I'm pretty sensitive to tearing and I don't really notice it much at all in Call of Duty @ 125fps, which isn't exactly divisible by 60hz anyway. So long as you have a stable framerate the game is pretty smooth--hell--it's smooth enough on my rig (3200+, 6800GT) and I experience a lot of dips below 60fps. I don't really often recognize much if any tearing in this game, and it pisses me off too.

I almost always use VSync (when using a rig that will push 60+) in single player games, but in MP I don't want any frame data sacrificed, ever. Although I do have two binds set up, one that locks my max fps @ 125, and another that locks it @ 60 for the sake of smoothness. Still, I almost always keep it locked at 125 anyway.

I'm digging the new content. It's fun.

Yea I did that a few times the first time I played Killhouse--I had to do a double take. It's actually pretty funny when you think about it. What's even funnier, is that in front of those mock soldiers are spawn spots, so occasionally you may even pass them by thinking they're just targets. It's probably best to shoot at them just to make sure ;)



I wish every round were that easy.

Yup. Low everything. No AA, no AF, 800x600. Frames FTW. I could bump it up a lot, but I'm not willing to sacrifice the performance. I'll turn it up when I get better hardware to run it on. I'll be playing this game for a long time anyway. Oh, and don't forget the increased FOV--I hate the way it makes the game look but I can't not use it knowing that other people are.

But hey, the console version has shit for texture filtering and is sub 720p too ;)

"It looks better in motion."

Maybe you missed the part about me using a 6800GT and a 3200+? Or how Call of Duty 4's physics are actually impacted by your framerate? Do me a favor--go play your Battlefield Lite: Modern Redux, or Call of Duty 4: Aim Assist Edition and leave me alone. If I could manage better graphics and still pull 60-125fps, I would, but I can't, and I still quite enjoy the hell out of the game and kick all sorts of ass.

COD2 actually ran better on this PC, thanks to the ability to use DX7. I could set the textures up and run it @ 1680x1050, but IW decided to give us less options so far as turning down the shaders in COD4, so I'm stuck with lowering the resolution, and the majority of my other settings, in order to get competitive performance in multiplayer.

Oh, and I know you're just being a complete asshole and everything, but if you could play it in wire frame, you'd probably get hundreds of FPS. You could also see through walls, which would make it cheating. But why would I bother pointing that out when you're just being a complete tool anyway? Must be bored!Neat. I'll have to play it, even though I despise Treyarch. I enjoyed the pain that was Call of Duty 3, for some reason, and I do love the WWII weapons and setting. It was rumored previously that they would be releasing this game on PC's as well, I wonder if they still intend to do as much. No one is going to abandon COD4's MP for a new Treyarch game (well, not a lot of people, at least), but the campaign should be compelling enough sorta.

It was said that IW was trying to negotiate a deal with Activision to stop the Treyarch madness. I guess that was either a bunk rumor, or just won't effect the development of COD5.

Oh, if you disguise your insults with sarcasm, it must be okay, right? I liked my first reply better, but I figured I'd spare everyone else the bluntness. Adjusting my settings to be on the same page as everyone else isn't me trying to be leet, it's me compensating for the shit hardware I have. I admit, I play BF2 without shadows or dynamic lighting so I can see better--but then again, so does everyone else. Sometimes you just have to use those sorts of advantages, if for no other reason than because it makes you feel like you're not giving yourself a handicap against everyone who is.

To Infinity Ward's credit, they removed DX7 from Call of Duty 4 for that very reason. They didn't want people to be able to go light on effects in order to give themselves an unfair advantage over the noobs who either don't care or don't know better. In a way I appreciate that effort, but, as someone who is actually using hardware that's several generations old.. I'm not sure it's exactly fair either.

I'm not sure why they didn't remove the manual FOV setting though. Personally I'd rather play the game @ 16:10 instead of the goofy FOV everyone uses for competition, and honestly, I don't think it really makes that big of a difference.. but again, it comes down to feeling like I'm giving myself a handicap if I don't.. even if it doesn't really matter.

Oh I know, lets all play on a console--level the playing field, right? Not only is that a load of shit, since there are other factors that weigh in on your multi-player experience (lag/host advantage, P2P FTW, right?--SD versus HD, etc), but it's also a bit like entering a bicycle race where everyone is riding the same piece of shit.. and to top it all off, everyone has flat tires (except the host, of course), handlebars that don't actually steer, and training wheels. That'll make it more fun right?Just the demo. I'll probably play the campaign when I get my notebook. Yeah, a lot of the gameplay may seem a little too oldschool for a lot of people, but I actually had pretty favorable impressions of the demo. I liked their aim and lean systems. I wouldn't trade them in for Call of Duty's approach, but it's interesting and different.

I'm quite looking forward to the new Brothers in Arms too, even though I've never played any other game in the franchise.No wai--local MP is dead! The game won't look bad. Call of Duty 3 really did a pretty good job of copying the formula, and had pretty solid graphics too. But when COD4 came around, it made it all that much more clear who really should be handling this franchise. I hope IW gets total control back after COD5. Let Treyarch work on another franchise, Activision!Nice + likewise. I'm sure it will attract an audience for MP on both platforms, but it won't steal away the majority of COD4 players, I guarantee it!

This is old news by now but FYI, the 1.7 patch is out.

Not really.. just a hotfix, mostly to fix some server side stuff it seems. I think they may have messed with some exploitive jumps too, but I could have just missed the mark when I was trying to land on one in District. It's pretty much required regardless.

It's cool that they're offering so much support for COD4 for PC. This is the first COD game to make it to 1.7.

I think Counter Strike 1.6 still holds the crown by a reasonably large margin, but it's probably in a solid second place, followed by Source. There are literally hundreds of thousands of people all over the world playing CS every day still, ten years later, and clocking a ridiculous amount of time in it too.

They haven't stopped supporting the console version freely in terms of patching it, it's just.. slower. I guess that makes sense though, since the PC version does not require any form of certification, it makes a good testing ground for hotfixes that could be applied to both.

The PC version wouldn't have even received the maps if IW didn't go out of their way to find sponsorship and secure a deal where Activision was happy. Not that IW doesn't share some of the blame with the price of their DLC, considering some of their developers have defended the practice outright on NeoGAF.. but hey.. at least they haven't caved completely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpp43YnKCJM

It was just a page back :)There are some games in there that I have yet to play. I've never played a Settlers game, and that sounds pretty good, I'll have to check it out.