Arma II Officially Better Looking Than Crysis?

[Steakslim 1]

Dwarden I understand what your saying but, as Andersson said, the example was more in tune to the discussion of the graphical nature of the games. Half the Crysis community has already cut Crysis in half in regards of "why are they doing that?" moments, like why is all the enemy AI after me when I've been stealthy, yet ignoring my rather noisy AI teammate on the crane with the loud rifle firing down on them, or why did the pilot yell his left engine was hit when he was flying a single engine plane lol? Well in a game with giant ice-ray wielding alien robots, my suspension of belief has many liberties.

Anywho, as for ArmA2's graphics and those saying it's not enough. Truthfully, it is enough, it's just that there CAN be more, but here's to user-made content to fill in the gaps, which hopefully there'll be an SDK (any word regarding that for ArmA2?). It helps with the immersion with many added things, like the discussion of the lack of tank interiors in another thread. For me my biggest gripe about the game is the particle effects and draw distances for the vegetation (hopefully I can increase the object and vegi draw distance via code in a config file somewhere). No believe it or not dispite the last few posts, I can stand the faces, because they are still an improvement over ArmA. My example of ArmA2's faces was just to compare between that and Crysis.

Edit: Also I wanna appologize for being snappy yesterday. 30 hours of no sleep and a sore back wore down my patience.

[Scrub 0]

4 IN 1 you are a smart guy! why have faces at all. You are not going to see them from 200 meters out but the noob's can't understand this because COD you are 20 meters away. Good point but the kids will not get it!

And even if you are 20m, or 2m away, as I'm hoping with good AI and player movement for CQB, does it matter in combat?  I know in undiciplined close quarters action, I'm quickly thinking,  o.k. weapon type, camo pattern,  FIRE!!!  Definately not, is that Bob from second section?  Or Boris I met from that Spetznaz/MEU mixer we had 2 weeks ago?  He has a mole on the left side..  It's Bob.  Features, not faces will make the game.  They wouldn't hurt to refine, but won't kill it.

I would agree if this is in reallife, but problem is that no matter how hard you try to treat it as real as possible, it's still a game, and I just never ever care about those poly face as I would in RL.

I think you misunderstood me. I totally agree with you, I look at the type of weapon, uniform, and that's about it. Faces don't matter that much ingame.

[11aTony 0]

NFS Undercover is shiny, not Crysis. It makes my eyes bleed. If you have everything on ultra and HD res then Crysis is not too shiny. Its just about right. If you lower some things and keep other (like shader detail) high then it is too shiny. Try to put ArmA on very high and lower textures (I think, not sure) on jut high. It will look incredebly shiny. That happened to me on old PC when I couldnt run everything on very high due to CPU power though I had good GPU.

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

The thing that seems missing to me is the shadow from the helmets, but I thought someone said that those are yet to be added.

[4 IN 1 0]

4 IN 1 you are a smart guy! why have faces at all. You are not going to see them from 200 meters out but the noob's can't understand this because COD you are 20 meters away. Good point but the kids will not get it!

And even if you are 20m, or 2m away, as I'm hoping with good AI and player movement for CQB, does it matter in combat?  I know in undiciplined close quarters action, I'm quickly thinking,  o.k. weapon type, camo pattern,  FIRE!!!  Definately not, is that Bob from second section?  Or Boris I met from that Spetznaz/MEU mixer we had 2 weeks ago?  He has a mole on the left side..  It's Bob.  Features, not faces will make the game.  They wouldn't hurt to refine, but won't kill it.

I would agree if this is in reallife, but problem is that no matter how hard you try to treat it as real as possible, it's still a game, and I just never ever care about those poly face as I would in RL.

I think you misunderstood me.  I totally agree with you,  I look at the type of weapon, uniform, and that's about it.  Faces don't matter that much ingame.

Ah.......my mistakes...... The problem showen in the new video really gets me

[avibird 1 141]

ah.......my mistakes...... The problem showen in the new video really gets me what are you talking about 4 in 1 what problem in the new vid I am a littel lost on this.

[ziiip 1]

So ArmA2 is particularly coded for dual- and quad-core CPUs, but what about the triple-core phenoms? Are those any better than the dual-core babys from performance perspective?

[Pyronick 21]

So ArmA2 is particularly coded for dual- and quad-core CPUs, but what about the triple-core phenoms? Are those any better than the dual-core babys from performance perspective?

If Armed Assault 2 has a proper balance of fine-grained multithreading for simple tasks and coarse multithreading for AI (Valve calls this Hybrid-threading) it should scale perfectly on all sorts of multicore/multithreaded processors.

It won't take long before we'll have octocores with 16 simultaneous threads, so I'm sure they'll make it as scalable as possible.

[Deadfast 43]

Armed Assault 2 doesn't exist

[telejunky 0]

Don't be that picky ArmA II can also be named Armed Assault II and reverse.

I hope that dual-cores run fine enough for pvp and campaign. It should be definately better to have some quad core server cpu for large coops but as far as i know enemy ai is controlled by the server to it would benefit from it the most. I think scaleable means in terms of AI and its precious planning but what about graphics? it is possible to spread loading issues and the actual graphic the many different cpu? So one core is reserved to control the orders to different cpus

[Deadfast 43]

The game is called ArmA 2, using anything else just confuses people who don't know it

[Jensen1 0]

They should make this game semi-open source...idk maybe its my cough medicine talking...

[Rocco 0]

I would say ArmAs graphics are more realistic while crysis´ are more effectful, not really comparable.

[Provac 0]

In terms of overall graphics CryEngine 2 is better than Reality Engine 3 (I think it was). It really shows in urban settings and vegetation.

I think ArmA2 graphics looks freakishly sweet of course and I cant wait to dance with the barnyard animals in the field but there is no competition between these two engines.

But Crysis paid hefty for their next gen mistakes because they rendered most of the consumer base with an unplayable game. Only top rigs could run it so the whole game actually flopped.

I hate the gameplay in Crysis though so Arma is allways top on my list. Graphics isnt everything (not saying its not very important and arma2 doesnt dissapoint so far).

[walker 0]

Hi all

For me the Cry engine is too Holywood and not enough reality.

The plants look like those fakes you get in office blocks and malls.

The vehicles all look as though they are lit on a film set rather than the real world dirty documentry style you see in ArmA II.

We all have our opinions.

The one quoted in the thread title and linked first post is from Cinemablend who concentrate on graphics in Film, TV and Games so it is a valid subject source to quote.

Kind Regards walker

[gT.SWAT-guy 0]

by my comment i not meant the faces are supposed to look awful

with proper quality textures and already implemented lip-sync they can look fine in ArmA 1

now with improved lighting etc. in ArmA 2 how come there are still some individuals claiming it's not enough ?

maybe express exactly what you want ?

like fluid motion on hairs in wind ? sweat droplets on skin?

but i fear such game would need more time to develop than Duke Nukem Forever

i would trade such 'gameplay' useless visual enhacing for something more important

like procedural dynamic blending animations for dynamic stances, way improved explosion effect system, dynamic muzzle effects or  IK and mass on trees  and so on ...

You not ?

I don't mind the faces, a face is the last thing you notice in real combat, what I do mind is the movement animations, in Arma 1 they are so sticky it was sometimes unbearable.  As you know better animations better the gameplay.  And how about some difference in animations, not everybody is trained to hold a weapon properly, I would to like see some  least trained combatants shoot from the hip, now THAT would add more realism & immersion to the game.

[wipman 1]

Hi, for me yeah, the ArmA2 may look better than Crysis or at least

i like much more it's shape than the crysis. But, im 300% sure of...

is that the ArmA2 looks 1.000 times better than the OFP2, after

watch this official OFP2 trailer:

- OFP2 Offical Trailer.

Seems clear that BIS are kings of the hill. Let's C ya

[dentist guba 0]

Hi, for me yeah, the ArmA2 may look better than Crysis or at least

i like much more it's shape than the crysis. But, im 300% sure of...

is that the ArmA2 looks 1.000 times better than the OFP2, after

watch this official OFP2 trailer:

- OFP2 Offical Trailer.

Seems clear that BIS are kings of the hill. Let's C ya

Did you mean to say 1000?

i find it funny that Codies have a large number of people whose only job is to advertise OFP:DR and they somehow manage to provide us with less and more dissapointing news and footage.

[ziiip 1]

Oh yeah, when ppl were bitching ArmA, you were all saying "Games arent all just about graphix, its the GAMEPLAY that matters". I've kinda read that type of comment a million times. Now it's OFP2 that is visually inferior(tho I think its pretty decent) and you guys are jumping at it saying "yea that OFP 2 totally sux lol like the graphix are n00b". It's the gameplay guys.

I sense...ahem, hypocrisy?

Don't get me wrong ArmA2 enjoys my priority but OFP2 sure is gonna be fun too.

[wipman 1]

Hi, i don't know in what school you've studied Dentist Guba, but here;

in spain, 1.000 = 1000. 1 = 1. So... the next time learn a bit of how

other countryes use the maths and how other people express 'emselves.

What my previous post there basicaly says is: i preffer the ArmA

and sure that the ArmA2 aswell than the Crysis. And also to the OFP2.

The ArmA and the ArmA2 (judging by the videos) look thousand of times

better than that codemasters and EA crap. That's what the previous

post says.

And what some call "bitching" is what i call "care"; for the small

details and a credible representation of the elements present in the

game, such as weaponry, the vehicles, the units and everything else;

at least to use a self tittle as "the ultimate combat simulator". Once said this... the only thing that i can say is that im still with BIS

even when some of the "features" (read: bugs, errors and limitations)

make me really angry, because i know that they can make it better. Let's C ya

[sparks50 0]

Both  1,000, and 1.000 should be correct, you can also do a spacing like this: 1 000.

[bravo 6 0]

common why all the confusion.. wipman is correct on hes definition.

From all my years in University, i learn it has to do with the context it self.

But today ill make myself pass trough dumb and ill go and ask a Prof from my department, to officially clear any doubt.

I would say: ArmA2 is 1.000.000.000,99 times better then OFP2 Dragon Rice.

I also have this troubling feeling: ArmA1 will die after ArmA2 release. Am I correct?

[tomcat_ 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.

.

.

.

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

hmm....long and hard debate for something that i think is quite subjective....

what looks prettier or not it is a subjective matter....however "shaping up to be the best game of 2009" is a different matter...

not all the time games with very nice graphics have become successful...if i recall correctly Crysis was not a successful game, sales wise, and that was according to developers because it required super speced machines to play...hence not accessible to masses...

whether better looking or not than crysis or any other game...gameplay and scalability in different machines will judge which one will be the best game...

[dentist guba 0]

Both  1,000, and 1.000 should be correct, you can also do a spacing like this: 1 000.

but that could easily be muddled up with a decimal point and decimal points are used a lot in Physics and computing e.t.c.

Anyway, back OT, the reason people are hatin' on OFP:DR just because of the graphics is because CM haven't shown us and gameplay so, really, they are asking to be judged on the graphics (especially with all the hyped up CGI stuff).

[Deadfast 43]

Depends in which country you live.

English-speaking ones use commas to separate digits and periods as a decimal separator.

Here, in Czech Republic, it's reversed (periods for digits, commas for decimals).

Personally I always use periods to separate decimal parts as a programming habit. If you use comma instead the compiler in most (if not all) languages, including BIS' own SQF and SQS, will not like it.

Now back to the topic:

I do think ArmA 2 looks better then Crysis.

Not from the technical point of view though, but simply because it looks much more believable. It delivers the feeling of a real landscape somewhere behind your house, which is something Crysis on default settings can never do.

Crysis just looks too pretty while ArmA 2 keeps the real look.

And BTW, Crysis doesn't require a kick-ass PC to run - this is a terribly widespread urban myth.

Hell, want a proof?

I was able to run the game on medium with Athlon 2600+ and HD2600XT AGP @1024x768.

And it still looked pretty good