth on low graphics, that means all of our friends can play together on a 60$ title, I think they did their best to draw from most of us money.
It's also playable on my laptop, but it looks terrible at low settings. In my view, it's unplayable 'til I get new hardware.
Log in to comment