Project Reality Forums

Being someone who used to play DF:BHD and Joint Ops for aaaaaaaaaaaages (even whilst BF2 was still out) I'm don't really care much for graphics.

But BF2 has stood the test of time a bit imo, things like weapons and kit geoms in PR look good, and need we talk about the quality that FH2 have gotten out of BF2?

Zrix wrote:I prefer BF2 graphics over many newer engines, it's just cleaner.

What I mean.

Newer engines always have too much unnecessary shit lying around, it makes for terrible FPS and blobs of colors/switching LOD's everywhere. Just look at Operation Metro, black ground, black ground everywhere

BF2's graphics are dated, but for a 2005 game it's really not that bad. Gameplay > Graphics, so true. But I wouldn't mind if the graphics were more towards COD4 or something .

Many modern day games love to put in (extreme) HDR, bloom, motion blur, etc. It's really not needed and doesn't make the game look better either.

The only thing I like more off the modern graphics are things like the random foilage/blowing papers/snow drifts that just fill out the landscape and make it more interesting. A lot of the lighting effects are nice too, such as sunflares and more contrast in ground lighting or shading (this however usually translates to massive amounts of bloom, which i cant stand at all). Crysis does a great job of having loads of foilage and ground cover, beautiful water, and nice lighting and shading, while still looking relatively 'realistic". BF2 imo has good graphics where it counts (gun, player, vehicle models), and decent terrain. What is great about most bf2 maps, especially PR, is the actual ground layout. The massive valleys, rocks, mountains, hills...they are just laid out so well that it looks interesting, even if the textures themselves arent modern and fancy.

Archosaurus wrote:Newer engines always have too much unnecessary shit lying arounde

People were saying the same thing of BF2 when it came out, comparing it to older engines like UT, Quake or Tribes And it was valid then, the same way it is valid now...

I like that my PC can still run it

But I really like the graphics... videos from arma etc dont really appeal to me tbh.

I agree with Terremer, things like snowy wind (BC2) and rubbish and the like flying around is nice.
Also like how everything is laid out, it may not be up to date but it looks much better than modern map style. Lots of gaps, mountains and so on more than make up for the textures. Its just well laid out and done.

Lighting is also something, simple things like a slight "glow" on the edge of objects that are reflecting sunlight is great. I would love to have that in PR, just if it was not overdone. Older games also have better (imo) lighting and just the mood in general, everything is just so fucking gritty and grey/sepia in modern games.....

@requiem Its the goddamn man himself.

You have a point but I think its a bit more valid now, its not realistic, it runs and looks like ****. Although sometimes shit lying around compliments the scene, ALA Red Orchestra 2 bricks.

They're especially awsum, if you're me. Might be 89 FPS on Asad Khal, but at higher res and a heavier map, I'm derped.

@Outlawz

That burns my eyes .

My trees and ground look gorgeous in PR, best trees/Grass in any game for sure.

Well, I gotta admit, Outlawz pic looks very... simple. Clear. Easy on the eye.

The trees look like **** to me, even with driver forced AA. I say that for every game though so I wouldn't really know if one has better or worse trees and foliage. That's one of the things I'm most picky about in games. The other two being textures and dust/particle effects, which BF2 seems to do an excellent job of.

Its not that bad, great for spotting enemies.

The only thing that bothers me is the terrible view distance.

@whatshisname

The trees in ArmA2 make me hate the style, they look absolutely gorgeous at night with some moonlight and snow effects but straight out terrible during the day.

IIRC Outlawz uses low settings due to his PC

Meh.

It's like liking minecraft graphics. Sure, it fits the "theme", but wouldn't it be better to be lifellike

Just want to point out that there is a difference between graphics and aesthetics, and the brown, gritty look most modern shooters use has more to do with the former.

So I'd say while BF2 may be dated from a graphical point of view, its aesthetics are very neutral and realistic. And that's why it still works visually.

Farks wrote:Just want to point out that there is a difference between graphics and aesthetics, and the brown, gritty look most modern shooters use has more to do with the former.

So I'd say while BF2 may be dated from a graphical point of view, its aesthetics are very neutral and realistic. And that's why it still works visually.

Fully agree. I think a good example is WoW, it doesn't have the latest techniques implemented in the engine, but in terms of art assets and graphical style it's still very well done.

I actually quite like the look of the bf2 trees, they're well done considering the resources available.

I'm also very happy bf2 isn't overwhelmed by all the **** bloom+'HDR' post process filters you seem to overdose on in recent games.

AquaticPenguin wrote:I'm also very happy bf2 isn't overwhelmed by all the **** bloom+'HDR' post process filters you seem to overdose on in recent games.

Nailed it.

Bloom ruins my immersion in most FPSs.

I have to agree a game with better game play is extremely more fun then a game with kick *** graphics. When i play Arma 2 i feel like i need glasses. BF2 just feels so right. And im running Arma on high-ultra high settings.

for those who like the look of trees, grass and smoke/partical effects you should turn on supersampling anti aliasing in your drivers... if your pc can handle it. unlike bf2's msaa it will smooth just about everything. there are even things that transparency or adaptive aa wont do that ss does.

i was gonna just upload a few pics. but this forum compresses the hell out of it and turns it into a thumbnail. so i uploaded the pics as a zip.
[ATTACH]6648[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]6649[/ATTACH]

these 2 are comparison shots. first one has SSAA and 16 AF enabled in driver, second has just bf2's max video setting.

[ATTACH]6650[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]6651[/ATTACH]

i like the look of PR's foliage

I love the source engine; it's one of my favorites. It's clear and detailed, HDR lighting effects, physics... and relatively low system requirements.

I don't know why people hate Frostbite 2 so much. It's a spectacular looking engine to the vast majority of players, and to me as well. The colors are vivid, the lighting and shadows are life-like. Of course, as everybody here knows, graphics don't equal gameplay. I believe that PR's gameplay more than makes up for it's dated graphics engine.