Two new Modern Warfare 3 screenshots

#1
Two new shots,haven't seen anyone posting it yet.



Really wondered how far can they go with look of their character models.Love it or hate it they look absolutely superb.
 
#6
Can't wait to get back up to their latest iteration of the engine, Black Ops was using the WaW version and it could be felt right away.
 
#18
Sethos said:
Can't wait to get back up to their latest iteration of the engine, Black Ops was using the WaW version and it could be felt right away.
yeah the treyarch games always look a bit more washed out and less colorfull compared to the IW ones
 
#20
[Nintex] said:
looks okay-ish but there's not enough going on in the background. It's not epic or immersive enough so let me fix that for you.

http://i.imgur.com/OVlnp.jpg[IMG][/QUOTE]
Seriously, what they don't get is that at this point, nothing will do, people are totally desynthesized.
They should just learn to balance the pace better.
Honestly, the first CoD's Stalingrado level impressed and shocked me more than anything they've done after.
They can even blow up a planet or a galaxy, it won't matter, we've seen them all with the CGI and shit.
 
#23
Ugh, the materials are so poorly done. Dude in the first picture looks like everything on him was made out of rubber, including his skin. Same thing with the boats in the second screen. Call of Duty has always seemed to do that rather poorly, for some reason.

Sharp knees.
 
#24
What kind of captain would order ships to move about like that, they're all going in different directions. Looking at it closely it seems like the ships are really out of proportion, especially the one sinking in the middle.
 
#25
Ahoi-Brause said:
Could be ice or mud as well, there's no indication of it being water.
The Quake 3 engine is getting kinda old you know.
Actually it has nothing to do with Quake engine,you know.Better shader costs more performance and when gunning for 60fps you can't expect better.Although,in motion it really looks better.
 
#28
Spiffy_1st said:
What kind of captain would order ships to move about like that, they're all going in different directions. Looking at it closely it seems like the ships are really out of proportion, especially the one sinking in the middle.
Haha! My thoughts too, and now I noticed the tiny ship. Looks like it's sinking a few meters away, yet it should be a huge size.
 

enzo_gt

tagged by Blackace
#32
Cmd. Pishad'aç said:
Plain flat colorless shitty water is shitty water.
Yup, the water looks like zero effort was put into it at all to make it look like water.

Presumably they've dumbed down the water to increase the graphical level of something else.

..what that is I can't see.
 
#34
Ahoi-Brause said:
Could be ice or mud as well, there's no indication of it being water.
The Quake 3 engine is getting kinda old you know.
Don't pretend as if this looks remotely like the stock Quake 3 engine.

I see splashes, swirls and small waves. What else would make it look like water? Reflections would look out of place in the environment and on the surface of rough water.

Cmd. Pishad'aç said:
Plain flat colorless shitty water is shitty water.
Doesn't look flat to me.
 

enzo_gt

tagged by Blackace
#35
NBtoaster said:
Don't pretend as if this looks remotely like the stock Quake 3 engine.

I see splashes, swirls and small waves. What else would make it look like water? Reflections would look out of place in the environment and on the surface of rough water.



Doesn't look flat to me.
It pretty damn flat in terms of appearance and colour.
 
#37
-viper- said:
Black Ops is an awful, awful looking game. Even on the PC. Modern Warfare 2 looks better, and this isn't surprising, as IW use a different engine. MW3 is already looking good.
I thought both WaW and BO looked great in most parts on 360 atleast, maybe it's more obvious on PC.
 
#38
ResidentDante said:
I thought both WaW and BO looked great in most parts on 360 atleast, maybe it's more obvious on PC.
Black Ops did have its moments when I played it.There was a lot of inconstancy,but some parts looked pretty damn good. Their character models are also great,but gun models and hit detection is not on IW level.
 
#39
DarkChild said:
Actually it has nothing to do with Quake engine,you know.Better shader costs more performance and when gunning for 60fps you can't expect better.Although,in motion it really looks better.
It has something to do with the engine because it wasn't build for this kind of game in the first place. That's why they have to use so many smoke and mirror tactics to make the games look good.
That's why you're running through a hose in the call of duty games instead of interacting with the enviroment like in battlefield.
The engine just isn't capable of anything beyond corridors if you ramp it up to such a high level. And even the setpieces are just corridors when you look at it.

A change of engine (maybe ID tech 4 or something) might actually help the games.
 
#43
It looks good to me, especially if it's holding 60fps on consoles still. I'll expect more jaggy when playing it at release too and maybe a sprinkle of sub 720p
 
#45
Ahoi-Brause said:
It has something to do with the engine because it wasn't build for this kind of game in the first place. That's why they have to use so many smoke and mirror tactics to make the games look good.
That's why you're running through a hose in the call of duty games instead of interacting with the enviroment like in battlefield.
The engine just isn't capable of anything beyond corridors if you ramp it up to such a high level. And even the setpieces are just corridors when you look at it.

A change of engine (maybe ID tech 4 or something) might actually help the games.
You mean engine like ND's,Epic's and pretty much any engine in the world thats not called Cryengine or Frostbite?Plus,the one that actually runs game at twice the frame rate their competition runs at?Yea,I suppose you are right,their engine is crap.

Quake 3 engine has nothing to do with this engine.Their rendering pipeline is so changed now that it has no resemblance to old ID tech.Similar how Reach engine doesn't have alot in common with Halo's from last gen,even if its the "same" engine.

RAGE(running on new ID tech 5),the game that was in making for 5 long years on newest ID's tech runs at 60fps,720p no AA(MW3 600p 2xMSAA) and dropping resolution when the frame rate goes down is perfect example that you can't get more at 60fps no matter what you do to.RAGE's water is not the that great either,neither are shaders great,textures(although featuring alot of variety) are actually lower resolution than those in MW3 etc. You can't expect more at 60fps on those consoles,people should deal with that instead of calling engine a crap.

BTW,good luck running game looking as good as MW3 is on newest UE3 engine.Not to talk about CE3 and FB2,you know you would see alot of destruction at 60fps...
 
#46
Is Nuke coming back ?

As dumb and ridiculous as the Nuke killstreak is, that's the only moment where my body is shaking and my heart is beating fast like crazy. Especially when I'm in the 23-24 zone.

Best feeling = Deploying that nuke, seeing all your enemies and allies looking at your name and score. :D

Worst feeling = getting killed when you are 1 or 2 kills away. And I got like 10 rounds of this before getting the Nuke emblem. Fucking worst feeling from a game. :(
 
#48
DarkChild said:
You mean engine like ND's,Epic's and pretty much any engine in the world thats not called Cryengine or Frostbite?Plus,the one that actually runs game at twice the frame rate their competition runs at.Yea,I suppose you are right.

Quake 3 engine has nothing to do with this engine.Their rendering pipeline is so changed now that it has no resemblance to old ID tech.Similar how Reach engine doesn't have alot in common with Halo's from last gen,even if its the "same" engine.

BTW,good luck running game looking as good as MW3 is on newest UE3 engine.Not to talk about CE3 and FB2,you know you would see alot of destruction at 60fps...
BC 2 is running with a pretty good framerate at my computar.