Quote:
Originally Posted by Ark
The Year is 2010.........and you mention Mass Effect 2? You can't even use FSAA in that game. If anything spits in the face of modern day PC capabilities it's not being able to enable FSAA. BFBC 2 is good (my favorite FPS) but needs improvements graphically, and I haven't played Assassin's Creed 2.
Regarding the year, what exactly does 2010 have to do with it? Feel free to name another simulator that looks better than SH5.
FS9? Nope.
FXS? Nope.
Dangerous Waters? Nope.
SB Pro PE? Nope.
Silent Hunter 3/4? Nope.
Lomac? Nope.
FC2? Nope.
DCS : BS? Nope.
Ship Simulator? Nope.
Knights of the Sea? Nope.
IL-2? Nope.
Wings of Prey? Maybe...but not up close. So, "nope" there as well.
WWII Online? Nope.
RoF? Nope.
If you think the games you mention above look better than SH5, than that is your opinion...it certainly isn't mine. The only thing I would really change graphically are the explosions, and I would put those back to how they were in SH3/SH4.
SH5 has great graphics if you have the hardware to run it. Anybody who says the graphics are bad either: A) Have lower-end hardware or B) Have unrealistic expectations.
Lastly, if this game is the worst you have ever played......you have not played many games. lol
SH5 does need a lot of fixes, but a graphical failure it is not.
|
FSX, FC2 and even moded Il-2 1946 have better graphics.
http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.ph...ml#Post2984306
Clouds are 3D but look artificial. Moded ones look better.
Coast of Portugal (Giblartar mission) looks like Hungarian river bank
.
...
Sea surface is great looking but... it must be that way. Sea surface is the same for all the parts of world... contrary to landscapes in these flight sims.
Explosions - no further coments...
I would say just average graphics all togather... except sea surface (but not under surface)
(I had occassion to watch the game... not only screens.)