I like BF2's graphics better, looks smoother than in 2142.
Last edited by التعريفات (2007-03-23 17:02:50)
I think 2142 looks better the guns detail is how i tell if they are good and 2142 guns seem to have shadows and small pictures on them unlike bf2
BF2 and 2142 were made with the same editor and similar textures...
... colormaps/detailmaps/lowdetailmaps for both bf2 and 2142 on the terrain...
and the same texture technique on the models for bf2 and 2142... color/detail/dirt/crack/detailbump/crackbump
... colormaps/detailmaps/lowdetailmaps for both bf2 and 2142 on the terrain...
and the same texture technique on the models for bf2 and 2142... color/detail/dirt/crack/detailbump/crackbump
Love is the answer
But, then again, how many people 150 years ago thought that we would have jets, computers, and many other technological advances that we have today?Cerberus666 wrote:
Besides, BF2 is far more realistic, and i doubt we'll have plasma pistols and hover tanks in less than 150 years...
I haven't played either game on graphical settings any higher than low/medium. I don't give a hell how good the graphics are. High graphics in multiplayer just cause lag, and frankly, there's no reason for all the "extra" graphics because it makes shit harder to see. And who plays single-player??
Man I Love Superior Mind's Sig Of The Two Blonds, I Think The 1 On The Left (doing The Licking ) Is Truly Hot Man ...give Me A Link To It Yo .
2142 is just a mod of BF2.
Well I think (for me) BF2 graphics are better. The player and vehicle models are more detailed. The Level Textures (buildings, world details etc.) are better and look smoother especially in Special Forces. But could be that I don't like the BF2142 graphics that much as I don't like the overuse of the colours white, grey, grey, white and red in a video game.
Last edited by Sub-Zero79 (2007-03-23 17:55:17)
2142's graphics are slightly better. I just played both of them on the highest possible settings at a resolution of 1280x1024 on both. I think this may be because 2142 is a highly modified version of the bf2 engine, and in this case, the high modification improved the graphics slightly.
The graphics are alot better in BF2142. I have the settings the same in both games and BF2142's graphics seem clearer and more detailed.
I think the graphics are better in terms of their technique
Having said that I think BF2 prettier, probably because its based on things I've seen
Having said that I think BF2 prettier, probably because its based on things I've seen
Actually it's kinda the other way around. BF2 models are low poly, ever taken a look on their Sniper? 4 SIDES on the pipe. BF2142 use at least more than that and overall the model look better.jimmanycricket wrote:
pff, maby the textures are slightly better in 2142 (i personally dont think so) but 2142's models really suck. They are really low poly and ugly.
Dice remade everything when they created BF2142 so they improved all textures and such and still made it load faster. Pretty amazing imo.
We don't have Plasma pistols in BF2142 and frankly I DO belive we will have some sort of hover tanks within 150 years. We have found materials that are pretty unique and got neat abilities. The question would be if Hover Tanks was actually good for real combat.Cerberus666 wrote:
They use the same engine, but there's more code in BF2142 which is why framerates are lower on the same settings. Im not too sure but i think more code means 'better' graphics, but its entirely opinionated.
Besides, BF2 is far more realistic, and i doubt we'll have plasma pistols and hover tanks in less than 150 years...
The only thing remotely close to a laser in this game is.
1: The Turret that stand still on the ground.
2: The walker on PAC side.
3: The Fast moving vehicle in Northen Strike.
4: Pilum
That's it what I can remember and none of them would be THAT unrealistic within 150 years.
Last edited by Zefar (2007-03-25 00:55:30)
I think BF2 graphics look nicer because there is grass and trees and blue sky whereas 2142 is set in a post-apocalyptic environment where everything is brown and dead and ugly so it seems like bf2 has better graphics when in reality they are both using the same graphics engine.
rig0rm0rti5 wrote:
Here is somebody who agrees with me.jimmanycricket wrote:
pff, maby the textures are slightly better in 2142 (i personally dont think so) but 2142's models really suck. They are really low poly and ugly.
I agree that whites and greys are used too much in 2142...Bf2 maps were interesting as locales...some even beautiful... in the future, towns,powerplants and the like can still be interesting...not just recycled stairs, corners, buildings, partitions...and wheres the grass?..any grass?
Has anyone else noticed the re-use of details in 2142...ok bf2 used the mosque a few times, but 2142 does it more...the building with the stairs going up both sides(the most used..in almost every map), the buildings with the internal stairs leading to balconies..the same partition walls with the "break" in them....pretty boring and repetitive, not to mention harsh on the eyes....
Has anyone else noticed the re-use of details in 2142...ok bf2 used the mosque a few times, but 2142 does it more...the building with the stairs going up both sides(the most used..in almost every map), the buildings with the internal stairs leading to balconies..the same partition walls with the "break" in them....pretty boring and repetitive, not to mention harsh on the eyes....
I'm not sure with the levels since i havent played BF2, but i definately know that the weapondesigns look waaaaay better in BF2142 than in BF2., and they are way more detailed...
Last edited by ShawN_ (2007-03-26 05:34:11)
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
2142 has better graphics.
Well it seems to for me.
Well it seems to for me.