-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Far Cry 2 vs Crysis Warhead
- Thread starter Syringe
- Start date
Lovely Salsa
Banned
dark10x said:It is bullshit. The console version actually looks pretty damn good.
I can. You have VERY different scenes with one of the shots smoothed over (probably downscaled and blurred) with the other being pixel perfect without AA. The jungle scene is simply more dramatic.
There are times when Crysis doesn't look all that great, you know. It really depends on the scene.
I mean, does this really look any good?
Except the picture you posted isn't max settings, looks like medium settings judging by the cloud.
Oftentimes - especially in the case of Crysis and Warhead - these magical graphics enhancement and AI modifying scripts and cfg files only cause more problems than they intend to fix.Zzoram said:
Of course they work great for some people, but Crytek obviously knows about these "enhancements" and chose to go the route they did for a reason. Almost every configuration file i've tried has given me worse stability or more graphical glitches than I previously had.
Crytek, and in this case Ubisoft Montreal, will choose the cfg settings that work best and are the most stable for the largest number of machines as possible. There will no doubt be mods and config tweaks you can do for Far Cry 2, but just like with Crysis and Warhead, they will be helpful to some people, and cause tons of problems for other people.
That's not my config at all. That was actually a shot released by Crytek prior to release. I thought it was ugly as hell and was concerned that Warhead was going to be a huge step down from the original (and in some ways, the visuals are a step down, but certainly nothing like that).Zzoram said:
Again, here's Warhead on my PC...Zeliard said:
...versus this nasty pre-release pic...
Notice the dramatic difference in lighting quality? The foliage and shadows have a very static, uniform appearance in that last shot. Everything almost looks as if it is lacking any sort of lighting.
All pics were downscaled from higher resolutions in order to fit this page smoothly.
My point was simply that Crysis Warhead could look less than stellar in the right circumstances (we were discussing the difference between the various Far Cry 2 shots). Again, that ugly Warhead shot is a shot posted by Crytek themselves.
It's the best looking game on the market, but some of the high-res shots are a bit misleading. Of course, the shots of the mud are completely legit. It's unfortunate that the parallax occlusion maps don't support anisotropic filtering, however, as the player is generally looking forward (which results in blurring as the texture moves away from the player).
Zzoram said:The thing is, CryEngine 2 can do even MORE than what people are showing today. It's just not playable yet on modern hardware, but in ~2 years time, we may see games running the Ultra High capability of the engine. We've already seen some evidence of what the engine can do from people running with mods that unlock features not used in the games, that turn the framerate to 1fps on good hardware.
Here's some dry dirt screenshot I took with default config Enthusiast. I haven't found wet dirt yet in my Delta playthrough.
I hope you're aware when you take screenshots directly from Crysis/warhead it does so in a terrible way. The game looks and runs much better than any image of it indicates. That being said, it shouldn't be debatable. Crysis is on a higher level that has yet to be touched. It's amazing a game like it on a technical level even exists.
DontStopTheTatakai
Banned
Some of those screens are unreal.
