Is it just me or are these graphics BAD!?

#1 Posted by Ascend_Ignite (115 posts) -

I was shocked to see how grainy and just flat out bad the graphics were, I put in the original Medal of Honor (2010) and they looked the same... Are you kidding me?

#2 Posted by Simplythebest12 (25 posts) -

The game is nothing special overall. There is nothing new for the genre and the single player part is very BORING so far as i have played. I would take Farcry 3 over this anytime...

#3 Posted by megantereon (55 posts) -

The graphics and effects in the final game are state of the art. The best I've seen so far.

#4 Posted by blastmaster2k2 (382 posts) -

It's just you, the game is spectacular looking on PC.

#5 Posted by playaflyin (15 posts) -
yeah for console the graphics are terrible i couldnt believe how last generation they are on console
#6 Posted by blastmaster2k2 (382 posts) -

Someone I know said there's an HD texture pack for consoles. Install the HD texture pack if you want better looking graphics on consoles.

#7 Posted by mediaprchsguide (1 posts) -

where can you find the texture pack?

#8 Posted by blastmaster2k2 (382 posts) -

where can you find the texture pack?

mediaprchsguide

 

It should be on one of the disks, I guess the one with the single player stuff. Then, you have to install it to your hard drive on your 360. I'm not 100% sure because I have the PC version.

#9 Posted by SnakeEyesX80 (2134 posts) -
It's just you. I think the graphics look pretty damn good. I was actually going to start a thread about how great they look. Now I don't have too.
#10 Posted by mrsniper83 (1552 posts) -

The graphics and effects in the final game are state of the art. The best I've seen so far.

megantereon
Wow,then you really haven't played too many games in last few years because these are not the best graphics...i hope that your joking
#11 Posted by blastmaster2k2 (382 posts) -

Crytek and Frostbite engines are the top engines out, there is nothing being used right not to make games better period. Stop trolling.

#12 Posted by JCSBEARMEAT (1027 posts) -

They are pretty bad when you don't install the texture pack. It get's a little bit better once you install it but BF3's graphics are still better. Character models look horrible for the MP character selection. The campaign cut scenes are amazing though.

#13 Posted by Fandango_Letho (5412 posts) -

Crytek and Frostbite engines are the top engines out, there is nothing being used right not to make games better period. Stop trolling.

blastmaster2k2
On the PC, Medal of Honor only looks average. Sure, the intro mission looks incredible, but that's about it. Danger Close may be working with one of the best engines out there, but it's pretty clear they're not used to it. A lot of missions are way too boxed in and only a few stand out. There's a really obvious lack of detail, especially compared to Battlefield 3's campaign. Same goes with the MP maps; they're ugly and badly rendered.
#14 Posted by daBrokenFace (9 posts) -
They are bad, that was the 1st thing I noticed when I tried the demo.
#15 Posted by Hazzerz (579 posts) -

Upgrade your s**t system?

#16 Posted by Kornfr33k7 (762 posts) -

graphics are solid. runs very well. very optimized engine. THe sounds design is great as well. some random loading bugs but really nothing bad. The characters in the cutscenes are incredible... though the little girl is quite ugly and scary at times. haha

#17 Posted by Beaver_Slayer (22 posts) -

Ya, just you. The graphics are great on PS3.

#18 Posted by Black_Hand_313 (787 posts) -

It looks A LOT better on PC. I'm far from a PC fanboy but big difference in this case. I agree with an above poster that it seems the dev isn't used to the new engine, I thought they could do a better job than they did

#19 Posted by 106473 (403 posts) -

Ya, just you. The graphics are great on PS3.

Beaver_Slayer
Indeed.