Quote:
Originally Posted by Ailantd
Nobody says that WoP is bad in it's niche. Wop effectively tricks you to think that it's good, then it's good in that, in being an arcade sim with small terrain and hollywood graphics that does not look good at low level and does not look realistic at hight level.
So, and this is what we say, there is not comparison from what WoP does and what CoD does even in its current state. CoD engine could do what WoP does with no problem, and I'm sure even with better fps, turning down terrain size, number of objects in scene, fx, lighting, flight dinamics, damage, IA, and so... but then it would not be CoD needing some patches (as many games does, sadly, when released, old FB with them ), would be another arcade sim wich CoD is not and never pretended. WoP engine simply can't do what CoD does. No way. If you can't see that difference, and don't realize what bigger in code and complexity that difference is, then you does not deserve CoD.
|
See, you are arguing over the technicality of the engine. No doubt, I agree whole heartily with you that CloD's engine is built to support more details in mind - and it's awesome.
But what the original author was talking about how it looks - art direction.
A great engine can't do jack without equally great art direction.
A good testament of how tight WoP's art is that their game doesn't have quarter the amount details of CloD, but people are still comparing it to CloD.
Imagine what CloD could benefit if it had the same polish. Hopefully some day we will get there.
Btw, I don't play WoP even though I have a copy of it sitting on my HD. It's not my cup of tea, but it bothers me when people rags on it because it's not 'realistic' enough, or that 'graphics' are 'tricks' - all computer graphics are 'tricks'.