Sadly 360 will have sub-HD and PC will have perfect resolution

#11CallMeSeekerPosted 11/6/2012 11:56:46 PM
As a gaming PC owner, CoD on PC doesn't sound the least bit appealing to me.

The game doesn't even look much better on PC, anyway.
---
i5-2500k @ 4.6GHz || Biostar TZ77B || Sapphire 6950 || Corsair Vengeance 8GB @ 1600MHz || Crucial M4 128GB || Spinpoint F3 1TB
#12jumbocatPosted 11/7/2012 12:01:52 AM(edited)
Money spent on a powerful PC (that you built yourself) is never wasted and hi-def, high-fps gaming is just one of the benefits. It's great doing school work with 50+ FF tabs, 15+ PDFs and a whole bunch of huge MS word and excel files on two 1920x1200 monitors without any lag in performance. It's not really that expensive either.
---
ED
AC
#13Arcanine2009Posted 11/7/2012 12:11:04 AM
CallMeSeeker posted...
As a gaming PC owner, CoD on PC doesn't sound the least bit appealing to me.

The game doesn't even look much better on PC, anyway.


Is it because PC fanbase is smaller than HD consoles and doesn't get as much support?
---
Less is more. Everything you want, isn't everything you need.
http://i540.photobucket.com/albums/gg359/ProdigyCashew/pterodactyl.gif
#14ShikazurePosted 11/7/2012 12:13:14 AM
i would much rather have a multiplayer game that runs at 60 frames instead of one with amazing visuals at the bare minimum of 30 frames
---
PSN & GT: somePUNK91
http://botc.b1.jcink.com/index.php?
#15CallMeSeekerPosted 11/7/2012 12:13:56 AM
Arcanine2009 posted...
CallMeSeeker posted...
As a gaming PC owner, CoD on PC doesn't sound the least bit appealing to me.

The game doesn't even look much better on PC, anyway.


Is it because PC fanbase is smaller than HD consoles and doesn't get as much support?


That, the hackers, and because all of my friends are getting it for 360.
---
i5-2500k @ 4.6GHz || Biostar TZ77B || Sapphire 6950 || Corsair Vengeance 8GB @ 1600MHz || Crucial M4 128GB || Spinpoint F3 1TB
#16jumbocatPosted 11/7/2012 12:24:06 AM
Shikazure posted...
i would much rather have a multiplayer game that runs at 60 frames instead of one with amazing visuals at the bare minimum of 30 frames


Are you implying that PC games are constrained to 30fps?

/BRB, playing BF3 on full settings with over 60fps, MW2 on 100fps, etc
---
ED
AC
#17Virtue777Posted 11/7/2012 12:55:38 AM
Arcanine2009 posted...
CallMeSeeker posted...
As a gaming PC owner, CoD on PC doesn't sound the least bit appealing to me.

The game doesn't even look much better on PC, anyway.


Is it because PC fanbase is smaller than HD consoles and doesn't get as much support?


I wonder why the PC versions of COD games tend to receive less support. Are the sales really that much lower? It's not like PC gaming is dead. The most played game in the world right now is a PC exclusive (League of Legends). Its peak activity is almost quadruple MW3's highest recorded peak activity...yet somehow, the PC FPS community just isn't that big. It's kind of sad because I much prefer keyboard + mouse controls.
#18MageofBlood391Posted 11/7/2012 12:57:46 AM
lol @ not playing at 7860x1600
---
Smart ninja-type dude.
#19Astro_B0mbPosted 11/7/2012 1:36:59 AM
Shikazure posted...
i would much rather have a multiplayer game that runs at 60 frames instead of one with amazing visuals at the bare minimum of 30 frames


If you're only getting 30 fps on pc it's time to upgrade.
---
.:The Elite Connection:.
#20KabtheMentatPosted 11/7/2012 1:38:02 AM
From: jumbocat | #016
Shikazure posted...
i would much rather have a multiplayer game that runs at 60 frames instead of one with amazing visuals at the bare minimum of 30 frames


Are you implying that PC games are constrained to 30fps?

/BRB, playing BF3 on full settings with over 60fps, MW2 on 100fps, etc


You do know that playing anything over 60FPS is pretty pointless, right?
---
Big Money. Big Women. Big Fun.