can i know what the deal?

[rada660]

every time, and in almost critics post/comment, i read that sentence : "its a shame the graphic look outdated!"

do people, are really that "stupid"?

the game graphic are awesome, for the Unreal engine 3

and why people never complained about RO:OST graphic? its still a 2006 game, it's NOT that old, just FIVE year old

here a screenshot of the RO1

Spoiler!

now one of RO2:HOS

Spoiler!

just comon guys, stop saying its look outdated, its UE3, its not the Crytec engine, which make the crysis game look good, and also, if you start comparing on every big game name of today, keep in mind : they have the team for, even a whole department only for graphic and design, TWI office only count 22 employer ( to what i last readed ) they cant either do a miracle, like a mega company like EA or Infinity Ward can do.

its just upset me that some people get bugged that much just that graphic, to them, look under average for today... why is it so big deal?

 

[Baleur]

It's not that the graphics are bad or that the engine is bad, the post-processing and technical aspect is great. Great textures and models etc.

It's just that it has this same old brown puke filter over the entire scene, making everything look "old and realistic", while in fact real life has far more vibrant colors than most such "realistic" shooters. I'd like to call it the Fallout 3 syndrome.
Look at some screenshots of the game, trees are almost grey-green as if covered in ash and filth, grass looks like dead weeds in a desert even on maps taking place in the summer.

I mean, there was color in 1944 too, you know. It'd be nice to see a map taking place on a bright summers day, without the yellow-brown puke filter added on top of everything.
Green grass, blue skies, red bloody corpses. Now that would look better.

 

[rada660]

hmm never seen that way, tho, there is 3 kind of post processing, normal, enhanced, and war movie, personally i havent seen a difference between enhanced and normal, maybe normal look better? but PERSONALLY, that thing, i never noticed it... until you point it out lol

 

[Sensemann]

I don't understand why people are complaining about the graphics at all. To me, they look awesome. I agree, there is technically far better stuff on the market, like Crysis and Crysis 2, but I think sth is misunderstood:

If I had to judge which game has the better graphics, technically wise, I would say Crysis (of course). If I had to judge which game has the more realistic graphics, for sure I would say Red Orchestra 2.

The point is that RO 2 gives me the feeling that it's simulating a real area that existed (or could have existed) somewhere in Stalingrad. The graphics of the game is a bit "darkened", using less "warning" colours, like neon- red, green etc. I think you understand what I mean.

Crysis and Crysis 2 somehow give me the feeling that I just took an XTC pill, or ate magic mushrooms and my eyes get overwhelmed by the colors the surroundings are throwing at me. The green color of plants is almost like they are radiated and are shining towards my eyes.

However, as a complain towards RO 2 (a luxury complaint), the level of detail is almost too high. I mean, e.g. on Spartanovka, there are many details around the houses and bushes, that makes it so hard to spot enemies. I am almost considering to get the grass out of the game to make enemy infantry spotting easier. But then again: Why did I buy a computer to run everything on higher settings?

 

[Silent_snack]

Gears of war 3 uses the same engine as ro:hos

 

[luciferintears]

Graphics are nice, but they certainly arnt "wowing"...

Then again TW never advertised it as such. They're adequate, nothing more nothing less

 

[nebsif]

The anti aliasing is just bad and when you run it for the 1st time you get the impression its completely off, plus if the 1st map you play is Fallen Fighters with it's giant/ugly terrain textures and blue tint.. cant blame any1 then.

 

[Dirtybandit]

Graphics may not be the best..but it sure runs like ****! (personal experiences. it may be different for you!)

 

[Criticalt3]

It's not that the graphics are bad or that the engine is bad, the post-processing and technical aspect is great. Great textures and models etc.

It's just that it has this same old brown puke filter over the entire scene, making everything look "old and realistic", while in fact real life has far more vibrant colors than most such "realistic" shooters. I'd like to call it the Fallout 3 syndrome.
Look at some screenshots of the game, trees are almost grey-green as if covered in ash and filth, grass looks like dead weeds in a desert even on maps taking place in the summer.

I mean, there was color in 1944 too, you know. It'd be nice to see a map taking place on a bright summers day, without the yellow-brown puke filter added on top of everything.
Green grass, blue skies, red bloody corpses. Now that would look better.

The game is vibrant. At least, for me it is. I have no idea what you're talking about in terms of RO2. I'll agree with Fallout though, but that's how it's supposed to look, no? It is called Fallout after all.

 

[Zips]

People are largely ignorant of what the term "graphics" actually mean.

If it's not flashy and in their face with tessalation, overused bump mapping, particle effects, and glitz galore, they assume it's a crap looking game.

You can blame other modern shooters for this sort of mentality and it is NOT a matter of console vs. pc games. They are across all platforms.

The graphics in RO2 are in the details. There's just a ton of little details in the game that aren't in other games and since they're not completely obvious to players all the time, people tend to come off as ignorant on the subject.

 

[therrookiee]

hm, i like graphics of this game.. mostly with eyefinity :IS2:

 

[Nenjin]

I think they actually went a little overboard on all the visual effects. At ultra, they look amazing. At medium on lower than widescreen resolutions....not so much. To me anyways.

The texture detail is amazing though, pretty much throughout. Few games have made me really wish for better hardware just to enjoy the beauty, because I've always been fine slumming it at medium settings, but this is one.

 

[Rrralphster]

"Stalingrad is no longer a town... it is an enormous cloud of burning, blinding smoke."
- German Officer of the 24th Panzer Division, October 1942.

enough said....

 

[Rhym3z]

the problem is that the new UE3 engine for RO2 is running pretty badly on many people systems.
its ok on mine, but deffinately not how it should be.
So if i had the option, i would rather it looked like RO1 because at the end of the day gameplay>graphics

 

[SweatyGremlins]

the game looks nice, has that UT sex going on

 

[Thaelyn]

I don't think the graphics look dated at all. It is, in my opinion, simply a matter of whether or not someone has an appreciation for the chosen visual style. Graphics, in my estimation, do not have to be photo realistic in order to be modern.

 

[RobertHammer]

The Reason why the graphics look "strange" is the Unreal's engine Lighting thing - maybe you know the Unreal engine is not using any dynamic lights instead it is using some special static ones around the map/level

 

[Dashdot]

OP is totally right, altough he has a big grammar problem

Just kiddin'

But seriously the graphics are in my opinion very good. I don't care about tesselation for instance. It's just an fps draining and useless feature wich nobody sees in the heat of a battle.

The only thing I care about graphics are the textures. I mean, the textures are the foundation. If they don't look good, the whol game looks like crap. But in case of RO2 the textures are nice, as well as the models, espespecially the gunmodels. Very well done and even better animated (I know how hard it is, I'm using 3ds Max as well).

And hey... it's the Unreal 3 Engine... TWI has done a good job with this engine, to create a realistic atmospheare.

 

[rada660]

yay positive response ( my life got better weee ) but yea, some people still think all graphic should be top notch, and guess what, most are from the "outside" of the RO community ( US >:3 ) and from the review...

ignorant people are ignorant... me say!

 

[bobsynergy]

It's not that the graphics are bad or that the engine is bad, the post-processing and technical aspect is great. Great textures and models etc.

It's just that it has this same old brown puke filter over the entire scene, making everything look "old and realistic", while in fact real life has far more vibrant colors than most such "realistic" shooters. I'd like to call it the Fallout 3 syndrome.
Look at some screenshots of the game, trees are almost grey-green as if covered in ash and filth, grass looks like dead weeds in a desert even on maps taking place in the summer.

I mean, there was color in 1944 too, you know. It'd be nice to see a map taking place on a bright summers day, without the yellow-brown puke filter added on top of everything.
Green grass, blue skies, red bloody corpses. Now that would look better.

Turn off "War Movie" post processing and for added effect turn off depth of field.....LOOK now you have a vibrant and colorful map...so that makes your post useless as you can TURN IT OFF......I personally think it looks much better this way as well, you don't have to make it look old and such with "War Movie" (which by the way is what it's supposed to do) if you don't want to.