ArmA II too Good to believe!

[walker 0]

Hi all

ArmA is realy creating a storm!

People who see the ArmA videos for the first time do not believe they are in game shots of real gameplay. So used to the big publishers putting out fake pre-renders, many journalists and people on video sharing sites etc. keep asking if that is what it looks like in game?

Quote[/b] ]Arma II: Amazing New In-Game Trailer And Screenshots

By William Usher: 2009-02-27 16:51:07

When we compared Arma II to Crysis some people were a little put-off by the comparison because they assumed that all the footage and the screenshot(s) were from cinematic sequences. Turns out, none of what you’re about to see is cinematic and all of it is in-game...

Follow link for Whole story

http://www.cinemablend.com/games....12.html

Kind Regards walker

[dentist guba 0]

i just hope the blood effects will be better than in that vid, guessin they are WIP though as the GC 08 vids didnt even have blood.

[kavoven 4]

i just hope the blood effects will be better than in that vid, guessin they are WIP though as the GC 08 vids didnt even have blood.

Thats one of the most unimportant things in the whole game...

[dentist guba 0]

yeh but did you see them? was better in OFP 1, they look too bright and round-makes it too easy to see where you hit them.

[kavoven 4]

yeh but did you see them? was better in OFP 1, they look too bright and round-makes it too easy to see where you hit them.

thats a point for you, I thought you wanted them brighter...

[Deadfast 43]

IIRC BIS stated particle effects (blood spatter) weren't done in the in-game trailer (if that's what you're talking about).

[dentist guba 0]

it amuses me that the in game vids of ARMA2 (at least in my opinion) look better than the pre rendered OFP 2 vids. yes they use "actual game assets" but to me those "assets" look like a few shiny low poly objects (y'know that "round greasy men" look of BF:BC

[Steakslim 1]

I have a hard time believing that people think the recent ArmA2 faction videos are pre-rendered. The graphical quality isn't THAT good. For what the game is trying to accomplish it is doing pretty well, but a lot of the textures still look bad, infact some screenshots resemble some of the Oblivion Overhaul Mods. I recall in one article where the writer said it looked like HD documentary footage. I don't think this writer has ever seen HD documentary footage, let alone know what HD actually is in comparison to other film types, as seems most people you encounter. I find it a bad idea that this is what's being used to hype the game, and not the actual gameplay, considering that's where the majority of this games' fanbase will be eyeballing. The video themselves however are great, as they show how the game will be (or should be) played, though with a few embellishments for dramatic effect.

[BLSmith2112 0]

I have a hard time believing that people think the recent ArmA2 faction videos are pre-rendered.

Perhaps some of the videos. In which Track IR is used (which now I have to buy, and to more monitors might I add)..I think a few of those videos are completely believable. While some show some odd AI behavior might come across as "this is a game", but even so - its pretty much impossible to hide anyway in all games. Especially when it comes to non scripted movements and animations, not to mention in an environment as vast and as diverse as Arma.

The choppers, planes, swat/tactical entries, hand signals, animations, terrain, vegetation etc... are all completely mind boggling imo. I'm just realllly angry that the big dog media sites (at least here in the US) aren't paying any attention to this. A game who's graphics are matching up or surpassing the CGI use from the major players in the gaming business.

[side note:, I hope all the forests/plains aren't completely separated as they were on Arma1! I forest insertions.]

[Dwarden 1124]

well let's just hope the 'hype' wave some of the media produce (especially the bombastic better than Crysis one)

not damage the game as some may expect more than it's delivered ...

publicity is good ... hype too ... but balance is better

[Ferox 0]

its pretty damned obvious that arma2's world looks like a better version of the arma world.. which is a better version of the ofp world..

so I highly doubt that video is not in game footage.

[Alex72 1]

I have a hard time believing that people think the recent ArmA2 faction videos are pre-rendered.

Did you check the link provided by the OP?

"When we compared Arma II to Crysis some people were a little put-off by the comparison because they assumed that all the footage and the screenshot(s) were from cinematic sequences. Turns out, none of what you’re about to see is cinematic and all of it is in-game."

Alex

[Michael_Wittman 0]

I´m up for some more gore for the sake of realism... thats what made the Omaha Beach scene so unforgetable in SPR.

[TheReddog 0]

I don't care about good graphics, I just want the game to be well optimized and run with a decent and consistent level of performance. I also want to be able to look at a single bush in the middle of a desert without it plummeting my frame rate. Two things which Arma failed to achieve.

BIS can concentrate on making the game as pretty as they like but unless they address the critically bad performance issues the Arma engine has then it will be all to no avail.

[Commando84 0]

bah its just the console kids been used to not seeing good ingame graphics...

[[aps]gnat 28]

bah its just the console kids been used to not seeing good ingame graphics...

LOL yep

[amadieus 0]

bah its just the console kids been used to not seeing good ingame graphics...

Ever heard of Far Cry 2?

[Commando84 0]

ever heard of post effects?  

Srry i haven't played it, Im not into investing into consoles since I owned a Ps 1   Pc all the way these days..

But consoles can be nice for certain games too, depends on the controls n such  

edit again, What I've heard there's more work optimizing things for consoles since they have less video memory than good gaming pc's.

[walker 0]

Hi all

The advantages for PC developers of doing a console version are:

1) The lesser capabilities of a Console make you develop more efficient code.

2) The error checking software available for consoles is better developed because the environment is restricted which means:

a) bugs get found quicker as there are not a thousand potential hardware causes to rule out.

b) bug checking procedures are shared between developers which:

i) Shares cost

ii) Increases capability

iii) Verifies and validates bug checking capability

iv) Peer reviewed bug checking software

c) Acreditation procedure by console developer ensures external audit of software with costly milestones as a goad to punctuality and quality.

3) It is another market for all the code you have already developed which means:

a) Another market so more cash

b) Another market so more customers (broader market penetration affects a whole range of marketing and sales factors)

c) Economies of scale

And those are just my first thoughts over 5 minutes

Kind regards walker

[Johnnie_Walker 0]

While having good graphics in a today's videogame is a very important thing, we haven't been playing flashpoint over all these years for the eye candy. So I really hope ArmA II brings a lot more than that.

And the more important things for me atm are controls/animations and bugs fixing/optimization.

[Maio 293]

While having good graphics in a today's videogame is a very important thing, we haven't been playing flashpoint over all these years for the eye candy. So I really hope ArmA II brings a lot more than that.

And the more important things for me atm are controls/animations and bugs fixing/optimization.  

You took the words out of my mouth

[maxqubit 1]

ever heard of post effects?  

Srry i haven't played it, Im not into investing into consoles since I owned a Ps 1   Pc all the way these days..

But consoles can be nice for certain games too, depends on the controls n such  

edit again, What I've heard there's more work optimizing things for consoles since they have less video memory than good gaming pc's.

A pc game will never EVER be optimized (because it has to cater for all crappy hw out there:)). A pc game runnning on some pc will ALWAYS be a sub-optimal solution only clouded by throwing mucho money into additional hw upgrades of which only by hope, plug, prey and driver/tweak wizardy some extra effect can be obtained.

Yeah, i expect a 1500$ pc to produce a mildy better graphical gaming experience than a 199$ xbox ... well, i should really

If i would still be single and could use all the cash and time for myself i might still be a pc gamer (some great pc games are outthere, but fact is i have limited resources in cash and time so i'm glad the 360 allows me to have a very time/cash efficient gaming solution)

[Commando84 0]

I was just meaning producing assets compared to Pc games, but it all comes down to the engine of course..

[sparks50 0]

Im pretty sure I could build a PC for less than 800 USD that would still beat the 360 in most multi-platform games.

And when you consider that Microsoft charges 50 USD a year for gold membership, and that games for consoles are roughly 20-30% more expensive,

and cant be modded, its not really the bargain one would think.

[Snaky15-LV- 0]

hell... good graphics, is that all most games care about now?! maybe its the situation in my country make me say this , but i wanna ArmA 2 be like Ultra-Patched OFP1 ! Graphics.. leave them at the level of 2007! or even older..

about optimized games short word - i had Far Cry 2 for a moment.. was working AMAZING.. i have a 754 socket Athlon , 1gb Ram and PCi-E Radeon X1550 256MB DDr2.. low-medium graphics and ran average 40 FPS.. hell.. optimize it like these guys did! or i got lucky in this case

won't continue if any angry responses appear >_>