Where these graphics considered acceptable or even good in 2004? or was this game downgrade city?

where these graphics considered acceptable or even good in 2004? or was this game downgrade city?

remember there is no middle of the road they where either good or complete shit

or is this considered acceptable graphics for 2004?

is anyone even here?

we don't play videogames

>muh grafix

What the fuck its your problem?

just end your suffering already, jump off a building

Well I guess it was kind of ugly when you consider the fact that hl2 and D33M came out that year.

wtf, the suffering had a first person mode?

Yes, but its a pain in the ass

Certainly playable, but Id put those graphics more in line with something youd see a little earlier, like 2000 or so. 2003/2004 had games that were way better polished, like Silent Hill 3 or Return To Castle Wolfenstein, games that are still playable, and dare I say even beautiful, 12-13 years after their release.

It was a PS2 game, so of course it's graphics were bad for PC

It was a multiplat game. But yeah, for 2004 the graphics were decent enough. Of course HL2, Doom 3 looked much better.

The sequel has much better graphics by the way and actually uses some decent shaders, mostly thanks to the Xbox version.

Looks more like 2001 or 2

did the sequel have a functioning PC version?

Where you from op?

the USA why?

You gotta remember that this came out in 2004 which is one year behind 2005 and one year AHEAD of 2003

Yes. It need to use those widescreen patches, but it works ok, i played the entire prologue, don't recall any problems.

Take a look at Max Payne to answer your question.

Wait hang on a sec. If 2005 comes after 2004 then what comes after 2005?

I remember it looking better but I played it in TPS mode.

So I guess yes

I guess we'll find out.

1992 I'm pretty sure

realistic art style > graphics

is this one of those sequels that failed due to the company not having the foresight to make it a next gen launch title?