Before we begin with the post, we would like to tell that there is nothing such as a perfect list. Gamers all over the world have different taste, of course, some might like online gaming, other might like first person etc. However, when we talk specifically about the computer games, there are certain games that got really popular among the gamers and we are here to address them only, or to be more specific, one of them, Call of Duty.
You might like the famous Call of Duty: Black Ops game, but on a universal opinion, it is not that much good game. It’s not bad, but it is not that good either when compared to other games released by the same franchise. You might get a shock to see but the 2010 Call of Duty game is at the third position, among all the Call of Duty games that have been released to date. So, it is the third best game out of all 21 games coming from Call of Duty.
At the top of the throne sits the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 game which is followed by COD 4: Modern Warfare at the second spot. This was decided by a voting in which more than 20,000 gamers took part. At the bottom sits the Call of Duty: Modern Ghosts which was released in 2013 and the original first Call of Duty game released in 2003 is at the 9th place.
Call of Duty has been loved by people who love to run around in the environment shooting the enemies and other players online mercilessly. However, the problem with COD Black Ops was that does not has much improvement in graphics from its predecessor and was actually very short. When you expected more out of it, you will get disappointed seeing the cast list on your screen. The AI of the game wasn’t impressive as well, there we glitch and it seemed like they do not wish to get you really killed even in the hardest difficulty.
But that is all the bad part of the game. There are many lovers out there that actually liked the game, gameplay and the story. The glitches were not severe in their case and they preferred being the god level killing machine in the game. But the same glitches pushed others into existential crisis with the never-ending irritating loops they caused in the game.
But, it is what it is, most of the gamers think that Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 was the best game they released and we also agree with it. It marks a huge change in their graphics, gameplay and mostly the story building and storytelling capabilities. But, there is nothing to take seriously, since it was just another list which might be true and many won’t even give it look. Whatever, it is, we love the Call of Duty games and their latest COD: WWII is really great. It takes you back to the World War II real events and gives you a chance to live it as closely as you can. Check out more about the Call of Duty: WWII on our site.
Call of Duty: WWII was launched last week, and it’s already Christmas for COD fans who have played Call Of Duty since the beginning. And this time, no more running-on-the-wall it’s only boots-on-the-ground. Soldiers show up more individual and human, instead of looking like a few futuristic, cyber-mutant Marine. And since the soldiers' physical ability is limited, that they cannot sprint for a long time before tiring or leap longer than just a couple foot, the plan is presently a priority.
Call of Duty: WWII is about strategy, decision-making and weapon skill. But more or less, the new game goes back to World War 2 era. Fans are pleased about it, and it seems like the COD franchise is finally back on its track of what the developing team was famous for. Although, Call of Duty: World At War includes a much better campaign along with the zombies have been fresh afterward. While a return to its origins setting is appreciated, the entire thing still is a well-executed formula.
The secret, I think, is Sledgehammer’s commitment to going back to Call of Duty’s core. This doesn’t mean that it strives for realism or that it cuts back on preposterous action sequences, as this remains a Hollywood vision of WWII; there are set pieces which Michael Bay might have considered a bit much. Yet COD World War II puts gritty, fast-paced combat at the heart of everything while trying to give you the most definite feeling yet that you’re part of a platoon being tested to its limits. Sure it can be dumb, gung-ho and prone to uncomfortable shifts of tone, but it can also be powerful, emotive and thrilling.
This isn't about the presentation; it's more incredible because of the way the developing team has executed the entire game. This is easily the best-looking and most visceral Call Of Duty available, and while you've seen a number of those warfare battlefields earlier, you've never seen them quite like this.
Ravaged buildings, rain-drenched woods and the shores and trenches of all Normandy have never looked so grim and realistic in any other games. For all of the discussion of 'boots on the floor,' it's more accurate to say 'boots in the sand' or 'tramping through the snow.' Not any of the previous Call Of Duty has received environments which feel and look so grounded in real-world locations. The environment in COD: WWII is from the real world which feels and look very realistic in the game.
This time COD went back into the fundamental mechanics. You have a supporting cast of well-trained soldiers in your squad. Moreover, they directly assist you during combat based on your needs and performance.
But this isn't about photorealism, but about a confident, dramatic approach. There is a sequence after the Battle of the Bulge in which you have to fight and survive in an icy area which looked more the "Band of Brothers" television series. Playing on PC, I was amazed and thrilled by the noise and atmosphere of the entire experience.And that's not the only factor which produces this kind of warfare vibe.
All these contributions and squad factor are tied to your health and cooldown as you kill enemies. This excellent squad communication and method of supply are gamified. But I think it's a creative and thrilling subject to bond with your squad and kill some enemies on the battlefield.
The outcome isn't necessarily a stricter Call of Duty game. But it's the first in years at which I have not felt like an action movie fighter. You are right in the World War II era with merely a little bit extra care and caution which the past handful versions of Call of Duty didn’t have. But it’s certain that few maneuvers will surprise you, however, too the scripting and pacing give you a few tight situations and enough tiny scratches to maintain your heartbeat pace. It's fantastic at making the predictable exciting.
The best Desktop Gaming System is the ultimate dream of every gamer out there — both the hardcore and occasional ones. And, it’s the perfect combination of several components, including a power-packed CPU & GPU, enough RAM, preferably a mechanical gaming keyboard, an awesome sound system and a crystal-clear Display.
As far as the gaming experience in concerned, the Visual part is more significant. That’s why people insist on purchasing one of the best Graphics Card from the market, accompanied by the best Monitor. And, here, we are going to talk about Monitors — more specifically, about gaming monitors.
In the past decade, we have had enough Gaming Monitors. These are dedicated display devices made for an intriguing gameplay. At this point, the selection process is so difficult, mostly because of the huge collection you will find. Secondarily, it’s because there are a few things to consider.
And, among all those big and small factors, Response Time is something to ponder over. The last time we checked, most people are somewhat confused when it comes to choosing the best response time. In this article, we are going to break down the important aspects of Response Time in Gaming monitors.
First, we will have an introduction to Response Time and then start the discussion. Shall we?
We don’t expect any of you to be playing games in a CRT Monitor. At the least, you would have shifted onto LCD Screens, if not LED.
As you know, there are thousands or even millions of pixels in a LCD Screen. If you’d see a new image on the screen, each pixel will be updated with the corresponding colors, you know.
That is basically how a Monitor works for displaying graphic content. So, the Response Time of a monitor is the time required for changing one pixel from one shade of gray to another or from black to white. As you can guess, it should happen so quickly that you don’t notice it.
Because it’s time, it should be measured in seconds, right? But, there’s a problem. If pixel colors change in a time of seconds, the total viewing experience would be chaos! So, basically, Response Time is measured in Milliseconds. For those who don’t know, 1000 Milliseconds form a second.
You can see monitors labelled as 1ms or 4ms Response Time. It means that a certain color on the pixel would stay on the screen for small fraction of a second. Now, we hope you are clear about the big concept of Response Time. It basically affects how quickly colors and shades are changed in every single pixel of your LCD Screen.
We will have a look at the standard numbers we spot in the world of gaming monitor response time. Before we begin, keep this in mind: the lower response time, the better. That is, if you have two monitors — one of 2ms response time and another with 4ms — the 2ms response-time monitor would perform better as far as gaming is concerned.
Essentially, we can classify Gaming Monitors into two categories. First, there are standard monitors that are optimized for gaming. They will have a better range of specs in refresh rates and response time. On the second position, we have dedicated Gaming monitors.
These monitors are made primarily for extensive gaming needs. They come with the state-of-the-art technology, including a higher resolution, a better panel and even some gaming-optimization from hardware side. In these monitors, you can have the best response time, something around 1ms or 2ms.
Nevertheless, there are some exceptional cases. For instance, we have some gaming monitors that boast a response time of 5ms. Even while such monitors rock other aspects like resolution and panel quality, this is a problem
If you don’t want to compromise the smooth gameplay, you should choose a monitor with response time of 5ms or less.
It’s going to be awesome if you can have a monitor of 1ms or 2ms of response time, in that case.
We don’t really recommend going for any monitor that has a response time more than 5ms. You don’t want to have any experience of ghosting while gaming, we believe. Let’s put that in terms of two gamers’ terms.
We hope you are clear about the selection. Anything less than 5ms is fine, but 1ms/2ms is the best you would ever get.
As you know, different panels are used for building Gaming monitors — TN, VA and IPS. Each category has a certain range of response time, according to the market standards.
And, as you might know, each panel type has its own advantages and disadvantages. For instance, IPS Panels offer the best viewing angles and all. So, you should keep this in your mind while picking the monitor. If you insist on having a particular panel type, you may have to compromise the response time.
We believe we had a resourceful discussion about the best response time for a gaming monitor. In the ideal world, when you have everything from the top class, you must get a gaming monitor with 1ms or 2ms time.
Otherwise, you can go with the standard of anything less than 5ms. So, when you’re purchasing the next gaming monitor with your preferred response time, make sure to read our reviews before selecting one. Happy gaming, fellas!
It looks like gaming technology is at its peak right now and with the new gadgets appearing every now and then, the number of gamers out there are increasing day by day. There are a lot of advanced consoles like XBox One, PlayStation 4 in the market, however, the majority of gamers still prefer PCs over consoles for hardcore gaming. The latest PCs come with heavy machinery attached inside, capable of providing you an unparalleled experience that is very hard to feel on a console.
However, one big problem with gaming PCs is that you might have to assemble them most of the time. Not all PCs possess the entire specifications gamers are looking for. In that case, people generally buy different components separately and then assemble them to get the desired beastly machine. And if you are also one among the many who is trying to assemble a PC, and that too especially for gaming, one thing that you should not compromise with is the screen.
If you are getting confused among hundreds of options out there, you just need to understand the technology behind it and you can easily differentiate a good one from a bad one. You can compare different gaming monitor based on a lot of parameters like grey-to-grey response or color contrast ration, but not all of them should be given importance.
Ideally, one should pick a gaming monitor possessing high resolution and decent size. But here we are going to explain you about why aspect ratio, resolution, screen size, refresh rate etc. are important to consider which purchasing a new gaming monitor.
Most of the people pick the screen with the highest resolution without even a second thought. Not all monitors with the 4k display will be able to provide you the experience you are looking for. Screen with huge resolution will definitely provide you deep details, but as the pixel count increase, the burden on PCs with single GPU increases as well, which in turn affects the performance.
Generally, most of the mid and some of the high-end GPUs support only 1440p resolution which is perfect for general regular surfing and working but definitely not for a high-end gaming experience. Every monitor has its native resolution, and you lose all the sharp details if you try to run a game below that resolution. Getting a new screen will lower resolution is not a good idea. So, it is better to determine the capability of your GPU before deciding the size of the screen you want. Don’t try to overload you GPU by purchasing a 4K gaming monitor which it won’t be able to handle.
Almost all the basic screens manufactured now days offer at least HD or 720p resolution. All the GPUs support HD resolution but that is enough just for occasional gaming and not for hardcore gaming.
Next, comes screen offering 1080p or full HD resolution. Screens with size less than 24 inch and 1080p display are very common and could be found in most of the houses. These monitors are best for pretty decent gaming. However, if you are planning to get a screen with size more than 24 inches, you should pick the one which offers more than full HD resolution.
In case you are looking for something extra, a trio of full HD screens is the best one can get. Not only you will get high detailed output in front of your every, it might turn out to be cheaper than buying a huge HD screen over 24 inches. In addition to that, a full HD multi-monitor arrangement will also offer a surround sound experience to your ears.
There are certain 1920 x 1200p gamings screens available as well which provide you vertical space too and aspect ration of 16:10.
G-Sync vs. Freesync – this is a battle between 2 giants – Nvidia and AMD. It is much more than a war over the fractions of a frame per second. It is basically about the adaptive refresh technology and how it will impact your games to make it much smoother. There is not much of a huge difference between the two. The gap is really small. It is such that one would not even notice it unless you are consciously looking out for the differences. Many people still ponder over the question as to which one to go for. Before answering this question, one must actually understand why these two solutions came in to being.
Screen tearing happens when the graphics card interacts with the monitor and tells it what to display. It sends the images, and these images are rendered at a refresh rate which is predetermined. Refresh rate is the rate at which the monitor renders a new frame after asking the graphics card for it. The speed of display depends on the power of the card.
Generally, regular monitors have a refresh rate of 60 Hz, which means 60 frames per second. High performing gaming monitors can manage up to 144 Hz, or 144 frames per second.
When the graphics card tries to push an extra frame to your display when it is not ready, screen tearing is caused. There is a setting called “Vsync” which solves this problem from the software side. It could be enabled in any game to lock the frame output to the refresh rate that is expected by the monitor. This is usually 60 Hz. If you have a graphic card that is capable of adapting to this setting, then you are good to go. If not, then Vsync starts throwing numbers, and some random number taken up. It could be anywhere between 45 Hz to 10 Hz. This affects the performance of your game considerably. As such, it is not a really effective solution.
AMD’s FreeSync solution uses the “adaptive sync” technology which is a legacy solution that works effectively. It is the first hardware based solution to control the problem of screen tearing. It is an open source technology which maintains a consistent layer of frames and the screen is refreshed in sync with one another. It is ridiculously cheap to implement given the fact that it is open source. As such, AMD is a low budget option for all the gamers out there.
Nvidia has its own solution known as the ”G-Sync”. It is their version of the adaptive sync. Here, there is a chip used in the monitor which is specifically designed to communicate directly with the other Nvidia based graphic cards.
As you see, both the solutions do the same thing. There are 2 separate pieces of hardware created inside the monitor and the graphics card to control the problem of screen tearing.
The first difference you will hear when it comes to adaptive refresh technology is that of having closed and open standard. G-Sync is Nvidia’s proprietary technology. As such, you would need the company’s permission and cooperation to use it. On the other hand, FreeSync is open source and free to use. Implementing it is a goal of the program, and it is not for making money.
Given the price factor, you would assume that FreeSync is more widely adopted. However, both are equally used as of now. The main reason or this could be that G-Sync has been in the market for a longer time and it is also managed by Nvidia which is known to the leader in GPU manufacturing currently.
Let us see how both the solutions fare based on the other factors:
When you implement a refresh management technology, there is a cost on both sides – the monitor and the GPU.
If you select Nvidia, there will be a lot of heavy lifting required by the monitor to adjust the refresh rate. This will be reflected in how much you will have to pay for the monitor. Each manufacturer has to pay Nvidia for using the hardware. As such, the impact will be on your pocket. Since the technology has been available for a really long time, it should not be that hard. For the G-Sync module, since the monitor does the heavy lifting part, you could go for cheaper graphic cards. This will cover up for the cost you paid for that monitor.
As for FreeSync, you will not have to pay as much for the monitor. The manufacturer does not have to include a premium on it. When you get a graphics card, you will need to select one that supports FreeSync. This might be a tad bit on the high side.
Visit our homepage to get more information, reviews and comparisons on gaming monitors.
There are performance differences between both standards. When using FreeSync, many users have said that even though tearing and stuttering are reduced, there is another problem of ghosting. This happens when the objects move on the screen and they leave a bit of the image behind at their last position. This seems like a shadow or something. Though some people might not even notice this effect, it really annoys a few others.
The main reason for ghosting is power management. If enough power is not applied to the pixels, then image gets gaps in it, too much power, and this causes ghosting. Balancing the adaptive refresh technology with efficient power distribution is a tough call.
When the frame rate is not consistent with the refresh range for the monitor, both the systems start to suffer. G-Sync reacts by showing problems by flickering when the frame rate becomes too low. Even though the technology has ways to fix it, exceptions are found usually. FreeSync causes stuttering problems when the frame rate drops to a value below the stated minimum refresh rate for the monitor.
Most avid gamers prefer to go for G-Sync as it does not show stutter issues when frame rates drop. As such, it is smoother in real world scenarios. G-Sync does not have a minimum refresh rate. It could work all the way up to 240 FPS and down to even 1 FPS. This works great for people who have high powered systems. Some of the FreeSync monitors come with rally narrow adaptive refresh range. This is generally between 20 FPS to 144 FPS. As such, if the video card is not able to deliver the frames within that given range, it causes problems and affects performance.
One more point to be noted is that Nvidia is currently the only company that supports the best gaming laptops. AMD has not announced any plans to import FreeSync to mobile gaming. So, this is a place where Nvidia has a strong grip.
Given the bitter rivalry between AMD and Nvidia, mixing and matching is totally out of question. Both are different technologies that work mutually exclusively.
There is definitely a huge price gap between choosing G-Sync and FreeSync. G-Sync is way more expensive. Even then, it is hugely popular given the one reason that it is superior. G-Sync will not cause any issues of ghosting and gives a much more consistent performance overall. Currently, Nvidia is known to be the performance king. Going for FreeSync would be much cheaper, but what you get in return is not as superior either. If you are on a tight budget and can manage a little delay here and there and small image issues, then FreeSync is the one for you.
Also, check our latest article comparing the best 4k gaming monitors of this year.
In the end, both technologies accomplish their goals and give the users a seamless gaming experience. They are way superior to V-Sync. Whichever you choose to go for is definitely going to give you a better experience than traditional solutions.