View Full Version : will ofp2 be as pretty as this?
bf2 looks so sweet.
http://files.filefront.com/Battlef....fo.html (http://files.filefront.com/Battlefield_2_Explosive_Trailer/;3822846;;/fileinfo.html)
but has arcade gameplay which puts me off big time.
i hope ofp2 will look even better and give me the realism (maybe even more) that i am enjoying now with OFP GOTY edition.
;)
notes on graphics i see on the above movie.
looks fabulous. particlulalry the light and dark areas. too many games have lighting in same tonal areas which makes everything look washed out. this is importnant as dark areas must stay dark even when brightness is turned up so people can hide in darkness.
great sky.
nice weapon details. vehilces look good.
physics look sweet as well. see how th ecar is stopped dead when shot by tank.
Now BF2 is released this year in july.
and OFP2 released next year spring?http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif that's a year extra so the graphics will http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif be even more mind shattering http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Homefry
Mar 10 2005, 01:53
Don't get caught up on too much eye candy. Obviously some of the graphical effects in BF2 will be in OFP, but I still like the 'dirty' feel OFP has to it... it just isn't all that flashy. I think its more an opinion of what looks "good" in a war sim (or arcade in BF2's case).
SpecOp9
Mar 10 2005, 02:43
I was looking at Joint Ops and going WOW THIS GAME LOOKS COOL!
I played Joint Ops
WOW! THIS GAME IS CRAP!
twisted
Mar 10 2005, 04:26
yeah compared to ofp nearly every shooter out now is pretty shit.
BUT .... graphics are important. I've only recently started playing ofp online. and one thing that's really bad is how players stand out on the landscape. my first game i went prone [dumb movie i know] and hoped the enemy in a tank a couple fo hundered meteres away wouldn't notice me. but as you can imagine the landscape is pretty damn barren so i stood out like a pair of dogs bollocks.
now in a more modern engine i'd expect there to be shadowed terrain and if you go in the shadow you get darker and harder to spot. making concealment and stealth a viable tactic.
also a more realistic looking envirnoment means more immesrion and suspension of belief.
better graphics = ability to immerse yourself in the game. and that's a good thing about JO. you can hide away. conceal yourself in the envirnoment. and that is crucially important.
http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
funnyguy1
Mar 10 2005, 17:22
graphics? what`s graphic? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif
realistic iron sights! howgh...
If you mean trees, grass and so on...generaly to make ofp more green...i`m with you...
And I wonder sometimes...why game which isn`t using dx9 is sometime more realistic (graphic things) than for ex. Bf`s....
`dirty`...yeah...without dx blurs...
It`s cool maybe in nfsu (looks cool even if it`s not so realistic...) but ofp has it`s own `magic`...
It`s rather grey and it`s the reason it looks more real.
I don`t want ofp2 look like dx9 benchmark http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/mad_o.gif
I want it to stay grey.
when it comes to compare gfx there is actually only one you can really "compete" with, and thats steal beasts.
Dont forget that the area between Montingac->Morton is bigger then most BF maps ever will be, and then you all know how big Nogova is..
Heatseeker
Mar 10 2005, 20:05
It`s rather grey and it`s the reason it looks more real.
I don`t want ofp2 look like dx9 benchmark http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/mad_o.gif
I want it to stay grey.
If you have a nvidia based graphics card go into you driver options and add just a bit of digital vibrance to it, OPF will look less grey but the colors will look more realistic, especialy under good lighting conditions, everything will look more alive http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif .
Homefry
Mar 10 2005, 23:40
It`s rather grey and it`s the reason it looks more real.
I don`t want ofp2 look like dx9 benchmark http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/mad_o.gif
I want it to stay grey.
If you have a nvidia based graphics card go into you driver options and add just a bit of digital vibrance to it, OPF will look less grey but the colors will look more realistic, especialy under good lighting conditions, everything will look more alive http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif .
Exactly... this trick is amazing (I just recently discovered it...), it makes OFP look so colorful and vibrant... it's really awesome.
Batukhan
Mar 11 2005, 11:10
LOL @<hidden> digital vibrance, tried it, made my eyes hurt. Altho it made the sand in desert island much more colorful http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Battlefield 2:
It still seems to go on with the regular shoot-em-up style, but that's fine, 'cause that way it won't be much of a competition to OFP2 ;)
Yeah well.. lol....
the thing is that when Ofp2 comes out.... there will be a Battlefield 3 or probably a battlefield 4 cause i doubt OFp2 will come out spring 2006... it for sure will be delayed as with all big games in the past few years so....
SHWiiNG
Mar 12 2005, 15:55
hey u want eye candy look at swat4 and ive played the demo and it is fantastic
DracoPaladore
Mar 12 2005, 17:16
My only wish is that OFP's terrian not be as...flat.
That's my only gripe, it's just way too flat.
Heatseeker
Mar 12 2005, 18:17
I wouldnt mind if it looked similar to VBS1, with improved models, animations and textures and some better efects, it would look good enough for me and i hope they aim "resources" on more important stuff like colision detection and solving those nasty cliping issues. I dont care about specular maps and bump mapping and that other cartoon DX9 stuff, i want it to look like real life and theres nothing more life alike than a sharp photorealistic texture. If they succeed to make everything more solid and with improved physics i will be happy enough.
I have yet to try the swat4 demo but from the pics i saw at gamespy the models and textures werent really very impressive nor realistic http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif .
Benny Moore
Mar 13 2005, 09:29
Have you looked at Brothers In Arms? That's the sort of level of graphical perfection you should be wanting. The only problem I've seen is the muzzle flashes, which are spheres. That can be modified, I'm sure.
In fact, the whole game looks like Operation Flashpoint in World War Two, except a much smaller but a much more realistic.
well i cant wait to see 1 screenshot of ofp2.. that would be amazing http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
then we'll know what it looks like
Heatseeker
Mar 13 2005, 15:20
Have you looked at Brothers In Arms? That's the sort of level of graphical perfection you should be wanting. The only problem I've seen is the muzzle flashes, which are spheres. That can be modified, I'm sure.
In fact, the whole game looks like Operation Flashpoint in World War Two, except a much smaller but a much more realistic.
Well, with all honesty i dont expect OPF2 graphics to look like any other game out there, i expect them to look like a up to date OPF/VBS. These comparison threads just dont make any sense. OPF has its own graphics engine and BIS already stated that they would be improving and rebuilding the OPF engine.
Take for example the Our weapons mod MI26 "Halo" helicopter, that is the type of stuff i expect to see in OPF2, high poly counts and photo realistic textures, i can pick many games whose graphics are highly rated but none of them look has real has this example, Far Cry for example, its vehicals and weapons look like shit http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif .
I have seen many games out there, some look great for some reason but in the end i want OPF2 to look like OPF2, im not willing to reduce the amount of units on a map/battle for ragdolls or lighting efects or stuff like that http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif .
twisted
Mar 13 2005, 23:03
yeah. at its best ofp has a look n feel like nothing out there. and the vsb screen shots look damn awesome.
i recently grabbed the high res textures for OFP islands. and wow its much better. add lluamax ski, dxdll and some improved models (HYK) and things are suddenly looking very sweet.
however....
as far as graphics go i wouldn't want benchmarking effects or bright and shiny stuff. rather an environment where everything fits well. and this is where ofp ATM has its wow moments and problems.
lighting/shadows/ tones that all work together present a 'unified' battefield. where a wall and the surrounding vegetation is lit properly.
where the vegetation looks part of the terrain and not likes its been disconnectedly plopped on the ground.
I'd also see things like really nicely made grass playing a big part. by nicely made i mean that it looks like grass even close up and not like an overclose view of a polygon.
where buildings look like buildings and less than cardboard structures with pictures pasted on them.
i'd also like to see small touchs like binocular reflections if sun catches the lens at the correct angle.
and shadow areas (think side of mountain or shade under a tree) where if you go there you (and surrounding objects) go darker as well.
hardrock
Mar 13 2005, 23:26
I don't care how pretty it will be. The lightning and shadows have to be correct, and everything else I care about is the gameplay and realism.
Hockey112
Mar 17 2005, 15:15
Yeah, if it's like VBS1 graphic wise, (yeah VBS1 isn't much better I know.) And all the major bugs fixed then they can do as they want with the gfx's, well sure I want better gfx's.. But I don't wanna buy a new PC either.
WargamingNor
Mar 18 2005, 09:09
But I don't wanna buy a new PC either.
You mean like don't buy a new PC ever? For us gamers, that has never been an option.
I will build a new gaming rig this summer, my old one from summer 2003 isn't quite cutting it anymore in the newer games. Hopefully it will play OFP 2 quite nicely, although it will come out a year (or more...) after I've put it togheter.
(For those interested, it will be something like this: AMD64 3500+, 1 gig dualchannel ram, Radeon X850XT PE 256MB, DFI Lanparty UT NF4 Ultra-D mobo and a WD 74GB Raptor hdd... + other stash as well, but those are the key components)
Hockey112
Mar 18 2005, 12:34
But I don't wanna buy a new PC either.
You mean like don't buy a new PC ever? For us gamers, that has never been an option.
I will build a new gaming rig this summer, my old one from summer 2003 isn't quite cutting it anymore in the newer games. Hopefully it will play OFP 2 quite nicely, although it will come out a year (or more...) after I've put it togheter.
(For those interested, it will be something like this: AMD64 3500+, 1 gig dualchannel ram, Radeon X850XT PE 256MB, DFI Lanparty UT NF4 Ultra-D mobo and a WD 74GB Raptor hdd... + other stash as well, but those are the key components)
haha, well, I bought a new one in august or something.
So I don't wanna buy 1x PC more when I bought one in august. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
WargamingNor
Mar 18 2005, 12:58
You can never have too many PC's http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif
I have 2 PC's running now, and enough parts to have at least one more up and running... I know, I have too much hardware floating around... something my missus reminds me of constantly http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif
Andy Mc
Mar 23 2005, 22:09
Hi all http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
I wouldn't say Battlefield 2 was THAT pretty....the actual in-game screenshots don't look anything like those preview movies http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif ( UE 3.0 -- now THATS pretty http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif )
But that doesn't bother me really - the current graphics do exactly what they were intended to do, besides how many other games can make an island a few miles wide with no loading pauses in-between...??
And I'd take gameplay over graphics any day -- If anything I'd prefer them to tune the game engine a bit more - I get the same performance with my old P2Ghz + GF4 Ti as I do with my P4 3.5Ghz + GF6 GT..?? ( I would've thought I could handle a View Distance of at least 2000++ with High Textures - but I can only use the Normal setting http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/sad_o.gif )
Who knows what they've got in store for us...Ideally they'd make:
- New/Heavily Modified Engine ( all fancy DX 9.0 effects -HDR -PS 3.0 )
- Modding tools and Mission Maker
- Improved multiplayer ( hopefully with the ability to join a game mid-session )
They've definately got a hard task to top the first game...but I'm sure they'll surprise us with something special in the coming months http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
/eek rambled on a bit http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wow_o.gif
EDIT: Correct me if I'm wrong - and I hope this isn't already known but....the official site ( http://www.flashpoint2.com ) has some ( slightly blurred ) screenies -- does it not...??
It also mentions VBS1 and the 2nd Generation of its "proprietary engine" -- I assume its an Enchanced VBS1 engine..??
Cpt. FrostBite
Mar 24 2005, 10:59
EDIT: Correct me if I'm wrong - and I hope this isn't already known but....the official site ( http://www.flashpoint2.com ) has some ( slightly blurred ) screenies -- does it not...??
It also mentions VBS1 and the 2nd Generation of its "proprietary engine" -- I assume its an Enchanced VBS1 engine..??
That site hasn't been updated for ages. Relaese date "late 2004, early 2005"?? They can change that to late 2006, early 2007.
The screens are most likely VBS1 screenshots and not meant as a preview for OFP2.
I have seen many games out there, some look great for some reason but in the end i want OPF2 to look like OPF2, im not willing to reduce the amount of units on a map/battle for ragdolls or lighting efects or stuff like that http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif .
I dont think ragdolls would have to big impact on the preformance. And OFP2 with ragdolls would be pretty nice http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Acecombat
Apr 7 2005, 13:50
Yep ragdolls a MUST , its a really good effect plus i dont see any major lag issues thta it might bring , considering the game will be released in 2006 and the GFX card industry will have gone to even higher heights.
Plus cant you imagine , sniping some guy from 800 m in the head and he falls down with force towards the side the bullet was travelling , with his legs yanked from beneath him. That would be neat. Current OFP stance of simply dropping dead even if being hit by a high velocity bullet is not realistic , *BANG* soldier drops dead as if he had a heart attack rather then being hit by a bullet at high speed. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif
but they gotta make is realistic which knowing BIS they well, not like in Full Spectrum Warrior were a AK47 bullet makes the guy fly 4 meters away. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/sad_o.gif
Personally I couldn't care less about ragdoll effects. They are the kind of thing you notice during the first 5 minutes of the game and the rest of the time they are irrelevant. I actually think the ragdoll stuff in HL2 looks _worse_ than the OFP death animation.
As many others have said, it's all about the gameplay. Having said that, prettier versions of the vehicles and scenery and an increased range of motion-captured animations would be great :-)
If they add ragdoll, Im pretty sure it would be possible to turn if off http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
Here is my bit.
I appologize to all for very straight forward way of expression.
It is like with girls, either for a quick fuck or for life. You gotta choice to make.
I hope FP2 is better than VBS in terms of the whole game - sim - effects etc.
If FP2 isnt people would just buy VBS1.
WHich make me think FP2 will be better than VBS.
BF2 is a load of arcade rubbish.
Simply no realism there.
It is like with girls, either for a quick fuck or for life. You gotta choice to make.
You speak the truth Gordy.
And some can destroy you and driain your cash reserves if you are not careful lol.
da12thMonkey
Apr 17 2005, 11:58
If FP2 isnt people would just buy VBS1.
I think giving joe public the choice between paying around $50 for OFP2 or $140 for just VBS1's core module is a bit of a no-brainer. Some die-hard realism folk who actually know about it might opt for VBS1 (if it's a step back in realism over OFP, but I can't see BIS doing that personally) but the majority of people, new and old players alike will get OFP2. Simply because it'll be more widely distributed and accessable to the public. VBS1's not exactly heavilly publicised so few people will know it to buy it.
Around $50 for OFP2 or $140 for just VBS1's core module? You decide http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
funnyguy1
Apr 17 2005, 12:18
If FP2 isnt people would just buy VBS1.
Around $50 for OFP2 or $140 for just VBS1's core module? You decide http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
Yeah...and:
Around $50 for OFP2 = around 160 PLN (polish currency)
and $140 = 450 PLN for VBS1
So, I won`t buy it...
Here is what I think.
Do we really need some screens?
Some stupid artworks?
Ofp2 is not Ut 2004, the thing that we need is kind of AI behaviour trailer, because it`s hard to see ai in action on the pics....I was said, that ofp2 will be similar to VBS1 (graphic stuff), the olny thing I want better in ofp2 are the anims, nothing besides.
When It cames to the other "parts" of the game, AI, physics, as I said, you won`t see it on a pic.
So, we have to wait, because, even If we got some artwork, will we be pleased? I mean, even If the pic is *ss kicking beautifull, we can`t say ofp2 is great... We have to wait to see the real action (ai, physics and so on).
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.