Quote:
Originally Posted by zauii
lol Hawks, Apache Air Assault and WoP all look crap once you sit 1 meter away on a high res monitor, these console games ain't anywhere near as good looking as say RoF on highest settings.
|
I completely agree, but MANY argue that these console airplane action games (self given tittle) have better graphics than, Black Shark/Rise of Flight or Cliffs of Dover. ( I don't agree, which is why I commented on that individuals comparison to wings of prey)
They're simple textures layered over an area a fraction the size of what we see in most modern sims.
Which is the basis for my argument, not to compare games like Wings of Prey to simulations that are 1000x more complex.
Rise of Flight has had some growing pains on release, but has blossomed into a spectacular sim. I would expect the same for Cliffs of Dover SHOULD it be slightly underwhelming upon release.
In the end the developers are dealing with the computer science aspect. We sit here and judge on graphics (paint job) before we even look/see what's under the hood. When you sit in the virtual cockpit with your tracker IR blasting IR at your face, hotas in hand, speakers UP and about 5 and a half hours of free time (god I wish) that's the only time you can even start to comment on the graphics and how they immerse with gameplay.
Obviously from a comp sci perspective, why wouldn't the team want to make the most graphically lush environment they could? It's obvious the system requirements would hinder that. If you can't see the BIGGER picture, it's very hard to take the graphical complaints seriously.