By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - Arma II Officially Better Looking Than Crysis?

Yes, the gameplay is very slow paced in comparison to most others of this genre. But such is the style that me and other fans have come to know, and love, and its our next gen game.



Around the Network
Slimebeast said:

 

 

There are clealry stuff in the trailer that won't be like that in-game.  Especially the beginning where the guys are standing near the road and also the part where the helis are lifting.

It's made in-engine yes of course, but I fink they ran the trailer in like 5 frames per second then speed it up for natural motion.

 

It will NOT look as good as in these two screens in the final game.

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



People who are saying the final game will not look this game are wrong,because i played ArmA and the graphics were better than Crysis,in a sense and you had the best customization of any game.



Looks very promising.



    

Garnett said:
People who are saying the final game will not look this game are wrong,because i played ArmA and the graphics were better than Crysis,in a sense and you had the best customization of any game.

 

In the most calm manner I can muster, I believe though art wrong.

 

 

 

 

To view the whole image, right click and select View Image.



The rEVOLution is not being televised

Around the Network
Viper1 said:
Garnett said:
People who are saying the final game will not look this game are wrong,because i played ArmA and the graphics were better than Crysis,in a sense and you had the best customization of any game.

 

In the most calm manner I can muster, I believe though art wrong.

 

 

 

To view the whole image, right click and select View Image.

To be fair, that's not a screen from the final version but a WIP one that looks closer to OFP:Elite than to the actual ArmA (there are some really old screens hanging around on the net).

Here's an ArmA vanilla one:

Anyway, while I would say the graphics in parts of ArmA were severely underrated (funny quotes from people ala "it looks just like OFP!...while playing on their 5 years old PC), I wouldn't go as far to say it looked better than crysis. Well, in some areas perhaps, I like landscapes better in ArmA for example, but crysis just looks too good overall.

However, I played through crysis once, an hour or two of multiplayer and some messing around in the editor and that was it, nothing in comparison to the thousands of hours I've messed around with the missions editor in ArmA, but that's just me.



That is certainly better than the screen shot I posted but I must ask...what is happening to his left wrist?



The rEVOLution is not being televised

Looks great although I feel Crysis looked more realistic. Still it's 2nd to Crysis when in terms of realism.



Viper1 said:
That is certainly better than the screen shot I posted but I must ask...what is happening to his left wrist?

 

I second this.. What the hell is that? It's giving me nightmares....



iron_megalith said:
Viper1 said:
That is certainly better than the screen shot I posted but I must ask...what is happening to his left wrist?

 

I second this.. What the hell is that? It's giving me nightmares....

 

Poor guys all had broken wrists. I made it my duty to put them out of their misery, be it friend or foe.

Haha, no, seriously though, animations and such was a whole other chapter in ArmA that certainly could have used some improvements, but at least they would only walk around like this when on patrol. The game itself had more than its fair share of problems, though the graphics were not one of them (if you got them running, haha). It's just that there weren't much alternatives if you wanted to play an open world infantry mil-sim.

 

He's all "it doesn't even hurt!"