Report, edit, etc...Posted by Felagund on 2006-01-12 at 21:32:53
Everything is on maximum and my monitor has a high contrast ratio and it's bright. The reason the colors blend together is that the colors and bland, generic, and boring. Russians are whites, British are browns, and Americans are greens. Those are the main colors in each of the different campaigns.
F.E.A.R. has state-of-the-art graphics. I seriously don't know what the Hell you're talking about.
*Edit* It's really hard to get photos of either game to compare them, because neither game is meant to have pictures to stare at. It's all about the movement of the graphics, and I've found no pictures that capture the feel of either game well at all.
Maybe these?
F.E.A.R. has state-of-the-art graphics. I seriously don't know what the Hell you're talking about.
*Edit* It's really hard to get photos of either game to compare them, because neither game is meant to have pictures to stare at. It's all about the movement of the graphics, and I've found no pictures that capture the feel of either game well at all.
Maybe these?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Zombie on 2006-01-13 at 10:09:40
You have no idea what your going to get into.
Call of duty 2, was one of the best ww2 shooters, i havent seen a better ww2 shooter at ALL, I'm happy with the graphics, just because they dont have HL2 gfx doesnt mean shiz, Also the interactivty, aw boo hoo you cant knock things over. What a TERRIBLE problem, I'm sure the activision team could of thrown hl2 shiz in there but i would like to play the game. I have a very crappy radeon and it runs cod2 perfect, but hl2 has alot of problems. The gamplay was perfect, there was nothing wrong with it.The online is perfect, although a few bugs but nothing to serious, it only sucks because you get your ass owned online. If you have any idea about the other cod games, this one owns the hell out of them, It has alot better interactivity, I mean i even saw differnt genders on the russians side. If i where to rate it....8/10 clearly its a fun game. I'm sure they dont want to remake the entire game just for a few people.
Call of duty 2, was one of the best ww2 shooters, i havent seen a better ww2 shooter at ALL, I'm happy with the graphics, just because they dont have HL2 gfx doesnt mean shiz, Also the interactivty, aw boo hoo you cant knock things over. What a TERRIBLE problem, I'm sure the activision team could of thrown hl2 shiz in there but i would like to play the game. I have a very crappy radeon and it runs cod2 perfect, but hl2 has alot of problems. The gamplay was perfect, there was nothing wrong with it.The online is perfect, although a few bugs but nothing to serious, it only sucks because you get your ass owned online. If you have any idea about the other cod games, this one owns the hell out of them, It has alot better interactivity, I mean i even saw differnt genders on the russians side. If i where to rate it....8/10 clearly its a fun game. I'm sure they dont want to remake the entire game just for a few people.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Golden-Fist on 2006-01-13 at 19:38:33
I couldn't exactly read what Zombie said, so I'll just pretend it wasn't going against what I was saying.
Those pics you posted aren't making your debate tilt any closer towards you. Here's a few things to point out:
Those pics you posted aren't making your debate tilt any closer towards you. Here's a few things to point out:
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Snipe on 2006-01-14 at 10:27:55
I was planning on buying this with my brother but we changed our minds. The first 1 was fun but it's just to expensive.. i mean no point in paying that much for it. It sux your dissapointed but i'm pritty sure it's almost like the other 1.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Golden-Fist on 2006-01-14 at 10:31:27
QUOTE(Snipe @ Jan 14 2006, 10:27 AM)
I was planning on buying this with my brother but we changed our minds. The first 1 was fun but it's just to expensive.. i mean no point in paying that much for it. It sux your dissapointed but i'm pritty sure it's almost like the other 1.
[right][snapback]405430[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]405430[/snapback][/right]
It's 50$...
ALL GAMES COST 50$
What's so expensive about it?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by UN-Rommel on 2006-01-14 at 14:10:28
Fear can be a good graphic game IF YOU USE THE HIGHEST SETTINGS. You can make it maximum graphics or you can make it poor, whatever your computer can take. You can change everything in the game that reflects how it looks. The only problem is the graphics go buggy and you can barely move and you can see the pixels (thats on my copy atleast. Either my game bugged or its just like this). CoD2 on pc would be better than fear if you ask me. Just like quake 4, the pc version has better graphics/gameplay then the 360 version. You can't really compare until you have both on the same system usng the same configuation.