New GOLD STANDARD for realistic video games.

Discussion in 'Mac and PC Games' started by PracticalMac, Apr 24, 2011.

  1. PracticalMac, Apr 24, 2011
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2011

    PracticalMac macrumors 68030


    Jan 22, 2009
    Houston, TX
  2. VPrime macrumors 68000


    Dec 19, 2008
    London Ontario
    Eh.. not really. the graphics are actually pretty standard.:confused: I would even go as far as saying bad. Nothing that fancy at all.
    Low polygon models, low texture resolutions, poor alpha maps, no anti aliasing, little to no lighting. Meh. I have seen better.

    This looks better....
  3. Hastings101 macrumors 68020


    Jun 22, 2010
    Yea... not that the graphics are bad or anything, they're very nice, but they're definitely not a new standard.
  4. ozreth macrumors 65816


    Nov 5, 2009
    Nothing that fancy? What games are you playing? That was pretty insane.
  5. 0098386 Suspended


    Jan 18, 2005
    They're quite good yes. But would I want all my games looking like that? No. Would I want my games looking better? Yes. Would I want better, more original art direction? Yes.

    Show me someone who believes great graphics make the game, and I've shown you a fool.

    Oh wow! New Star Ocean I hope!

    And what I like about that is it isn't trying to look real, it looks great through incredible art direction.
  6. cluthz macrumors 68040


    Jun 15, 2004
    The ground battle was actually pretty below average graphics, all houses looks almost the same, grass and landscape is almost totally flat and the shadows the tanks casts (on ground) doesn't match shadows parts on the tanks cast on themselves.

    Airplane models looks awesome tho.

    Compare landscape with recent titles like Crysis.

    And here from gamespots review of IL-2 Strumovik: Cliffs of Dover

    (click on images to enlarge..)

    Flight sims are kinda limited in close up textures because you want at least 10km view distance when you fly, but games on ground people can be happy with 1km..
  7. PracticalMac, Apr 25, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 27, 2011

    PracticalMac thread starter macrumors 68030


    Jan 22, 2009
    Houston, TX
    The quality of rendering in video is excellent, no doubt, but the action is all scripted.
    On top of that, its a DEMO! That alone discounts it as actual in game real time rendering.

    The first Cliff of Dover video can be done by anyone with a good computer and inexpensive post-production effects.

    Show me something better. Just saying so is meaningless.
    True, but it goes hand in hand. Great art tells how much effect of your action has affected the target.
    So far, everything sounds great!

    Ground is a WORK IN PROGRESS.
    That shows it has the potential, but for now it is targets for the air units.

    You cannot compare Crysis with CoD, and if you insist, then CoD is still the winner.

    1. Crysis is locked in FPS, while CoD you can looked 3ed person, and group view. (WIN: CoD)
    2. Crysis is locked on ground in a tiny arena (5 square mile?), while CoD is open terrain with I guestimate 200~400 square mile park. (WIN: CoD)
    3. Clouds in Crysis are likely layered 2D images, while in CoD are 3D rendering. (WIN: CoD)
    4. Crysis has, what about 12~20 AI targets? CoD supports up to 128 ONLINE players, maybe twice that in AI units. (WIN: CoD)
    5. Crysis has a limited number of Vehicle and Infantry models. CoD has 12 playable, another 15 modeled, and about 100 ground vehicles. (WIN: CoD)

    CoD one can script your own missions, any combination of vehicles and targets, no limits to terrain on the created map. (WIN: CoD), (WIN: CoD), (WIN: CoD)

    BTW, that image you lined is NOT CoD, but the much, much older IL-2 with additional aircraft (that is Do-217 in background, with 109G in foreground, neither are in CoD).

    Cliffs of Dover so far is undisputed champ
    Any other contender?
  8. Ap0ks macrumors 6502

    Aug 12, 2008
    Cambridge, UK
    I think we have ourselves an IL2 fanboy.

    Graphics in a game don't make up for gameplay, you can have the best looking game ever and it could still be a pile of crap to play. Also you fail for comparing a FPS to a flight-sim, well either that or you really like Call of Duty :p
  9. 0098386 Suspended


    Jan 18, 2005
    You've been here since 2009 so I find it hard to believe you're a joke account.

    You're saying that Cliffs of Dover is better than Crysis because-
    1. It has more viewing options.
    2. It has a larger (and more dull/featureless) map.

    Ok I had to give up here. You clearly haven't a clue about the tech behind games. Crysis was one of the first to have volumetric clouds.

    I honestly think you're either a joke account or mad. Let me create some arbitrary reasons why Crysis is better;

    1. Crysis has caves. Therefore Crysis has twice the depth as COD. Winner: Crysis
    2. Crysis has aliens. Therefore the story to Crysis is better. Winner: Crysis
    3. Crysis has millions of players worldwide. Winner: Crysis
    4. Crysis is regarded as one of the best FPS games, which is no easy feat considering how large the market is. Winner: Crysis
    5. Crysis has real time weapon customisation, the ability to drive cars and tanks. Winner: Crysis
    6. You can walk in Crysis. Winner: Crysis.

  10. chrono1081 macrumors 604


    Jan 26, 2008
    Isla Nublar
    I loled at this but this actually hits the nail on the head:

    OP no offense but you didn't say by what measure the gold standard is? If you are measuring graphics then there are plenty of games with better graphics out there. Just looking at the ground textures I'm pretty sure I'd be safe to say that they are not even bump mapped.
  11. Kissaragi, Apr 25, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2011

    Kissaragi macrumors 68020

    Nov 16, 2006
    Looks pretty average to me, planes and cars are relatively easy to get looking great. Battlefield 3 and crysis 2 both looks better.
  12. PracticalMac thread starter macrumors 68030


    Jan 22, 2009
    Houston, TX
    Actually, never played IL-2
    Installed it on BootCamp, but it displayed game upside down and could never resolve it.

    But I did not compare CoD with Crysis, cluthz did, and obviously you and Dagless did not read my post.

    Quoting Ap0ks words, I think we have a Crysis fanboy.

    It has been over a year since I played Crysis, and it is an excellent FPS, but I got board of it in about 2 hours.
    To me, it would be better to watch the movie or read the book then waste time on being an actor in someone else story.
    You said effects are second to the play, but what play feature does Crysis have that Halo does not?

    And the terrain is not flat in CoD, but maybe I need to push you over the Cliffs to make you believe that. ;)


    Anyway, it looks like everyone is comparing CoD to Crysis (Flight sim to FPS), and that is wrong.
    And wrong of me to even reply to cluthz

    OK, chrono1081 made a point.

    For a WW2 genre game it is gold. As a flight sim game could be gold (that is, now true the flight model is).
    The attention to recreating detail inside and out is unmatched in any game.
    The models have internal detail exposed as the unit breaks up, possibly the first time.

    Yes, CoD had a bad start, lots of problems on release, but most have been resolved.
  13. doh123 macrumors 65816

    Dec 28, 2009
    so you are changing your tune? You said "all video games" ... Don't say others are invalid when you said it yourself... if you want to correct yourself, thats fine.
  14. 0098386 Suspended


    Jan 18, 2005
    Quite wrong. I played and finished Crysis a couple of years ago and thought it was great. I'm a fan of great games regardless of their genre. I was just jokingly engaging in your mentality of comparing games in such an arbitrary and opinionated fashion.

    I've heard of Crysis giving people "wood" but never "board".

    So you'd like to watch a movie or read the book, and then play the game?

    Wider ranges of environment, larger scale environments, alterable and customisable gameplay (through the nanosuit options), POV story presentation, wider breadth of enemies. Halo is very much a "My First FPS" compared to Crysis, which is a lot more refined.

    Oh I did. Someone brought up Crysis and then brought up silly reasons why you thought this game is better than Crysis. But if games from 2006-2007 look better than this COD game, then this isn't the new GOLD STANDARD, now is it.
  15. Hastings101 macrumors 68020


    Jun 22, 2010
    If Crysis did that for you, well... good luck with that.
  16. mac2x macrumors 65816

    Sep 19, 2009
    It is stupid to compare a FPS with a flight sim. Apples and oranges people. :cool:
  17. PracticalMac thread starter macrumors 68030


    Jan 22, 2009
    Houston, TX
    I did type that, didn't I.
    Teach me for doing a quick post half asleep.

    I changed title to "Realistic" (not realism), as in trying to be realistic to real life, not create a new world.
  18. SidBala macrumors 6502a

    Jun 27, 2010
    I honestly thought this was a thread necro'd from like 2007.

    for 2011, that game's graphics looks average. Not sure what the game play is like though.
  19. PracticalMac thread starter macrumors 68030


    Jan 22, 2009
    Houston, TX
    See my post above. I forgot what I wrote late last night.

    Board is what happens when you are bored, as your body hits the floor from falling asleep. :rolleyes:

    Depends on game. :)

    I was ;) on that. No doubt Crysis advanced the game and added a few more features. What is disappointing is forcing you to go follow a linear story (how one completes levels is not unlike Doom).

    How are these comparisons silly?
    > Multiplay
    > Vehicle list
    > super large (and featured) playable terrain
    > Number of AI opponents
    (questioning clouds is fail on my part)

    Resources are finite. If the area is small, you have more resources to make an excellent area. If the area is huge, the detail will need to be minimized.
  20. PowerGamerX macrumors 6502a


    Aug 9, 2009
    May I just say that Cliffs of Dover is a decent looking game. However, it's really not anything special. Crysis looked much better, and, frankly, I couldn't care less how realistic the graphics look.

    Give me a combat flight simulator with the styling of Team Fortress 2! :cool:

    Though the Crysis comparison is kind of faulted, considering the ground textures in COD probably look just fine while flying, and, Crysis has a much shorter render distance I'm sure.
  21. darkleemar macrumors newbie

    Dec 29, 2010

    how old is this game? It looks like it is from 2006.
  22. laudern macrumors 6502a

    Jan 5, 2011
    seriously, what is the purpose of this thread??

    It's a fun read, but who cares if you (OP) like a particular games graphics...get over it...
  23. deadwulfe macrumors 6502a


    Feb 18, 2010
  24. 0098386 Suspended


    Jan 18, 2005
    Yeah. I'm also really annoyed at how, in 2011 with all our advanced computers and such vastly capable processors, that when I watch a film on my computer I'm not able to change the genre or direction of the film. :rolleyes:

    So along with not understanding game technology you also can't grasp direction in games.

    I refer you back to my list of reasons why Crysis is better than COD again. COD only has one area - above ground. Crysis has above, below and within buildings. Therefore it's 3x better. :rolleyes:

    Pokemon Blue is better than COD because it has 151 creatures, split into 11 elemental types! That's way more than COD.
    Can you not see how you're comparing some really unusual features in a game? I swear I haven't heard such silliness in days. I mean shouldn't you be playing Morrowind? One of the biggest game maps in the past decade, if you're so interested in numbers.

    Also in regards to the renamed thread... COD... the pinnacle GOLD STANDARD of realistic video games? Really?
  25. SidBala macrumors 6502a

    Jun 27, 2010
    No offense, but I don't think this game is the gold standard for anything.

Share This Page