New GOLD STANDARD for realistic video games.

[PracticalMac]

This is not a CG movie.
These are actual real time captures from the new game with some simple effects added here and there.

http://youtu.be/1LMftuei6Fw?hd=1








2 other movies for heck of it
http://youtu.be/pNftyin4x_4?hd=1

Ground battle (future feature)
http://youtu.be/t6xGuqK42TU?hd=1

 

[VPrime]

Eh.. not really. the graphics are actually pretty standard. 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....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cuXgRVMvZ0&feature=player_embedded

 

[Hastings101]

Yea... not that the graphics are bad or anything, they're very nice, but they're definitely not a new standard.

 

[0186279]

Nothing that fancy? What games are you playing? That was pretty insane.

 

[0098386]

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.

This looks better....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cuXgRVMvZ0&feature=player_embedded

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.

 

[cluthz]

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..

 

[PracticalMac]

Eh.. not really. the graphics are actually pretty standard. 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....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cuXgRVMvZ0&feature=player_embedded

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.

Yea... not that the graphics are bad or anything, they're very nice, but they're definitely not a new standard.

Show me something better. Just saying so is meaningless.

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.

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!

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

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..

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?

 

[Ap0ks]

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

 

[0098386]

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)

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.
3...

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.
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/crysis
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/il-2-sturmovik-cliffs-of-dover

 

[chrono1081]

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.
3...

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.
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/crysis
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/il-2-sturmovik-cliffs-of-dover

I loled at this but this actually hits the nail on the head:

You clearly haven't a clue about the tech behind games.

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.

 

[Kissaragi]

Looks pretty average to me, planes and cars are relatively easy to get looking great. Battlefield 3 and crysis 2 both looks better.

 

[PracticalMac]

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

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.

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.
3...

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.
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/crysis
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/il-2-sturmovik-cliffs-of-dover

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.

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

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.

 

[doh123]

New GOLD STANDARD for all video games.

Anyway, it looks like everyone is comparing CoD to Crysis (Flight sim to FPS), and that is wrong.

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.

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.

 

[0098386]

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

You said effects are second to the play, but what play feature does Crysis have that Halo does not?

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.

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

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.

 

[Hastings101]

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

If Crysis did that for you, well... good luck with that.

 

[mac2x]

It is stupid to compare a FPS with a flight sim. Apples and oranges people.

 

[PracticalMac]

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.

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.

 

[SidBala]

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.

 

[PracticalMac]

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.

See my post above. I forgot what I wrote late last night.

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

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

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

Depends on 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.

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).

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.

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.

 

[PowerGamerX]

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!

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.

 

[darkleemar]

ehh

how old is this game? It looks like it is from 2006.

 

[laudern]

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...

 

[deadwulfe]

seriously, what is the purpose of this thread??

Advertising.

 

[0098386]

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).

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.

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

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)

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.

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?

 

[SidBala]

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