Arma 2 vs Call of duty:marcooos said:
It's probably that the smoke doesn't have a good 3d render yet, I mean it's a whole new engine. What I think about it is that I hope it will leave CoD be. They are such different games and shouldn't be trying too appeal to the same crowd.MASTACHIEFPWN said:
I know you weren't, I was using it as an example, and yes, Arma is made by the same people, or something like that, I think it's made by people that Made Operation Flashpoint and formed another studio or something, i'm a bit fuzzy on the exact details of that whole deal.marcooos said:
Really? Crysis 2, really wasn't that graphically impressive at all, it was a really nerfed so it would squeeze into the consoles. Game play trailers from battelfield 3 look twice as good as crysis 2 does.MASTACHIEFPWN said:They might be incredible, but they don't fit in. Take out the arms and gun, and it looks almost as good as Cryengine 3.irishstormtrooper said:
I'll site crysis 2 as my example- The game looks brilliant. Everything seems to fit in correctly, in Battlefield, it doesn't. It looks like they tried to mix 4 diffirent pictures in a first person view perspective, while in crysis 2, everything seems to be in sync, like it would be in real life.
Looks like crap? As opposed to? What? Standard definition dvd? VHS? 8mm film?MASTACHIEFPWN said:
It looks aesthetically appealing to me, especially in the clip when you fight from the overpass on the highway. To say that these images are brown would make sense since you know, they're in a middle eastern city which is the desert.Krantos said:
What is this... I don't even.MASTACHIEFPWN said:
As everyone has already pointed out, this looks amazing.
You sir, are not correct. I stated I couldn't put my finger on what made it look so unrealistic. I can now, though, The characters don't agree with the background, It looks like they are interacting on a greenscreen. For making the game look so real, It fails on a lot of aspects.PettingZOOPONY said:
Something looks terrible unreal on it, and it doesn't fit with the games realistic look, and It ruins it for me. I'm not saying the game is going to be bad, I love the battlefield series, but this one doesn't seem to fit. Compair the game to another great graphics game like Crysis 2, and for some reason, crysis 2 makes it look somewhat realistic, but still adding that modern video game graphic unrealism. This game tries to make it look completely realistic, It looks great, but something doesn't fit it, and it ruins the experance.instantbenz said:
That seems to be a major factor, thanks for pointing it out. That is why the characters don't seem to fit, It can be so much more, but it's not.Krantos said:
I think blu-ray is a stupid and pointless format, which will almost certainly go the way of the beta-max. But I don't see how you could think it looks like shit. Literally the only discernible difference between blu-ray and other media format is slightly higher resolution. So I'm confused, do you just not like looking at things?MASTACHIEFPWN said:
Sorry, I ment like when you go into a store and they are playing a blu ray movie on a TV that isn't ment to handle it, It looks like the characters don't move, the background does.DeaconSawyer said:
Exactly my point, I think the game will be another not bad battlefield title, maybe better, but it is the gun. It looks too realistic for the rest of it, so it makes it look like you are travaling through a moving picture, rather than an envornment. take out the gun and the arm of the player, and it looks almost like a movie, but the gun/arm look clunky, unrealistic, and it doesn't fit with everything else. So think of Pasting it in to a great looking game..No. said:
That is fair I suppose, but I don't think that it is a graphical or aesthetic failing I think that it is more a personal taste thing. I don't see a contrast that you are talking about, and I also like the way the first person camera moves with the character. It suits my preference in games and films.MASTACHIEFPWN said:
