COD WW2 has better graphics than Battlefield 1

FACT!

COD WW2 looks much more realistic.

Lock this thread, please.

IMO After playing some Sinai Desert after the closed beta i still think bf1 looks better

? No.

COD WW2 can look good, but every gameplay I've seen so far seems to be heavily compressed or something because at times it can look really bad.

Frostbite engine vs a modded Quake 2 engine...Bwahahahahaha, thanks for this joke of a thread.

get some glasses lol. I will give BF1 props for the better textures...but thats about it.

is there even a single technical aspect where call of doodo is ahead?

I'd say the lighting looks more realistic but that's the long and short of it, not a single thing else.

Does TC actually believe that, or is it just trolling?

He's telling other people to get glasses, then post a screenshot that looks like shit. That's really weird if it isn't trolling..

@Litchie: watch the start of the video

I did. It looks like shit. I'm used to the PC version of BF1. A console CoD doesn't even come close.

I also checked the other video you posted of BF1. CoD looks way more muddy. Muddy = realistic, or something? I don't understand..

And here 17 years ago we've played games where main character was made of squares and we loved the graphics and considered it "realistic" :D

Played ww2 on the pro and wasn't impressed at all

It won best graphics award on Gametrailers the same year as Crysis released on PC...

Yeah, sure.

Not impressed by the graphics ? or by the gameplay ?

Ok

No

Well all I know is that it looks good enough to me and I'm looking forward to getting it when it comes out.

A beautiful living breathing world versus a static sterile environment.

@R4gn4r0k: Gametrailers didn't even nominate Crysis lol. Shows how much they knew. No wonder they went under.

"We'll first start by pointing something out. We did not nominate Crysis for this award. We spent well over a week upgrading our rig, and we still had problems running it smoothly. We just couldn't rationalize placing 'theoretical performance' on this list."

Lol.

I was impressed by how it looked. I own BF 1 also.

However, it's pointless to bring up anything remotely positive towards a COD game because:

1) people love to hate it due to it selling well

2) people are mad they lost marketing rights

3) people who "won" marketing rights will praise it without playing it.

It's akin to asking on a gaming forum which console should I get: Pro or X1X. Good luck sifting through the nonsense to find anything worthwhile.

I've only played a few of them but I'll play this one when it releases.

@lrdfancypants: So Xbox fanboys hate COD now, and PlayStation enthusiasts love it.

I haven't played Call of Duty WW2 so I won't judge,but side to side video comparison Battlefield 1 is clearly looks better.But from what I have read/seen/heard,Call of Duty WW2 is going to be the best of the series.In my opinion of course.

@Juub1990: I mean they had a point with Crysis, it was a slideshow at best for a long time after release. It was an unoptimized mess.

I'm sorry but just...no.

I will say this certainly looks better than any other COD, but it really does not come close to the detail and fidelity of BF1. Not within a mile.

That shotgun in the COD vid looks like a blast! See what I did thar?

@R4gn4r0k:

By both both graphical and game play wise it's nothing special

That's total bullshit.

@endofaugust: Yeah I remember running it pretty well on a mid-tier rig at the time. Problem was really when you enabled the highest settings. Even at low it looked much better than COD anyway.

It really should have better graphics considering the static nature of the gameplay, the much smaller map sizes and much lower player counts. Buuuut playing BF1 on my PC and watching the beta I'm not entirely convinced that COD WW2 looks better at all.

Seriously. CoD WWII not only looks, but also feels like a generation behind Battlefield 1.

Just one?

CoD WWII looks like a 2005 Xbox 360 video game that also appeared on the Xbox and PS2.

I wouldnt go that far, but yeah, the series demand a new engine, now more than ever. This is getting ridiculous!

COD looks grey and bad.

Goody gum drops?

No chance. COD needs a new engine, and baddddddddd

my balls are itchy

@popgotcha: That quake 2 engines been showing it's age for a WHILE now, it's just a complete joke now.

Textures - BF1
Models - BF1
Lighting - BF1
Destructability - BF1
Gameplay - BF1
Sound - BF1
GUI - BF1

... not sure where cod wins anything to be honest.

@Phazevariance:

Accessibility. That's one of the major reasons why CoD continues to outsell BF on a constant basis. God, you guys have no idea how much that actually hurts me to say, but the truth must be told.

Too bad I grew tired of invading Normandy a decade ago.

Yeah, the game is easier to play than Battlefield games. That's not really a good thing, however. That just means you get more kids playing.

When your maps are a quarter of what BF1 maps are, you better cram in all the tech you can put in your game.

Exactly. Honestly, I'm sick and tired of WW2 games, since they're pretty much now doing all the same thing.

Though I would like to see how a WW2 game would do on the new Frostbite engine.

It will be a WW2 game to end all WW2 games. Allow CoD kiddies have their fun this year.

Wrong. Wrong. WRONG.