-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Crysis VS Call of Duty 4: A Video Commentary
- Thread starter ZeroTolerance
- Start date
Yes, it is. Lost Planet, Gears of War, Jericho and a few other PC games all have motion blur (higher quality than what we saw on 360 as well) and all of those games run at a perfect 60 fps on my machine.TTP said:
Actually, I was surprised at how good Jericho looks on the PC at 60 fps. The motion blur, framerate, and animation combo makes it feel like some sort of pre-rendered movie at times. Crysis features the best motion blur I've seen to date, but it's also really demanding. I've viewed it at 60 fps, though (a few of the indoor segments run at 60 fps, such as the carrier bits at the end of the game), and it looks insane.
I'm also Pc gaming on a CRT right now, so it looks especially good.
...
Are you serious? Call of Duty 4 has a "by the numbers" campaign. It's not bad or anything, but it's same old same old. Crysis is on a whole different level and is one of the finest first person shooters I've ever played. Far Cry was TRASH, but Crysis is glorious.
What areas of the game were disappointing for you? Could you detail your experience playing through the entire game please?
Caesar III
Member
thx, stopped buffering by reading thisRecoil said:
Rapping Granny
Banned
I can probably agree that Crysis single player is better but when watching the multiplayer vids, COD 4 just stomps on it, and that doesn't mean COD 4 SP sucks, it's just people are tired of linear, scripted gameplay and short one at that too.
Either way, if I had the choice, I will buy COD 4 and rent Crysis for SP and just the crazy graphics.
Either way, if I had the choice, I will buy COD 4 and rent Crysis for SP and just the crazy graphics.
TTP said:
Uh... it's an GFX effect, much like shadowing, pixel-shaded water, texture filtering etc. it's either on or off, it has nothing to do with framerate, NOTHING at all. I am kinda surprised you of all people ask about that
Console games use it as a cheap technique to hide the fact they cannot run at 60 fps.
Cheap, but very effective IMO.
No Means Nomad
Banned
Call of Duty 4 single player is pretty bland. Fantastic multiplayer though.
WHOAguitarninja
Member
traveler said:
Apparently nobody is buying the game...so it's MP is unfortunately getting neglected by most. I would fire up the MP more often, but my soundcard dislikes my computer and often i end up with garbled sound, and Crysis seems to make this happen much more frequently than it otherwise does.
Borys said:Uh... it's an GFX effect, much like shadowing, pixel-shaded water, texture filtering etc. it's either on or off, it has nothing to do with framerate, NOTHING at all. I am kinda surprised you of all people ask about that
Console games use it as a cheap technique to hide the fact they cannot run at 60 fps.
Cheap, but very effective IMO.
I know it's just a graphic effect but I've read somewhere that the technique used some tricks only possible when not running at 60fps.
good to know it's possible.
dark10x said:
Why do you always bring in the whole "you have to play the entire game first!!" argument? Its flawed, its stupid, theres a ton of analogies I can counter it with, for example: You could go out and play football (real english football btw) and not enjoy it, it doesn't mean you have to win the fucking World Cup before you deciding you don't like it.
GallonOMilk
Member
Recoil said:
Well, that's pretty much true. Crysis was trying to be revolutionary (whether it was is up to debate), but COD4 is a refinement. It's been done before, but not as good, and that's what's good about it.
Pharmacy said:
A lot of people played the demo and based their impressions from that experience alone. While plenty of the games guts are on display in the opener, it's really just the tip of the mountain being shown. And as the games ramps up, that mountain peak begins to crumble and fall away, sending great chunks of craggy rocks tumbling down the mountain side as F15's stripe the air, dodging anti air volleys while bombarding the ravaged, ever-changing countryside with a cascade of missiles and smart bombs. And in the midst of all this, you get to punch a guy while he's taking a shit.
That's pretty different, if you ask me. My example is more akin to someone watching part of a movie or reading the first chapter of a book and claiming that it's crap (rather than simply stating that it wasn't for them). I hate when someone just jumps out and says "such and such" is of poor quality without attempting to quantify their opinion. In the case of Crysis, there have been people caught slamming the game that have either never played it at all or spent a very short time with the demo. You can't judge what the game offers from that. With entertainment material, I feel that proper opinions can only be formed when a decent amount of time has been spent with something.Pharmacy said:
People are always entitled to their opinion, but I'd expect them to base those opinions on something first.
Your football analogy really just doesn't work here.
It isn't cheap, though. Motion blur is VERY demanding, actually. Do you have any idea how much of an impact it can have on framerate? Crysis takes a massive hit when you enable object motion blur as do other games. There are, of course, varying levels of motion blur quality, but a lot of the stuff we have today is pretty demanding and isn't simply used to hide the lower framerate.
60 fps is more demanding, but that doesn't mean motion blur isn't also. 30 fps without blur is much less demanding, but far less visually appealing.Borys said:
Again, it depends on the type of blur used. Object motion blur is very expensive (used in Lost Planet, Dead Rising, The Darkness, Perfect Dark Zero, Crysis, Genji II, and a number of other games) while camera based blur is much less demanding.
-OGz-GLUTEUS_MAXIMUS
Member
Both are great games for what they offer.
CoD is much better multiplayer, and Crysis, is just plain gorgeous visually.
CoD is much better multiplayer, and Crysis, is just plain gorgeous visually.
AltogetherAndrews
Member
You haven't actually played Crysis, have you? The gameplay mechanics and the mission structures are about as good as they come these days, but hey. Style and no substance, amirite?NeonBlade said:
blindrocket
Member
Looking at Dark 10x's screens... wow.
Crysis is godly.
Please come to PS3 in some form or another.
Crysis is godly.
Please come to PS3 in some form or another.
SolidSnakex
Member
AltogetherAndrews said:
As this video put it, the thing that makes Crysis great is also the thing that could also make it terrible for someone, and its that it's open ended. Since CoD4 has a scripted nature it's able to have the player go from one even to the next which makes it always feel exciting, by comparison with Crysis once you get to your next objected you can be creative with what you do. But that's also the problem since a lot of people will just go into it straight forward and it'll eventually get boring to them.
KyanMehwulfe
Member
I remember the video from the other thread and it was pretty good.
Gave a good taste of why Crysis' gameplay shits on most every FPS around.
Unless you've seriously and genuinely played the broader game on high settings, you've no grasp of how much the physics not only improves the gameplay but gives a tonne of creative depth (and just raw feedback satisfaction).
It's not so much linear vs non-linear as it's static vs dynamic.
Crysis gives you environment freedom that just doesn't exist in COD4 or really any other FPS for that matter.
Gave a good taste of why Crysis' gameplay shits on most every FPS around.
Unless you've seriously and genuinely played the broader game on high settings, you've no grasp of how much the physics not only improves the gameplay but gives a tonne of creative depth (and just raw feedback satisfaction).
It's not so much linear vs non-linear as it's static vs dynamic.
Crysis gives you environment freedom that just doesn't exist in COD4 or really any other FPS for that matter.
xemumanic
Member
Visuals aside, I can't disagree with anything this guys has said. COD4 is just a modern day COD1/2/3. For me, its the Multiplayer that was the real innovation. But that doesn't mean COD4 SP wasn't fun, far from it. Its like a video game version of 'The Rock', it keeps up a high-tempo, high-action pace all throughout the game, even after the credits.
But Crysis was more open, and that allowed you to do so much more with the game. The artificial boundaries placed in COD games (as demonstrated in the video with the fences) is something that should have been done away with in gaming since last generation.
Yes, Crysis requires far too much horsepower to run, but then I think a fair counter is that the 'Ultra' mode, or whatever they called it, for Doom 3. It couldn't even be used when the game came out, there were no 512MB video cards at the time. This is a total cop-out, but I'm thinking Crysis should have done the same.
But Crysis was more open, and that allowed you to do so much more with the game. The artificial boundaries placed in COD games (as demonstrated in the video with the fences) is something that should have been done away with in gaming since last generation.
Yes, Crysis requires far too much horsepower to run, but then I think a fair counter is that the 'Ultra' mode, or whatever they called it, for Doom 3. It couldn't even be used when the game came out, there were no 512MB video cards at the time. This is a total cop-out, but I'm thinking Crysis should have done the same.
KyanMehwulfe
Member
To try illustrate how the physics improves the gameplay, consider these two old shots of mine from the demo since I still have it on my webspace.
http://www3.telus.net/public/mehwulfe/misc/crysis-boom.jpg
http://www3.telus.net/public/mehwulfe/misc/crysis-kaboom.jpg
With basically everything in the game world interactive, it outright changes how you look at the game. Gamers are used to be restricted. 'This doesn't break.' 'That doesn't shatter.' So when that opens up, it's a leap forward in how you approach the game. Almost everything is dynamic in Crysis. Hell, if you shoot an oil barrel, it actually has volumetric oil inside of it that leaks realistically based on where you shoot the hole (and tracks exactly how much oil is inside of it).
Consider if that base here -- a small base by Crysis standards -- was in COD4. It would be static and you'd basically just clear it a la typical FPS gameplay. It'd likely have some nice scripting (at least the first time through) but otherwise there's really nothing to it.
In Crysis though, if you can think of it, there's a good chance you can do it.
1. Perhaps I'll just go into it and clear it normally with a rifle?
2. I'll stealth in close, throw a grenade into the side of a wall, blow open a hole, and throw in a second grenade?
3. Jump onto the roof with Nano Strength, punch a hole right through the roof, fall down onto the enemy soldiers, grab one by the neck, and throw him out the door and through the wooden wall of a nearby house.
4. Combine various other combinations of guns, grenades, Nano powers, et cetera...
5. Or, as my screenshot shows, drive a humvee full speed into the houses, shoot the gas tank, and watch Shit. Fly. Everywhere.
You get to think up things like this constantly in Crysis. It's what makes the game great. Not the graphics but that gameplay creativity thanks to the physics.
http://www3.telus.net/public/mehwulfe/misc/crysis-boom.jpg
http://www3.telus.net/public/mehwulfe/misc/crysis-kaboom.jpg
With basically everything in the game world interactive, it outright changes how you look at the game. Gamers are used to be restricted. 'This doesn't break.' 'That doesn't shatter.' So when that opens up, it's a leap forward in how you approach the game. Almost everything is dynamic in Crysis. Hell, if you shoot an oil barrel, it actually has volumetric oil inside of it that leaks realistically based on where you shoot the hole (and tracks exactly how much oil is inside of it).
Consider if that base here -- a small base by Crysis standards -- was in COD4. It would be static and you'd basically just clear it a la typical FPS gameplay. It'd likely have some nice scripting (at least the first time through) but otherwise there's really nothing to it.
In Crysis though, if you can think of it, there's a good chance you can do it.
1. Perhaps I'll just go into it and clear it normally with a rifle?
2. I'll stealth in close, throw a grenade into the side of a wall, blow open a hole, and throw in a second grenade?
3. Jump onto the roof with Nano Strength, punch a hole right through the roof, fall down onto the enemy soldiers, grab one by the neck, and throw him out the door and through the wooden wall of a nearby house.
4. Combine various other combinations of guns, grenades, Nano powers, et cetera...
5. Or, as my screenshot shows, drive a humvee full speed into the houses, shoot the gas tank, and watch Shit. Fly. Everywhere.
You get to think up things like this constantly in Crysis. It's what makes the game great. Not the graphics but that gameplay creativity thanks to the physics.
GeneralIroh
Member
Crysis is better than cod4 in every way when it comes to single player but COD4 is the better multiplayer game.
Here are my impressions of the Crysis multiplayer.
The feel.
+The overall nanosuit mechanic is great for multiplayer. It leads lots of dynamic and deep battles. It kind of feels like a fighting game when you try to combo the different abilities to defeat an opponent.
Map Balance:
+Maps are balanced in power struggle unlike the shit maps from bf2 where one side gets better vehicles than the other which usually leads to base raping.
Weapons:
+The Gauss Rifle is the best sniper in any game! It looks so bad ass.
+The weapon customizing is a nice little feature for multiplayer.
-Unfortunately the majority of the guns are terrible. Everything takes forever to kill. It should never take 4-5 shots to the head to kill someone.
-The shotgun is weak as hell. Its nothing like the singleplayer shotgun.
-Pistols are just mindless run and gun weapons that do barely any damage.
-You cant use physics as weapons in multi : (.
-Whats so bad about the gunplay for the multiplayer is that it takes so many bullets to take down a person that the majority of the players are using the run and gun tactic that makes the game feel very archaic. If they made the unaimed guns less accurate and increase the damage from the guns, people wouldn't constantly strafe left and right so much and use the sights. I wish the game felt more tactical. Whats so great about call of duty 4 hardcore mode is that most of the guns feel responsive and the damage setting is just right.
Modes:
- Not enough modes for the multiplayer.
- Instant action is generic and shallow as any other team death match. The nanosuit does make it feel a lil unique though.
+ Powerstruggle is great and feels deep but the main problem with it is the lack of rewards for teamwork. It would be nice to have assist kills since earning the prestiege takes a while.
The buying system is a great addition to the domination mode because it makes the player work for the vehicles and weapons. It has this rts feel to it. Everyone who has the money can get what they want and there are not lines or turn taking to control vehicles. I prefer this system over bf2's system where douche bags would normally tk to ride a jet.
Here are my impressions of the Crysis multiplayer.
The feel.
+The overall nanosuit mechanic is great for multiplayer. It leads lots of dynamic and deep battles. It kind of feels like a fighting game when you try to combo the different abilities to defeat an opponent.
Map Balance:
+Maps are balanced in power struggle unlike the shit maps from bf2 where one side gets better vehicles than the other which usually leads to base raping.
Weapons:
+The Gauss Rifle is the best sniper in any game! It looks so bad ass.
+The weapon customizing is a nice little feature for multiplayer.
-Unfortunately the majority of the guns are terrible. Everything takes forever to kill. It should never take 4-5 shots to the head to kill someone.
-The shotgun is weak as hell. Its nothing like the singleplayer shotgun.
-Pistols are just mindless run and gun weapons that do barely any damage.
-You cant use physics as weapons in multi : (.
-Whats so bad about the gunplay for the multiplayer is that it takes so many bullets to take down a person that the majority of the players are using the run and gun tactic that makes the game feel very archaic. If they made the unaimed guns less accurate and increase the damage from the guns, people wouldn't constantly strafe left and right so much and use the sights. I wish the game felt more tactical. Whats so great about call of duty 4 hardcore mode is that most of the guns feel responsive and the damage setting is just right.
Modes:
- Not enough modes for the multiplayer.
- Instant action is generic and shallow as any other team death match. The nanosuit does make it feel a lil unique though.
+ Powerstruggle is great and feels deep but the main problem with it is the lack of rewards for teamwork. It would be nice to have assist kills since earning the prestiege takes a while.
The buying system is a great addition to the domination mode because it makes the player work for the vehicles and weapons. It has this rts feel to it. Everyone who has the money can get what they want and there are not lines or turn taking to control vehicles. I prefer this system over bf2's system where douche bags would normally tk to ride a jet.
Graphically, Crysis looks quite a bit better but COD4 runs at a much better framerate. I guess I would rather have 60fps w/COD4's graphics than 15-25fps w/Crysis's graphics. Also, COD4 has some scripted sequences that are just amazingly directed. Crysis has nice cutscenes but you don't really take part in them unlike COD4.
KyanMehwulfe
Member
I don't think most of the PC gamers would take that away from it. What you have to remember though is that exact formula is not as new to us as it is to console gamers.Z3F said:
Remember that it's COD4. COD1 was met with very positive and insane reception by PC gamers. It's less criticism of the formula and more of its lack of growth. As great as COD can be the first time through, some of us just want a little more now.
The two games are designed to be two completely different styles of games. The commentary was worthless but worth watching if anyone has any interest in finding out why they should own and play Crysis ASAP. The thing with COD4 is that if you're going to take that approach to your games - the type where everything is streamlined and you won't find yourself choosing between multiple paths, you need to prevent it from feeling cheap and unrewarding. All of the things they've done to create the hectic style is done in an unfair and cheap fashion.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Router said:
You liked CoD4 better? So you played both games? Do you have the "the rig to play it on high"? It doesn't seem like you do from your comment about wanting to play it again if it is released on a console (in a no doubt inferior form). If you haven't played Crysis on high, why are you saying that you like CoD4 better when you haven't even really experienced Crysis?
Yeah, when I first played it I didn't get why it recived so much graphical hype, even compared to (insert generic UE3 engine game here), it was pretty clear that it was just good art direction and textures trying to cover up the flaws of the same engine they used for CoD2 during the 360's launch. Course, that could be because I was looking at it only a foot away from my face rather than across the room on a HDTV. I still don't see how it won best graphics at E3 when crysis was there.deepbrown said:
AltogetherAndrews
Member
Spoit said:
COD4, good textures? What?
Both titles do plenty right.
They both have gobs of atmosphere, but I think COD4's structure lends itself a little more generously to the cinematic experience. It's tough to hand the player an open world and then inject small scenes that fit within an overall narrative. When Crysis does turn on the flare, however, it really does an excellent job. I'd say COD4 tackles this aspect better then just about any title going, but in the end, I also think they had to in order to keep the single player aspect engaging.
Call of Duty also does a much better job during loads. In Crysis, you get the outdated loading bar with percentage of progress and nothing else. Call of Duty gives you a simple, yet intelligent briefing scene that ties one section to the next.
Where Crysis bests Call of Duty for me is the gameplay itself. I really didn't enjoy Call of Duty's campaign. It was very structured, very archaic, and very cheap on harder difficulties. It does not rely on the player's intelligence or skill, but rather throws up a gauntlet of enemy soldier and falls back on trial and error gameplay. In short, it's a grinder. And half the time, you're asked to perform duties that literally make no sense and seem to serve only as an exercise in frustration.
In contrast, Crysis seldom forces you to adopt any one strategy. In fact, you can probably skip 80% of the combat if you choose. And you are never faced with enemies that "spawn." They are there when you approach, patrolling, smoking, pissing, watching television, driving boats, etc. When you kill them, they die. They might call in reinforcements, but again, you aren't going to see a never ending tide of camouflaged baddies converging on your position just to lengthen the experience.
Of course, these are my impressions. I purchased both titles. If you have the hardware, I'd recommend them both, though I do not think Call of Duty 4's campaign is worth $60. Good thing it has a top tier multiplayer component.
Oh, and Crysis shits all over Call of Duty 4 in the graphics and physics department, and yeah, it really has an enormous effect on the gameplay.
They both have gobs of atmosphere, but I think COD4's structure lends itself a little more generously to the cinematic experience. It's tough to hand the player an open world and then inject small scenes that fit within an overall narrative. When Crysis does turn on the flare, however, it really does an excellent job. I'd say COD4 tackles this aspect better then just about any title going, but in the end, I also think they had to in order to keep the single player aspect engaging.
Call of Duty also does a much better job during loads. In Crysis, you get the outdated loading bar with percentage of progress and nothing else. Call of Duty gives you a simple, yet intelligent briefing scene that ties one section to the next.
Where Crysis bests Call of Duty for me is the gameplay itself. I really didn't enjoy Call of Duty's campaign. It was very structured, very archaic, and very cheap on harder difficulties. It does not rely on the player's intelligence or skill, but rather throws up a gauntlet of enemy soldier and falls back on trial and error gameplay. In short, it's a grinder. And half the time, you're asked to perform duties that literally make no sense and seem to serve only as an exercise in frustration.
In contrast, Crysis seldom forces you to adopt any one strategy. In fact, you can probably skip 80% of the combat if you choose. And you are never faced with enemies that "spawn." They are there when you approach, patrolling, smoking, pissing, watching television, driving boats, etc. When you kill them, they die. They might call in reinforcements, but again, you aren't going to see a never ending tide of camouflaged baddies converging on your position just to lengthen the experience.
Of course, these are my impressions. I purchased both titles. If you have the hardware, I'd recommend them both, though I do not think Call of Duty 4's campaign is worth $60. Good thing it has a top tier multiplayer component.
Oh, and Crysis shits all over Call of Duty 4 in the graphics and physics department, and yeah, it really has an enormous effect on the gameplay.
Stupid question: Dark10x, are you getting those shots entirely in DX9? I mean, would I be able to get comparable shots in XP? I uninstalled the demo once I saw how poor my performance was at higher quality settings.
edit: And if it's possible in XP, would you mind linking me to your config file, or whatever I'd need?
edit: And if it's possible in XP, would you mind linking me to your config file, or whatever I'd need?
AltogetherAndrews
Member
epmode said:
There are tweaks to get Very High features in XP, I think dark here has a good config file for that.
http://video.stage6.com/2065569/.divx direct download link for the lazy.
http://video.stage6.com/2020958/.divx
http://video.stage6.com/2020958/.divx