What has happend to Far Cry 2 visuals ???

M

Mortuus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
1,279
They went from

farcry2_1.jpg


to

7_080925162502.jpg


:confused::confused:
 
They went from sunset to midday? What are you saying?

...those bastards.
 
Welcome to Marketing 101.

In today's class, we discuss prerendering and it's effect on potential buyers.
 
I'd love to see the final game in the exact same position and time as the first shot. Then we can compare. Otherwise, with the different time and different setting its a bit hard to actually see the difference. Also, I'm sure there will be tweaked files that will change the cvars to make it look like the first shot just like there have been for Crysis to make it look like the pre-release shots.
 
Uhm in this example right here the only difference seems to be brightness?

OK actualyl the vegetation looks alot worse
 
if these are from the PC game of it..how do we know the first pic isnt a higher graphic setting and the bottom image is a lower setting.
 
well if you compare the shots to the 360 version, the top one is at a quality not even seen in the game, well from the couple hours i've playted, and the bottom looks pretty accurate to what you get. and just wondering, where'd you pick up a copy of Far Cry 2?
 
so basically the 360 cant do the quality of the game?.I dont think anyone can judge till we see the PC version on a high graphic setting
 
From online sources who have seen both versions, the 360 version looks noticeably worse than than the PC version. No word on PS3 version, but I would assume it's similar.
 
This is why the financial crisis occurred.

Hehe, lets wait until the game is released.
 
The game looks horrible...

*goes to play Crysis, the real visual tasty treat*
 
Crysis did the same thing. If you want to play a photography simulator, then play Crysis. What the fuck is up with everyone and graphics?:confused:
 
Looks to me like the bottom pic is lacking AA and has low AF. To bad the 360 doesnt allow these settings to be changed.
 
Can we PLEASE not make this another stupid Crysis bash thread? This thread has nothing to do with Crysis. There are two thousand other threads here already doing a good enough job of putting the damn game down.
 
Kidfinger said:
Can we PLEASE not make this another stupid Crysis bash thread? This thread has nothing to do with Crysis. There are two thousand other threads here already doing a good enough job of putting the damn game down.
Click to expand...

... but Crysis sucks.

Seriously though, Far Cry 2 looks great on the PC. The 360 version is a little gimped but who cares? FPS should be played on PC, end of story.
 
Actually The two screens are COMPLETELY different. Look at the arm. In the first pic the arm has been cut and has a distinct scar. In the second, there isnt a scar and just dots. I would guess that the Top one is PC and the bottom one is Xbox. Since I doubt adjusting image quality removed a scar from an arm and adds dots...... just my opinion though.
 
ReconSniper said:
Actually The two screens are COMPLETELY different. Look at the arm. In the first pic the arm has been cut and has a distinct scar. In the second, there isnt a scar and just dots. I would guess that the Top one is PC and the bottom one is Xbox. Since I doubt adjusting image quality removed a scar from an arm and adds dots...... just my opinion though.
Click to expand...

They could be using different characters... Considering there's nine to choose from initially and three you unlock...
 
I hope there is Extreme™ amounts of red explosive barrels. It wouldn't be much of a FPS if it didn't have those. :D
 
Dethred said:
What the fuck is up with everyone and graphics?:confused:
Click to expand...

The better the visuals, the more immersive the gaming experience.

I'd think that'd be obvious to any gamer. It's akin to music: the better the production, the more it enhances the listening experience.

I can never understand why any gamer acts as if they don't understand the importance of visuals. Gameplay is equally as important, but if something looks like shit, it doesn't have the same impact.
 
AtramentiA said:
The better the visuals, the more immersive the gaming experience.

I'd think that'd be obvious to any gamer. It's akin to music: the better the production, the more it enhances the listening experience.

I can never understand why any gamer acts as if they don't understand the importance of visuals. Gameplay is equally as important, but if something looks like shit, it doesn't have the same impact.
Click to expand...

Some would argue that music is best listened to live instead of being over produced. Just as some would argue that graphics enhance the gameplay...not the other way around.

As someone who grew up playing 8bit Nintendo back in the day I "pfft" at most graphics whore comments.
 
It's funny some people are automatically saying the second screenshot is from the Xbox 360 version when it's the one which is in 1280x1024 and the second one is in ~720p.
 
I "pfft" at so-called old school gamers with rose-colored glasses. I still have a working original Nintendo and quite frankly, those games aren't nearly as perfect now that I'm not eight years old. There were a lot of things about them that were just plain bad design mantras, like the whole idea of lives and scores, which were hold-overs from the arcade era.

There's this thing called progress, and yes, we've made some, even if it isn't always universal. There is absolutely no reason to not expect better use of technological tools at our disposal. If a game offers immersion (which it should if it has any sort of depth in atmosphere or story), then it damn better well have good art design and graphics to support it.

If it's a purely cerebral game like that Rubix cube PSN game coming out, then sure, screw the graphics.
 
Neurofreeze said:
I "pfft" at so-called old school gamers with rose-colored glasses. I still have a working original Nintendo and quite frankly, those games aren't nearly as perfect now that I'm not eight years old. There were a lot of things about them that were just plain bad design mantras, like the whole idea of lives and scores, which were hold-overs from the arcade era.

There's this thing called progress, and yes, we've made some, even if it isn't always universal. There is absolutely no reason to not expect better use of technological tools at our disposal.
Click to expand...

You can expect "progress" all you want. But if you start complaining about perfectly fine in-game graphics because they are not super-duper-ultra-realistic enough...well I pfft at you.
 
Maybe the top shot is DX10 on a Vista PC and the other shot is on Xbox360?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top