um havent you played crysis yet?there is hella potential with that thing!
Nothing that I have heard or seen makes me believe FH should move to the crysis engine. Sure, there are some cool features, but the "maps must be islands" alone is a reason not to port. Most importantly, if they did port, that would leave FH2 with 1 release and nothing else for another 2-3 years.
If there will indeed be FH3 (IMO not very likely), it better be on an engine far more advanced than anything we have now.
Anthony817;4001919um havent you played crysis yet?there is hella potential with that thing!
Crysis is a bunch of eye candy hiding a crappy game. I'm sorry, but its just not that good and definitely not anywhere near the free roaming game play of the BF series.
no FH2 should stay with bf series for obvious reasons.
Yeah this thread isn't the crysis thread. NO way could it even happen, or make any sense whats so ever....so lets stop that jibba jabber.
As to the guy that said that EA would make the dev team into EA drones, I'd market the whole mod as a re imagining of EA. Appearing to help the mod scene, and looking out for the consumers wants. Just cause EA has done a bad job 90% of the time doesn't mean they can't change...FH2 isn't so realisitic its just BF2 with WWII with great gameplay additions, great models, its not like the crosshair is ogne, and no ammo indicator..its not super realistic. So EA shouldn't touch a thing.
Of course they would change it, you cant have rifles killing in one shot now can we? Or tanks immune to grenades? Of 88's killing crusaders? That's unfair.
mrtywalsh;4001983FH2 isn't so realisitic its just BF2 with WWII with great gameplay additions, great models, its not like the crosshair is ogne, and no ammo indicator..its not super realistic. So EA shouldn't touch a thing.
First of all you can't say if FH2 is or isn't realistic because you haven't played it.
Second, FH2 is a realistic mod and the crosshair has nothing to do with realism, I am going to tell it for 578 time, the crosshair or the lack of crosshair are both equally unrealistic, and the persons claiming the X game is the ultimate realistic experience because it has not crosshair are utterly wrong. Ok?
Never mess with a drunken Kiwi
3rd January 2007
what are you getting at here lobo, are you saying it's realistic to have that annoying little crosshair when your not looking down the sights?
are you saying it's realistic to loose the clue that a real person has about where he is aiming from the hip, clue because a human has a complex system connecting brain-eyes-neural receptors in the muscles, skin and articulations?
Read me again, BOTH are unrealistic, we choose the best one. Our players can shoot from the hip with a moderate acuracy, the players in RO or other games without crosshairs don't shoot like real soldiers, and the reason is the lack of crosshair.
The Last Unknown Soldier;4002181what are you getting at here lobo, are you saying it's realistic to have that annoying little crosshair when your not looking down the sights?
I know where my arms are can I do this ingame? Nope, so the crosshair is the next best thing. Possibly adding a dot or a one sized crosshair would be a little better, but the widening crosshairs could represent you walking and your gun sway. So, in theory this is realistic.