Battlefield Tri-hard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by =sw=warlord

I'm pretty sure lighting comes under the graphics category.:v:

---

I think you just didn't comprehended that part of my post properly. I said I know graphics aren't everything, but the little details like <insert graphical nitpick> make the game feel more polished. Operative conjunction is "but".


@ejburke: That's the point. In real life, the only thing you really have to attract your attention to a threat is motion, because everybody uses camouflage and cover. Battlefield is not just a game-game, it's always been about simulating a real combat situation within some constrained location. The difference between them and ArmA II is that DICE wants to keep it accessible to everybody, not just hardcore sim players.

@higuy: DICE have said that it will take place in a wide range of locations all over the world, from close-in urban combat to wide expansive battlefields in places like Europe, China, and the Middle East.

@Amit: I'm still sceptical of Crysis 2. It doesn't look THAT impressive so far. It may be technically advanced, but they could learn a thing or two on how to create atmosphere.

I have complete faith that the game will look as it did in the trailer(s), as CN#'s stated it doesn't look that much past BC2 in terms of graphics when you've got them maxed out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ejburke

Now I know how the T-Rex from Jurassic Park felt.

---

Contrary to popular belief, the T-Rex had excellent vision.

I wouldn't entirely doubt those are in fact the in-game graphics, seeing as this is now the full upgrade to Frostbite. What comes to mind is MoH's MP, which was at first what I thought I was looking at when I saw the pictures in whatever magazine they showed it in. That was just Frostbite 1.5+ (or so) though, now we're at Frostbite 2.0 and years of production with a full staff on it.

But really, I'd like to not compare graphics seeing as no one has played the retail version of either game on your computer on a full screen at a high res with all the settings to a respectable degree. How about just going back to the general discussion of what we expect out of this monster?

A forked Frostbite at that.

I believe those are legit graphics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phopojijo

I believe those are legit graphics.

---

Speaking of which, when was the last time DICE didn't use ingame footage for a trailer?

This looks beast. Better not be like Medal Of Honer. Camp gallor that game is, and it fails really bad at letting you know you are taking bullets until it's too late. Movement is also too slow.

But this looks AWESOME I'm happy if i can blow the supports from a building up and make it fall :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MXC

Speaking of which, when was the last time DICE didn't use ingame footage for a trailer?

---

This man speaks the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ejburke

I'm not excited about graphics in a multiplayer game. I would crank it down so that every enemy is rendered as bright flashing diamonds, if I could. It's getting to the point where the only things I can pick out of the environment are the things that are moving. Now I know how the T-Rex from Jurassic Park felt.

---

Geez, not everything is about multiplayer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Limited

Geez, not everything is about multiplayer.

---

Wait, Battlefield has campaign?