Arma II Officially Better Looking Than Crysis?

[walker 0]

Hi all

Yet another article is out about ArmA looking better than Crysis. This seems to be the current view in the Gaming Press.

Quote[/b] ]Arma II Officially Better Looking Than Crysis?By William Usher: 2009-02-20 16:38:00

know Crysis and KillZone 2 received a heck of a lot of praise for their graphics, but Arma II is literally right up there with them, if not a stride ahead. The game looks stunning, simply stunning. A new trailer was released and you can view it along with some exclusive new screen captures right here at Blend Games...

Follow the link for the full story as well as new pictures and a video

http://www.cinemablend.com/games....06.html

ArmA is shaping up to be the best Game of 2009.

I think it is time to discuss this in the forums.

Kind regards walker

[sparks50 0]

I do definitely think Arma 1s graphics are underrated on the higher settings.

I impressed people with it on a LAN in 2007, with 3rd view, walking along a company of armored vehicles kicking up sand as they invaded Rahmadi town.

But it downscales horribly for less powerful computers. Turn off the grass, and suddenly it almost looks like OFP again.

And a few of the objects are a bit basic seen up close.

[Maio 293]

Well my opinion is that Arma 2's graphics are photo realistic.

[Deadfast 43]

ArmA 2 has for sure the best looking vegetation so far

The scenery is just stunning!

[mr.g-c 6]

Not only vegetations, but also the textures and models!

Remember that one old 2008 Screenshot where a BRDM was on the left side of the screen and it looked like from a photo?

Can't find it right now - sorry!

[Blackhawk 0]

I agree, ArmA had good graphics but unless you had a 3 ghz processor or more it would run quite poorly, thank god for the dual core optimism.

ArmA II's graphics are simply outstanding, probably the best graphics I've seen in a long time.

[rundll.exe 12]

I agree, ArmA II looks better than any other game (that simulates normal world) I've seen.

And if the gameplay sucks? Well then we have a nice photorealistic screensaver with some civilians eating from their nose and working on their cars

[walker 0]

Hi all

The story has been syndicated and picked up by more sites

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=61409

http://www.india.com/technol....is_3308

Kind Regards walker

[sparks50 0]

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=61409&page=2

Theres a lot of "pre-rendered trailer, game will not look anywhere as good as this" in this thread,

which is strange for me, since most of it isn't far off what we already have in Arma 1, at least with addons.

[max power 21]

They'll be eating their words in a short while.

[sparks50 0]

One thing that bothers me in Armas graphics department is how the grass abruptly disappears after 25 meters.

Sadly both OFP 2 and Arma 2 has this nasty limitation, and for obvious reasons, ground vegetation must be a real killer performance-wise.

Arma 3 perhaps?

[celery 8]

Well my opinion is that Arma 2's graphics are photo realistic.

Do you mean that you can't tell the difference between a real photo and an ArmA II screenshot?

[max power 21]

Sometimes they look fairly real but the graphics themselves appear stylized in lighting and stuff. Photo-real is a style as much as it is a goal, and ArmA 2s graphics don't look like they are 100% toward that style. It looks like they made decisions to exaggerate the lighting in the scenes to establish a certain mood.

[Spoock 3]

ArmA3? I think, it is unwarranted far future.

[Lou Montana 101]

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=61409&page=2

Theres a lot of "pre-rendered trailer, game will not look anywhere as good as this" in this thread,

which is strange for me, since most of it isn't far off what we already have in Arma 1, at least with addons.

Someone having an account @ vgchartz should go and tell 'em that pre-rendered stuff isn't bi'stuff... <span style='font-size:7.75pt;line-height:100%'>(going against some codies...)</span>

[KorpeN 0]

YEAH.go BIS,make them cry..

[dentist guba 0]

when stationary, definitely. physics let the game down sometimes tho.

[Jensen1 0]

I agree, ArmA II looks better than any other game (that simulates normal world) I've seen.

And if the gameplay sucks? Well then we have a nice photorealistic screensaver with some civilians eating from their nose and working on their cars  

ROFL

[EricM 0]

If the gameplay suck we'll still have the best seagull, cow, dog and rabbit simulator on the market.

FARMA : the ultimate Farming simulator, tractor included.

[Max255 59]

If the gameplay suck we'll still have the best seagull, cow, dog and rabbit simulator on the market.

FARMA : the ultimate Farming simulator, tractor included.

lol true...

what i can say about arma 2 graphics is they far, far away from crysis... far ahead off course crysis is too shiny and eye candy for me...

[Scrub 0]

Quote[/b] ]From CinemaBlend article:

I’m simply going to say that it’s unbelievably breathtaking.

BIS, you should have that one sentence above the entrance, or the break/lunch room doorway, and remind yourselves of that when you're feeling pressured or down. Bravo.

(yay, got the correct thread)

[Alex72 1]

I agree with the title!

Those games have neat GFX but its still "cartoonish". Crysis and Killzone 2, please take the defeat as men. Its nothing personal.

/Alex

[Commando84 0]

haha sweet! You should get the game out to gaming news sites / papers like pc gamer uk and sweden and germany and also maybe edge, games radar and give gamespy some updated info

[Steakslim 1]

I think the writer of this article is getting ahead of themselves when comparing the graphical capabilities between games. Killzone 2 had the benefit of not dealing with large view distances so they can cram more textures, particle, and lighting effects into an single instance of game and have enough of it to run on a console doing so.

Now when comparing against Crysis is more sensable. Both have there strengths and weaknesses. Arma's 'world' is significantly larger than a single map that Crysis is capable of (not specifically a limitation of the game engine though), but for good reason. While Arma2 is looking great so far, I've noticed in several of the screenshots containing low resolution textures for a lot of vegetation. The vehicle and character models have quite good textures, especially the vehicles, sans the characters faces and overall movements. There was some user made textures for Crysis that could actually run on mid range pc's (that the creater was using while having object quality turned down, meaning lower poly count), that look much more crisp and real than ArmA2's, example from creater here: http://www.crymod.com/uploads/mediapool/080617r/image1.jpg http://www.crymod.com/uploads/mediapool/080617r/image2.jpg

Arma2 is far, FAR from photo realism as some users may think. I could go on and explain why when comparing the two but I won't (unless you want me to). However don't get me wrong, I'm waiting anxiously for this game, I'm just not seeing is as the pinnacle of graphical fidelity. There's indie games in the works that look much better.

[kavoven 4]

I don't like people drawing the line to Crysis, since this game was one of the greatest hypes in history (well, nothing beats Black&White...)

But on the other hand this will attract more people so its a good sign