Comments on: Battlefield 3: In Game Vs Real Life Comparison

By: Ermi

Ermi — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:09:35 +0000

In reply to dom. I would personally buy Homefront. I yplaed the Crysis 2 Multiplayer Demo and I wasn't too impressed. Bulletstorm just looks really dumb to me. I haven't even yplaed the demo, but I've seen a gameplay video, and I think it just looks stupid. Btw, Homefront has the potential to have an AMAZING campaign, let alone multiplayer.Was this answer helpful?

By: Zephol

Zephol — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 22:47:24 +0000

In my opinion it is far from coming, the lighting, details, still looks like a game and it seems real life. I think with ray tracing and virtual texture get to the graphics wall.

By: YP

YP — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 21:52:50 +0000

They have a couple more hardware, software, and display generations to go before they get it right. I’m looking for 3x 4k (11520 x 2160) resolution and at least an order of magnitude or two of polygon counts and all the bells and whistles turned to max in 3D at 120 FPS for each eye’s view. Yeah, I know I’m dreaming, but that is what I’m looking for.

By: anyone

anyone — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:27:30 +0000

ingame looks better as your photos

By: GranHabano

GranHabano — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:17:03 +0000

In reply to Ps3bw24. That may have more to do with your hardware. Unless you can max out your settings, you can't expect to experience the same quality.

By: CookiesPLZ13

CookiesPLZ13 — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:00:32 +0000

In reply to PC is 4 fags.

ACtually not true. with Pc u get more customization. i assume you are just a console fanboy? here is my evidence as to PC’s dominance in gaming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Gj6fgnMvQw yep. for more vidence for lets say, ps3, search it up urself. u probably dont have a good enough PC to even play crysis. trust me, Pc is more satisfying. u get dedicated servers and tons of community support. plus there is the always fun; modding.

By: gorodish

gorodish — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 04:07:51 +0000

BF3 looks ok, but most of the post-processing and light effects that many consider as ‘so realisitic’ are not; they’re deravitive effects based on poor quality or deliberate photographic and digital image processsing effects on lens and film.

The human eye has much greater resolution, dynamic light and color range, and sees much more detail that is deliberately obscured with these effects to cover anomolies and render limitations.

So yes it looks good, but only in comparison to really poor photography…

By: me

me — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 01:09:39 +0000

The trick is that the real world is not so color heterogeneous as almost all games.

if the real world were like games, most things would be fluorescent.

By: mikey

mikey — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 00:21:55 +0000

Lawl, all the console players raging @ quality, lolol l2 Upgrade <3 then bitch, looks amazing, watched and played the game @ e3, with a nice pair of 5.1s and a few beers, dude i felt like i was in iraq-astan <3 peace!

By: gaz

gaz — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 22:23:37 +0000

@ JAkey iirc the game is running maxxed out on a single GTX 580, you’d only get more frames.

@ps3bw Just so you know, those are in game shots, none has been edited or are a render, that’s real-time footage.