The characters and uniforms aren't bad, but it's no Crysis 2
Call of Duty: Black Ops II is based on an updated version of the IW 3.0 engine used in the original Call of Duty: Black Ops. That's particularly interesting because the game doesn't employ the IW 4.0 engine used in Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. It looks good, and very similar to all of the CoD titles since Modern Warfare, but it looks like the developers are going after accessibility over advanced graphics. Games like Battlefield 3, Medal of Honor, and Crysis 2 are arguably (Ed.: I don't think there's much to argue...) superior when it comes to lighting, texture quality, and graphics effects.
It looks nice, but it looks like CoD.
Surprisingly, the game has no global detail presets, forcing us to adjust its image quality controls manually, creating combinations that we consider high, medium, and low for our benchmarking purposes.


In the animated sequence above, most of the detail differences come from texture quality and filtering adjustments most noticeable up close. There are some shadow and lighting differences as well, though. With FXAA enabled, even the low-detail screenshot doesn't suffer from noticeable jagged edges.
I saw the trailer for this game, and it looks like a DX9 game with decent textures. So, ill pass, just as i did since MW1.
Going from mid to high level it would be in the best interest of the readers to submit the same ammount of antialiasing. It is very hard to know the impact of the graphics themselves when it comes to image quality, if you add both AA and higher textures.
I am quite sure the game will be layable with full HD and no AA, then adding Sweet FX AA far better than with MSAA.
Doesn't make sense otherwise.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/11/15/black-ops-2-pc-review/
We welcome the good storyline but not the fact that this is clearly another port just to cover consoles. Not exactly helping to differentiate the gaming experience from any reasonable PC from the crowd.
Even AC III, iterative, yes but seeing that the 360 is unable to always hold 30 fps, should be interesting.
I think we all know the answer to that one....
Um...?
If a game dont have creative gameplay, aint a benchmark game like the old crysis, aint having decent graphic quality = what else that make it worth $60? more like $6.00
P.S. FWIW, I got a steady 60fps on my phenom II 940 @ 3.2 + 6950 2GB w/5% oc max in game settings and vsync, with occasional dips in 50's. Campaign mode.
P.P.S. at least we do get improved resolution, and full AA, xbox and ps only get 800x720 give or take with 2x MSAA I here. You can tell the detail given to the important character's faces since they are actual movie stars/actors, even when not in a cutscene.
Hm... I wonder if it's because Treyarch or Activision consider having a wider FOV, an unfair advantage.
I find it peculiar that you only used a 1GB HD7850, but not a 2GB version. I'm guessing it was because you didn't have one on hand, because I have a feeling that it might've shown different numbers compared to the former, especially with the 1600p test (considering the high resolution mixed with x8 MSAA, if I'm, not mistaken, the larger frame buffer (VRAM) might've helped). I'm not judging though, just pointing it out.
Do you guys think you could do an Assassin's Creed 3 Graphics Performance Review when the game comes out for the PC? Seeing as the game features a new engine, DX11 and a lot of patches and bug fixes for the PC, plus the developers themselves have taken lots of feedback on their forums to make it even better, I think it should be interesting.