Gaming CODPLOPS: A Cynical History Of COD

[nchhabs]

Originally Posted by uz1_l0v3r

There was a progression from BC2 to BF3?

Yeah, not sure if you've heard of Frostbite 2.0, the revolutionary lighting system, revolutionary sound engine, the increase in player count to 64 on larger maps, the inclusion of jets etc. Spent 500 hours playing MW1, 450 or so playing MW2, 220 hours playing BC2, and 495 playing BF3 at a reasonable level (see battlelog stats), so I understand the differences between them.

I'm not a partisan fanboy though; I've not played BF3 for a month now (after having played it since release) because the latest patch amped the suppression effect to the point where I thought it lowered the skillcap of the game too much. Once they revoke those changes in the next patch, I'll pick up playing again.

At the same time, it seems pretty clear to me which franchise has innovated and which hasn't. If you're suggesting that the progression of MW2-->MW3 is equivalent to BC2-->BF3 I'd have to assert you were most likely blind and deaf. There's a difference between subjective evaluations by which you rate a game and whether you enjoy it, and objective facts regarding the technology used in the end product.

[spectre456]

Originally Posted by faugusztin

You realize that since MW2 we got BO and MW3 and the complaint is about BO2 being same thing again ?

Blops got an 8 on bit-tech. MW3 is the only instalment that got a really bad score. Furthermore, Joe is judging the game before it is even out. If he had actually opened his cynical eyes he would notice that Treyarch are implementing some new SP features for the series.

Originally Posted by nchhabs

That's completely irrelevant. Just because he gave MW2 a decent review in November 2009, doesn't mean that essentially the same game reskinned in 2012 will get a good review. One expects the sort of progression you'd get from BC2 to BF3.

I don't even know how MW2 got 9 on this site especially with the lack of dedi servers.. but that's my opinion. I'm more annoyed at how the reviews here basically hold no water anymore. WTF is the point of writing a review that you are going to change your opinion on later?

Originally Posted by nchhabs

Yeah, not sure if you've heard of Frostbite 2.0, the revolutionary lighting system, revolutionary sound engine, the increase in player count to 64 on larger maps, the inclusion of jets etc. Spent 500 hours playing MW1, 450 or so playing MW2, 220 hours playing BC2, and 495 playing BF3 at a reasonable level (see battlelog stats), so I understand the differences between them.

I'm not a partisan fanboy though; I've not played BF3 for a month now (after having played it since release) because the latest patch amped the suppression effect to the point where I thought it lowered the skillcap of the game too much. Once they revoke those changes in the next patch, I'll pick up playing again.

At the same time, it seems pretty clear to me which franchise has innovated and which hasn't. If you're suggesting that the progression of MW2-->MW3 is equivalent to BC2-->BF3 I'd have to assert you were most likely blind and deaf. There's a difference between subjective evaluations by which you rate a game and whether you enjoy it, and objective facts regarding the technology used in the end product.

What's revolutionary about the lighting? It looks nice but it's nothing new. The sound in BF3 was in BC1. BF2 had 64 players, bigger maps, more classes, better command rose and easier to use voice chat. It also had Lan support and Mod support. SO if anything, BF3 is a regression.

BF3 is not the sequel is BC2. It is the sequel to BF2. BF innovates no more than CoD.

[3lusive]

^Yeah, and just to add to what you've said.

The sound in BF is poor in comparison to Cod. It definitely is. You would certainly know this if you played FPS games using a headset and were used to soundwhoring, because you can't do it anywhere near as effectively in BF as you can in Cod.

In titles like MW and MW2, you can hear footsteps, gun reloads, enemy movements, even grenade pins being released - it's truly amazing from the perspective of sound (wearing a decent headset of course). Once you've experienced that, you can never go back to games which have poorer sound and don't allow you to have an advantage over the enemy like you can in those two Cod titles.

BF has mundane, boring sound which is drowned out by constant background noises. The guns also don't sound anywhere near as good.

[nchhabs]

Originally Posted by 3lusive

^Yeah, and just to add to what you've said.

The sound in BF is poor in comparison to Cod. It definitely is. You would certainly know this if you played FPS games using a headset and were used to soundwhoring, because you can't do it anywhere near as effectively in BF as you can in Cod.

In titles like MW and MW2, you can hear footsteps, gun reloads, enemy movements, even grenade pins being released - it's truly amazing from the perspective of sound (wearing a decent headset of course). Once you've experienced that, you can never go back to games which have poorer sound and don't allow you to have an advantage over the enemy like you can in those two Cod titles.

BF has mundane, boring sound which is drowned out by constant background noises. The guns also don't sound anywhere near as good.

Not sure if serious... all of those things are part of BF3 also. You can literally hear a person behind you unsheath their knife if they're going for a takedown.



This demonstrates the difference between the sound engines quite clearly I think. COD's sound technology is old, tired, and isn't dynamic; e.g. in BF3, as you move from room to room, or from closed environment to open environments, the acoustics change to reflect that difference in surroundings. There's plenty of videos on Frostbite 2 and why it's a revolutionary new engine, so feel free to google the info rather than randomly assert BF3 has 'poor sound' (lol).

Thanks for the post though, it almost perfectly encapsulates my feeling that most people who sit on one side of the fence have never played half the games they rant about. I took the liberty of quoting you in the BF3 gaming thread, you can see some fairly well-reasoned responses to your post here: http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthrea...03156&page=462

[faugusztin]

Originally Posted by 3lusive

BF has mundane, boring sound which is drowned out by constant background noises. The guns also don't sound anywhere near as good.

So you live on a planet with no wind noise in trees, no birds, no insects making noises ? I would say if game doesn't have those effects, it has "poorer sound".

[Niftyrat]

Having manfully read through all the comments i have come to the simple conclusion that COD is like BGT and xfactor. Once innovative items that have become stale through over exposure. COD is not inherently bad and if you have never played one then the latest version is a good place to start but for a lot of non-dedicated players there is little enjoyment to be had out of something that is mostly a rehash, for me it is the same way I don't buy FIFA every year either, the is not enough of a change to make it worth money I could spend on something else such as a racing game or DLC.

E other aspect to it for me is if you are a PC player who spends serious £ on graphics cards, processors etc. you will feel let down by COD not keeping up with the more modern tech and certainly won't appreciate the little things that are improved with a new direct x compatibility but then you can play BF3 if you like mindless FPS or for a proper FPS go for ARMA series, which will give you a more satisfying experience.

COD is the light entertainment version of gaming - ok on a Saturday night when you just want to not think too hard and have a frag fest.

[3lusive]

Originally Posted by nchhabs

Not sure if serious... all of those things are part of BF3 also. You can literally hear a person behind you unsheath their knife if they're going for a takedown.

This demonstrates the difference between the sound engines quite clearly I think. COD's sound technology is old, tired, and isn't dynamic; e.g. in BF3, as you move from room to room, or from closed environment to open environments, the acoustics change to reflect that difference in surroundings. There's plenty of videos on Frostbite 2 and why it's a revolutionary new engine, so feel free to google the info rather than randomly assert BF3 has 'poor sound' (lol).

That video shows absolutely nothing. For one, it focuses on gun sounds, which is only one small aspect of what makes a good sound engine. And two, the guy has either recorded the Cod sounds at a lower volume, or has turned down Cod sound effects in the game options, or has increased BF's volume. Either way, it misrepresents Cod's gun sounds and doesn't demonstrate footsteps and other directional cues which are absolutely critical when we're comparing the quality of sound between two FPS games.

It's true that you can sometimes hear footsteps and audio cues in BF, but they're largely drowned out by all the tank noise, choppers, gunfire, explosions and just general background noise, which completely detracts from your ability to properly soundwhore like you can in some Cod titles. Whether this is realistic or not is meaningless because we're playing a virtual game where sometimes reality is not as fun as fantasy. Besides, someone approaching me from ten feet should be perfectly audible even if there is a lot of background noise. Unfortunately, this isn't the case in the majority of times this happens in BF.

This video shows a much fairer representation of what Cod gun sounds are like:

Thanks for the post though, it almost perfectly encapsulates my feeling that most people who sit on one side of the fence have never played half the games they rant about. I took the liberty of quoting you in the BF3 gaming thread, you can see some fairly well-reasoned responses to your post here: http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthrea...03156&page=462

I have racked up more time on BFBC2/BF3 and Cod than you'll probably ever come close to. You're post just proves to me that you have no concept of what makes "good" sound in a FPS environment, so you can't discuss it impartially or fairly with me.

Originally Posted by faugusztin

So you live on a planet with no wind noise in trees, no birds, no insects making noises ? I would say if game doesn't have those effects, it has "poorer sound".

What are you talking about? There's all kinds of background noises in Cod, but footsteps are clearly audible as they should be in the real world (Blops and MW3 without sitrep pro are exceptions). If a game fails to incorporate this, it's failed to provide a key dimension of a multiplayer FPS and takes away a valuable tool to a good player. Honestly, it's one of the most addictive and greatest elements of a FPS game.

You're comment makes me think you've never experienced cod sound with a headset on, so you can't really comment or appreciate what I'm referring to.

[spectre456]

I'm gonna have to disagree with you on CoD's sound 3lusive. When you hear bf3's sound, it is quite delicious. Other noises drown out when firing. You can hear the gases expand as the round leaves the weapon. There's that deafening echo when firing indoors and the distant echo when firing outdoors.

The audio in Cod is by no means crap tho'. It's just a tad.... "sanitised". Half the things you hear in a match you probably shouldn't because of how much ambient noise would drown it out.

[nchhabs]

Originally Posted by 3lusive

I have racked up more time on BFBC2/BF3 and Cod than you'll probably ever come close to. You're post just proves to me that you have no concept of what makes "good" sound in a FPS environment, so you can't discuss it impartially or fairly with me.

Link to battlelog profile please. I'm interested to see how much/well you've been playing with that GT 430 Zone. I'm not sure that's even capable of playing BF3 at a decent frame rate. Of course, you could be using a different machine...

Originally Posted by 3lusive

You're comment makes me think you've never experienced cod sound with a headset on, so you can't really comment or appreciate what I'm referring to.

Yeah what would I know about sound? I've only played BF3 on a Musical Fidelity M1 DAC, KRK studio monitors, Epiphany Acoustics O2 headphone amp, B&W P5s and Audeze LCD-2 r. 2 headphones. Pretty low-end hey! Besides prompting reactionary ad hominem, you're not really getting far with your argument... you're conflating a sound engine's ability to relate positional information without any 'clutter' to overall technological complexity and features, which is fallacious. Clearly, if we compare the sound engine of COD games (which has remained static for the past four years) to the BF3 Frostbite 2 sound engine, Frostbite 2 is infinitely more capable. I don't think I can put it clearer than that.

Originally Posted by 3lusive

This video shows a much fairer representation of what Cod gun sounds are like:

That supposedly superior clip still sounds pretty one-dimensional.



^ the sound designer working on BF3 explains some innovations and differences between BC2 and BF3.



Just one example of how nifty the sound engine is; the sound hits the listener after the explosion takes place visually, conforming to real physical laws. AFAIK something that is rarely implemented in FPS (primarily due to maps being so small it is often overlooked).



Skip to about 1:20. Notice the acoustics going forth.

[Bauul]

Originally Posted by Niftyrat

Having manfully read through all the comments i have come to the simple conclusion that COD is like BGT and xfactor.

Excellent analogy. I'm happily watching BGT at the moment and I'll freely admit I enjoy it, but it's hardly pushing entertainment shows in a brave new direction. And now the BBC's jumped on the band-wagon with The Voice (a nice analogy for EA and BF3) it's hard to get away from it.

In other words, the following facts are true of both BGT and COD:
Is it enjoyable? Yes.
Is it very popular? Yes.
Is it pushing boundaries? Not at all.
Is it therefore holding back innovation? Yes.

[salesman]

CODPLOPS . . . CoD Plops . . . the sound of a cod game falling into the vast ocean of the gaming market?

So what you're saying is it's not gonna make a big splash?

Touche Sir, touche.

[3lusive]

Originally Posted by nchhabs

Yeah what would I know about sound? I've only played BF3 on a Musical Fidelity M1 DAC, KRK studio monitors, Epiphany Acoustics O2 headphone amp, B&W P5s and Audeze LCD-2 r. 2 headphones. Pretty low-end hey!

Can you read or is that too difficult for you? Normally when a comment is posted beneath a quote, the comment refers to that quote and the person who posted it. Besides, what I said was true and was not ad hominem (you're the one who likes to use that): you can't fairly compare the sound quality of two games if you haven't properly experienced both. Simple. Anyone who's played both would know there is background noise like trees rustling etc in Cod. Faugusztin apparently didn't, which is why I made the comment.

Originally Posted by nchhabs

Besides prompting reactionary ad hominem, you're not really getting far with your argument... you're conflating a sound engine's ability to relate positional information without any 'clutter' to overall technological complexity and features, which is fallacious. Clearly, if we compare the sound engine of COD games (which has remained static for the past four years) to the BF3 Frostbite 2 sound engine, Frostbite 2 is infinitely more capable. I don't think I can put it clearer than that.

A few points here, firstly: the ability of a sound engine to accurately represent directional cues is more important than its overall sound quality, not that I would say BF is superior in this regard anyway (and that's presupposing that you can really separate directionality from 'overall sound quality'). In fact, I'd argue it's the most important aspect of game sound for FPS games.

In BF, I can't judge the proximity of an enemy from his audio cues anywhere near like I can in Cod. I can sometimes pinpoint the exact location just with the reload of a gun in Cod. In BF these moments occur much less frequently, primarily because of the constant background noise and secondly because they just haven't got the sound balance right. For all intents and purposes, directional cues are miles better in Cod than BF. To deny this is just trolling and/or delusional.

Furthermore, I don't even agree with you that the overall quality of the sound is better in BF in Cod. To me, BF just sounds way too distant and drowned out compared with the directness and realness of Cod. Guns have an annoying echo which hardly creates any atmosphere or sounds any 'better' than in Cod. Same applies to vehicles and air support. I see nothing which makes me think 'wow this is better than Cod', both from a directional perspective or just from the quality of the sound I hear. It's much clearer and sharper in Cod.

Originally Posted by nchhabs

3 videos which demonstrate nothing superior about BF's sound and only prove my point that BF3 has poorer sound than any recent Cod title

Sorry, those videos demonstrate very little. The first one is the sound engineer discussing how good their sound is. It's as if you're trying to convince me what my ears tell me by showing DICE's marketing spiel. If you didn't know, I have the game and know exactly how it sounds.

At least the third vid shows proper gameplay footage. However, it doesn't help your cause; it helps mine. I don't hear anything revolutionary about sound in that vid which would make it better than Cod. The directionality from the guns doesn't appear to be as accurate or clear, and the sounds themselves are hardly better. There's also too much background noise. Granted, we have to listen to their chat, and I'm listening to it through my 2.1 speakers, but I know how it sounds anyway because I play the game.

Just go an watch any one of the MW2 vids on youtube and you'll see what I mean by better sound. It's just so much clearer and immersive than BF.

[nchhabs]

Originally Posted by 3lusive

<Incoherent verbal splutterings>

*Nods and smiles*

Sorry, I guess you live in a different reality from everyone else then. You must know better than almost everyone in video games development who has lauded Frostbite 2 as a fantastic new engine light years ahead of anything else.

Also, still waiting for a link to your Battlelog profile as you posited you had played more than anyone else on Bit-tech (which is odd because despite playing since release with everyone else from Bit-tech/CPC I've never seen you online). Frankly I suspect you're playing "BF3: Slideshow edition" if the graphics card in your sig is actually what you're utilising. I'm sure COD runs well on it however.

Can you read or is that too difficult for you? Normally when a comment is posted beneath a quote, the comment refers to that quote and the person who posted it. Besides, what I said was true and was not ad hominem (you're the one who likes to use that)

That's quite ironic, considering you failed to adequately parse the meaning of my phrase 'reactionary ad hominem'... I stated your argument prompted a slightly ad hominem response from others, due to your seeming inability to reassess your fanboy-ish and dogged defense of COD's sound engine as being better than BF3's despite the excessively obvious evidence to the contrary. I honestly still can't believe you're clinging on to that assertion, it's just laughable. It's not really a 'subjective' area, as evaluating a game holistically is; BF3's engine is simply capable of more than COD's engine. Does that make it a better game? Not necessarily. Is the engine better? Yes. Again, not sure what could be clearer.

I think my previous post wrapped things up fairly cleanly from an objective non-partisan standpoint so I won't add further to the 'fire,' as it were.

[3lusive]

*Mustn't respond to a troll who knows nothing about anything*

[Elton]

Sorry 3lusive I gotta side with Draca on this one. The sound processing is much more interesting in BF3.

It's much more chaotic in BF3 than it is in CoD. That's not to say either are bad, but the ambience in BF3 subjectively to me is more immersive. Is it more conducive to the player? Not really. But it sure as hell sounds awesome.

CoD though does have sound that to me seems like it's created to be around the gameplay. Presentation is not as necessary compared to assisting the player. (The footsteps are quite loud, which while plausible raises eyebrows to me seeing as I'd be hard pressed to hear footsteps in a chaotic battle)

[Dwarfer]

Originally Posted by 3lusive

^Yeah, and just to add to what you've said.

The sound in BF is poor in comparison to Cod. It definitely is. You would certainly know this if you played FPS games using a headset and were used to soundwhoring, because you can't do it anywhere near as effectively in BF as you can in Cod.

In titles like MW and MW2, you can hear footsteps, gun reloads, enemy movements, even grenade pins being released - it's truly amazing from the perspective of sound (wearing a decent headset of course). Once you've experienced that, you can never go back to games which have poorer sound and don't allow you to have an advantage over the enemy like you can in those two Cod titles.

BF has mundane, boring sound which is drowned out by constant background noises. The guns also don't sound anywhere near as good.

What an Idiot. The BF3 sound engine is far superior to that of COD. Hell all the COD weapon sound the same. Shows how lazy they have being not only in the maps department but in the sounds engine too. I smell troll!

[3lusive]

^They don't. You're wrong. Anyway that's the last I'm saying on it because there's no point debating with deluded fanboys who probably haven't even played Cod.

For anyone who cares, see for yourself which is better by either playing both games with a headset on or by going on youtube and watching one of the thousand of Cod/BF gameplays.

[Dwarfer]

Originally Posted by 3lusive

^They don't. You're wrong. Anyway that's the last I'm saying on it because there's no point debating with deluded fanboys who probably haven't even played Cod.

For anyone who cares, see for yourself which is better by either playing both games with a headset on or by going on youtube and watching one of the thousand of Cod/BF gameplays.

You need to replace the battery in your ear-aid.

[Spreadie]

Originally Posted by 3lusive

^They don't. You're wrong. Anyway that's the last I'm saying on it because there's no point debating with deluded fanboys who probably haven't even played Cod.

For anyone who cares, see for yourself which is better by either playing both games with a headset on or by going on youtube and watching one of the thousand of Cod/BF gameplays.

These things always descend into a chest puffing exercise, between the two camps - nothing new there.

However, you really aren't helping your own argument by making claims about your own extensive experience and then declaring those opposing you as incapable of reasoned debate, when challenged to back up your claims.

This thread is such a cliche - how long before someone invokes Godwin?

[3lusive]

Because it's besides the point. They don't really give two hoots about my experience even if I have more hours on both games than they could come close to; they're just saying it to try and get away from actually debating the issue.

Try the games for yourself. Just go into a Cod/BF game and ask yourself this:

1) Does the sound engine successfully recreate directionality (can I easily make out where sounds have come from within the gameworld)?
2) Do the weapons sound satisfying and realistic?
3) Do the background noises detract from the overall experience or enhance it?
4) Is the balance between the variety of different sound sources correct?

I think that Cod does a better job in all those cases. Thus, I prefer its sound engine to that of BF, and until any one of those criteria changes, I will continue to do so .