Support NeoGAF

[subversus]

Lets be honest. For a lot of gamers graphics are now 'good enough' - at least they are good enough that they don't feel the urge to spend lots of money for better graphics. I am the total opposite but I am well aware I am a minority.

nice edit

I defintely don't feel the urge for now.

 

[BobsRevenge]

Nah, I don't care really. Current level of graphics is getting really close presentation-wise to what we can see in movies. One more generation and enough.

I don't think we know what we are missing well enough to make an informed decision on what is enough.

Personally, I think we have a long way to go before it's enough. Ray tracing and global illumination. Graphics that simulate wave and particle physics instead of poorly mimic an end-result. There are a ton of things that aren't possible right now that would have a significant impact on visuals in a way that would free the graphics artists to do some really great things.

 

[I <3 Memes]

And the "bad art" crowd arrives. Now it's a party.

 

[Poohblaster]

PS3 only guys, your console is sexy, it has sexy games, with very good graphics. I own and love Uncharted 2, Killzone 2, and MGS4, but new PC rigs kick the PS3's ass graphically.

The PS3 is built from 2005 hardware, and current PCs are from 2010. Crysis's full graphic potentially is only starting to be realized on max settings, with 1080p resolution, and mods. The PS3 cannot play this and never will.

http://media.photobucket.com/image/crysis%201080p/almighty151986/Crysis2007-12-2421-38-48-42.jpg

 

[ColonelColon]

Crysis does have incredibly detailed environments, but the draw distance is very short on my system. I could run the game at an average of ~45 FPS on high with no AA at 1024x768, but some textures don't appear until I'm around 10-20 meters away. It's kind of jarring, and really detracts from the visuals. I was thinking about maybe recording a video, but this just about covers it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5BGmYuZrZ0
Watch from 28 seconds onward, and ignore the intense music.

 

[ZephyrFate]

Still the best looking PC game (hell, game in general) out there. Anyone who says otherwise is just slobbering over the knobs of their favorite games, and it's blinding them.

 

[Minsc]

Still the best looking PC game (hell, game in general) out there. Anyone who says otherwise is just slobbering over the knobs of their favorite games, and it's blinding them.

Not unlike yourself, of course.

 

[ZephyrFate]

Not unlike yourself, of course.

Crysis is far from one of my favorite games. I recognize its graphical quality, but I never said it was a great game.

 

[I NEED SCISSORS]

I love Crysis's art. It is a great, aesthetic, presentation of reality. The lighting is inspired and they did a really good job of selling the moods. I mean, if you pay attention you can see how thoughtful and deliberate it is. It goes further most other games I can think of at selling a mood with realistic lighting, and having it sort of sync with the levels dynamically.

The lighting transitions in the assault level and the first level are fantastically done.

The locale itself is gorgeous, and the alien designs are some of the most unique I've seen.

Honestly, I think when people complain about realistic games being artistically bland have this weird conception that the more abstract something is, the more artistic it is. But there have been entire movements in art about making something as true to nature as possible. To render it with an attention to detail and color, to create something dramatic and true. Crysis's graphics are one of the best attempts at something like that in gaming, especially considering how dynamic it is. The story itself isn't artistically significant at all, but the graphics are anything but bland.

To add to all this, I find that Crysis has a certain unique 'look' when it's in motion. The quality and application of the motion blur hasn't been replicated in any other game since. Coupled with the animation, it makes it feel like a completely different FPS from anything else on the market - not your typical bobbing up and down corridor shooter. There are also CGI-quality effects that simply transcend every other game - a good example is the zero-G alien base. Floating particles, those awesome icicles, the electrical energy explosions, the glowing lighting and depth-of-field effects. The level of luminosity and interactivity going on in that level is downright crazy. Few games also do proper frost and ice effects like Crysis does - I have not seen snow fall off branches as you brush past them since, or plants shattering underneath your feet. It looks genuinely cold, and for once has a level of interaction beyond the usual "you can make some footsteps in the snow - yaaaaaaay".

 

[Minsc]

Crysis is far from one of my favorite games. I recognize its graphical quality, but I never said it was a great game.

Sorry, I thought your ()s were referring the the game apart from the graphics, not the graphics apart from PCs. Fair enough, I still think it gets a thorough pounding from other games, unless you mod it.

 

[Gully State]

Crysis has sold well over a million copies on PC. That's pretty damn impressive for a game that basically targeted a small segment of the PC market (those with the hardware to run it).

People need to realize that pirating a game (while still horrible and something not to be condoned) isn't necessarily a lost sale.

 

[Dan Yo]

Nah, I don't care really. Current level of graphics is getting really close presentation-wise to what we can see in movies. One more generation and enough.

You're out of your freakin' mind

 

[MjFrancis]

Every time I update my gaming PC, I check how well Crysis performs with the new hardware. It's a slow, uphill battle!

 

[Anton Sugar]

ARMA II. Its by far the best looking PC game out there but it doesn't get much press plus you need a super rig to max it out at higher resolutions. But its stunning.

As much as I love ArmA 2, it's so hit or miss, and for the most part is a "see it in motion" kind of thing, because the scope of the game is so damned huge, the immersion really makes it (see those gifs above).

Regardless, some great shots:

And its already been said. Metro 2033. BF:BC2 looks incredible in places as well, its just not consistent with it. The latest Stalker games look incredible in places as well but they are REALLY inconsistent visually.

GTA IV had the potential to be the best looking PC game. Rockstars game engine was capable of so much more but they dropped the bomb with no AA support and poor optimization. Look at the PC screenshot thread, it could have so easily been the new Crysis.

Agreed. Metro 2033 looks amazing, and BC2, for what its doing (32 players online, vehicles, fully destructible environments) can be breathtaking at times. I think Stalker has the best textures out of anything I've seen. GTA IV with mods looks STUNNING.

 

[Dennis]

STALKER and ARMA II have the best textures of any games ever (see below), though GTA IV give them a run for their money.

Crysis has the best lighting and shadows of any game I have ever seen. Metro 2033 and Risen also excel in this area.

 

[Red]

Crysis with max settings is absolutely stunning to look at. There are games that come close to approaching it, but I have never been as consistently blown away by a game's visuals as I was during my playthrough of Crysis/Warhead (just finished them both about a month ago, btw).

I haven't played Metro 2033 or BC2 on PC, but I don't believe they'll look nearly as good in motion as Crysis does. It's not even that the graphics are particularly impressive in any one aspect; textures, especially, can look a little poor in areas. But the way all the parts come together is what makes it so striking. From motion blur to explosion effects, I haven't seen a single game that one-ups Crysis in motion.

 

[MDSLKTR]

I wish more fps had fov's like that

 

[dLMN8R]

Three steps to creating a successful Crysis thread:

1) Claim that Crysis didn't make a profit

2) Claim that Crysis is all graphics without any interesting gameplay

3) Claim that Crysis may have amazing technology but it lacked artistic direction

 

[BobsRevenge]

Three steps to creating a successful Crysis thread:

1) Claim that Crysis didn't make a profit

2) Claim that Crysis is all graphics without any interesting gameplay

3) Claim that Crysis may have amazing technology but it lacked artistic direction

:lol :lol :lol

So true.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

Three steps to creating a successful Crysis thread:

1) Claim that Crysis didn't make a profit

2) Claim that Crysis is all graphics without any interesting gameplay

3) Claim that Crysis may have amazing technology but it lacked artistic direction

did you include calls of "no gameplay"?

 

[Dennis]

Three steps to creating a successful Crysis thread:

1) Claim that Crysis didn't make a profit

2) Claim that Crysis is all graphics without any interesting gameplay

3) Claim that Crysis may have amazing technology but it lacked artistic direction

4) Post on message board about how Crysis was overated without ever having played the game.

 

[Conflict NZ]

After all the mentions of ARMA II I decided to download the demo to check it out for myself. I managed to max out all settings with 2xAA and have to ask, are you people blind? This game doesn't top Crysis, the character models are hideous as are most of the gun models. The lighting isn't that great either. Maybe texture work could be considered better, more in an artistic way than a pure technical way though. I guess an argument could be made for scale, we haven't seen a CryEngine game run as massive an open world as Arma II seems to so you can't really compare them.

 

[HomerSimpson-Man]

They pushed a game that didn't even reach across the medium standards for most PC, duh.

Coding so many visual effects that exceeded most things at the time and still aren't that standard now costs a heavy price.

I built a rig for my friend for around $700 (granted it all new parts, case included, you can get by if you save you older case) just to play it around medium to high at 720p hovering 24-30fps back in the day.

My recent rig can play it on very high at 30+fps but this like 2 years latter.

Kind of neat in a way to still be able to improve a game visually years latter, but the demanding processing power needed back then that wasn't readily available/affordable for most people.

 

[Stallion Free]

I'm going to go with the obvious no, nothing does look better. And not much comes close.

 

[Barkley's Justice]

explosion @ 2:50 still blows my mind
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTFQp625FqI

yo, seriously...did someone think that song was cool?

 

[Razor210]

Three steps to creating a successful Crysis thread:

1) Claim that Crysis didn't make a profit

2) Claim that Crysis is all graphics without any interesting gameplay

3) Claim that Crysis may have amazing technology but it lacked artistic direction

Shouldn't optimization be here as well?

 

[Dresden]

Because Team Fortress 2 looks perfectly fine.

 

[Kabouter]

The only true high end PC games that are in development are Crysis 2 and Project Offstet [but PO is delayed cos its made for Larabee].

Given the material we've seen so far, I really wouldn't call Crysis 2 particularly high-end. And Project Offset is basically vaporware isn't it?

 

[Mr. B Natural]

Many PC developers were fooled into thinking there was money to be had on consoles. The latest sales figures prove otherwise. Expect many great devs to head back to the platform that birthed them. 2011-2012 will be very interesting...

:lol

 

[MidgarBlowedUp]

*rant* sorry forgot my anxiety pills today.

1. Who cares how great a game looks if you people are still running them on mediocre inferior display technology (LCD).

2.Most people have no idea that even 10 year old CRT television sets came with hardware built-in for dealing with the dreaded jaggies and dot crawl making all this 1600xfsaa a moot point. (Looks guys I have 16xFSAA on my blurry ass craptastic LCD. wheeee lets go aggravate the console crowd. Go Crysis... It's the only game we have to piss on someone about. yay.)

3. Most of my family and friends can barely understand how to send an email so building a computer is something way out of their league and it sure as hell isn't worth my time to built it for them. They can't afford Alienware computers just to play Crysis and then still have dll issues and who knows what that they will end up aggravating me to no fucking end about.

(Hey man my computer says windows recovered from an unrecoverable error. How is that possible and do I want to send this error information to Microsoft about this problem? It says ex0000433329990 and... etc. etc. etc. I'm scared!)


I love my overclocked/quadcored/rammedup/ATI/htpcd bastard of a PC too with it's sexy ass 24" sony crt that can play hidef porn like no other machine but, when Farmville and the SIMS are your best selling games, that should tell you that the meat of the market for your hardware is not bleeding edge graphics that make your eyeballs cry out white cream tears but, simply a gaggle of girly girls.

So there you have it, PC gaming is for girls.
Don't get your panties in a twist about it though.

 

[HomerSimpson-Man]

^^^^^
It's pretty incredible how much resolution is lost on LCD panels the moment you move.

All that 1080 can drop to something ridiculous like 300 lines of resolution in motion.

 

[MvmntInGrn]

^^^^^
It's pretty incredible how much resolution is lost on LCD panels the moment you move.

All that 1080 can drop to something ridiculous like 300 lines of resolution in motion.

I've never heard of this before, but a google brought up some interesting stuff.

So how does this work exactly? Do CRT TVs do this? Plasma?

 

[Raistlin]

I've never heard of this before, but a google brought up some interesting stuff.

So how does this work exactly? Do CRT TVs do this? Plasma?

It's how our brains perceive motion from devices that use a 'sample-and-hold' display method. Basically, our brain is blurring the images.


CRT and Plasma use different display methods (scanning and pulse-width-modulation respectively), and do not have the same issues. That said, only recently have Plasmas truly hit 1080p motion resolution, though they've been above LCD for quite a while.

 

[Wag]

I thought Arkham Asylum looked pretty damn good.

 

[MvmntInGrn]

It's how our brains perceive motion from devices that use a 'sample-and-hold' display method. Basically, our brain is blurring the images.


CRT and Plasma use different display methods (scanning and pulse-width-modulation respectively), and do not have the same issues. That said, only recently have Plasmas truly hit 1080p motion resolution, though they've been above LCD for quite a while.

Interesting, thanks.

Google brought up a test where people tried to sort the motion resolution of a few HDTVs, which was confusing because it didn't occur to me that different types of display tech were not perceived equally.

I've learned something new.

 

[x3sphere]

I'd disagree that Crysis is still the best-looking game. Maybe in certain aspects, yes, but not overall. Still, your point comes across clear -- there are far less titles on PC pushing the envelope when it comes to graphics these days. The reasons for this are various, chief among them is the fact that it is simply cheaper to develop for consoles. Not to mention a quicker payoff, the ability to target multiple formats instead of one, and less piracy. Combined, all of these factors have contributed to the console focus of today.

 

[subversus]

I thought Arkham Asylum looked pretty damn good.

/thread

 

[HK-47]

Three years later, and that's all it really is for most folks. I can't remember ever hearing or reading anything to the extent of, "Man, I love the gameplay in Crysis," or, "Man, Crysis was so deep; it really makes you think."

Nope. It's always, "benchmark" this and "benchmark" that. Like Avatar (the movie), it created a stir because of what it does to advance the technology of the medium, but as a full entertainment package...it wasn't actually groundbreaking, now was it?

I think smart developers would rather spend their time and resources trying to make great games. You need folks to push the envelope of technology -- and thank God there are people inspired to do so -- but too many technicians and not enough creatives a fun game does not make.

People go on about Crysis's gameplay and open world all the time. Not as much as the graphics but plenty of people mention it.

 

[Anton Sugar]

After all the mentions of ARMA II I decided to download the demo to check it out for myself. I managed to max out all settings with 2xAA and have to ask, are you people blind? This game doesn't top Crysis, the character models are hideous as are most of the gun models. The lighting isn't that great either. Maybe texture work could be considered better, more in an artistic way than a pure technical way though. I guess an argument could be made for scale, we haven't seen a CryEngine game run as massive an open world as Arma II seems to so you can't really compare them.

Excellent deduction! Truly, I've never thought of judging a game's graphics by a demo. But you have broken new ground with this discovery, brave young one! Carry on!

 

[HK-47]

Am i the only one to see that Crysis was just a bad game ? i mean it was "ok" and nice graphic wise, but it nowhere (storyline, gameplay wise) can compare with other AAA shooters that are released on the PC over the years (AAA meaning halflife etc), and the devs blaming it on piracy right, Vavle begs to differ :lol

What is this I dont even

 

[I NEED SCISSORS]

Excellent deduction! Truly, I've never thought of judging a game's graphics by a demo. But you have broken new ground with this discovery, brave young one! Carry on!

It's not like demos nowadays are massively different from the final product.

 

[Raistlin]

I'd disagree that Crysis is still the best-looking game. Maybe in certain aspects, yes, but not overall. Still, your point comes across clear -- there are far less titles on PC pushing the envelope when it comes to graphics these days. The reasons for this are various, chief among them is the fact that it is simply cheaper to develop for consoles. Not to mention a quicker payoff, the ability to target multiple formats instead of one, and less piracy. Combined, all of these factors have contributed to the console focus of today.

One thing people also forget is that Crysis is/was a bit of anomaly as far as just how far it actually did push PC's at launch.

I don't recall any other game that launched where the then current mid-range machine couldn't run the game, and the highest-end, most state-of-the-art, still couldn't come close to running it with all effects at a playable framerate.

Basically, they set their target for years ahead. That's a very unusual occurrence - and really was only funded because they were making an engine they hoped to license.

 

[DieH@rd]

Reminder

^ prerendered C2 trailer vs C1 cutscene

^ From GDC 2010 Crysis 2 tech trailer [HD source]


I think... C2 will look just fine on PC.

 

[Pachinko]

Crysis engine, when pushed was built to last a while. That's the best excuse I can come up with. When maxed out at release I doubt very many gamers could play the game even at 30 FPS , fast forward to today ; however , you can play the game at medium or even high details with any computer built out of parts released in the last 24 months. Only since the 5870 have we even had the potential to run the game at 60fps.

Also, recall that previously we had source and the doom3 engine that also came out about a year prior to when pc's could really push those engines. Crysis just happened to have detail scaling that meant it took 3 years to max it out. Sometime this year I'm sure we'll see a few games surpass it, crysis 2 for example

 

[PjotrStroganov]

As much as I love ArmA 2, it's so hit or miss, and for the most part is a "see it in motion" kind of thing, because the scope of the game is so damned huge, the immersion really makes it (see those gifs above).
.

I so want to like that game but after playing the demo it just doesn't play that well

 

[subversus]

Crysis engine, when pushed was built to last a while. That's the best excuse I can come up with. When maxed out at release I doubt very many gamers could play the game even at 30 FPS , fast forward to today ; however , you can play the game at medium or even high details with any computer built out of parts released in the last 24 months. Only since the 5870 have we even had the potential to run the game at 60fps.

5870 can't max out Crysis at 60 fps.

 

[subversus]

Reminder

^ From GDC 2010 Crysis 2 tech trailer [HD source]


I think... C2 will look just fine on PC.

it looks just like Crysis 1. Also the shot is taken from PC version, as it was said in this trailer.

I guess facial aniamtion will be better.

 

[Loxley]

Crysis has the market cornered in character models and outdoor environments, but personally I think Metro 2033 has it beat in interiors by a considerable margin.

And hey, when maxed out (and admittedly a mod or two) GTA IV is one of the best looking games out their as well. More people really need to check out the PC Screenshot thread, one of the best in all of GAF in my opinion.

 

[Cow Mengde]

And the "bad art" crowd arrives. Now it's a party.

I all fairness, the aliens were pretty lame. If you had the special edition DVD, they say that they spent more money designing the alien than the entire budget for Far Cry.

WTF is this shit? That's what the console version of Crysis looks like? Yeah, looks like they still have a long way before they reach Crysis 1 visuals.

 

[Mr_Brit]

5870 can't max out Crysis at 60 fps.

This 60fps crap for games that don't need it needs to stop. Crysis at 30fps is just as good as Crysis at 60fps, a game with its pace doesn't benefit from the higher framerate.