Eagle-Vision said:
WTH are you talking about? BF2 looks way better than that thing.
This is just my opinion (looks are subjective) but here is why I disagree.
(Shot 1)
a. Motion blur.
b. MUCH higher detailed character (poly and textures)
c. Better explosion effect
d. Large sky scrapers (have not seen anything that detailed in BF2 yet)
(Shot 2)
e. Better trees (more colorful, more detailed; palm tree looks like a palm tree, the little sapling looks like it should)
f. the street/courtyard looks like it should, with decent shadows and light poles
g. Appears to have very detailed city
(Shot 3)
h. great looking shadows
i. nice cloudy particle effects
j. lighting (HDR?)
k. very detailed texturework, as seen on the wall
(Shot 4)
l. Appears to have very high poly open environment (trees with landscaping e.g.)
If these are in game I would have to say, in my opinion, they are a huge step up from BF2. Especially shot 3 if you comare it to BF2 ground combat. I used BF2 as a comparison because it has a HL2 rendering feel--which along with FC and D3 is some of the best we have seen on Top End PCs. And they are both military games. Now BF2 has a lot of vehicles and such and larger maps... so not a total apples-to-apples comparison.
But to my, comparing all the BF2 movies/pics (I have seen them all... I already have BF2 preordered and still play BF1942/DC) I have to say this is WAY more impressive visually. The characters are mjuch more detailed (no blocks for heads!) and seem to have a higher color pallete. The shadowing and lighting really are a lot better and it seems to capture a more realistic feeling.
BF2 looks very similar to CS:S. Those are good looking games, but if you put a CS:S pic next to these you would laugh. CS:S looks like a cartoon next to these. That is my opinion of course. It can change upon seeing this in action... but still shot to still shot I give a huge edge to GR 3... and I only played the first game once and did not like it.