Arma II Officially Better Looking Than Crysis?

[Scrub]

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.

I believe the reason people are doing this, is because all the opinions of Arma II from devoted DR people was that it looked 'crappy'.. many other bad names, and they were comparing it against the cinematic renders by CM, as if these visuals were it's strength. Now the cat is out of the bag on the bland, sterile environment shown in this latest vid, they feel the injustice and vent (I know I do).

On topic: Crysis may have some environmental interaction that's more detailed than Arma II, but the overall beauty is real, as a previous poster stated, while Crysis is artificially flamboyant (cartoony is not the right word, but I hope you get my meaning).

[stakex]

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.

This was an awsome post Ziiip... and it couldn't be more true, this community is esentially built on hypocrisy.

I mean common, someone was saying OFP2 was a total failure simply because the weapon model wasn't showing in one of their demo videos. You know what? When I first bought ArmA1 it was a total disaster to the point I couldn't even play it. And it wasn't an early demo video of the game, it was a game I payed for that was far less stable then some alpha build games I have tested. But yet the ArmA community was like "Pfff these things happen, they'll fix it... its no big deal". But forbid some other developer has a relativly small issue in an early demo video and the community is ready to denounce their game as dead, even without knowing much about the gameplay aspect. Its really sad actually to see such immaturity from a community that seems to prides itself on being one of the most mature in the gameing world. I mean can't everyone simply be happy that theres going to be two large scale mil-sims released this year?

Back on the actual topic here tho... untill we have the game in our hands we won't be able to tell with game has better graphics. My personal belief is when you crank the graphics on Crysis the models are far sharper, more detailed, and the textures are far better then what we have seen in ArmA2 so far. Where ArmA2 does shine over Cyrsis however is in its "real" look. Crysis might have better graphics, but ArmA2's are far more real looking.

[Deadfast]

Well, Scrub has a point too - maybe the reason why people are complaining about DR's graphics are all the shiny CGI trailers and 'shopped pictures that spoiled them?

That's at least true with me

[Steakslim]

[QUOTE=(stakex @ April 02 2009,14:12)]

Back on the actual topic here tho... untill we have the game in our hands we won't be able to tell with game has better graphics. My personal belief is when you crank the graphics on Crysis the models are far sharper, more detailed, and the textures are far better then what we have seen in ArmA2 so far. Where ArmA2 does shine over Cyrsis however is in its "real" look. Crysis might have better graphics, but ArmA2's are far more real looking.

I think you said what I couldn't put together into words very well. Cryengine 2 could be quickly taylored to have a look that would compete with ArmA2 if a mod team desired to do so (the SDK is finally out, that could happen if someone wished to do a reality-esce mod) by stripping away the extra glitter, however in scale CE2 or even CE3 which was just announced, I doubt could compare to the sheer size of ArmA2. Environmentally ArmA2's low textures, lack of shadows, and a few chalky particle effects (dust, blast effects) drags the game down visually though the textures for the uniforms and vehicles are utterly fantastic in my opinion, as well as some of the building models we've seen in videos which from what I can judge look quite nice. Infact everytime I see the video of the Hind cockpit I start shuffling in my seat getting ansy for this game's release. Actually in it's current visual incarnation that we've seen in the last few weeks of videos, I am content with the game so long as what many have mentioned isn't present, and that is namely the clunkly controls and movements. I don't like to feel as if I am a robot fighting robots, even if it is the reality of the situation.

Now people have made excuses and such saying this and that doesn't need to be detailed, that we never notice that anyways, but there are many that do and it isn't wrong to critique these points. Do we need these extra touches? Perhaps not, but it wouldn't hurt, and would actually be fantastic if it would be. I love that kind of immersion, though if some of it has to be sacrificed for gameplay then so be it. Todays hardware cannot make everything crisp and detailed with a 225km world with a 30km or more view distance (assuming since OFPR is boasting a 35km view distance I figured ArmA2 would compete, anyone know of the official word on the max view distance?) without sacrifices, so long as they are needed sacrifices. I'm starting to see unnecessary sacrifices and somewhat dishonest presentations with OFPR which are making me cringe as I have an interest in both ArmA2 and OFPR titles, but the new OFP does not need to start turning into a BF3 with a hard mode (it may already have).....leave that to BF3 if and when it is ever announced.

[someBoy]

Has a 35km view distance been confirmed for OFPR? I thought it was a mere rumor.

[Steakslim]

Has a 35km view distance been confirmed for OFPR? I thought it was a mere rumor.

I was going off of a comparison chart. If is just a rumor then I should retract that statement. 35km does seem a bit....much for hardware, considering in ArmA Ace Mod you're pushing it trying to have 5km view distances (i'm usually at 3.5km).

[walker]

I was going off of a comparison chart.

Hi all

To Steakslim. Which compaison chart? Where? Linky please.

Kind Regards walker

[Steakslim]

I was going off of a comparison chart.

Hi all

To Steakslim. Which compaison chart? Where? Linky please.

Kind Regards walker

http://operationflashpoint2.org/ofp2...2-fact-thread/

There's a few other sites that have copypasta this information, but I figure this is the source for obvious reasons, and AVIBird is the author so you might want to ask him directly for his source.

[someBoy]

I might be the one being wrong . AVIBIRD may be able to clarify us. Still, 35km seems a lot. Will the island in OFPR be that long anyway?

EDIT: I sent a PM to AVIBIRD regarding this issue...

[sparks50]

No matter if theres 35km or 200 km view distance, I cant see how this affects gameplay.
When I fly high in Arma, It doesn't really make much difference when I crank it from 10km to 15km. when you go past a certain distance it doesn't matter so much anymore, so I wouldn't be surprised if CM decided 35km view distance wasn't worth prioritizing.

When will people stop comparing the two games though? Simply buy what you want
The two games will probably share a lot of players anyway.