Was anyone else unimpressed with Call of Duty 4s graphics?

Well graphics are nice,but i dont like action overpacked-everything exploding-bullets everywhere aproach.

I mean graphics are nice,but nothing that is really good from technical point of view.

I thought the graphics were unimpressive since the demo.

People think it has good graphics compared to Crysis, WTF.

Sure at a glance CoD4 looks great, but that's just because of all the action. Once you really start to play the game properly you notice bland texturing, the modelling for surroundings are actually really poor. Shaders are quite bad as well.

Call of Duty has never had top class graphics, though.

CoD1 was running in the quake 3 engine, and by then it was a pretty dated engine - it still looked great, I think it sill looks great today. The Q3 engine is one of those major milestones. But it was hardly top class.

Call of Duty 2 was clearly a rebuild based entirely around the Q3 engine, a lot of it looked and felt like quake 3, and while it looked pretty great - especially that smoke - it still wasn't exactly top class.

And now Call of Duty 4 - again, I think it looks great, but again, it's not a top class game on the visual front.

But really, can it be a top class visual game? There are always loads of enemies all around, all animated quite beautifully, great lighting and smoke effects and now even depth of field, which looks gorgeous. The CoD series has always been a little behind the times so it could facilitate the kind of crazy huge-numbers-of-AIs that make the game so great.

Better visuals means fewer character models, which means a hit to gamelay. And as soon as gameplay is taking a backseat to visuals, we actually have something to complain about.

After playing Crysis demo for the past week, the graphics seem quite poor to me. Its like a combination of old style games with some new lighting/effects. Textures are rather low res, models seem fairly low polygon, the animation is pretty good and the effects have been done nicely. The upside is that it runs really, really fast.

I honestly can't understand how this game got best graphics at e3, Crysis is much better looking.

The large number of NPCs dont't mean anything, I spawned literally over 100 NKs in Crysis Sandbox 2 and the fps didnt change at all.ElectricNZ

No way is that possible.

[QUOTE="ElectricNZ"]The large number of NPCs dont't mean anything, I spawned literally over 100 NKs in Crysis Sandbox 2 and the fps didnt change at all.monco59

No way is that possible.

Try it yourself. Most of the resources go towards the massive environments, the character models are negiglible.

Isnt ANYONE happy anymore? Have we set the bar so high for ourselves that we cant even compliment how truly great a game really looks? COD4 looks absolutely ASTONISHING! Do you know ive heard many ppl criticise how bad Crysis and UT3 looks. Even Bioshock which got scores of 9.5 and some 10's got criticised for its graphics. What happened to the days of Donley Kong, which grAphics sucked but ded we complain? Get over yourselves......Hung_Phat

The problem is that just about everybody and their mom seems to be convinced that 100% photo realistic games will be in stores around next week or so......

Yeah the graphics are pretty unimpressive, especially when compared to Gears of War or Crysis. Last night i was playing the first (intro) level, on the ship, and on a certain wall, a certain pipe was like hand-drawn on the wall, like grafitty lol, no normal mapping whatsoever. I went to check my details but they were already on highest, so i said, lol WTF is that !? :shock:

But overall the game is nice and especially the animations are pretty nice and itruns well on dated hardware.

I was maybe a wee bit disappointed. I guess since this was IW's triumphant return, they would really take it up a notch. Instead, we got CoD 3.5. I'm in no way saying it's ugly, just not as impressive as I was hoping for (just like Project Origin).monco59

Cant say its COD3.5 considering they had nothing to do with that title, that was Treyarch.

its hard to say really, i mean if we compare it to crysis and the cryengine2 it obviously wont look as good, but the problem with crysis is it isin a way its own worst enermy, i mean very few people will experience till next year how crysis is ment to play, so i would say for the average user cod4 might look better than crysis as you would have to turn down crysis rediculously far to get the same FPS as you do with COD4. My system is very happy with cod4 no performance hicups at all. But for cysis thats a diffrent story.

So high end vs high end crysis wins hands down

medium- low end pc's i would accually sday COD4 might look/ feel better.