Quote:
Originally Posted by Alivada
The solider's face weren't detailed (HL2 looks a lot better)
|
Actually the geometry and the texture resolution for Arma is more then double the amount in Half-Life 2
Unless you are talking about animation then I agree with you there.
Quote:
|
the enviroment tried to be realistic and 'gritty' but ended up one colour and looking crap.
|
No they did not try to make everything "gritty" they tried going for realistic because it is a military simulator. Not a tropical action game. If you did your research the team choose a specific area for it's conflict. You can't just throw in desert, jungles, and snow for a military shooter.
Quote:
|
The textures for everything else was below average so yeah one of the worst looking games this gen can't actually think of one apart from early 360 games.
|
Have you seen the game in motion?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wXx3vMy_AQ
I would suggest you do and watch it in HD
Unless you are not a fan of the art style(realistic) then no your arguments have no basis to talk. The draw distance in the game is ridiculous I dare you to find a game that comes anywhere close to Arma 2's draw distance that is all playable(not including Crysis).
Secondly if you wanna talk tech. Arma 2's has object based Motion blur, Depth of Field, Paralax Mapping, and Ambient Occlusion just to name a few things along with all the host of standard Normal Mapping, HDR, PerPixel Lighting, etc.
And really worst game this generation? G.I.Joe would like to have a word with you.
Actually a lot of game would like to have a word with you. Considering Arma 2 has pretty much zero art style you need to judge it off the basis of what it's engine can do. So if you remove art from every game and just base it off the technical aspects. We have Fallout 3, Overlord 2, the new Transformers game, Tunnel Rats 1968, Killing Floor, InFamous, Prototype.... I think you see my point.