or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Home Theater Gaming › HTPC Gaming › Call Of Duty PC Game- Disappointing
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Call Of Duty PC Game- Disappointing  

post #1 of 55
Thread Starter 
With all I've read about "Call Of Duty" for the PC, I purchased it since the price has dropped..
Most disappointed in it.
It seems primative in graphics, actions etc compared to the old used game I bought " Return To Castle Wolfenstein" And RTCW is a least a few years older. I was hoping for it to be somewhat the same.
IMO RTCW in multiplayer has Call of Duty beat hands down.
Anyone else who has both games feel this way?
Just my thoughts.
post #2 of 55
I certainly don't, Call of Duty for the PC is one of the best war games available. As far as comparisons to RTCW, I'd play Call of Duty any day over RTCW.

Call of Duty smokes RTCW in multiplayer too.
post #3 of 55
Thread Starter 
Interesting- I wish I felt like you do. Maybe I need to play it a few more weeks.
post #4 of 55
Yeah, single player game is outstanding. RTCW is not even on the same level in terms of single player.
post #5 of 55
Total disagreement, yes the graphics are slightly primitive but still ahead of the consoles when you run your settings higher.
But what you really need to kick it up is the united offensive expansion pack.
Basically COD is still a traditional FPS but it took us past MOHAA by really immersing you in the action for single play.
post #6 of 55
Call of Duty Looks very good. Although the version I am playing now is United Offensive (which may look little better, I am not sure). I liked RTCW a lot when it was new, but it really shows it's age compared to COD:UO.
post #7 of 55
Thread Starter 
Hmm, I didn't know there were other versions out there. Mine is just called "Call Of Duty" No united offense or expansion pack. Maybe that's why I don't care for it? I'll look into it. Thanks
post #8 of 55
I haven't gotten a chance to play the expansion pack yet, but my first run through Call of Duty many months ago left me with the impression of it being the best war game I've ever played (all single player).
post #9 of 55
The expansion pack is much more rail-guided than the original game. I perfered the original to the expansion, but the expansion does introduce a few interesting additions. Vehicles in multiplayer certainly changes the flow of the game.
post #10 of 55
I think that RTCW does have a great multiplayer game. And I think I would say I enjoyed it more than the multiplayer of C.O.D. but to me in single player there is no comparison C.O.D. is better hands down. Graphics wise it is running on the Quake 3 engine so it is not going to stand up to games like HL,Doom 3, or Farcry but I think the storyline is so strong and the single player is so immersive that it makes up for what the game lacks in looks. By the way when you play as a russian and your storming the beach. I would saythat is one of the best scenes in any first person shooter.
post #11 of 55
Quote:
Originally posted by raster
Hmm, I didn't know there were other versions out there. Mine is just called "Call Of Duty" No united offense or expansion pack. Maybe that's why I don't care for it? I'll look into it. Thanks
The expansion pack is good for multiplayer because it adds tanks, jeeps, new weapons & smoke grenades.
I think the single player is a bit weaker in the expansion though.

Although the graphics are older they still should be pretty good. Make sure your game is not defaulting to the lowest resolution.
Keep in mind that COD is based on the (heavily modified) Quake 3 engine.
post #12 of 55
Quote:
Originally posted by dmk1027
By the way when you play as a russian and your storming the beach. I would saythat is one of the best scenes in any first person shooter.
Absolutely. I haven't been in a war, but after playing this game I really came away with a sense that I had. Sure, the graphics may look a bit primitive, but if you consider the awesome framerates, excellent gameplay & storyline, it ends up being a great game overall.
post #13 of 55
Thread Starter 
What is the Quake 3 engine?





Quote:
Originally posted by Dean Martin
The expansion pack is good for multiplayer because it adds tanks, jeeps, new weapons & smoke grenades.
I think the single player is a bit weaker in the expansion though.

Although the graphics are older they still should be pretty good. Make sure your game is not defaulting to the lowest resolution.
Keep in mind that COD is based on the (heavily modified) Quake 3 engine.
post #14 of 55
The Quake 3 engine is the game engine created by id software to power the game, Quake 3.
post #15 of 55
Quote:
Originally posted by kiel1
The Quake 3 engine is the game engine created by id software to power the game, Quake 3.
Some companies have found it advantageous and profittable to create the 'engine' or guts of a game that can be used to create other games.

The Quake 3 game engine has been used in many games and usually they are good games.
Doom 3 is also an engine that will be used for other games as well as the half life 2 (source) engine.
post #16 of 55
It wasn't a beach, but rather a river bank. Definitely a highlight of the game, and very well done. The multiplayer is a bit too fast. Nothing beats the RTCW beach map for multi-player. I spent many, many hours playing that during the beta, and it was flat out the best experience I've had in that genre.
post #17 of 55
The problem between RTCW VS COD online is COD is a much smoother more accurate experience. With COD you rarely get guys running in circles unloading round after round waiting for the other guy to fall.
Generally a few shots and it's over.
Every once in a while you'll miss, there will be some lag , or one guy will be bunny hopping (Which is just plain sad) and a confrontation will take a few more shots than normal but generally it's very accurate.
Games like Halo2 online are frustrating because of the amount of ammo you have to expend to eliminate someone.
post #18 of 55
Sorry, but if you think there's anything realistic about COD's multiplayer, you're sadly mistaken. That's just not how ground combat was. The ranges are far too close, the pace is all wrong, and the "damage modeling" is still far too forgiving. As least RTCW was fun (which is, after all, the point of a game), and paid huge dividends to players that displayed even a tiny bit of teamwork. I've never been enthusiastic enough to join anything like a gaming clan, but with the RTCW beta the community was small enough that I got to know people and their tendencies. Some players were amazing individuals, but failed miserably to be a team member. It really was a great experience, and I'm thinking I should fire it up again to see if anyone is still playing.
post #19 of 55
Quote:
Originally posted by 5150
Sorry, but if you think there's anything realistic about COD's multiplayer, you're sadly mistaken. That's just not how ground combat was. The ranges are far too close, the pace is all wrong, and the "damage modeling" is still far too forgiving. As least RTCW was fun (which is, after all, the point of a game), and paid huge dividends to players that displayed even a tiny bit of teamwork. I've never been enthusiastic enough to join anything like a gaming clan, but with the RTCW beta the community was small enough that I got to know people and their tendencies. Some players were amazing individuals, but failed miserably to be a team member. It really was a great experience, and I'm thinking I should fire it up again to see if anyone is still playing.
I believe that when Dean said CoD was more "accurate" he was just referring the the fact that if you get caught in the open and take a couple of bullets, you will die.

As for whether or not RTCW and CoD are fun, those are purely opinions that each player has to form.
post #20 of 55
Accurate? Right...
post #21 of 55
You don't seem to understand the difference between the relative statement "X is more accurate" and the absolute statement "X is by itself accurate".
post #22 of 55
Quote:
Originally posted by 5150
Accurate? Right...
I'm not sure why this has to be explained but I will.

By accurate I by no means battlefield realistic. The only battlefield I have ever been on is the battle of parenting and I'm still just a buck private.

That said, I feel that COD is more accurate than a lot of games. That also goes for the origin engine Quake 3. In these games it seems you get the exact precise results of your firing and you get quick results.

Many, many online games (Rainbow 6 springs to mind) seem to degenerate into two guys running in circles reloading their clips and firing over and over. This would be more arcadey style IMO.

A game like Ghost recon is more 'realistic' simply because the amount of ammo required to neutralize your opponent.

With Ghost recon, a headshot or 2-3 shots will neutralize your opponent.
Same goes for COD. In both of those games I never get the feeling 'why did that guy kill me and I can't kill him'?

Halo 2 is like that for me. It seems like the other guy can expend less ammo and sometimes it has me scratching my head.

Another thing about online games is that sometimes it seems like the players are almost floating around. maybe it's a framerate issue I'm not really sure but COD and Quake 3 seem to be the more smoother of the games out there.
I could list more like the Battlefield games or Unreal. All of those seem to have a low rate of fire per kill ratio.

But to clarify, by accuracy I by no means infer realism.
post #23 of 55
Oh, I do, but it just doesn't apply to video games. Looking for 'more accurate' in a shooter is just silly. They're nothing like combat, and are games--no more, no less. To compare them to reality is an utter waste of time, as resembling reality isn't what they set out to accomplish. Suggesting that something is more accurate because 'it takes two bullets to kill you' rather than say, five, is fantasy of the best sort. When people start making claims of "better because it's more accurate" they've lost the plot. Video games are all about fun, and aren't in any way accurate in terms of the real world. They're meant to be escapist in nature.
post #24 of 55
Quote:
Originally posted by 5150
Oh, I do, but it just doesn't apply to video games. Looking for 'more accurate' in a shooter is just silly. They're nothing like combat, and are games--no more, no less. To compare them to reality is an utter waste of time, as resembling reality isn't what they set out to accomplish. Suggesting that something is more accurate because 'it takes two bullets to kill you' rather than say, five, is fantasy of the best sort. When people start making claims of "better because it's more accurate" they've lost the plot. Video games are all about fun, and aren't in any way accurate in terms of the real world. They're meant to be escapist in nature.
Look, I'm not sure where you are taking this but it's way beyond the point I was trying to make.

First of all, nothing is fantasy here at all. If I prefer a game because it is set up that a player is eliminated with less hits is MY preference and that's what I like. If I like the responsiveness of one game compared to the next that's my perogative.
I re-read my own post and I don't see where I 'claimed' one game was better then the next. I merely said that I felt COD provided a smoother experience.
For me, I think that the targeting of COD is more 'accurate' that other games. When you hit your target, you know it.

And finally, just to put a whole whammy on this 'realism' debate you are having with yourself, Medal of Honor PA has the hardest difficulty level called 'realistic' where it takes a similar number of shots to kill a person as it would in reality.
You be the judge...
post #25 of 55
Wow, you are kidding right? Call of Duty was one of the best games I've ever played. Nothing to date can even compare for immersive war combat shooters.

As far as being in combat, I think the game does a great job capturing actual tactics and the sheer chaos of different situations.

There is no game that more accurately captures the feel of combat. As far as realism goes, when you die you don't bleed to death slowly over a couple hours crying momma and crapping your pants so in that respect I guess it's not that realistic.

Games can capture some realism though, and that is a good goal. You just have to select which kind of realism you want to go for. Some realism isn't fun. COD captures the magnitude of a battlefield well. The battlefield is quite accurate, and even the German assaults and tactics are simimar to history.
post #26 of 55
I'll chime in with the vast minority here and choose RTCW as the superior game [[[IMO]]] :D I know COD is a crowd favorite, and I enjoyed it a great deal. I can't say that I enjoyed it anymore than Medal of Honor though; and certainly not RTCW. Ultimately though, they're two different types of game.

Obviously, RTCW was not historically accurate, but it was based loosely on Hitler and Himmler's obsession with the occult. In fact, Nazism was based on many occult principles. I can't quote references, but watch the History channel to find out what I'm talking about.

I would characterize the gameplay mechanics of COD as intense and visceral- the bridge-level (Pegasus day I think) with the Brits playing defense was a classic level in any game. The sound was awesome in COD. Bullets whizzing by, explosions, and tank blasts were really intense. Honestly though, I thought COD's levels were too short on many occasions; and I thought the whole game was too short.

I would sum the differences between the games like this: COD was a mix between Saving Private Ryan and Enemy at the Gates- very matter of fact. RTCW was pure Indiana Jones. It was adventuresome, it was fun, and it was spooky all wrapped up in one game.

JMO
post #27 of 55
Thread Starter 
I thought the graphics in COD looked inferior compared to RTCW. To each their own.
post #28 of 55
Well, I don't know if it's 'to each their own'. You can have an opinion and still be wrong. Remember the member who insisted that the PS2 delivered the best graphics of all the consoles?
That said, I would agree that RTCW is slightly better graphically in certain areas but graphics aren't everything.
post #29 of 55
I just finished the United Offensive expansion pack, and I played the original game right after it came out. Call of Duty is easily my favorite of the WWII shooters, and one of my favorite FPS games period. It's not ultra-realistic because that would be ultra-frustrating, but it's better than most of the others out there in terms of realism. The shell shock effects, three positions (stand, crouch, prone), using the gun sights, etc., are all innovative and work well. The sound is just amazing, especially when connected to a 5.1 or better system! The visuals are quite good in my opinion though not quite on par with the latest-and-greatest engines.

I played the original literally right after returning from a trip to Normandy and it was completely immersive for me. Perhaps that's part of why I enjoyed it so much. Sorry if it's not your thing...
post #30 of 55
Dean, we all know why you don't like it, so much so I don't need to say it. :D :rolleyes: :D
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HTPC Gaming
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Home Theater Gaming › HTPC Gaming › Call Of Duty PC Game- Disappointing