Why do People Think that Battlefield's graphics are better than Call of Duty's?

BC2's graphics are better than CoDs, although you can argue that CoD is more visually appealing if you want. However, on a technical scale BC2 > CoD and that's pretty much a fact.

I will say though that the only thing that's ever bothered me about BC2 is the sheer lack of inanimate objects. I've always hated running into completely empty houses with literally nothing in them. At least give me a couch, a fridge, or something. About the only thing I'll credit CoD having over Battlefield is that their maps are usually crammed with stuff. There's no interaction, maps are small, but it's cool running into a run down home and seeing a beat up couch, food on the shelves, and cracks in the wall.

[QUOTE="bbkkristian"]Someone give the TC a pic of the bullet casing picture of BF3 vs. MW3.lawlessx

[QUOTE="brandontwb"][QUOTE="Jebus213"]

Technically BC2 graphics are better but the design is simple, dull, and cartoony. Also I did say it was CoD4 which doesn't matter since CoD4 and Mw2 look the same...

Jebus213

You mean much improved nothing? Texture streaming really isn't an improvement...

Because it does?MonsieurX

[QUOTE="brandontwb"][QUOTE="lawlessx"] apparently attention to detail isn't important. Besides wasn't it proven that the clip was upside down?lawlessx

odd..im pretty sure the BF series was mostly about warfare on the field..not so much in buildings..someone who claims to have played every battlfield game in the series really shouldn't be complaining about the interior detail of a building that is designed to be torn apart.

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

[QUOTE="brandontwb"]MW2 is much improved over CoD4, however the attention to detail and map design are roughly equal.brandontwb

You mean much improved nothing? Texture streaming really isn't an improvement...

They pushed as far as it could in CoD4. They may have changed the design and atmosphere but=/=improved graphics.

[QUOTE="brandontwb"][QUOTE="millerlight89"]BC2 is far mire advanced, this is a fact. BC2 looks much, much better.millerlight89

Bad Company 2 looks far better than any COD game:|

BC2's graphics are better than CoDs, although you can argue that CoD is more visually appealing if you want. However, on a technical scale BC2 > CoD and that's pretty much a fact.

I will say though that the only thing that's ever bothered me about BC2 is the sheer lack of inanimate objects. I've always hated running into completely empty houses with literally nothing in them. At least give me a couch, a fridge, or something. About the only thing I'll credit CoD having over Battlefield is that their maps are usually crammed with stuff. There's no interaction, maps are small, but it's cool running into a run down home and seeing a beat up couch, food on the shelves, and cracks in the wall.

IndianaPwns39

Bad Company 2 looks far better than any COD game:|

el3m2tigre

OP - I assume your PC is 4+ years old?

CoD looks ancient on my top-end PC + 30" monitor, while BC2 looks incredible; possibly a hardware discrepancy is at work?

Beyond that, CoD is running on an extremely dated engine, and the devs have 'no interest' in upgrading it; their target audience is on console, so why would they anyway?

I'll admit that BF3 is a PC-only game basically, and the sales will suffer because of it, but the consoles still have a great game in the aging CoD engine and the ease of gameplay and constant reward system really 'gets' the console gamers.

[QUOTE="MonsieurX"]Because it does?brandontwb

[QUOTE="IndianaPwns39"]

BC2's graphics are better than CoDs, although you can argue that CoD is more visually appealing if you want. However, on a technical scale BC2 > CoD and that's pretty much a fact.

I will say though that the only thing that's ever bothered me about BC2 is the sheer lack of inanimate objects. I've always hated running into completely empty houses with literally nothing in them. At least give me a couch, a fridge, or something. About the only thing I'll credit CoD having over Battlefield is that their maps are usually crammed with stuff. There's no interaction, maps are small, but it's cool running into a run down home and seeing a beat up couch, food on the shelves, and cracks in the wall.

brandontwb

Yeah I get the appeal there. To me, Battlefield > CoD because I prefer the gameplay and have a ton more fun with it. But I do get the aesthetic appeal of CoD and you get a bit more variety in terms of where you are. You get to fight in airports, slums, surburbia, military bases, etc. With Battlefield you kind of know what you're getting, even if the maps are still well designed I definitely get what you're trying to say.

[QUOTE="millerlight89"]BC2 is far mire advanced, this is a fact. BC2 looks much, much better.brandontwb

Yes you can. We can compare the technical aspect of it and easily prove that.

And yes we can prove it provides a better visuals.

This isn't a Nintendo game. It doesn't need a wide graphics pallet. You better not think CoD has one because it has even less colors than BF2.

CoD is a sloppy game, by that I mean anyone can play it and do well:

• heavy auto-aim
• insta-win kill streaks
• zero teamplay

Consoles are hallmarked by these attributes, controllers simply are too sluggish to create a competitive skill based game for.

Sure you can get 'better' with a controller, much like a handicap can be overcome by practice, at least to some degree ... but its still a handicap.

That's why console use such heavy auto-aim, and BF3 won't do as well on it. BF3 is the antithesis of a console game.

[QUOTE="brandontwb"][QUOTE="millerlight89"]BC2 is far mire advanced, this is a fact. BC2 looks much, much better.ChubbyGuy40

Yes you can. We can compare the technical aspect of it and easily prove that.

And yes we can prove it provides a better visuals.

This isn't a Nintendo game. It doesn't need a wide graphics pallet. You better not think CoD has one because it has even less colors than BF2.

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

[QUOTE="brandontwb"]MW2 is much improved over CoD4, however the attention to detail and map design are roughly equal.brandontwb

You mean much improved nothing? Texture streaming really isn't an improvement...

OP - I assume your PC is 4+ years old?

CoD looks ancient on my top-end PC + 30" monitor, while BC2 looks incredible; possibly a hardware discrepancy is at work?

Beyond that, CoD is running on an extremely dated engine, and the devs have 'no interest' in upgrading it; their target audience is on console, so why would they anyway?

I'll admit that BF3 is a PC-only game basically, and the sales will suffer because of it, but the consoles still have a great game in the aging CoD engine and the ease of gameplay and constant reward system really 'gets' the console gamers.

ehussein1379

[QUOTE="lawlessx"]Your first mistake is assuming Battlefield 3 is an sequel to bad company 2..it isn't. Have you seen any of the trailers of BF3 or did you just play BC2 on the PC and assume that would be the general idea?brandontwb

[QUOTE="ehussein1379"]

OP - I assume your PC is 4+ years old?

CoD looks ancient on my top-end PC + 30" monitor, while BC2 looks incredible; possibly a hardware discrepancy is at work?

Beyond that, CoD is running on an extremely dated engine, and the devs have 'no interest' in upgrading it; their target audience is on console, so why would they anyway?

I'll admit that BF3 is a PC-only game basically, and the sales will suffer because of it, but the consoles still have a great game in the aging CoD engine and the ease of gameplay and constant reward system really 'gets' the console gamers.

brandontwb

Fair enough, and you are right in that the CoD level 'clutter' is more detailed.

Personally an engine with physics and destruction add to the game, so I like that more, than aesthetics.

[QUOTE="el3m2tigre"]

Bad Company 2 looks far better than any COD game:|

brandontwb

People have already posted screenshots, proving that it looks much better.

[QUOTE="brandontwb"][QUOTE="el3m2tigre"]

Bad Company 2 looks far better than any COD game:|

el3m2tigre

People have already posted screenshots, proving that it looks much better.

Because that's a fact. I'd pick CoD over BF any day, as I'm more of a "casual" person according to SW, but I'll flat out admit that CoD's graphics are rather dated.starjet905

[QUOTE="el3m2tigre"]

[QUOTE="brandontwb"]I called out people like you in my OP, you should read it sometime.brandontwb

People have already posted screenshots, proving that it looks much better.

Well, you're in the minority.

[QUOTE="yellosnolvr"][QUOTE="brandontwb"]Yes I agree with everything you said. If you read a bit back you would see that. I know there are reasons why the game isn't as good graphically, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it still isn't as good graphically. Like I said, I prefer the detail and map design as opposed to dramatic effects and animations.. that's just me though. And no, I'm playing BC2 on absolute max settings.brandontwb

I'd have to say I agree with the OP, I think I get what he's saying, from the way I see it, the technical aspects aside, design wise, the COD games have had much more "dense" more detailed, even chaotic(?) looking environments, CRACKED for exmple is like a beautiful maze, which feels "organic" with all the rubble, the tight corners, the unique spots and buildings, which I find more interesting than a huge field with randomly pasted very dull looking buildings, even if those buildings have better textures if they all just look like copy pasted barns ...it's sorta less appealing

The consensus is that BF3 has better graphics than the CoD games.

Because there far more advanced graphicially much higher poly count,more detialed models,higher rez textures,better lighting and particle effects among other things makes cod appear last gen in comparasion. Call of duty games do have that art style and graphic design that like source games despite older tech powering them run them in full 1080p with AA and AF and they still look good but compared to games running on more modern game engines especially bf3 they can't compare.

lmao at this joke of a thread.


COD in a graphics thread :S...now thats just weird.

Technically and even just looking at the game, BF:BC 1 blows any COD out there.

The maps are HUGE, way more stuff to render on screen, PLUS the fact that it has to account for destruction. go watch some HD 1080p vids on youtube, then you'll change your mind. It seems like you're very one sided and biased and that no screen willl convince you.

Ribnarak

Probably because they are, and it's not even close.

BF3 does look better to me then MW3 does, but with BC2 I think MW2 looked much better, at least up close. In BC2 everything looks pretty from a distance, but the textures and detail in weapons and characters aren't quite as good, and it also lacks the 60fps on consoles.

On the PC BC2 looks much better than CoD. However on the consoles it's a different story. While I think BC2 looks better, it running at 30fps with some really crappy AA compared to CoD's 60fps and sharp picture, it's easy to say that CoD looks better.

Call of duty has smaller maps, so the graphics are better. Also I think the tc means that Black ops is more colorful while BfBc2 graphics are more darker.blabbyboy

And with this, I will assume this is a joke thread.

All I need to say on this subject.

Battlefield 3

Modern Warefare 3