Well, I kinda liked Wolfenstien aways back, but the pics and vid trailer look like they used the same engine they did way back. I am not gonna pay good money for "Wolfenstien Too". Get me?
Can't say the graphics concern me in the slightest. All I'm hoping for is some fast paced shooting, hopefully with secrets, and the possibility of an extremly high difficulty. So in other words, something that mimics classic shooter gameplay.
Just gave it a quick shot there, graphics are very nice, wee bit dated though, but a very stable 60fps constant which is nice, couldn't get it higher, even with V-Sync off, not a problem for me, but i know some like the choice of higher. Game feels quite fun, albeit in an old school way, just hoping it doesn't get repetitive.
graphics are not the end all be all of games by far, and it is darn near borderline childish to trash a game cause it does not look good enough, now if the gameplay sucks that is another matter entirely. sady from the ign article the actual gameplay is rather meh.
I rate good graphics pretty high in how I judge games. I spent good cash on my hardware and so I expect modern games to use that hardware effectively. With today's tech they have absolutely no reason not to produce top notch graphics/sound with every release. Don't get me wrong then gameplay, story,... are all important. But screw up graphics/sound and I hate you a lot.
FPS performance improvement for threaded CPU: Go to folder X:\Documents and Settings\X\Local Settings\Application Data\id Software\WolfSP\base, find here a file "wolf.cfg", open it using Notepad, next find in this file a line seta hk_numThreads "1" (default) and change: For Intel Pentium 4 with Hyper-threading or X2 core CPU on "2" For X3 core CPU on "3" For X4 core CPU on "4" For X4 core with Hyper-threading (Intel Core i7) on "8" Game is heavy CPU bound.
Lol, anyone tried the MP yet, looks like Return From Castle Wolfenstein from 8 years ago, plays ok, but feels rather pointless, and looks very rough, especially on character models. As for the main game, don't see any AA options in the game, but it doesn't look too bad without it at 1920x1080. Gameslove, you tried forcing it from CCC, looks ok to me without it, and game isnt heavy CPU bound, no offense, but you have a poor CPU.
I dont understand why people say the graphics are bad. I bought the game expecting almost nothing, and expecting the graphics being horrible based on what i read in forums like this, and load it up and was suprized. Its everything you would want in a wolfenstein game. Why does no one mention the buckets of gore and dismemberment when you shoot people, or the good use of physics with the veil powers? This game is made to render dark and dank cities, castles, and sewers and it does this better than pretty much any game i know of, yet it looks bad? It also runs perfectly which means something when you play MP especially. It has COD style upgrading of weapons in single and multi, with RTCW's team DM and objective based MP, with some other veil things thrown in, and all the sudden its the worst thing ever made.... This is why i dont listen to people on forums before i buy stuff.
I didn't say they were bad, i said the Single Player game was nice, but not as good as some other new FPS like COJ2 or Fear2, though i've only played it for an hour, so it may get alot better. The MP graphics are bad though, pretty sure they are the same as the 2001 game.
I wasnt singleing you out or anything, just general comments on what iv been seeing across many boards really. I havent really played much of the MP yet, i generally beat the single first. The way i see this game is, i rate it with other WW2 shooters, and when i rate it with others, its clearly way above the other ones in graphics, gore, gameplay, action and MP. I am not going to rate a WW2 sci fi ish game with Crysis, or other games because they dont try to render the same kind of environments at all. Considering this is a consol port, it really seemed like a lot higher quality on the PC than i was expecting. Then again, Raven doesnt generally make crap either.
Yeah, and the game is a very stable 60fps with everything maxed at 1920x1080 on my rather modest setup, which is very pleasing for me. I would say as a WW2 game, that COD5 looks better, but that doesn't run anywhere near as well. This is a very very good console port, with this, SFIV, RE5 and Batman:AA, it looks like good console ports are starting to happen
I would disagree with COD being better because, like COD4/5, the engines are super striped down with next to no lighting at all and no physics. When you throw a nade and watch all the body parts flying around, and the chucks of stuff also flying around, it just looks more "real" to me than COD games and their pre animated deaths and no lighting. Cod does have good weapon animations however, which help it still seem like it looks good. I actually think this game's approach to death is the best, it has animations (to prevent all the deaths from looking super fake, like games that use only physics for the death) but it also is controlled by physics and how the person died, which leads to awesome looking deaths, but also changable if they keep getting shot, or an explosion lands near. I was also presently suprized by the gun sounds. The MP40 sounds a lot more like what a real MP40 or KAR sounds like, COD5 has the worst gun sounds iv heard in a game in a long time, but not as bad as COD4 which completely made up sounds for guns, and then they didnt even have any punch at all even with a massive sub woofer. The mp40 in wolfenstein has a nice authentic, thump thump thump, just like the real gun had (because it didnt have uber rate of fire) All these things come together to make it more of the whole experience, but maybe i just look into this stuff more.
As i said, only played it for 45-60mins so not dug too deep into what it can offer since its very late here, but suppose its all down to personal preference too. Do agree that the sound is great, abit too great, which is why i can't go mad with it here, as its 4:30am lol. Surprised no one has accused this of consolitis yet, being that Aim assist is on by default lol.
Does it have replenishing health? uke2: Also, does it have difficulty levels? Hopefully with something above "Hard" ?
i thought the graphics were kinda bland but okay by my standards, but once the physics started kicking in (thank god for no physx btw, im on ati atm) i quickly stopped worrying about graphics and jus started enjoying the game. one of the worst thing about PC forums is that EVERYONE is a graphics whore, compared to console forums where only a few are (but we pay for good graphics so we expect more i suppose, but expecting crysis level graphics for every game is just silly). a fun game, but will be forgotten quickly iyam edit: it has replinshing health, and a uber difficulty setting above hard.
This is what we got... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wncMWjdukqE You can see the horrible textures and crappy use of lighting. Is this cod2?? barely better than rtcw in my opinion. I'm mad i wasted not 60.. but 110 bucks on this game. Bought the 360 and Pc versions.. pc version looks 10x as good as the xbox. I got the game this morning and loaded up MP first thing. I was literally in awe at how bad this game looks. When ya shoot someone.. it spurts blood like a game from 2001. Not even kidding. I sincerely hope this game gets patched or something. It is definately the biggest dissappointment in my 2009 game catalog.
Oh please, the textures are much better than COD2. I think your highly over exaggerating here. I mean sure the games no Crysis, but it's far from looking bad.
