Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 17706]

PC screenshots should only be posted by people's own setup & from the retail game.

Anyone can find pics of something that is not possible to run on normal PCs. Maxed out AA 16FSAA & 1680x1050+ & the latest graphical mods? Bullshit, game will either run in the single digits or the setup is thousands of dollars in the latest gear.


All those really good looking Crysis pics posted, they don't look anywhere even remotely close to the retail version I played. The suped up Crysis pics look to the regular Crysis as Killzone 2 does to Killzone 1.
Seriously, comparing some of the Crysis screens posted here is like comparing Halo3/PGR4 photo modes pics, with the added AA & resolution.

From what I played & seen Crysis only had a few graphical "holy shit" moments , IMHO are more games this gen that easily surpass that.

PC games are probably the only screenshots posted from people's setups from retail games. Most console screenshots are going to be PR bullshots that are rendered in insane resolutions and then shrunk down for unattainable image quality.

Regarding Crysis, I don't know what retail version you played, but you obviously didn't play it on a capable computer at its maximum settings or you wouldn't have wrote this post. In DX10 at maximum settings it blows away everything else and it does it all while being an open ended game with a huge world, destructable buildings and amazing physics.

The graphical mods you speak of are nothing more than tweaks to the config files and usually deal with how the lighting works. It's not like people are going in and replacing textures and other graphical assets. It is all possible with the retail game.

I personally run it on Vista 64bit Ultimate Edition, a Core 2 Duo E8500, Radeon 4870 1GB and 4GB of RAM. I play it with maximum settings (recently with a custom config) in 1600x1050 resolution without AA and the game looks amazing. It looks like the screenshots you found so hard to believe except with a bit more jaggies around the edges, but they aren't very noticable. I could turn on AA or jack up the resolution to 1920x1200, but I would have to sacrifice some FPS. I currently get above 30fps except for in the most action packed scenes and consistently get a much higher FPS when in doors. The game is very playable and it looks amazing. It is a fun game as well which many people seem to forget.

I own a PS3, 360, Wii and a powerful PC and there is really no competition for Crysis. Not even close. Killzone 2 looks amazing at time with its post processing effects and Gears 2, Resident Evil 5, Uncharted, etc... all look great, but nothing comes close to Crysis and anyone who has actually played all of these games would agree.

 

[Mariah Carey]

Mega Man 9

 

[Fun Factor]

Full. Of. Shit. My E8400 3.6Ghz/4GB DDR2 ram/Radeon 4870x2 run it at 1080p with 4xAA maxed out at a pretty constant 30fps, and the whole things costs me significantly less than "thousands of dollars."

And the people going on about "PC graphics" being "clinical" or "sterile" is the most asinine opinion that populates these boards. PCs don't use some kind of different graphical technique or any shit like that. Console graphics chips are derived from PC r&d. What do you think the point of the "HD" generation is? Consoles are slowly trying to catch up to the resolution and image quality you can get on a PC. What will you do when that happens? Complain that EVERYTHING looks 'sterile' and they should drop down the resolution and get rid of AA so it looks more.. I don't even know how someone would justify it. It's just stupid.

Post a screen grab of it with your setup? Does it look exactly like the ones that have been posted when running at 30fps?


FYI I don't think it has anything to do with "sterile", take away the high AA, ridiculously high res & the game isn't anywhere that mind blowing. It would probably be comparable to Halo 3.

That's why the OP has Prince of Persia in mind & many people mentioned Mario Galaxy, they look amazing on their own & not just from the benefit of high end setups. Jaggies, DX10 effects, super high res texture be damned, they look mind blowing as they are.

 

[Chinner]

I think that aesthetically; Killzone 2 > Crysis

Crysis just look sterile and very pc-like.

How can a game look 'pc-like'?

 

[rezuth]

That's about all it has going for it though, really. Graphically it's all over the place, even worse about it than Halo 3 is IMO.


This I agree with for the most part, though I'd swap ME for Crysis and RE5 for Gears 2. I really haven't played Banjo enough to make an educated opinion on it.

I can agree on Crysis but Gears 2 had some parts that were so obviously rushed that its not even funny. Especially the ride early in the game through the forrest was looked so bad that I almost turned the game off. Some other levels due make up for this, the worm one is just fuckin ace!

 

[hooijdonk17]

Crysis looks better than Killzone 2 even on my Athlon X2 5400+ / Radeon HD3850 setup (DX10 High) and runs at an almost steady 30fps+.

People who come to this thread with the 1,000$ PC bullshit should just GTFO or get their head out of their asses. I used to this argue this 3 years ago, and back then it had merit. Today it's just bland demagoguery.

 

[eso76]

Gears 2 had some parts that were so obviously rushed that its not even funny.

damn, it gets worse than that though. The very first level and tutorial looked flat out horrible. It does get really good towards the end, but the amount of trickery the game uses to hide the rather poor geometry doesn't really trick me.


Technically speaking, i think burnout paradise does an impressive amount of stuff that's not always apparent. Not as detailed as other racers, but definately more detailed than most sandbox games and 60fps + purdy crash physics.

 

[McValdemar]

Killzone 2 owns the crown.
Gears 2 is very close.
Assassin Creed 2 might steal the crown this year.

 

[Truant]

I don't care about tech, I only care about what's on screen. If it looks good, it doesn't matter that it's fooling my eyes with clever design instead of being GPU-melting FX.

 

[Cdammen]

I played some single and multi player Gears of War 2 last night, that game still looks pretty. I love how they use colored lightning to make the dull colors come to life. It's quite vibrant in some parts.

(EDIT) I think the keyword here is "best". Best what? Technically? Artistically? Given the circumstances?

And isn't Killzone 2 actually more impressive than Crysis because it has to do things quite differently to achieve its visual fidelity.

I remember seeing the technical presentation slides for SotC and I was really amazed how they "faked" effects that DX8-9 hardware could do natively. It's cool to see developers pushing limited tech or rethinking developement processes and creating a new way of doing things. Super Mario Galaxy impressed me in the same way.

This has probably been discussed but whatever... I like this thread, it's entertaining.

 

[Truant]

I can't stand UE3 games anymore. I just look at them and die a little inside. Except Bioshock, and perhaps Mirror's Edge.

 

[Chinner]

I can't stand UE3 games anymore. I just look at them and die a little inside. Except Bioshock, and perhaps Mirror's Edge.

And Mass Effect.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I can't stand UE3 games anymore. I just look at them and die a little inside. Except Bioshock, and perhaps Mirror's Edge.

Bioshock isn't UE3. So many people seem to think it is.

 

[proposition]

I think that U3E games, like any game, depends on the skill of the developer.

I think that the really average looking U3E games probably wouldn't have been anything more than average if the developer had made their own engine.

 

[Truant]

Bioshock isn't UE3. So many people seem to think it is.

Modified UE2.5 with the UE3 renderer, according to a programmer on TTLG.com

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Modified UE2.5 with the UE3 renderer, according to a programmer on TTLG.com

I obviously don't understand the technical aspects of everything, but I heard the game was built mostly using heavily modified UE2.5 tools and then they added in some of the UE3 tech near the end.

It has a unique look that you don't see in UE3 games like Gears, Unreal Tournament 3, Mass Effect, Lost Odyssey, etc...

 

[Fun Factor]

I don't care about tech, I only care about what's on screen. If it looks good, it doesn't matter that it's fooling my eyes with clever design instead of being GPU-melting FX.

Yeah pretty much, Crysis looks great, but still IMHO not the best looking game.
I was impressed with it, but not in a jaw dropping beautiful moments that floored me way.

I think Just Cause, a game a released a few years back, still has a comparable foliage/jungle from a distance, lighting & draw distance to Crysis (at least from what I played) & it isn't a tenth as technical or advanced:

Sorry for the small screens, hard to find some of the better ones.

Stuff like Assassins Creed & Prince of Persia, not technical powerhouses as Crysis, but blew me away & almost nothing out there is comparable:

I'd also say Fight Night has without a doubt the best looking models out of any game & not mentioned enough here

Still shits on most games.

 

[FirewalkR]

<onceagain>I'm wondering if people dissing Crysis have actually played the game.</onceagain> Until I got a new PC a few months ago, I was on the "too clinical/art could be better" camp. Then I played the game and its graphics blew my mind like no game before. It takes a mighty dump on everything else.

Besides Crysis, KZ2 has the best graphics for me.

And PoP just might be the most beautiful game so far this gen. (contradiction? nah)

 

[neorej]

Yeah pretty much, Crysis looks great, but still IMHO not the best looking game.
I was impressed with it, but not in a jaw dropping beautiful moments that floored me way.

I think Just Cause, a game a released a few years back, still has a comparable foliage/jungle from a distance, lighting & draw distance to Crysis (at least from what I played) & it isn't a tenth as technical or advanced:

Sorry for the small screens, hard to find some of the better ones.

Stuff like Assassins Creed & Prince of Persia, not technical powerhouses as Crysis, but blew me away & almost nothing out there is comparable:

I'd also say Fight Night has without a doubt the best looking models out of any game & not mentioned enough here

Still shits on most games.

Assassin's Creed was a tearingfest. That hardly qualifies them as visually impressive.

 

[Mr. Durden]

Assassin's Creed on PS3 had tearing problems yes, but not the 360/PC version. Totally forgot to mention the AC PC version.

 

[f@luS]

assassin offscreen looks good but ingame its soso imho. lot of lod clipping and im playing PC at max settings AA4

 

[Chinner]

It has a unique look that you don't see in UE3 games like Gears, Unreal Tournament 3, Mass Effect, Lost Odyssey, etc...

Unique look (terrible character models)? Yeah, that isn't exclusive just to Bioshock. ME, LO, GOW2, MEdge, are all UE3 games and look completly different when compared.

 

[eso76]

assassin offscreen looks good but ingame its soso imho. lot of lod clipping and im playing PC at max settings AA4

Yes, that was the game's worst offender. I'm afraid AC2 will be plagued by even more lod clipping, especially considering they are apparently going for unified dynamic lighting to go with day/night cycle (which will force them to clip shadows few meters away from the camera, i'd assume).

 

[dark10x]

The graphical mods you speak of are nothing more than tweaks to the config files and usually deal with how the lighting works. It's not like people are going in and replacing textures and other graphical assets. It is all possible with the retail game.

True, but it is the image quality which really enhances many of those Crysis shots. It isn't possible to play the game with such flawless image quality. The engine doesn't really have support for that.

Those shots were taken using the screenshot function which grabs shots at insanely high resolutions internally.

 

[rezuth]

Unique look (terrible character models)? Yeah, that isn't exclusive just to Bioshock. ME, LO, GOW2, MEdge, are all UE3 games and look completly different when compared.

Mirrors Edge used a thirdparty lighting system thou. Bioshock uses 2.5 mostly but I most say it does look like a UE3 game.

 

[Truant]

Bioshock looks better than any UE3 game out there, in my opinion.

 

[eso76]

Mirrors Edge used a thirdparty lighting system thou.

yes, but it didn't really do much besides 'painting' occlusion and photon mapping on textures. Basically they used a third party engine to draw textures, and to my understanding something in real time for characters, but i didn't notice anything particularly different from the usual ue3 stuff in that regard, and anyway, in mirrors edge characters are not what gives the game its distinctive look.

 

[DieNgamers]

Assassin's Creed was a tearingfest. That hardly qualifies them as visually impressive.

Which version did you play? I think it's justified to call it one of the most jawdropping games, in terms of graphics and presentation, this gen.

 

[soldat7]

Assassin's Creed was a tearingfest. That hardly qualifies them as visually impressive.

The 360 version was fine; I barely noticed any tearing. However, the way Ubi rendered dynamic shadows was pretty distracting. This came up again in Prince of Persia. However, both games still looked hawt.

 

[dark10x]

The 360 version was fine; I barely noticed any tearing. However, the way Ubi rendered dynamic shadows was pretty distracting. This came up again in Prince of Persia. However, both games still looked hawt.

There was plenty of tearing the 360 version as well. You may not have noticed it, but that doesn't mean it wasn't present.

 

[Rad Agast]

Modified UE2.5 with the UE3 renderer, according to a programmer on TTLG.com

Aha! So I was right when I said it was a modified UE II game. Now where's my cookie?

 

[syllogism]

FYI I don't think it has anything to do with "sterile", take away the high AA, ridiculously high res & the game isn't anywhere that mind blowing. It would probably be comparable to Halo 3.

Ahahahahahah. Even Far Cry 1 post hdr patch looks better than Halo 3.

 

[TEH-CJ]

Holy shit balls i cant get over how incredible killzone 2 looks. seriously, on my calibrated panasonc viera, nothing comes close. the lighting, the water, the effects! holy shit!.

 

[dark10x]

FYI I don't think it has anything to do with "sterile", take away the high AA, ridiculously high res & the game isn't anywhere that mind blowing. It would probably be comparable to Halo 3.

Err, no. It definitely doesn't look as nice as those shots posted (you can't achieve image quality like that in game), but it is still VERY impressive. I still play at 1280x720 at Very High DX10 without anti-aliasing and it is incredible to behold and runs at a very smooth framerate. These are some old shots I had taken directly from the game when I was still using an 8800GT in DX9 mode.

Versus direct feed Halo 3

 

[Deleted member 30609]

Now that's what Crysis, in reality, will look like for most people. Still better than basically anything out there, but no where near as good as some shots will have you believe. I realise those shots are with settings all on High and not Very High, but I think its a safe bet to say that the majority of people who have played Crysis, have played it on High. Very High is obviously another step up again, but still not quite at the bullshot level.

In any case, Crysis = beautiful

 

[Truant]

Crysis looks really good, I'm just a bit tired of it after several playthroughs. You can only take so much jungle.

 

[methane47]

Crysis does indeed look awesome...

my my framerate is all over the place when i play on my 9800gt

one moment i will have 50-60 fps next second i will have 32-38 fps.. then 27 fps etc etc.. the back up to 56 fps.. Also I have a 4:3 computer screen and in order to truly appreciate crysis.. you kind of need a widescreen.

 

[.GqueB.]

STILL?!?!??!?!?!?!?!!!?

 

[Truant]

Yeah, the game was obviously designed with widescreen displays in mind.

Anyway, I can see why people think KZ2 looks better than Crysis. The post-processing effects and lighting model are very impressive. I'm such a whore for motion blur and DOF.

 

[SaggyMonkey]

STILL?!?!??!?!?!?!?!!!?

These stills?

 

[djtiesto]

Super Mario Galaxy, Wipeout HD, Mirror's Edge, Blue Dragon, and parts of Infinite Undiscovery (seriously)!

Art direction >>> realism, or boring grey/brown games

 

[Truant]

These stills?

Well played.

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

We need Nib and some off-screen shots of KZ2.

 

[Nikorasu]

Now that's what Crysis, in reality, will look like for most people. Still better than basically anything out there, but no where near as good as some shots will have you believe. I realise those shots are with settings all on High and not Very High, but I think its a safe bet to say that the majority of people who have played Crysis, have played it on High. Very High is obviously another step up again, but still not quite at the bullshot level.

In any case, Crysis = beautiful

It may not be feasible to run with that kind of image quality for almost everyone's hardware, but if it's actually possible to attain that image quality can you really justify calling them bullshots? I mean there is nothing in those screens that isn't taken right from the game itself, and on future hardware you could crank up driver-level supersampling AA to make it just as smooth as those shots.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

It may not be feasible to run with that kind of image quality for almost everyone's hardware, but if it's actually possible to attain that image quality can you really justify calling them bullshots? I mean there is nothing in those screens that isn't taken right from the game itself, and on future hardware you could crank up driver-level supersampling AA to make it just as smooth as those shots.

I guess it comes down to what the definition of a PC game bullshot actually is. To me, the definition of a bullshot is a screenshot of a game that is not representative of the actual product that the consumer will ultimately end up playing. I mean, sure, Crysis may technically be able to one day look like that, but as of right now, the consumer has no feasible way of playing the game in that state. So to me, that counts as a bullshot. Although I do see where you're coming from, the line in sand between actual shot and bullshot is a lot harder to really define when it comes to state of the art PC games.

 

[digita1alchemy]

I see all these beautiful high-end shots of the outdoor environments in Crysis and wish I could do stuff other than just shoot people in them.

I haven't been able to play Crysis yet, but how much exploring can you do?

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

I see all these beautiful high-end shots of the outdoor environments in Crysis and wish I could do stuff other than just shoot people in them.

I haven't been able to play Crysis yet, but how much exploring can you do?

You can swim, go boating, you can drive a jeep/tank around, or you can simply walk around. Heck, there is even a suit mode that lets you cloak if you want to sneak by enemies unseen. It's not as open as Far Cry 2, but the openness of the levels puts just about every other shooter to shame.

 

[rohlfinator]

It may not be feasible to run with that kind of image quality for almost everyone's hardware, but if it's actually possible to attain that image quality can you really justify calling them bullshots? I mean there is nothing in those screens that isn't taken right from the game itself, and on future hardware you could crank up driver-level supersampling AA to make it just as smooth as those shots.

How is that any different than (for example) Halo 3's photo mode, then? The 360 is technically capable of rendering the game at that image quality, just not at a playable framerate.

If these shots would be playable with a decent framerate with quad-295's or something, then fair enough. But something like that absurdly high-res shot posted a while back could reasonably be considered a bullshot, IMO.

 

[soldat7]

There was plenty of tearing the 360 version as well. You may not have noticed it, but that doesn't mean it wasn't present.

And you may have noticed it, but that doesn't mean it was a big deal. Screen tearing was the least of AC's graphical worries.

 

[Glix]

Valkaryia Chronicles and MGS4