This game doesn't look particularly good. In fact a lot of the particle effects and plants look pretty bad (can see individual billboards, don't interact with environment as they should). If this came out of a major studio I wouldn't be impressed in the least.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New GOLD STANDARD for realistic video games.
- Thread starter PracticalMac
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This game doesn't look particularly good. In fact a lot of the particle effects and plants look pretty bad (can see individual billboards, don't interact with environment as they should). If this came out of a major studio I wouldn't be impressed in the least.
If airplanes routinely interacted with plants, then it would be an issue.
Moment before impact...
Last edited by a moderator:
I noticed the plants in the context of the ground war video. The plants didn't interact with the tanks, and they blew in the wind following an identical animation, and very unconvincingly.
So what about the game is particularly good? I haven't noticed anything.
This.
Look dude, you're allowed to love this game and think it's the best game ever. In fact, I don't think anybody here is saying it's a bad game.
However, trying to say your favorite game has gold standard for graphics going forward isn't correct at all. Just because you like the game doesn't mean it has the best of everything.
Never did.
Gold Standard is a term to compare other items (this case games) to this one.
SOOoooo, according to everyone else, Crysis, BF3, and UR3 compares very favorably!
I made a mistake comparing it to all games.
(It seems all of the comparisons are to FPS.)
I should have simply limited it to flight sims.
I personally find Wings of Prey to be better looking.
Looks good, but comparing a game to a sim makes it moot. Wings of Prey is pick up and play.
Sorry for bringing crysis into the discussion, I haven't even played crysis more than like an hour in my whole life.
I just wanted to point out that CoD looks more like the mid 2000s when you look at the graphics, and that Crysis is already four years old.
Graphics aren't the most important about a game tho, but a game released in 2011 should have implemented DX11, which they don't have..
And btw use tIMG tags on larger pictures.
I just wanted to point out that CoD looks more like the mid 2000s when you look at the graphics, and that Crysis is already four years old.
Graphics aren't the most important about a game tho, but a game released in 2011 should have implemented DX11, which they don't have..
And btw use tIMG tags on larger pictures.
Never did.
Gold Standard is a term to compare other items (this case games) to this one.
SOOoooo, according to everyone else, Crysis, BF3, and UR3 compares very favorably!
Uh... what? I think you need to read everyone's responses again...
Graphically I think what you've posted is nice, I can't see how it's groundbreaking though... Still I think Hawx2 has some pretty nice graphics, but again (sorry if this is repeated) graphics are great but they still don't make up for lousy gameplay.
Most of the new titles that come out I play for a few weeks then get bored of them, titles like Sacrifice, Warcraft 3, WoW (to a lesser extent), AoE, Tetris, Galactic Battlefront, etc I keep coming back to because they are fun and still tend to challange.
Crysis and the later COD series I tend to find them very shallow with regards to actual achievements in completing the game and replaying... It's not that the production is poor but the actual gameplay has been either done to death or it's purely about burning through levels to get some uber pew pew weapon that 9M other people have but you need it to become somewhat competitive and able to play.
I like eye candy but a rubbish title no matter how good the graphics are is still a rubbish game. (Not saying Crysis or any mentioned game is rubbish just making a point with regards to graphics vs gameplay).
Most of the new titles that come out I play for a few weeks then get bored of them, titles like Sacrifice, Warcraft 3, WoW (to a lesser extent), AoE, Tetris, Galactic Battlefront, etc I keep coming back to because they are fun and still tend to challange.
Crysis and the later COD series I tend to find them very shallow with regards to actual achievements in completing the game and replaying... It's not that the production is poor but the actual gameplay has been either done to death or it's purely about burning through levels to get some uber pew pew weapon that 9M other people have but you need it to become somewhat competitive and able to play.
I like eye candy but a rubbish title no matter how good the graphics are is still a rubbish game. (Not saying Crysis or any mentioned game is rubbish just making a point with regards to graphics vs gameplay).
Don't forget flight sim games look better in the air than when on the ground
Oh what do you know Fox, you're always in space!
FPSs don't have to deal with nearly as much overhead as a modern flight-sim. Not even close, so they can focus more on what's right in front of the camera, since they can and do cut so many corners.
Flight-sims now days deal with environments that exceed a 32-bit space. Support head-tracking for real-time 3D cockpits with working gauges -- which need to be readable and interactive. They have to deal with the flight dynamics of keeping a plane in the air, along with a simulating all the parts of the plane and how it takes damage.
When flight-sims cut corners like FPSs, we get 'arcade' games like HAWX, which looks pretty even on limited hardware, but it flys like a complete joke, since there's absolutely no flight-dynamics, just a FPS type game masquerading as a flight game.
Flight-sims now days deal with environments that exceed a 32-bit space. Support head-tracking for real-time 3D cockpits with working gauges -- which need to be readable and interactive. They have to deal with the flight dynamics of keeping a plane in the air, along with a simulating all the parts of the plane and how it takes damage.
When flight-sims cut corners like FPSs, we get 'arcade' games like HAWX, which looks pretty even on limited hardware, but it flys like a complete joke, since there's absolutely no flight-dynamics, just a FPS type game masquerading as a flight game.
http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/...e-pc-is-making-consoles-look-out-of-date.aspx
Three upcoming game engines (Cry3 and the BF3 included)
And that's why I'm mad at console companies that are not updating their tech. It sucks so bad when the tech is exponentially increasing while Microsoft and Sony are pushing for a 10 year cycle on older garbage. My imac is stronger than my 360. And thats why CryEngine 3 and Frostbite 2 will never shine on consoles, they're dead. Why do you think they BF3 gameplay was on the PC platform.
Until they update the hardware, I have no respect for Sony and Microsoft. The only thing holding them together is the online community. If it weren't for Xbox live, i wouldn't have pre ordered Brink
for the 360.Like flying in a battlefield game. Again, good sims like Rise of Flight and IL-2 series vs. arcade anykidcanplay. Personally I like the simmer community better. Much older crowd in general.
Is the OP talking about the graphic potential of any game engine or of the work that was done by a developer in a particular game to exploit a game engine to its fullest? I'm thinking the latter.
I used to be a big flight sim fan, and I found the IL2 graphics to be quite nice in the You Tube links. As I don't currently play any fight sims my guess is these are among the nicest graphics you'll find in a flight sim, so that could be called a "gold standard", but I'm not sure about it being a "new" gold standard which implies this games stands above all other flight sims. It might. And to be fair you'd have to compare graphics against playability. Ultimately I could not say this particular game, IL2 is graphically unique or offers something no-one else has done. It could be that the IL2 developers have put more work into their sim than current competitors and if so they would deserve the praise.
But if we are talking overall environmental/landscape graphic effects, either the capabilities of a game engine or the work done within a game, comparing a flight sim with a shooter is not really apples to apples. If forced to compare, I think Crysis beats IL-2 because there is a heck of a lot more stuff on the ground to model than just atmospheric effects. In flight sims most of the time you are shooting at specs, so most of what you look at is atmospheric effects.
I used to be a big flight sim fan, and I found the IL2 graphics to be quite nice in the You Tube links. As I don't currently play any fight sims my guess is these are among the nicest graphics you'll find in a flight sim, so that could be called a "gold standard", but I'm not sure about it being a "new" gold standard which implies this games stands above all other flight sims. It might.
And to be fair you'd have to compare graphics against playability. Ultimately I could not say this particular game, IL2 is graphically unique or offers something no-one else has done. It could be that the IL2 developers have put more work into their sim than current competitors and if so they would deserve the praise.But if we are talking overall environmental/landscape graphic effects, either the capabilities of a game engine or the work done within a game, comparing a flight sim with a shooter is not really apples to apples. If forced to compare, I think Crysis beats IL-2 because there is a heck of a lot more stuff on the ground to model than just atmospheric effects. In flight sims most of the time you are shooting at specs, so most of what you look at is atmospheric effects.
Last edited: