Arma II Officially Better Looking Than Crysis?

[fullmetal69 0]

is an reality ! Arma II was better than Crysis

[Steakslim 1]

is an reality  ! Arma II was better than Crysis

Was?

[POTS 0]

is an reality  ! Arma II was better than Crysis

Was?

He's from the future steakslim, don't question him.

[BLSmith2112 0]

ArmA3? I think, it is unwarranted far future.

Strictly depending on Arma2's success I'm sure. Also, Suma said he would like to focus on a few other non-military games after Arma2 in a radio interview with Jerry Hopper a few months back.

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

Some of the textures on the vehicles look a bit too dark, as sometimes happens when users made addons; otherwise, it looks great.

I think a lot of this is achieved by the naturally chaotic terrain.

[KorpeN 0]

If we say that ArmA 2 physics will be tha same as ArmA's physics (they use the same graphics engine) and after looking these videos.....

..I wonder how blind are some fanboys that they cannot see the truth.

ArmA 2 has great graphics but only for photos.

Oh and I HATE Crysis.

[De_little_Bubi 1]

nobody said that arma2 will have better physics then crysis (but maybe?^^)

still the "physics" in arma video was in real time. the 3000 barrel stuff in crysis took his time. but looks funny

[Deadfast 43]

Ptolemaios, ever since when graphics == physics?

[KorpeN 0]

Ptolemaios, ever since when graphics == physics?

So the physics are not part of the graphics of a game?

[walker 0]

Ptolemaios, ever since when graphics == physics?

So the physics are not part of the graphics of a game?

Hi Ptolemaios

I hope Physics are not Part of the Graphics in any game.

Decoupling is a fundamental strategy in large scale development; that goes right back before, procedural engines and OOP to modular programming times and even beyond.

This allows you to change out modules as you develop better algorithms to do each role.

It is the fundamental concept of the black box.

If people were to include the graphics in with the physics then if there is a new version of graphics your physics have to be re-coded too. Eek! Spaghetti code!

NB note having the graphics separate from the physics is nothing to do with using the hardware of a graphics card to do other jobs such as physics and yes even sound algorithms; that is just using the power of a processor for additional purpose.

Nor is it preclusive of re-using the modules of say a ray-tracing algorithm to assess AI awareness or as part of you sound environment modeling.

Geometry is still geometry whether you use it to work out the curve of wheel or the parbola of projectile.

Kind Regards walker

[txalin 2]

Holy shit, if you enter on the main bis forums page, the text of this message is:

Arma II Officially Bet...

And i suddenly think on bet.."a"

Chain the thread's name please!! 

[Deadfast 43]

Ptolemaios, ever since when graphics == physics?

So the physics are not part of the graphics of a game?

No.

[Lepardi 0]

Oh and I HATE Crysis.

Why? I thought it was a nice game.

[KorpeN 0]

Ptolemaios, ever since when graphics == physics?

So the physics are not part of the graphics of a game?

No.

ok

even still the graphics of Crysis are equal or

better than ArmA 2 and its a game that released

2 years ago.So I cannot see the point

of cheering about this.Whatever.

Give us gameplay I am ok with ArmA's graphics.

@Walker

thnx for the infos.

@lepardi

I dont like this style of games.Hate maybe its a wrong word.

[walker 0]

Hi Ptolemaios

Nah; I have always thought the Cry engines graphics looked too shiny, some kind of problem with the Cry engines lighting engine that they never solved.

It reminds me of how SciFi films used to look before Star Wars. After Star Wars all the set designers realised the world is full of mess and things get worn and look used.

The Cry engine's graphics suffers from that same lack of reality. A sort of Fakeness.

Kind regards walker

[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!

Found it!

Is from here: http://games.tiscali.cz/reviews/arma2brddojmy/

Picture is over one year old.... now look how awesome the textures on the Wheeled-Tank on the left looking....

I hope it looks like that in the final product...  

Ohh and btw, this is photo-realisitc :

http://www.wetter-foto.de/foto-18138-schwarzwald-im-morgenlicht.html

[Balschoiw 0]

Don´t wanna bring down expectations but who tells us that the all shiny gfx will run decently on a moderate computer and is not just there for the beloved cp thread as it was with OFP and Arma ? People seem to jump fast to conclusions if they get presented some high-fidelity screenshots these days. Neither OFP nor Arma was able to fulfill this promise during a running game with decent FPS.

Why are you all so convinced that Arma 2 will be able to ?

I´m pretty sure that Arma 2 will not have flexible vegetation like in Crysis, where you move through some underwoods and the branches of vegetation bend back on player influence. Tbh, I don´t think that Arma 2 will be that interactive in microphysics. It would be a drastical change in the physics compartement and gfx compartement and I just don´t think that BIS is able to do such "jumps" in evolution. Same goes for multiple-parts vehicles. There may be some predefined blast zones for vehicles/buildings but as they are building from one version to another it´s very unlikely that they redisigned the whole thing from the scratch. I personally do not think so.

I am able to run Crysis on ultrahigh settings with my computer and the currently served gfx from Arma 2 do not come close. Sorry, that´s the way it is.

This whole thread is rather stupid imo as you can´t compare a highly polished "corridor" shooter to an universal combat-sim with a very different roaming behaviour.

Sorry Walker but you fail to get your perspective right.

Right now we only have HQ stills and a few ingame sequences that are not up with the quality of the stills. I´d still be interested in the qualities of Arma 2 "on the move", with a solid FPS counter and hardware specs. Until that, I´m sceptical at best as I know where BIS is coming from gfx-wise.

Stills do not tell you anything from an ingame pov, and tbh Crysis plays on a very different level than Arma 2 when it comes to flexibility and physics simulation. Pysics are indeed a big part of the visual impression today, noone can deny that. If someone says that it´s still ok that he shoots a jeep and it simply swaps it´s textures at one point it´s ok, but it has nothing to do with visual effects and possibilities offered by Crysis.

It´s stupid to compare both and it´s very stupid to put Arma 2 above Crysis without knowing Arma 2´s inner values and ingame performance.

Stills are great but they do not tell you anything about ingame performance.

[Lepardi 0]

Yeah they dropped the visual quality because of the consoles.

[kavoven 4]

Holy shit, if you enter on the main bis forums page, the text of this message is:

Arma II Officially Bet...

And i suddenly think on bet.."a"

Chain the thread's name please!! 

Thats what I thought, too

[NoRailgunner 0]

What has "better looking" to do with game mechanics and performance?

Can you really predict how the game will be only by looking at advertisments, nice teasers, pictures & text? Bit dewy-eyed/naive imho.

[Dwarden 1125]

Crysis (Wars) graphics were nice ... but were sort of 'shiny and unnatural' to me

(took lot of fiddling with certain settings to get rid of it)

and for some reason i think the engine isn't well optimized for long range detail rendering at all...

so for me FarCry2, STALKER:(CS) and FallOut3 are way nicer for outdoor and city/village sceneries...

but i'm sure Crytek no gunna sleep and will try add more 'breathtaking' features into next Cry game

(i'm just gunna hope it don't need 3 patches to be playable

[SaBrE_UK 0]

I think Crysis' graphics are superior, but Arma II does a good job itself. Crysis had excellent optimisation, scalability and some fo the mods make it look breathtaking. Still, Arma II is going for the "real" look which I prefer.

[Steakslim 1]

They shiny unnatural look of Crysis was a result of the ToD settings, and it was deliberate, especially in the first few levels of the game (they went with a very exaggerated look for their game, I.E. the sunshafts they were everywhere if you had them enabled). I learned quickly in the Sandbox editor for the game how quickly you can change the look of the game. The game itself was ment to look like a movie (or hollywood realism as creaters said), in fact it was actually fun making the game look like different color grade settings for films for different maps (or your own map).

However I'm glad ArmA2 is avoiding this for many reasons, one of them being in this game I want camoflauge that works. In many games, even with character models, for example snipers that had gilli suits, they stuck out like sore thumbs in any kind of grass, or anywhere that wasn't in a dark shadow. The only game I played where camo seemd to work was CoD4, and that's only because the game had a shitty view distance and everything in most maps were monochome anyways.

[Heatseeker 0]

I have always thought the Cry engines graphics looked too shiny, some kind of problem with the Cry engines lighting engine that they never solved.

It reminds me of how SciFi films used to look before Star Wars. After Star Wars all the set designers realised the world is full of mess and things get worn and look used.

The Cry engine's graphics suffers from that same lack of reality. A sort of Fakeness.

Kind regards walker

I have noticed that the vehicles in Arma II are looking very overshadded too, i personally prefer a nice high resolution texture to this new trend of making everything so damn shiny and uninteresting.

I find this claim and comparison to be silly since both games are quite diferent. You cant compare the explosions, particles, lighting, shadows just how you cant compare the size of the landscape, forests, towns and number of units.. it doesnt make any sense to compare these 2 games.

I dont see much of a graphical diference betwean Arma and Arma II to be honest, it looks much like the same game taken somewhere else.

[Brendon 0]

They shiny unnatural look of Crysis was a result of the ToD settings, and it was deliberate, especially in the first few levels of the game (they went with a very exaggerated look for their game, I.E. the sunshafts they were everywhere if you had them enabled). I learned quickly in the Sandbox editor for the game how quickly you can change the look of the game. The game itself was ment to look like a movie (or hollywood realism as creaters said), in fact it was actually fun making the game look like different color grade settings for films for different maps (or your own map).

However I'm glad ArmA2 is avoiding this for many reasons, one of them being in this game I want camoflauge that works. In many games, even with character models, for example snipers that had gilli suits, they stuck out like sore thumbs in any kind of grass, or anywhere that wasn't in a dark shadow. The only game I played where camo seemd to work was CoD4, and that's only because the game had a shitty view distance and everything in most maps were monochome anyways.

This happened a lot in BF2. The best way to avoid that was to hide in a bush, since they rendered all distances.