Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

COD2...whaddya think?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
November 5, 2005 1:52:57 AM

I just got COD2, and i was very impressed. At a decent resolution, this games graphics are stunning. And gameplay is real cool. I actually would put the game overall above DOD:S, but DOD multiplayer is real fun still, and I have yet to try out COD2's multiplayer side.

I would suggest this game to anyone, unless you ABSOLUTELY detest WW2 shooters. Nothing beats BF2 though, nothing.

More about : cod2 whaddya

November 6, 2005 9:06:05 PM

i loved the game, i could run it at decent settings but there were some pretty nasty slowdowns every once in awhile in the game. my only complaint is that its such a system hog, it kills my 9800 Pro, 2.4/533 northwood and my gig of ram.
November 6, 2005 9:06:26 PM

i loved the game, i could run it at decent settings but there were some pretty nasty slowdowns every once in awhile in the game. my only complaint is that its such a system hog, it kills my 9800 Pro, 2.4/533 northwood and my gig of ram.
Related resources
November 8, 2005 5:43:43 PM

COD2 looks nice -- too bad it stalls and stops and stutters so much at 1600 x 1200 and I have a pretty good system P4 EE 3.73 Ghz, 2GB RAM, ATI X800XT PE (560/600), two 10K raptor drives, CL A2ZS Plat Pro.

I guess it is time to upgrade to X1800XT or two 7800GTX in SLI and an AMD FX57 processor. This is the first time I've had a game be completely unplayable at 1600 x 1200

I have to run the game at 1024 x 768 to get smooth frame rates -- odd since I can run Half Life at 1600 x 1200, and Quake 4 at 1600 x 1200 and Doom 3 at 1600 x 1200, but NOT COD2.

Wonder if this is a driver problem with ATI (running 5.10 latest) or if COD2 folks are pushing nVidia ONLY since that is provided as a "warning" on the startup screen.
November 8, 2005 7:10:07 PM

You finished showing off?
November 8, 2005 7:15:45 PM

I wish -- not even close to showing off, I'm still in AGP land and my fps in COD2 is pathetic.

Dual 7800 GTX and AMD FX57 and CL X/Fi on 24" LCD at 1920 x 1280 would be showing off.
November 9, 2005 8:32:41 AM

How about you accept that COD2 is a new generation game and will require you to run the game with a sensible resolution?
November 14, 2005 10:53:14 PM

Well what do people thing about the game itself?

No sprint, strange health system, other changes.....?

I like it I guess. I think you can run way to fast but I prefer tactical games. I'm sure there will be some good realism mods before too long.
November 14, 2005 11:52:02 PM

It's definitely obvious that some cuts were made for the console multiplatform release (damn checkpoint saves... I want a mod to insert save anywhere again) but the bottom line is that CoD2 is more intense than ever.

And United Offensive was already getting extremely intense. The first time at least... Still very minimal replay value. Online is... Well, I've never liked Call of Duty multiplayer anyway. MoH:AA and DoD1.3 for me. And BiA was different but cool.
November 18, 2005 2:19:03 AM

Yeah, I got COD2 never have even playing a European WWII game, except for a little bit of Underground. I had just beaten Pacific Assault and Rising Sun. Really just a great game. I beat it on regualr so I'm taking the obvious step to beat it on all levels. Then I can figure out how fix my internet connection to allow for online gaming, and maybe have some nonrepetitive fun. Then I can stop playing WWII shooters since they've already run out of plot lines. That's unless they put the plots of those to MoH games I mentioned together and do something crazy. Still, stunning game.
November 18, 2005 2:21:02 AM

repost...Bad, slow connection
November 18, 2005 3:49:36 AM

Quote:
Then I can stop playing WWII shooters since they've already run out of plot lines.


There is no plot in war.

And war stories, as such, are practically infinite.
November 21, 2005 10:24:08 AM

Quote:
Then I can stop playing WWII shooters since they've already run out of plot lines.


There is no plot in war.

And war stories, as such, are practically infinite.

:roll:

(actually I'm just testing something so if you're just irked by this response, ignore).
January 6, 2006 3:17:51 AM

Multipayer is fun, intense and addictive as hell! The graphics are gorgeous, and i love the presentation, and game play of the whole single player expierance.
January 6, 2006 11:02:37 AM

Quote:
Then I can stop playing WWII shooters since they've already run out of plot lines.


you for real? these games are all based on a war that actually happend and alot of them are based on stories told by the few people who where actually there! there not just games :evil:  :evil:  :evil:  :evil:  :evil:  :evil:  :evil: 

yeah it looks great i loved the HQ multi in the united offense expansion pack of the first one with the tanks and jeeps, i hope they bring that back in a mod or patch or expansion.

cant say ive had it slow down on me runs really smooth everything on max at 1280x1024.

Quote:
24" LCD at 1920 x 1280


im getting one of those soon a widescreen 21" LCD panel though :D 
January 9, 2006 10:10:34 AM

Yes they are just games.
January 9, 2006 7:09:49 PM

its an good looking game but like others have suggested, its just more of the same. the original COD and the ensuing UO expansion held more interest simply because they were more towards the beginning of the whole WWII FPS game craze. I have had COD2 for over a month now and I havent even played the first level all the way through...i have spent more time looking at the extras on the additional DVD...still, its a good game i guess...just doesnt hold my interest.

Runs great 1280*1024 but that is the max on my monitor, im not sure about those new fangled LCD screens...i like my bulky CRT monitor that gives me a hernia every time i lug it to a LAN party :lol: 

AMD X2 4200+
MSI K8N Neo-2
evga 6800gt
2gb (4x512mb Crucial Ballistix)
January 10, 2006 8:10:22 AM

I got a copied version seeing as the demo didn't impress me at all and like you I have barely touched the game. It seems to have lost the magic of the first game.
January 10, 2006 10:23:07 AM

Quote:
I got a copied version seeing as the demo didn't impress me at all and like you I have barely touched the game. It seems to have lost the magic of the first game.

So you pirated it? You're still enjoying the fruit of the developers labours, even if you're not "enjoying" it as much as the original.
January 10, 2006 10:30:01 AM

Sorry let me clarify, I had no intention of buying the game from the demo, I have a cracked copy, have played it for all of 15 mins I'd say and those 15 mins have convinced me to go out and buy the game.

As such who cares I have a pirated version. Had the game been decent I'd have bought it as I did with CoD and when I did I made my friends buy it as well.
January 10, 2006 4:46:18 PM

Quote:
I got a copied version seeing as the demo didn't impress me at all and like you I have barely touched the game. It seems to have lost the magic of the first game.

So you pirated it? You're still enjoying the fruit of the developers labours, even if you're not "enjoying" it as much as the original.

same i pirate movies, but only the ones i dont think i will enjoy, but are recommened like "War Of the Worlds" boy im happy i didnt waste 10 quid on a ticket popcorn and drinks to see it, in my opinion one of the worst movies ive seen.

as for games who the hell pays the full price of 34.99 (uk) to play a game you might not even like, is it not better to try it properly first? i norm wait till they hit about 20quid before buying the game properly any more than that is a rip off and the developers know it...
January 19, 2006 6:40:00 PM

I downloaded COD and loved it (but I am easy to please with games). I read elsewhere that the retail version has more lag in graphics than the download version. Is that true? I have a retail pc (hp) with intel graphics chips, nothing fancy like nVidia, etc.
January 19, 2006 10:07:07 PM

if you still have built in graphics id definentaly refrain from touching any modern fps, 1. youll get the worst graphics and the shittiest experience ever 2. its just unbearable playing it at such low frames. what you can do is save up a 100 bucks and buy yourself a 6600GT, ive also been seeing x800's for 125.00 just my suggestion if you want to play modern games. ooooooooo your talking about call of duty 1?
January 20, 2006 9:30:41 AM

Your computer is good to play solitaire, and that's about it.

Steve if you wanna play games you will be needing:

CPU 2.5ghz and above

1gb ram preferably

Decent GFX card so think 6600GT and above, pay the money and get a 6800GT to be honest.

You can get away with less in the GFX department and ram for older games like CoD1 but for modern games you need a decent system.

Finally, what settings did you play CoD1 on? I'm surprised if it ran at a decent rez with decent settings on a machine with integrated GFX. You're not getting the most out of a game to play it on low setting and low rezs. But to answer your question the frame rate on CoD1 varies depending on what's happening and where you are. The demo you played is very intense but not graphically so, other levels can be way more open and more action packed so yeah I reckon you would have problems.

Anyway, if your machine is a standard off the shelf job from pc world you won't be playing much in the way of decent games.
January 20, 2006 3:52:26 PM

Thanks, Wolfie

The demo I played says Call of Duty Demo. I have no idea if it is verison 1 or 2. But it starting with the guy running thru a minefield towards some buildings...

Well my retail PC is pretty souped up with dual core 2.8 gig cpu intel, 1 gig ram, guess what I am lacking is the graphic card to do the job.

So I presume if I stick a 6600GT card into the machine I should be good to go?
January 20, 2006 7:36:50 PM

How much dinero are you willing to spend on a card? 6600GT isn't going to cut if for much longer.
January 20, 2006 7:49:06 PM

Tell me a board that will cut it for the next year or two, as I want to keep my pc for at least that long.

Just looking at some board prices on newegg, they range from $100-$300 :roll:

My new game habit is going to cost me some
January 20, 2006 7:50:53 PM

Ok, here is what I got by posting a query on hp related newsgroup:

Quote:
You should be able to add a PCI Express video card (not PCI). The usual way to
do this is to install the card's drivers first, then reboot. Upon reboot, go
into the BIOS setup menus and look for a setup option to change from integrated
graphics to PCI Express graphics. Change the setting, all the system to start
to reboot, and power down. Unplug the wall power, install PCI Express card,
plug in wall power and Windows XP should automatically detect the card and
install the drivers. If not, call Bill Gates directly and he will be only so
glad to help you out... Ben Myers
January 20, 2006 8:43:11 PM

7800GT?

and Ben Myers is correct.
January 20, 2006 9:24:56 PM

7800GT has been recommended.

He is right about calling Bill? Just kidding :lol:  :lol: 
January 22, 2006 5:27:15 PM

Downloaded COD2 demo, and it would totally refuse to run on my integrated grahics PC. Ok, now hitting the graphic card section on the forumz...
January 22, 2006 5:44:21 PM

6800gt or ati equiv and you're smiling.
January 22, 2006 10:33:56 PM

7800Gt of equiv and you're laughing :wink: :lol:  :lol: 
January 22, 2006 11:28:11 PM

6800GT is already a bit over what I want to spend for a vid card. So if I don't want to smile/laugh too hard, is there something less expensive, but 80% as good?
January 23, 2006 7:32:40 AM

You know, Tomshardware went to the trouble of ranking all the latest graphics cards and putting them into a nice little table for your viewing pleasure and you ignore all that to simply ask which is better :) 

Okay, my advice stays the same, spend the cash and you will be playing games a lot longer than if you buy something less.

However if you wanna spend less, then I recommend a plain nvidia 6800 or a 6600GT.
January 23, 2006 3:28:28 PM

I did go thru the stickies for graphic boards. I figured I get a quick one-liner answer in this thread (as I have got already) that is all.
!