Unable to play 'Call of Duty' flawlessly

yihsun

Member
Apr 2, 2001
75
0
0
Hi all, I recently bought a nice game call 'Call of Duty' and try it on my computer (P4 2.0@2.2Ghz, i850e, 1GB RDRAM, Segate 15k.3 scsi320 on Adaptec U160 host) with Nvidia Ti-4600 video card. I set the game up at 1024x768 resolution as I usually do with other games and with all other graphics setting at default. The problem is that it's very slow when number of enemies increase or blasting theme or ...etc. This is the first game with resolution 1024x768 that can't play flawlessly on my computer. I think the delay is quite serious at those scene. Therefore I'm thinking of upgrading my Ti-4600 to FX-5900ultra and hopefully it'll be okay. I logged on to futuremark.com online result browser to compare results of 3Dmark2001se between Ti-4600 and FX-5900ultra at the range of my CPU (2.0G~2.2G) and it turns out that there's only 1 result higher than mine and the difference is below 50. Does this mean even if I swap my card with FX-5900ultra there will be no big performance gain?? I'm now confused and hesitate whether I should upgrade my Ti-4600 to FX-5900ultra. Please give me some suggestions....

Thanks


 

Viper96720

Diamond Member
Jul 15, 2002
4,390
0
0
You plan on playing other games that come out later right? You'll have to upgrade eventually to play the games at the settings you want.
 

yihsun

Member
Apr 2, 2001
75
0
0
What I was amazed was that even at 1024x768, Ti-4600 can't perform as nicely as other games. So I'm just wondering if upgrading only the video card (ie, to FX-5900ultra) would solve the problem.

thanks for you reply.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
I am using a 8500 64 and it works fine, something has to be wrong with your settings.
 

xcript

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2003
8,258
2
81
Originally posted by: Tabb
I am using a 8500 64 and it works fine, something has to be wrong with your settings.

Yeah, I had no problems running the demo at 1280x960/High Detail/16x AF perfectly smooth on my 128MB R9100.
 

xSauronx

Lifer
Jul 14, 2000
19,582
4
81
my brothers 9600pro EZ plays it smooth @ 1024x768

try updating dx, video drivers etc. the graphics in the game are good, but nothing sp spectacular that they should slow down a 4600. dont buy a new card, find out whats wrong with how things are set up between the one you have and the game.
 

Insomniak

Banned
Sep 11, 2003
4,836
0
0
What's the problem? It's Call of Duty.

I played the demos at 1024x768x32 and everything hihg on my Ti4400 with no slowdown whatsoever.


Of course, I also thought the game sucked (especially when compared to BF1942), so I didn't purchase a copy. It was just as bad as MOHAA.
 

yihsun

Member
Apr 2, 2001
75
0
0
really?! looks like you all have no problem playing this game. Or is it possible the sound setting of using 'creative EAX' causes the slow downs? I'm gonna find out with different settings and see how it goes. Thank you all for replying.
 

yihsun

Member
Apr 2, 2001
75
0
0
furthermore, i'm using the latest driver already, the 52.16 driver for Nvidia. What's the sound setting you guys set? I have a Creative Audigy card.

thx.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Originally posted by: Insomniak
What's the problem? It's Call of Duty.

I played the demos at 1024x768x32 and everything hihg on my Ti4400 with no slowdown whatsoever.


Of course, I also thought the game sucked (especially when compared to BF1942), so I didn't purchase a copy. It was just as bad as MOHAA.

Your comparing it too BF1942? Wow...
 

Insomniak

Banned
Sep 11, 2003
4,836
0
0
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: Insomniak
What's the problem? It's Call of Duty.

I played the demos at 1024x768x32 and everything hihg on my Ti4400 with no slowdown whatsoever.


Of course, I also thought the game sucked (especially when compared to BF1942), so I didn't purchase a copy. It was just as bad as MOHAA.

Your comparing it too BF1942? Wow...


Not at all. They can't compare. BF1942 is far superior.

My point is, with all the planes, ships, tanks, jeeps, artillery, anti-aircraft, etc. BF1942 feels FAR more like a war than Call of Duty ever did. The fact that strategy and teamwork are needed to win also helps the authentic feeling; and the little touches, like the fact that machine guns can overheat, planes stall, etc.


CoD's vehicles run on tracks that are so obviously scripted they might as well have a big neon sign saying "COMPUTERIZED PAWN" on the front. There are way too many automatic weapons. Most WW2 soldiers had bolt action or semi-automatic rifles. VERY few had Thompson SMGs, unlike CoD where they are EVERYWHERE. The unkillable NPCs are laughable.

But the bottom line I mentioned above - playing CoD I simply don't feel like I'm part of a larger conflict. I feel like I'm playing a scripted single player game hemmed in by polygons and poorly animated enemies with bad AI.

Sorry. Hope you enjoy it - I found it quite banal.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,691
6,255
126
Originally posted by: Insomniak
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: Insomniak
What's the problem? It's Call of Duty.

I played the demos at 1024x768x32 and everything hihg on my Ti4400 with no slowdown whatsoever.


Of course, I also thought the game sucked (especially when compared to BF1942), so I didn't purchase a copy. It was just as bad as MOHAA.

Your comparing it too BF1942? Wow...


Not at all. They can't compare. BF1942 is far superior.

My point is, with all the planes, ships, tanks, jeeps, artillery, anti-aircraft, etc. BF1942 feels FAR more like a war than Call of Duty ever did. The fact that strategy and teamwork are needed to win also helps the authentic feeling; and the little touches, like the fact that machine guns can overheat, planes stall, etc.


CoD's vehicles run on tracks that are so obviously scripted they might as well have a big neon sign saying "COMPUTERIZED PAWN" on the front. There are way too many automatic weapons. Most WW2 soldiers had bolt action or semi-automatic rifles. VERY few had Thompson SMGs, unlike CoD where they are EVERYWHERE. The unkillable NPCs are laughable.

But the bottom line I mentioned above - playing CoD I simply don't feel like I'm part of a larger conflict. I feel like I'm playing a scripted single player game hemmed in by polygons and poorly animated enemies with bad AI.

Sorry. Hope you enjoy it - I found it quite banal.

hehe, I could say so much, but I don't feel like it right now. I think BF1942 is a great game and all, but to say that it is "FAR more like a war" is stretching it IMO.
 

xSauronx

Lifer
Jul 14, 2000
19,582
4
81
i played the call of duty demos
decent game, nothing spectacular over MOH though. i like the idea of using iron sights...but its nothing new. and my favorite "iron sights" game is infiltration for unreal tournament though, red orchestra for ut2k3 is ok, but the ww2 games are getting a bit old.
 

Auric

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 1999
9,591
2
71
yihsun, after reading your original post I smelled "software audio" since you neglected to mention that most important factor in game performance. But later you mention the in-game option for EAX. If you have an Audigy the EAX will likely have a negligible performance impact. If you have on-board audio other than SoundStorm then anything but the lowest audio settings will be a serious hazard to your gaming enjoyment if the CPU is already heavily taxed.

I agree that COD SP is too much like a tracked amusement ride at a kiddy park while MP is too laser tag in the idkid tradition (yech!). It is just more of the same jumping and running around in circles with the trigger held down, albeit it in an improved atmos. In contrast, BF1942 SP is to be considered training for MP which is endlessly variable depending on how you choose to play. I highly recommend the mod Forgotten Hope to make it even better. DesertCombat is good too but retains too much of the arcadey-ness of the original.
 

yihsun

Member
Apr 2, 2001
75
0
0
yeah, seems like the sound option doesn't have much performance impact. I've tried setting everything (graphics, sound...) to default but still having problem during some explosive or heavy combat scenes....
 

Insomniak

Banned
Sep 11, 2003
4,836
0
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Insomniak
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: Insomniak
What's the problem? It's Call of Duty.

I played the demos at 1024x768x32 and everything hihg on my Ti4400 with no slowdown whatsoever.


Of course, I also thought the game sucked (especially when compared to BF1942), so I didn't purchase a copy. It was just as bad as MOHAA.

Your comparing it too BF1942? Wow...


Not at all. They can't compare. BF1942 is far superior.

My point is, with all the planes, ships, tanks, jeeps, artillery, anti-aircraft, etc. BF1942 feels FAR more like a war than Call of Duty ever did. The fact that strategy and teamwork are needed to win also helps the authentic feeling; and the little touches, like the fact that machine guns can overheat, planes stall, etc.


CoD's vehicles run on tracks that are so obviously scripted they might as well have a big neon sign saying "COMPUTERIZED PAWN" on the front. There are way too many automatic weapons. Most WW2 soldiers had bolt action or semi-automatic rifles. VERY few had Thompson SMGs, unlike CoD where they are EVERYWHERE. The unkillable NPCs are laughable.

But the bottom line I mentioned above - playing CoD I simply don't feel like I'm part of a larger conflict. I feel like I'm playing a scripted single player game hemmed in by polygons and poorly animated enemies with bad AI.

Sorry. Hope you enjoy it - I found it quite banal.

hehe, I could say so much, but I don't feel like it right now. I think BF1942 is a great game and all, but to say that it is "FAR more like a war" is stretching it IMO.


Well, it is when compared to CoD, plain and simple. Huge, expansive battlefields, with the vehicles of war, and everything reacts realisitically, because live humans are behind the controls.

Now, the game isn't a documentary - there are plenty of unrealistic features, but it manages to hide them well. Like I said, it's the small touches and details. Machine guns overheat, weapon fire is more accurate when lying down, tanks have weaker armor on the backside, watercraft have appropriately "floaty" physics, soldiers carry realistically small loadouts, bombs have forward momentum.

The myriad ways to approach the game as well - you can do everything from play ferry captain on a higgins to tailgunning on a b-17. About the only thing you can't do is tally supply inventory.

Theres just so much more going on over a much larger area. There's nothing like rolling into an enemy outpost in an armored column while air support suppresses their reinforcements and a battleship rounds the tip of the island to begin shelling.

....it feels like a big fugging fight....it feels more like a war. :\

Disagree if you want - this is all of course my opinion.
 

AMDBarton2500

Member
Oct 30, 2003
91
0
0
I still think as far as game goes....not the graphics.....Day of Defeat is still on top.

COD is so much like MoH....same game better graphics. Different game play....etc.....I found it almost identical to MOH

I think there is a new WW2 add on to Unreal2003 that supposed to be really good....gotta cap that!!!
 

Insomniak

Banned
Sep 11, 2003
4,836
0
0
Red Orchestra.

Haven't tried it yet. Battlefield still soaks up almost all my free time.

Being that I'm a full time college student, I don't have much free time, but when I do manage to crib some, it's usually spent on some Road to Rome server.