[doghous3]

You know, when I first played CoD, and with the system I have, I was surprised I wasn't able to have everything maxed.

Not the end of the world.

Perhaps it shouldn't be compared, but I do think it's scope is in the same ball-park. That is, with Arma2. That game, with it's expansive land-scape, vegetation and buildings is also system intensive. That also had issues with buildings that would seriously cripple FPS when it first released.

It got sorted. But, I wouldn't max everything out and play a campaign mission though. It likes to eat your hardware.

The more I play CoD, and the more I think about it, it wouldn't surprise me even after these few optimization patches, that one shan't be able to max it completely without impeding on FPS on current high-end PC's.

I was flying over the channel and looked at the coastal town. There are a hell of a lot of buildings I could see, and with tree's even more objects to render.

I'm not suggesting CoD is in full working order. The dev's have said there needs to be optimization and such.

Perhaps some of us should be a little more humble with our system's and realize that maybe this game is (despite how you think it looks) one, like Arma2, that likes to eat your hardware.

Am I a fan-boi? Certainly not. I've never followed this company or its developer's and only found out about CoD on the 30th of March.

I was disappointed with CoD on release. The performance, the campaign, the interface and the multi-player.

But I am optimistic about the product, despite the beta-patch not doing much for me. But it seems a lot of people are able to play CoD now, so that is good news.

Think what you want, say what you want. It's merely my opinion.