Modern Warfare III (2023): Graphics looks like *last gen* what happened?

Cannibal Corpse

Cannibal Corpse

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 22, 2002
Messages
1,277
I am playing FLASHPOINT level, and the environment, and the main protagonist's graphical detail fluctuate between good to low-res.

On the contrary, last year's game (done by the almighty Infinity Ward) looks pristine, with razor sharp graphical details. I am running the game on EXTREME graphics settings.I can't believe that in 2023, with the emphasis on highest graphical fidelity in gaming, this is happening.

I am playing this on:

CPU: Ryzen 7800X3D
MoBo: GIGABYTE B650 Aorus Elite AX
RAM: CORSAIR VENGEANCE RGB DDR5 RAM 32GB (2x16GB) 6000MHz CL36 |
HDD: Crucial T700 2TB Gen5 NVMe M.2 SSD
GPU: RTX 4090 Gigabyte Gaming OC 24GB
DISPLAY: Sony BRAVIA 55" OLED Display (XR-55A80K) (4K @ 120Hz)

Textures are *NOT* 4K, they are very low res.
So disappointed.
 
Last edited:
I played the beta. I posted these screen shots in the MW3 thread:

MW3 top, MW 2019 bottom:

View attachment 606052
View attachment 606055


Look at the ground detail. Look at the gun detail in gun smith.

MW3 top, MW19 bottom. Of course the lighting is different as are the weapons but most MW3 weapons also look low resolution and blurry. Look at how easy it is to tell the material difference between alloy and polymer in MW19.

Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 (2023) Screenshot 2023.10.15 - 12.33.49.60.png



Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2019 Screenshot 2023.02.09 - 12.33.50.02.png


Does MW3 release look better than beta? Maybe, but from the sound of things, not really. It has an ugly white haze that dilutes the image. Lots of blurry low resolution stuff. The visual smoke was toned down and makes the game look dated. Weapon visual recoil was essentially removed and makes the game look and play bad. Sounds were not as good. Seems like they tried to make the game play and look as dated as possible intentionally as that is what the mainstream streamer-bros like.
 
Look at these textures:

These are billboards in FLASHPOINT level. I’m running my game at 4K @120Khz on an RTX 4090 set to Extreme details:

You be the judge, is this acceptable in 2023?
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3872.jpeg
    IMG_3872.jpeg
    249.8 KB · Views: 0
  • IMG_3871.jpeg
    IMG_3871.jpeg
    345.9 KB · Views: 0
In FROZEN TUNDRA level, oh my the camouflage on characters are absolute garbage. Every three years that its Sledgehammer's development turn, I buy the games with a grain of salt, and each and everytime I get disappointed. Let's hope the multipayer portion is not as bad as the campaign (graphics-wise and story-wise)
 
Cannibal Corpse said:
In FROZEN TUNDRA level, oh my the camouflage on characters are absolute garbage. Every three years that its Sledgehammer's development turn, I buy the games with a grain of salt, and each and everytime I get disappointed. Let's hope the multipayer portion is not as bad as the campaign (graphics-wise and story-wise)
Click to expand...
I mean can you really complain if you keep giving them money even though you're dissatisfied with the product? They have no incentive to improve.
 
Yeah, I keep wishing they would just make these games free-to-play at this point, or at a minimum last at least 2 years worth given that they aren't cheap.

However, if idiots keep buying them, they'll keep making them exactly like this.
 
Mchart said:
Yeah, I keep wishing they would just make these games free-to-play at this point, or at a minimum last at least 2 years worth given that they aren't cheap.

However, if idiots keep buying them, they'll keep making them exactly like this.
Click to expand...

There is so much bullshit cosmetics, battle passes and battle passes within battle passes that it kind of should be free to play. Or at least $20. I still think free to play would be even worse though, so I'd rather not. Just amazing to see a full priced game that has so much micro transactions, gate keeping for content, battle passes and other crap. Worst part is many gamers defend this.
 
Cannibal Corpse said:
In FROZEN TUNDRA level, oh my the camouflage on characters are absolute garbage. Every three years that its Sledgehammer's development turn, I buy the games with a grain of salt, and each and everytime I get disappointed. Let's hope the multipayer portion is not as bad as the campaign (graphics-wise and story-wise)
Click to expand...
Why should they put in more effort? You've already rewarded them.
 
Flogger23m said:
There is so much bullshit cosmetics, battle passes and battle passes within battle passes that it kind of should be free to play. Or at least $20. I still think free to play would be even worse though, so I'd rather not. Just amazing to see a full priced game that has so much micro transactions, gate keeping for content, battle passes and other crap. Worst part is many gamers defend this.
Click to expand...
The biggest issue is that the single player campaigns are just so lazy at this point. So lazy that they're literally just copying the games from a decade ago. Couple that with the fact that the campaign is what - Maybe 4-5 hours at best? I just don't see the value of this game given how much of the multiplayer is locked behind micro-transactions as you mentioned.
 
I haven't played 3 yet but intent to when it's released on the 10th. I personally don't care if the graphics are cutting edge. I usually turn the settings down anyway to get the higher FPS. Isnt this just early release right now? I thought the games wasn't actually released until the 10th.
 
Mchart said:
The biggest issue is that the single player campaigns are just so lazy at this point. So lazy that they're literally just copying the games from a decade ago. Couple that with the fact that the campaign is what - Maybe 4-5 hours at best? I just don't see the value of this game given how much of the multiplayer is locked behind micro-transactions as you mentioned.
Click to expand...
The campaigns of nu-Modern Warfare are nothing like the campaigns of old.
 
Cannibal Corpse said:
I am not sure, how do I check for that? In Steam desktop app?

Please let me know!
Click to expand...
It's the "Hi-rez asset cache" setting in the options. Enabling it will cause the game to download the higher quality assets in the background. I believe it is the "local texture streaming quality" option in the game that you want to change. The "Extreme" preset might not set this so it doesn't download anything without the user's permission. I don't have the game, so I can't tell you for sure.

I also found this:

1699542007509.png


So you probably want to make sure that is enabled with the streaming quality set to its highest setting. I had initially read that it was 65GB, but this says 32GB.
 
Last edited:
When you look at the minimum requirements for this game, it's designed to run well on GPU's that are 5+ years old. It can hit 1080p 60 on a GTX1060.

The irony I see here is that people are constantly complaining that the requirements for games is going up (there is a bunch of this in discussion about upscaling tech and how it's now necessary for games like AW2). And now there is this, which is designed to run on a potato and then people complain that it doesn't look as good as other modern titles.

Welllll, that's the tradeoff folks. This is a game that isn't just last gen, it's like 2 gens back. Could probably be run on PS3 era hardware. Which also means it performs really well on ye 'olde RX580. So, not much else to say here.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
When you look at the minimum requirements for this game, it's designed to run well on GPU's that are 5+ years old. It can hit 1080p 60 on a GTX1060.

The irony I see here is that people are constantly complaining that the requirements for games is going up (there is a bunch of this in discussion about upscaling tech and how it's now necessary for games like AW2). And now there is this, which is designed to run on a potato and then people complain that it doesn't look as good as other modern titles.

Welllll, that's the tradeoff folks. This is a game that isn't just last gen, it's like 2 gens back. Could probably be run on PS3 era hardware. Which also means it performs really well on ye 'olde RX580. So, not much else to say here.
Click to expand...
yep. we all know the bullshit one has to be prepared to put up with if one is going to play a modern CoD game (mostly in MP but in SP too) so i'm not going to rehash any of that. what i do want to add is that, on a technical level, the current CoD engine (which AFAIK is now shared between all the CoD releases as well as Warzone and all its modes) is actually brilliant imho - not because it's pushing the boundaries of graphical fidelity and technology (like Cyberpunk 2077) but because of how optimized it is. it blows my mind how smooth it runs on my PS5 in the 120hz/uncapped FPS + VRR mode, even in the most chaotic and high player count MP games, like DMZ for example which has a bunch of players and is absolutely packed with NPCs, vehicles, items/loot, weather effects, underwater areas, etc. And there's not even a hint of stutter, ever, the entire time.

when you compare it to something like Escape from Tarkov it's INSANE how optimized it is, and exemplifies how poorly optimized so many games in the genre are.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
When you look at the minimum requirements for this game, it's designed to run well on GPU's that are 5+ years old. It can hit 1080p 60 on a GTX1060.

The irony I see here is that people are constantly complaining that the requirements for games is going up (there is a bunch of this in discussion about upscaling tech and how it's now necessary for games like AW2). And now there is this, which is designed to run on a potato and then people complain that it doesn't look as good as other modern titles.

Welllll, that's the tradeoff folks. This is a game that isn't just last gen, it's like 2 gens back. Could probably be run on PS3 era hardware. Which also means it performs really well on ye 'olde RX580. So, not much else to say here.
Click to expand...

The problem is it looks worse than MW2019, a 4 year old game and the predecessor.

Unless the final game looks a whole lot better than the beta, but seemingly people are saying the inferior graphics carry over into the final builds.
 
Colonel Sanders said:
yep. we all know the bullshit one has to be prepared to put up with if one is going to play a modern CoD game (mostly in MP but in SP too) so i'm not going to rehash any of that. what i do want to add is that, on a technical level, the current CoD engine (which AFAIK is now shared between all the CoD releases as well as Warzone and all its modes) is actually brilliant imho - not because it's pushing the boundaries of graphical fidelity and technology (like Cyberpunk 2077) but because of how optimized it is. it blows my mind how smooth it runs on my PS5 in the 120hz/uncapped FPS + VRR mode, even in the most chaotic and high player count MP games, like DMZ for example which has a bunch of players and is absolutely packed with NPCs, vehicles, items/loot, weather effects, underwater areas, etc. And there's not even a hint of stutter, ever, the entire time.

when you compare it to something like Escape from Tarkov it's INSANE how optimized it is, and exemplifies how poorly optimized so many games in the genre are.
Click to expand...
"That" word gets thrown around a lot. I'm fairly certain AW2 couldn't run better than it does, doing what it does. However I also think people's ability to notice all of this new tech is limited. It's diminishing returns for anyone that really doesn't have the ability to notice. If you can't tell the difference between an RT reflection and a faked one, the visual differences won't impress you. Or RT/GI shadows vs stencil.

Are some performance uplifts possible? Of course, but I think it's very fair to say that an engine like UE5 as an example is very well optimized. As that is a big part of the point (from mobile to a 4090 and from mobile to being used as virtual landscapes for film production). They have an army of people that only work on an engine. So yes, UE5 costs more to run, but I wouldn't say it's as unoptimized as a lot of people are saying it is.

Still that isn't to say anything about Frostbite or CoD in general. It's obvious that it's supposed to hit a specific fidelity and performance target. But no one is playing that game with path tracing either.

I for one am happy we finally have game engine(s) that are pushing everything forward again. I miss the early 2000's where every game launch set new benchmarks for IQ and taxed GPUs. All of the idTech games, UT games etc. Back then it was taken for granted that a new title would bring current GPU's to their knees. Now if a new title does that it's "un-optimized", rather than "resource intensive".

Flogger23m said:
The problem is it looks worse than MW2019, a 4 year old game and the predecessor.

Unless the final game looks a whole lot better than the beta, but seemingly people are saying the inferior graphics carry over into the final builds.
Click to expand...
Well, depends on how cynical you are. I'm not a CoD player, but they more or less rehash everything and repackage it and sell it as new every few years anyway no?
 
Last edited:
UnknownSouljer said:
Well, depends on how cynical you are. I'm not a CoD player, but they more or less rehash everything and repackage it and sell it as new every few years anyway no?
Click to expand...

But that is the issue. Why does it look uglier? Seems like the final build did remove a lot of the "white haze" and it looks less washed out. Still, it is looking like a bit of a down grade. If anything it should look better, given there were 3 games between 2019 and this.
 
I am playing the Multiplayer mode, and it looks VERY dated. Even after the patch.

Oh, and all the CARRY FORWARD operators/weapons that were beautiful and high-res (2022 game by NFINITY WARD), look like shit here. What a shame.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top