Jump to content

Game graphics evolution - GhR ~ BF2 ~ ArmA


Recommended Posts

[First of all - this post is one I did on the Alpha Squad forum, but it seemed it might be of interest to a broader Ghost Recon fan base. So I hope you don't mind me repeating it here?]

This post is sorta about ArmA and it's relationship to the [Ghost Recon]...

It's simply to show how game graphics have come on in the years since the release of the [Ghost Recon] (or not, depending on your point of view).

-- Apologies for the size of the graphics I'm about to show, I hope you will understand that in this case to see the difference in graphic quality these pictures have to be this size --

GHOST RECON - DESERT SIEGE 2002

graphcom_GhR.jpg

BATTLEFIIELD 2 - 2005

graphcom_BF2.jpg

ARMED ASSAULT - 2006/7

graphcom_ArmA.jpg

Is there that great a jump in 4/5 years?

I went back and played my Ghost Recon to compare (mainly to my BF2) and in the character graphics and weapons there doesn't seem to be that HUGE improvement for saying we are 5 years on (more actually when you consider the [Ghost Recon] - rather than DS - was released in 2001.)

The main graphical difference seems to be in the rendering of the scenery, a lot more obvious repeating texture on buildings and terrain in Ghost Recon.

-- In fact, I would say there seems to be more of an obvious improvement in graphics between BF2 and ArmA, than between [GR] and BF2?

What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with your comments on the obvious improvement of graphics between BF2/ArmA than GR and BF2.

I think people really overrated the graphics in BF2.

Not to mention how much resources BF2 used for something that doesent look that great.

Armed Assault though, looks more a little better, but i still dont see THAT much of a improvement in the Textures.

I must say that im convinced they havent evolved as much as people claim. (Yet we have all these "Fastest in the West super-duper" video cards all over the place.)

Edited by Foxtrot23
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about a comparison between GR1 and GRAW?

GR1

graphcom_GhR.jpg

GRAW

peoff.jpg

It's a funny thing, if I have an extended session of GR1 play, the graphics still hold up, they look really good. But if you switch to GR:AW, or BF2 - play those for a while then go back and load up GR1, it does look dated.

Then again, I prefer BF2 visuals to AA which I think puts me in the minority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didnt think about that cobaka, but thats definently correct.

And yes, gameplay is overshadowed by graphics alot (BF2), but i do think they should have DECENT graphics.

Not to say that they shouldnt work on gameplay, but i dont want it to look like Duke Nukem 3D either. And i sure as hell, dont want it to suck up resources and force you to upgrade in order to play it.

And really i think 3D models and animation has gotten better, but generally, textures arent going all that great IMO. Like take Enviroments for example, excellent animated trees, realistic sky effects (3D rendered), etc. A really nice job in animation and models.

Edited by Foxtrot23
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you have to look at it in context. [GR] was made to play on a Pentium 2 450 Mhz and 16 MB vid card. Considering the specs for the other games, I think [GR] is still pretty good.

I agree, plus, the advantage of playing [GR] these days on far more powerful computers is that not only does it run at superb frames, but you can also get smooth games even when using 3d glasses, which actually puts it ahead of todays games in terms of visuals when you think about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you have to look at it in context. [GR] was made to play on a Pentium 2 450 Mhz and 16 MB vid card. Considering the specs for the other games, I think [GR] is still pretty good.

I agree, plus, the advantage of playing [GR] these days on far more powerful computers is that not only does it run at superb frames, but you can also get smooth games even when using 3d glasses, which actually puts it ahead of todays games in terms of visuals when you think about it.

Yep - when you look at the pictures and then look at the spec of the machines over the past 5 years (since the release of [GR]), you have to wonder where all that horsepower is going!

:)

I actually played my [GR] on a APPLE MACINTOSH - and remember thinking how you PC users had it good with your fancy-nacy 16 mb video cards! LMAO

Now I play BF2 on a 256mb Nvidia card...

BUT - do I really get the 'value for money' for the huge increase???

...NOT according to the pictures I posted above (IMHO)!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually played my [GR] on a APPLE MACINTOSH - and remember thinking how you PC users had it good with your fancy-nacy 16 mb video cards! LMAO

Now I play BF2 on a 256mb Nvidia card...

BUT - do I really get the 'value for money' for the huge increase???

...NOT according to the pictures I posted above (IMHO)!

I think I do - comparing BF2 maxed out, throwing all sorts of heavy duty armour around (and keeping track of a mind numbing number of factors) to a 5 year old game, I think it shows 5 years of development. I wouldn't have said that before I upgraded my graphics card though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you have to look at it in context. [GR] was made to play on a Pentium 2 450 Mhz and 16 MB vid card. Considering the specs for the other games, I think [GR] is still pretty good.

I agree, plus, the advantage of playing [GR] these days on far more powerful computers is that not only does it run at superb frames, but you can also get smooth games even when using 3d glasses, which actually puts it ahead of todays games in terms of visuals when you think about it.

Yep - when you look at the pictures and then look at the spec of the machines over the past 5 years (since the release of [GR]), you have to wonder where all that horsepower is going!

:)

I actually played my [GR] on a APPLE MACINTOSH - and remember thinking how you PC users had it good with your fancy-nacy 16 mb video cards! LMAO

Now I play BF2 on a 256mb Nvidia card...

BUT - do I really get the 'value for money' for the huge increase???

...NOT according to the pictures I posted above (IMHO)!

I feel that [GR] does quite well at higher resolutions, even by today's standards. I feel this is a compliment to the engine and how nicely it has aged.

I'm hoping the same for GRAW...that'll it'll nicely age with time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the real issue is a combination of textures and polygons used. I first played [GR] on a AMD1600+ with a 32MB videocard.

Now i have a AMD64 with a 256MBx1800.

polys have alot to do with the goodness of a game. textures are also important. but RSB files dealt with simple stuff and not the quality of say DDS files or PNG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you say AA you mean Armed Assault right, not Americas Army.

If so, then we cant expect the graffix to be to GRAW standard (if thats considered the benchmark). ArmA gives us a real time map of 20x20 km compared to GRAWs 800metrex800metre map.

Whats really nice to see with ArmA is that everytime we see new SS, there are noticeable improvements in textures, animations, realism. Bit by bit the Devs are making real improvements to the game as they overhaul OFP engine.

While the graffix for ArmA may never be as good as GRAWs (which personally even on 21" widescreen at 1680x1050 I still find jaggy), its the gameplay that counts.

[GR] graffix arent state of the art by todays standards but I still think its much more emmersive and exciting then GRAW has turned out to be.

Gameplay for me.

BTW, all those who upgraded for GRAW and feel like it was wasted dollars, according to ArmA specs our investment will give us top of the range perfromance for ArmA.

Edited by PoW_LigHtsPeEd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you say AA you mean Armed Assault right, not Americas Army.

If so, then we cant expect the graffix to be to GRAW standard (if thats considered the benchmark). ArmA gives us a real time map of 20x20 km compared to GRAWs 800metrex800metre map.

Whats really nice to see with ArmA is that everytime we see new SS, there are noticeable improvements in textures, animations, realism. Bit by bit the Devs are making real improvements to the game as they overhaul OFP engine.

While the graffix for ArmA may never be as good as GRAWs (which personally even on 21" widescreen at 1680x1050 I still find jaggy), its the gameplay that counts.

[GR] graffix arent state of the art by todays standards but I still think its much more emmersive and exciting then GRAW has turned out to be.

Gameplay for me.

BTW, all those who upgraded for GRAW and feel like it was wasted dollars, according to ArmA specs our investment will give us top of the range perfromance for ArmA.

Yeah, I meant Armed Assult. :thumbsup:

Good points, that is exactly how I feel about OPF, as the gameplay was good enough for me to overlook the mediocre graphics.

I'd love to see an updated OFP with today's graphics.

Edited by jchung
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...