welll?
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Games »
- Battlefield Series »
- Battlefield 2 »
- How would you rate the overall grahpics of BF2 when its all Maxed out.
Poll
How would you rate the overall grahpics of BF2 when its all Maxed out.
| poor | 5% | 5% - 8 | ||||
| below average | 6% | 6% - 10 | ||||
| average | 14% | 14% - 22 | ||||
| above average | 41% | 41% - 63 | ||||
| AWeSOME!!!! | 32% | 32% - 49 | ||||
| Total: 152 | ||||||
honestly dont know, my game even lags in single player when i put them on high, i run them on medium....and it still lags on medium....
I still havent gotten a chance to try it. But there is a special console command that you can use to keep the graphics great looking over even long ranges. Waiting for conroe and then new systme and Im gonna try it out.
i have run them on high it was sweet i had on 2x AA 100% view didtance and i used to have my settings on low silly me
I chose everything just because the poll was made wrong. Smart.
Last edited by haffeysucks (2006-07-18 21:41:50)
"people in ny have a general idea of how to drive. one of the pedals goes forward the other one prevents you from dying"
They look pretty good!
I just got a GeForce 7800. It feels so great to be able to run it on high without too much lag
I just got a GeForce 7800. It feels so great to be able to run it on high without too much lag
Last edited by Erwin_Rommel188 (2006-07-18 21:47:00)
they are above average, but have been considerably surpassed by other games. just play with everything on high, and then play hl2, css or something like fear with everything maxed out and they don't really seem special. plus, there's not that much difference between med and high, like there is with low and med. if the system chugs a bit on high, its not worth it - better to go with med just for the extra fps.
Oberst, Hl2 and CSS are using the same engine. It's pointless to have them both on a list.oberst_enzian wrote:
they are above average, but have been considerably surpassed by other games. just play with everything on high, and then play hl2, css or something like fear with everything maxed out and they don't really seem special. plus, there's not that much difference between med and high, like there is with low and med. if the system chugs a bit on high, its not worth it - better to go with med just for the extra fps.
The source engine is "ok" at outdoors and long ranges, but it comes no where near far cry or bf2.
FEAR is more of the same thing. There are hardly any large scenes in that game because (*shocker*) the engine doesn't render them well.
BF2 is a big game, for big maps and lots of people. The games you mentioned above want you to be able to see the wire conduit in the sewer pipes, not the tank 1k meters away.
You're comparing apples to oranges.
The only engine that can be compared to bf2 is the cryengine, by crytek, used in far cry. Bah, cry fetish. emos.
Anyways, the cryengine renders outdoor scenes better then bf2, but not that noticeable. However, the draw distance on that game IS FUCKING AMAZING.
But farcry is also fairly good with indoor scenes, so it wins out.
Who next?
I run everything on medium and set the anti-aliasing to x2.SF runs smooth and BF2 vanilla looks amazing.I got my new video card maybe 3 months ago so i welcome any improvement.The game doesn't have to look perfect for me just as long as it isn't chunky and laggy.My next step will be more RAM so i can get faster loading times and bump some settings to high.
Last edited by BrOk_MoRdU (2006-07-18 22:24:54)
What's the command?Capt. Foley wrote:
I still havent gotten a chance to try it. But there is a special console command that you can use to keep the graphics great looking over even long ranges. Waiting for conroe and then new systme and Im gonna try it out.
hmm ok, i take your point. they are bad comparisons, as they are games that do very different things. true -although i would still say that they are 'above average' but not 'amazing'.Defiance wrote:
You're comparing apples to oranges.
I think they are great, a little system intensive but they don't look bad by any means.
i think its pretty good for this generation.. but look up crysis on ign.com and watch the trailers. That looks amazing, and is the reason all of the smart people have been telling you to save your money link:http://media.pc.ign.com/media/694/694190/vids_1.html
I would vote if Nvidia Geforce 5200s could even get at least 20fps on everything LOW!!!1111oneoneoneeleven!!1!1!11!1!1!!!!!!11!!!!!!!!!11111111!!!!1!!!
I wonder what it would be like with Alienwares ALX computers with quad 7800GTXs?
I wonder what it would be like with Alienwares ALX computers with quad 7800GTXs?
noice 
i thought they were decent on everything as low as possible. but then i got my new computer and have everything the highest and i think its pretty amazing looking. they did a good job on the lighting effects and the water.
Pfft, alienwares. The brand makes not a difference.KuSTaV wrote:
I wonder what it would be like with Alienwares ALX computers with quad 7800GTXs?
They just put real water in my computer, zomfg h4x! I run on most meds and low and off and high so.... hrmmmmmm... I voted awesome cos i've seen it and it looks quite amaziiiiiiiiiing
My game crashes when I have more than 3 settings on high when Im on single playereagles1106 wrote:
honestly dont know, my game even lags in single player when i put them on high, i run them on medium....and it still lags on medium....
Im maxed out where I am now and its pretty cack.
- JdeFalconr
- Lex Luthor, King of Australia
- +72|6554|Sammamish, WA
I run mine all at high with 2xAA and it runs fine. The graphics are certainly pretty and the effects are AWESOME (like the tracer effects and dynamic shadows) but I wouldn't call the overall graphics spectacular. That's not a big deal with me; I play BF2 for the great gameplay, not the good graphics. The graphics could suck for all I care as long as the gameplay is still top-notch. I think CS 1.6 proved this and BF2 reiterates it, even though BF2's graphics are much improved over CS 1.6.
I'm running mine at 1600x1200, 2xAA, 16xAF (forced from driver CP), with everything on high. The game doesn't look that good because of the steep LOD... meaning things lose detail quickly over distance. The draw distance and fog is really bad too. Mabey if there was no LOD, or fog, then the game would look good.
Looks Purdey but Ahm still Guuna shoot it
A couple more games out there, including new ones coming out like Enemy Territory: Quake Wars looks so much better and probably has less problems upon release than BF2 will or ever going to have but BF2 is still fun and cool in its own way... and it just looks above average.
It's good, but it's not amazing at all. Texture detail is lowish, but the terrain detail looks great. The lighting is probably the best part of the engine. But we must remember that you can't make such a large scale game with amazing graphics, imagine if BF2 looked like Splinter Cell 3/4 (the lighting/shadows and stuff are amazing), the game would run like a slideshow.
Bf2 is better gfx that FEAR all maxed out, trust me i own both games, it's only the shadows on FEAR which make it look good gfx.oberst_enzian wrote:
they are above average, but have been considerably surpassed by other games. just play with everything on high, and then play hl2, css or something like fear with everything maxed out and they don't really seem special. plus, there's not that much difference between med and high, like there is with low and med. if the system chugs a bit on high, its not worth it - better to go with med just for the extra fps.
I just got a gaming computer that can play everything on high and AA @ 4x. The graphics are dope and I can actually hit targets now. It's amazing.
Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Games »
- Battlefield Series »
- Battlefield 2 »
- How would you rate the overall grahpics of BF2 when its all Maxed out.