Do Call of Duty titles challenge players more intensely compared to Battlefield games?
Do Call of Duty titles challenge players more intensely compared to Battlefield games?
I bring this up because on my PC at least, Call Of Duty Black Ops 1 feels much heavier and has significantly less graphics compared to Battlefield 3. Both titles were released around the same time, from 2010 to 2011. I've adjusted both games' graphics settings to High or Maximum. What's happening?
You're asking about the term "heavier" and its implications, specifically regarding performance. It seems you're wondering if it refers to lower performance or other factors that might affect running the game.
What you're referring to is that Call of Duty is more challenging to play, yet it appears to have simpler graphics compared to Battlefield 3.
Black Ops 1 demands a powerful CPU to run smoothly. Your current processor isn't strong enough for this title. Additionally, BO1's engine was poorly optimized, resulting in a subpar PC port. The game tends to stutter or lag even on better machines, making it perform worse than Battlefield 3.
In reality, BF3 performs exceptionally well on my PC. Even with an R7 240 2gb, the game ran smoothly without any lag. This highlights just how poorly optimized many CoD titles are. It's striking to compare the textures in CoD_Black Ops1 with BF3.
Or perhaps it's just your configuration, since most CoD titles ran well on my machines over the years.
EDIT: I checked some benchmarks from that time to test this claim.
The first one is at https://www.techspot.com/review/336-cod-...page5.html, and the second at https://www.techspot.com/review/458-batt...page2.html.
Also worth mentioning is that a key difference is the CoD game uses an i7-920 while the Battlefield 3 version runs on an i7-2600K.
So, if the same cards perform better in CoD, it might give you some insight.