Call of Duty

Discussion in 'Games' started by laytonhayes, May 10, 2004.

  1. macrumors member

    laytonhayes

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2003
    Location:
    Savannah, GA, USA
    #1
    Has anyone played Call of Duty on the mac yet? I have been looking for a mac demo, but without any luck. I have been waiting forever for this to come to mac after playing the PC version. Does it look as good on the mac as on the pc? Thanks....
     
  2. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    #2
    The game just started shipping today, and I doubt there will be a demo. Like any other port, this will be similar to its PC counterpart.
     
  3. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #3
    that's cool it shipped today! i knew it was shipping in May but i didnt know when.
     
  4. macrumors regular

    bitfactory

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    #4
    so how is it (from folks who have played the PC version)????

    i've been looking forward to something new.
     
  5. macrumors 65816

    abhishekit

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Location:
    akron , ohio
    #5
    i hv played it, but on a windows comp..i hv also completed commandos 3 :) , infact commandos is the only reason i ever touched my roommate's comp..IMO commandos is THE BEST strategy game ever made..also, i liked commandos 2, call of duty, the best of three

    cheers
     
  6. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2002
    Location:
    at the edge
    #6
    I don't know if anyone is still following this thread, but I just got it tonight and it plays great. Wonderful game, nice port.
     
  7. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    #7
    Call Of Duty is pretty solid. The single player is extremely immersive, given the presence of some smart AI squadmates, and the multiplayer is far better than MOH: AA in nearly every way. Definitely a step up in the WWII FPS genre (though the holy grail is still Battlefield 1942, coming to Mac soon).
     
  8. macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #8
    I agree!

    Excellent game. Does need a really fast Mac, if you want high detail...
     
  9. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2001
    Location:
    NJ
    #9
    Very true, BUT WHERE'S THE CHEAT CODES!!!!
     
  10. Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #10
    Hold down shift when starting up the game. Type in:

    +set thereisacow 1337 +set sv_cheats 1 +set monkeytoy 0

    Then click ok and the game starts as normal. If it doesn't work the first time, quit the game and try it again. It'll work the second time. Then in the game, open the console (using ~) and type in the cheat you want. Some of the better cheats are:
    god
    give health

    I'd avoid the "give amm/give all" cheats as they consistantly crashed the game (it had troubles loading grenade code).
     
  11. Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #11
    I think I actually prefer CoD to BF1942. Can't fly to save my life. But driving tanks rocks!
     
  12. macrumors 6502

    Muskie

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2003
    Location:
    Minneapolis
    #12
    I prefer CoD as well. I've been a MoH:AA fan for quite some time now, so I never saw why BF1942 was such a big hit. The only plus I really saw was the vehicles, and that wasn't even so great, at least to me. But CoD beats them both. Like AkiraK said, the AI on your team was great. The only thing I didn't like about the enemy AI, was that they were so obviously scripted. They would only show up after you moved to a certain area, or planted an explosive or whatever, it was kind of lame.
     
  13. macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    Old York
    #13
    well i was given it just now and it runs at 10-15fps on my dual cube with all setings at low 640x480 still i can manage :(

    back to halo
     
  14. macrumors 65816

    neonart

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Location:
    Near a Mac since 1993.
    #14
    It makes no sense how Halo can run better than CoD on your cube. Halo is one of the most resource intensive games on Mac AND PC. I can run the CoD demo at much higher settings than I can run Halo without losing playability.

    In any case, this is a GREAT GAME!

    BTW, a Call of Duty demo is available at this site.
     
  15. macrumors 6502a

    oingoboingo

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #15
    OK, I'm going to be a little controversial and say that after playing the retail version of Call of Duty for a couple of days now, it's nothing special. If you've ever played any of the Medal of Honor series before, then you've seen pretty much everything that Call of Duty has to offer. While the teamwork angle in the single player game is much improved (the majority of the missions involve working with a squad of soldiers...there are only a few where you are by yourself), CoD is still at its heart a script-driven, highly linear WWII shoot 'em up. You *know* as soon as you pick up that health pack, set that explosive charge, or walk through that door, that a script is going to be triggered and the bad guys are going to start firing.

    The single player maps are highly linear...there's really no chance of getting lost, much less any type of exploration or innovative ways to outflank an enemy or reach an objective. Once you try and get off the main path, the game blocks your path with an invisible wall. There's also the annoying (for me at least) 'rail shooter' scenes, where you're on the back of a truck or a jeep or something, blasting away at Germans as they pop up from behind bushes in a very arcade-like target range simulation. Next please.

    Once again, there are intro scenes stolen directly from various movies and television shows. How much impact or surprise can there be when you're trying to cross the Volga to re-take Stalingrad, when you've seen exactly this scene in 'Enemy at the Gates' years before? Even the lines that the Soviet commissars and commanders are speaking are taken directly from the movie. There's no surprises. I know what happens next...except getting to bonk Rachel Weiss at about halfway through :)

    While all this sounds very negative, CoD isn't *really* a bad game. It just doesn't go anywhere that Medal of Honor didn't go years ago. There are improvements in team AI, some extra graphical polish, and a few little things like weapon accuracy dropping when you're running or standing. But it still just feels like an MOH expansion pack or a mod. Don't expect anything you didn't see years ago, and don't expect more than a day or two of entertainment from the (disjointed) single player campaign.

    I haven't played multiplayer yet, so all these comments apply to the single player. The multiplayer might be a whole different world.
     
  16. Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #16
    I can see all your points. I too noted that many of the missions were ripped from various movies/mini-series. I appreciate the different aspects of soldering (being American, British, & Russian), some of the longer (or tougher) missions, somewhat realistic weaponry, good plot, & great graphics. IMO, it's what MoH aspires to, and that's not a bad thing.

    But speaking of being controversial (and off topic), I think Halo really didn't live up to all the hype I'd heard. Didn't I play this game when it was called Half-life?
     
  17. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2002
    Location:
    at the edge
    #17
    All very fair points except that you're in the wrong room, sort of. I don't mean you can post here, I just mean that most of us in this thread are WWII FPS fans. Your criticisms are true of the genre in general, not just Call of Duty. I think the point most of us are making is that if you don't mind a scripted, linear, shoot-em-up—and in fact happen to like them—then this one is pretty damn good.

    Another criticism that isn't actually news to anyone who plays a lot of these is the thing about Stalingrad looking like a ripoff of the opening scenes of Enemy at the Gates. Medal of Honor: Allied Assault had some scenes that were absurdly similar to Saving Private Ryan and Medal of Honor: Spearhead was a thorough ripoff of Band of Brothers--and the parts that they left out were in Call of Duty. C'est la vie. WWII-themed shooters are still my favorite kind of game. They're popular enough that I don't doubt that we'll see less linear, more imaginative iterations soon enough.

    However, having now finished Call of Duty (single player), I must say that I'm not as completely impressed as I was originally. I can't quite put my finger on it, but somehow the Medal of Honor games and even Return to Castle Wolfenstein all seemed, well, prettier. There was something about all the Call of Duty levels that seemed kind of plain and ugly. Maybe it's just that every level was on the front, so there was a lot of devastation, but I got tired of looking at rubble so much. And there was no weather. Those other games also had more (and better-scripted) stealth missions than Call of Duty. Don't get me wrong, I like Call of Duty a lot, and some of its design is definitely prettier—landscaping and plants are much more lifelike, for example—but I think I take back any claims to Call of Duty being superior. It's par. It's just been so long since there was a new WWII game for Macs that I think maybe I got overexcited.
     
  18. macrumors 6502a

    oingoboingo

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #18
    Sure, I understand. I'm not saying that CoD is a bad game, just that there isn't really anything new in it for anyone who's played the Medal of Honor series. I bought MOH:Allied Assault, Spearhead and Breakthrough when I owned a PC, and played them until the CD-ROMs just about wore out. I'm definitely a WWII FPS fan. I was just hoping that in the years after the release of MOH:AA that something more innovative could have been developed.
     
  19. macrumors 6502a

    Converted2Truth

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    Location:
    Hell@HighAltitude
    #19
    COD runs choppy

    I haven't played much of WWII fsp's, but this game runs choppy when i max out the video settings. I just spend 3k on this dual 1.8G5 (ATI 9600) and it kinda sucks that this doesn't scream. The system requirements don't even hint at the idea of needing more power than this. Does anyone know if i need a video card driver update or something? anyone else having this problem?
     
  20. Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #20
    The game runs very smoothly with maxed out settings on a dual 1.33GHz G4, 1GB RAM, with an nVidia GeForce4 Ti (128MB VRAM). Part of your problem is your 64MB VRAM graphics card. Another might be lack of RAM, if you don't have much RAM then the game will surely start to swap, which means everything slows down.
     
  21. macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    Old York
    #21
    what resolution are you runing? are you using a lcd or a crt? if a crt what refresh rate?

    dose anyone know if you are ment to allocate ram with the hunkmegs command and whether the game takes advantage of dual prosessors?
     
  22. Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #22
    Doubtful. There are very few games that actually do. Which is mind boggling to me with the amount of DP Macs out there. Though I suppose DP is still relatively on the rare (statistically) side in the WinTelThon world, which all these games are originally developed for/ported from.
     
  23. macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    Old York
    #23
    i think there is a command like "smp 1" to turn it on in quake 3 based games but i am not sure
     
  24. macrumors 6502a

    Converted2Truth

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    Location:
    Hell@HighAltitude
    #24
    Apple 17'' Studio running COD @ 1280xWhatever (because 1600xWhatever isn't supported by the 17"). And i've got enough ram.. must just be lackin on the vram, if g4's are smoke'n me with retail 9800. If i upgrade, should i wait and see if ATI comes out with X800 mac edition? or should i just get the 9800 se now?
     
  25. macrumors 65816

    neonart

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Location:
    Near a Mac since 1993.
    #25
    Wait to see what happens so you get the best card for your $. Seriously, this game runs darn well on my Dual 1.25. I'm not a PC gamer and my expectations for FPS may be slightly lower, but I wont play something if it's skipping and choking. I'm thinking it's either driver and permissions problems, or just not enough VRAM (or RAM).
    On my 12" Powerbook 1Ghz I had to turn down settings a good bit to make it play well, but it does Ok at 1024x678. Therefore I don't think the resolution is the big hog, but the graphics settings. Keep your res and step down little by little the graphics settings.
     

Share This Page