Battlefield 2 Rant

[proto]

I think I have to agree with Chris on this one...again, actually.

Although, you can't really compare the two games. Bigger hitboxes, more accurate weapons, smaller learning curves...they're two completely different games.

On the contrary, I can easily read and understand Chris's argument. I felt like I was half-retarded reading William Faulkner in front of my Elementary School with yours. Just took me a while to understand your simple argument.

[thissitesucks]

max resolution 4x




max resolution


just took the pics, 2.80 ghz duel core, 4 gb ddr2 of 6400 dual channel ram, 8600 gts (256) ddr3 ........

[proto]

Ew dude, BF looks like crap on your card.

COD4 is a much more advanced engine, the graphics are about as photo-realistic as we'll get to see with DX9.

Not only that but you chose one of the worst CoD4 maps ever.

[[Expletive Deleted]]

^^^ What does that have to do with anything? And what is your max resolution? Mine is 1600x1200. Your monitor makes a difference. Again, though, what do those pictures have to do with anything?

[thissitesucks]

Ew dude, BF looks like crap on your card.

COD4 is a much more advanced engine, the graphics are about as photo-realistic as we'll get to see with DX9.

Not only that but you chose one of the worst CoD4 maps ever.

well i have a wide screen moniter the pics are a bit squished even with them big, bf2 looks like *** because my card does not have enough memory, cod 4 i just joined a random server

^^^ What does that have to do with anything? And what is your max resolution? Mine is 1600x1200. Your monitor makes a difference. Again, though, what do those pictures have to do with anything?

the frames i get on both games on just about the same settings i said they are the same the other guy said not even close so i had to prove it. moniter is a 23 inch LG 2000:1

[Chris_Redfield]

I think I have to agree with Chris on this one...again, actually.

Although, you can't really compare the two games. Bigger hitboxes, more accurate weapons, smaller learning curves...they're two completely different games.

On the contrary, I can easily read and understand Chris's argument. I felt like I was half-retarded reading William Faulkner in front of my Elementary School with yours. Just took me a while to understand your simple argument.

Well. Maybe I can make it a little simplier. :laugh:

In BF2, the learning curve consists of getting to know the insides and outsides (mainly the flaws, as both the competitive group, and the more experienced group would agree), and how to circumvent them. That alone makes the learning curve quite damn steep.

In COD4, youre not left out in the rain dealing with BS. The learning curve part that deals with the game mechanics, will be pretty much learned in the course of the 55 ranks. Then, youre left with the other side of the learning curve, playing against people, and not playing to circumvent the system. And people do stupid mistakes in videogames, and you can make them pay for them. So the game is easy or hard at times, but if you really think about it, its the opposition that dictates the level of challenge. Its like that in all games, but since were talking about BF2, it takes quite a lot longer to get to that point.

And it all starts from the simple situation- what happens if someone is in your crosshairs, and what has happened that lead up to that moment. One may wonder why BF2 competition has died or is dieing, especially since the game isnt really old, at all.

To sum it up, and kind of bringing some sense to my argument, how many "nerfs" has BF2 lived through, because people were exploiting more effective killing methods?

[proto]

the frames i get on both games on just about the same settings i said they are the same the other guy said not even close so i had to prove it. moniter is a 23 inch LG 2000:1

It's a moot point whether the frames are close to the same.

You would have to be running both games on all-high settings to bench them that way. By the looks of those screens, they are not all-high in either.

Well. Maybe I can make it a little simplier. :laugh:

Oh no no no, I was saying I COULD understand yours.

The amount of typos and grammatical errors from the opposite side of the argument confused me.

[thissitesucks]

It's a moot point whether the frames are close to the same.

You would have to be running both games on all-high settings to bench them that way. By the looks of those screens, they are not all-high in either.



Oh no no no, I was saying I COULD understand yours.

The amount of typos and grammatical errors from the opposite side of the argument confused me.

then during running both go from 70-90 i alreayd told you the settings are high you take a s/s lets see your high settings, like i give proof and people still wont get off the band wagon..

[[Expletive Deleted]]

Those pictures are scaled down to 800x640, and look like crap. Anyhow, that came from left field.
Oh, and you still didn't say what RESOLUTION you run it at. Max resolution in games is determined by the max resolution of your monitor. That's why you have some people saying theirs is running at max res when it's running at 1024x768 or 1280x1024. And size isn't everything. My 54" monitor has a resolution of 1920x1080, or 1080i. My 20.1" monitor is 1600x1200. I've seen 23" widescreens that are 1360 x 768.

[proto]

Those pictures are scaled down to 800x640, and look like crap. Anyhow, that came from left field.
Oh, and you still didn't say what RESOLUTION you run it at. Max resolution in games is determined by the max resolution of your monitor. That's why you have some people saying theirs is running at max res when it's running at 1024x768 or 1280x1024. And size isn't everything. My 54" monitor has a resolution of 1920x1080, or 1080i. My 20.1" monitor is 1600x1200. I've seen 23" widescreens that are 1360 x 768.

This is absolutely my point, Avenger.

In order to bench two completely different games, you have to bench them at the highest possible settings. That's the only way you can get two FPS readings to compare and be worth any weight.

This is why when benching two different graphics cards, they're benched on the same game, and system setup, at highest settings. It's what we call a controlled variable.

Its called stealth. :laugh:

Call it what you want...it still hurted me eyes. :shock:

Oh, and Chris, what GFX card are you using in CoD4? Cause I read you complained about the lighting. :P

[Chris_Redfield]

Oh, and Chris, what GFX card are you using in CoD4? Cause I read you complained about the lighting. :P

Oh I didnt complain per se. I just like the lighting in BF2 certain maps a whole lot better. Its more "bright", "shining", "golden". If you know what I mean. Wake Island map in BF2 is like the summerday in mid July here.

Technically however, COD4 beats it, unsurprisngly as its a new game. COD4 has this pretty damn awesome feature of blinding the player if hes inside, going outside, and vice versa. You can easily see the effect in motion when youre in a shadow, staring outside through the door. Opens quite a few tactical possibilities that I use for claymore placing.

I use an ATi X1600, everything is set to LOW or OFF and I play with the minimum 16:10 resolution possible. I like my 90FPS.



@848X480

Game looks gritty, VERY detailed, and graphically so enjoyable, that my "graphics wh0re" friend loved it. And he refused to play BF2 on LOW, because he didnt like the GFX.

[thissitesucks]

Oh I didnt complain per se. I just like the lighting in BF2 certain maps a whole lot better. Its more "bright", "shining", "golden". If you know what I mean. Wake Island map in BF2 is like the summerday in mid July here.

Technically however, COD4 beats it, unsurprisngly as its a new game. COD4 has this pretty damn awesome feature of blinding the player if hes inside, going outside, and vice versa. You can easily see the effect in motion when youre in a shadow, staring outside through the door. Opens quite a few tactical possibilities that I use for claymore placing.

I use an ATi X1600, everything is set to LOW or OFF and I play with the minimum 16:10 resolution possible. I like my 90FPS.



@848X480

Game looks gritty, VERY detailed, and graphically so enjoyable, that my "graphics wh0re" friend loved it. And he refused to play BF2 on LOW, because he didnt like the GFX.

well then you cant argue much about what looks better if your running trash settings and im running the same fps at you on max res.

[proto]

well then you cant argue much about what looks better if your running trash settings and im running the same fps at you on max res.

You're saying max res, but that means nothing.

And I love that feature too, Chris, the HL2 engine does that too with HDR. It just seems so intense when it happens.

[Chris_Redfield]

well then you cant argue much about what looks better if your running trash settings and im running the same fps at you on max res.

Lets throw away "FPS" for a second. Not only do the buildings in COD4 look better with my superextralow resolution and lowest graphics, they have better interior and unobstructed field of view from one side of the map, to another. I gather you didnt take a screenshot of Oman Hotel, to compare it to the Showdown building wall, for a reason. The whole argument about which game has "better" graphics is horrible.

[thissitesucks]

Okay this is 1600x1050 4x AA, sync every frame @ 60 fps tops 30 at lowest





Took a normal s/s did not even come out






Took a s/s with fraps