First Modern Warfare 2 Multiplayer Footage Released

80
The first glimpse of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2's multiplayer gives us a quick look at the AC-130 gunship's appearance in online play. Players will be able to unlock the reward for earning killstreaks in the game.

Modern Warfare 2 crushes the holiday season on November 10.

From The Chatty
  • reply
    July 27, 2009 2:04 PM

    not really impressive graphic wise... but then again, I'm a graphic whore... don't kill me in the comments please...

    • reply
      July 27, 2009 2:07 PM

      I'm just curious. What do you want from graphics? Do you want super photo realism or like stylistic art or what? In terms of realistic graphics, you can't really ask for much more besides photo realism which still isn't achievable imo.

      • reply
        July 27, 2009 2:16 PM

        A good art direction style in terms of design or color that suits the universe the game is playing in, or in realistic games, extremely sharp textures and the good visualisation of materials like they are in real world, like fabric, wood, carbon,etc... and believable physics...

        I'm not saying this looks bad, but I think (and now i will get all the console owners on my ass) that todays hardware can achieve better graphics than this, certainly when I'm thinking about the budget and talent at infinity ward...

        • reply
          July 27, 2009 2:25 PM

          Today's hardware?

          Today's hardware is still the 360 and PS3. Because no one is going to do another Crysis if no one buys it. And I don't care about the reasons (piracy, cost, install base, etc), it's just simple economics. We don't get any more AAA exclusives or games pushing the envelope. I hate it as much as you, but now that consoles have reached a level of fidelity most people consider to be "good enough", they will remain the lead platforms. And that means we're stuck with these graphics for at least another couple of years.

          • reply
            July 27, 2009 3:36 PM

            Yeah, I don't expect any PC games to push graphics harder than Crysis did for several years still to come. Most titles are backing off of that level of graphics demand on PC hardware simply because of the trends in the PC market towards notebooks, lower power requirements, and lower price tags.

        • reply
          July 27, 2009 2:27 PM

          Well usually the PC version looks better then the console and the footage looks like its console play by the way the guy is moving.

          • reply
            July 27, 2009 3:03 PM

            Yea I'm sure the PC version of MW2 will look far better with everything cranked up. This game will just turn into another camper-fest of ppl shooting through walls and little cramped maps anyway.

            Bad Company 2 ftw.

        • reply
          July 27, 2009 2:36 PM

          They only had 2 years to work with. That's not enough time to build a new engine from the ground up and retest/reimplement all the gameplay.

          • reply
            July 27, 2009 3:53 PM

            AFAIK, they've been working on MW2 after CoD4:MW and they're using the same engine albeit with a few tweaks.

        • reply
          July 27, 2009 3:02 PM

          For a game running 60fpx on Xbox360, this looks damn pretty.
          Yeah it could look better if it was targeted at high end pcs, but that's not where the money is. =(

    • reply
      July 27, 2009 2:16 PM

      This is a very old engine and it shows it age but I think it's still a good looking one. Plus, the older engine allows for much more on-screen action, props, enemies, explosions and such at a solid framerate. I'd much prefer this than another game like Crysis.

      • reply
        July 27, 2009 2:34 PM

        Hear hear!

      • reply
        July 27, 2009 3:45 PM

        Yeah, COD4 still stands up pretty well in terms of graphics. With COD4 they actually made the graphics look better than they did in COD2, all while simplifying the geometry and reducing the texture load particularly in the skybox of the levels. If you look into the distance of COD4 levels the skybox enclosing the level is actually very fuzzy and low res, but it actually enhances the look of the game because it focuses the attention on the near-field geometry and textures of the level. It's like in a movie, shots are deliberately set up to make the background kind of blurry so that less time and effort have to be spent building extremely detailed sets.

    • reply
      July 27, 2009 2:21 PM

      I think it looks great especially for a console game...and a multiplatform one at that.

    • reply
      July 27, 2009 2:44 PM

      Higher rez version : http://www.gametrailers.com/video/multiplayer-trailer-modern-warfare/53382

      Gfx are improved over MW1 imo

      Many new toys, even better.

      Maybe I'm just a biased fps junkie.... but for a sequel to a game as big as it was, this looks pretty damn good.

      • reply
        July 27, 2009 2:52 PM

        ..on 2nd thought, those gfx are pretty similar, but doesn't bother me since it still look's good enough. FPS's should be more about performance than visuals anyway.

    • reply
      July 27, 2009 2:51 PM

      Looks identical to COD4.

    • reply
      July 27, 2009 3:25 PM

      I thought the effects were nice, but definitely the same art style of COD4 (why change a good thing I guess).

    • reply
      July 27, 2009 3:28 PM

      I'm a graphics whore too and I thought this looked pretty badass. Keep in mind it's multiplayer, running at a solid 60 fps it looks like, which is RARE if not otherwise unseen on consoles.

    • reply
      July 27, 2009 3:40 PM

      they say 60 fps but it's not even rendering at 720p natively (well..COD4 and WAW wasn't)


      I hope that changes..because i hate this 0.5 HD era we're in.

      • reply
        July 27, 2009 6:49 PM

        Yeah COD4 was running at 600p and i was hoping they were able to bump MW2 up to 720p, but at least COD4 used a filter to smooth out the jaggies, which give it a bit of a soft look but still pleasant to look at on a 46" screen.

    • reply
      July 27, 2009 3:50 PM

      IMHO maintaining 60 FPS for an FPS is worth it even if some pixel resolution and texture quality has to be sacrificed.

    • reply
      July 27, 2009 3:53 PM

      [deleted]

    • reply
      July 27, 2009 4:49 PM

      I think the graphics look good - they are fluent AND look pleasing to the eye.

      The problem I've always had with CoD (4/WaW) graphics praise, is that the engines themselves aren't really working very hard. The doors are non-interactive and the levels are linear to the point of being on rails, it's Virtua Cop with strafe keys.

      Sure, it looks pretty damn good, but it isn't actually /doing anything/.

      It is, however, doing what it has to.

Hello, Meet Lola