Maximum PC call of duty 4 RSS Feed

Ask the Doctor: Reduce My Ping!

The Maximum PC Staff — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:00:45 -0500

I recently started playing COD4, and at my favorite server, I get a ping of 50–60ms on a 5Mb/s connection. I wanted to get my ping down a bit more, so I upped the connection first to 10Mb/s and then to 16Mb/s, but alas, still no difference. My modem is an older Linksys BEFCMU10, but the router is a newer D-Link 4100 GamerLounge. I’m considering a purchase of a Bigfoot Networks Killer NIC M1 but hate to throw more money at the problem, only to have little or no results. Is there anything I can do to lower my ping? Please help me, Doctor!

—Harquor

Harquor, the first thing you should check is your router’s QoS settings. The GamerLounge is programmed to give game traffic network priority, but it wouldn’t hurt to double-check. Beyond that, we don’t think gaming NIC cards are worth the money, especially since tripling your connection speed didn’t help. Don’t forget: Server latency depends on a number of factors. Distance is one; all else being equal, you will always get better ping from a server 50 miles from your house than one that’s 1,000 miles away. Server-side CPU load and the server’s network connection can also negatively affect ping. It may be that 50-60ms is the best ping you’ll get from that particular server.

SUBMIT YOUR QUESTION Are flames shooting out of the back of your rig? First, grab a fire extinguisher and douse the flames. Once the pyrotechnic display has fizzled, email the doctor at doctor@maximumpc.com for advice on how to solve your technological woes.

Where Lies the Point of Diminishing Returns?

Will Smith — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:55:33 -0500

In the July issue, I tested HP’s Mini-Note—the small, cheap notebook is HP’s answer to the subcompact, sub-$500 Asus Eee PC. HP’s tiny notebook got me thinking about the point of diminishing PC returns—the point at which adding more hardware oomph doesn’t deliver a perceptible performance boost to the user.

During the usability portion of my testing—wherein I use the laptop in a variety of real-world scenarios (at my desk, on the kitchen table, on the couch, on the plane, etc.), I was shocked that the Mini-Note seemed fast enough for much of what I do. While the notebook certainly underperformed in our Photoshop benchmark, I didn’t have any major complaints with its performance in my most common activities: web browsing, checking email, writing documents, and listening to music. Is this Mini-Note’s 1.2GHz VIA C7-M CPU fast enough for me?

Answer: no. After I dug a little deeper, I uncovered some serious performance problems. The rig is simply too slow to play H.264 video at DVD resolution, and without dedicated graphics, I wouldn’t recommend running even the most rudimentary 3D games.

The Mini-Note doesn’t trip the diminishing-returns perimeter wire, but it comes close. It’s too bad HP didn’t include decent onboard graphics (something with basic 3D support and a little bit of video decoding help) because that would make this sub-$1,000 rig everything I need in a portable.

Ironically, it’s at the other end of the PC hardware spectrum that I discovered technology that has indeed reached the point of diminishing returns. And I’m sad to report that that technology is 3D gaming graphics. Take a look at two of the biggest games of last year, Call of Duty 4 and Crysis. Crysis is a technological showcase, utilizing the latest, greatest DirectX 10 graphics technology to render a vibrant, living world. Call of Duty 4, meanwhile, is a showcase of last-generation DirectX 9 technology. This game is technically inferior but deftly executed.

Now, were you to show both titles to a gamer who doesn’t know what subtle, delicious effects to look for in DirectX 10 rendering, there’s absolutely no guarantee that he’ll pick Crysis as the more advanced game. In fact, because there are more characters onscreen at any given time in Call of Duty and because the scripted action is much more intense than it is in Crysis, I’d wager that he’s more likely to select Call of Duty as the more visually sophisticated game.

The upshot is that I think we’re rapidly approaching the limits of what today’s technology can deliver in terms of visual quality increases. In order to make the next jump—the jump to real-time 3D rendering that looks as good as prerendered movie CGI—the hardware vendors and game developers are going to have to try something new. Am I right, wrong, or absolutely crazy? Let me know at will@maximumpc.com.

Game Theory: Symphonies of Destruction

Thomas McDonald — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 17:47:19 -0600

One fringe benefit of having a hardcore gaming laptop for a few months is that I’ve been able to dig deeply into the new generation of multiplayer action games with all the settings cranked up to the max and enjoy some truly spectacular hours of online homicide. And do it without being tied to my desktop. There’s something about playing Quake Wars in bed that’s just so wrong, yet so right. Four CPUs, one man, a bed: It’s like some kind of über-geek fetish fantasy.

The real pleasure, however, comes from just how solid this generation of multiplayer action is. With Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, Team Fortress 2, and Unreal Tournament 3 forming the core of dedicated multiplayer action, and Call of Duty 4 and Crysis holding the flanks, we are positively swimming in top-flight game design for the online frag crowd.

To an outside observer, these games might all seem like more of the same in different wrappings. But to gamers who truly love online action, you couldn’t have asked for three more radically different approaches than Quake Wars, TF2, and UT3. Each is like a musical composition in a different key.

In terms of pure personal appeal, Quake Wars is at the top of my list, since its use of classes and multiple fluid objectives manages to capture some of the feel of an ever-shifting battlefield. If the old Strogg/GDF matchup has grown a little tired, it’s a minor complaint within a system that handles classes and their functions so well. What Team Fortress 2 lacks in objectives and complexity it more than makes up for with its fresh style, focused team play, and outstanding unit balance. And though I haven’t logged time with the final version of Unreal Tournament 3, the material Epic has been showing certainly takes its work on Gears of War to the next level and places UT3 at the fast-and-frenzied instaspawn end of the spectrum.

It’s simply wonderful, this late in the life span of the multiplayer action game, to see three teams wind up with such radically different approaches to the same concept. Only people who don’t know the genre would see these titles as mere interchangeable carnage. That’s like saying Mozart, Beethoven, and Brahms all sound the same because they wrote symphonies.

Thomas L. McDonald has been covering games for 17 years. He is Editor-at-Large of Games Magazine.

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

Norman Chan — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 19:55:24 -0600

Just call it the anti-Crysis. If Crytek’s immersive next-gen messiah is suppose to usher in a revolutionary era of open-ended shooters, Infinity Ward’s Call of Duty 4 shows us why linear missions and wholly scripted gameplay aren’t ready to be replaced yet. The shift in this series’ setting to modern day brings more high-tension gunplay and explosive ambiance than any game in recent memory. From furious firefights in Arab towns to nail-biting infiltration missions under the dark of Russian night, we were absorbed in more grandiose military heroics than any Michael Bay blockbuster. And since the game’s goal is to take you along for an unabashed joy ride, that’s actually a good thing.

The story’s requisite crisis, which is clearly torn from the scripts of TV’s 24, revolves around the threat of militant Middle Eastern and Russian radicals who’ve joined forces to dethrone the Western powers. While we weren’t searching for suitcase nukes in this near-apocalyptic scenario, the hunt for terrorist leaders and their generals is played out with familiar Jack Bauer-esque bravado and a real sense of urgency. Switching between the boots of a US Marine Corp and British SAS officer, we delivered justice from two perspectives of the fight – each with unique pacing and varied styles of play to keep the action always fresh.

From the American camp, we played as Sergeant Paul Jackson, keeping the peace in the Middle East after a recent uprising by the fundamentalist leader Al-Asad. Jackson’s missions showcased the game’s grand sense of scope and impressive attention to detail in urban sieges and large-scale strikes. In the War Pig mission for example, escorting a M1A1 Abrams tank through hostile streets was incredibly nail-biting and chaotic. As we sprinted along city streets, dodging bullets and flying debris, enemy troops fired at us from rooftops and abandoned storefronts. AI teammates slid into cover and fired blindly around corners, utilizing convincing (but scripted) tactics. We felt like we were in the middle of a real war, with dozens of dead bodies collapsed on the battlefield and cars exploding at every corner.

The British levels were equally intense, but focused on the exploits of a small SAS squad instead of a massive invasion force. These operations, mostly played at night, had our squad rescuing captured informants deep in enemy territory and running away from hunting parties and helicopters after being discovered. One of the more satisfying moments in the game came from shooting down a helicopter that had been stalking us throughout the level as we hid from its bright search beam. Our one complaint is that, like in the American missions, swarms of enemies were too easily dispatched. While enemies did hide behind cover, they didn’t have the intelligence or programming to flank us or even avoid funneling through corridors straight into harm’s way. Our suspension of disbelief also suffered from the fact that some of our British comrades were nearly invincible, since they were integral cast members of the plot

Still, Call of Duty 4 has some spectacularly memorable sequences that had us gasping out loud. Several on-the-rails “god-missions” put us in control of devastating firepower. In the infrared vision equipped gunner’s seat of an AC130 gunship, we peppered enemies with explosive shells as they ran for their lives. Another awe-inspiring aerial mission let us fire rockets at the same rooftop forces that had assaulted us in previous encounters. We also need to give special note to the game’s playable cut-scenes, which let you experience dramatic cinematics from a truly fresh and terrifying point of view.

And even if you’re not taken with the six-hour single-player campaign, the multiplayer is so addictive it should be a controlled substance. In the online arena, urban settings like the Crossfire and District maps feel like real-world war zones where you’re never safe. Here, battling against human players forced us to use gameplay mechanics like penetrable walls and exploding cars to survive skirmishes. We love the Headquarters and Search and Destroy game modes, which feel like the perfect combination of Battlefield and Counter-Strike play styles.

Team games with 32 players are delightfully frenzied, rewarding skilled players with UAV drones and Helicopter support for impressive kill streaks. Persistent statistics tracking is sure to keep us playing for months as we grind to unlock new weapons, attachments, and ranks. Each player can also customize their own class with personalized weapons and Perks – special in-game abilities like longer sprint or faster reload. We especially like the ability to drop grenades once we’ve died to get revenge on players who’ve out-dueled us.

Unpretentious and unrelenting, Call of Duty 4 is perfect for gamers who just want to experience a terrific cinematic shooter. The breathtaking spectacle may feel forced at times, but it’s a rousing thrill ride that’s definitely worth taking.