-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Three years later, why is Crysis still the best looking PC game?
- Thread starter Conflict NZ
- Start date
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
subversus said:
That depends on the resolution / AA settings. But even still, it will probably dip below 60 at times. I have a Core 2 Quad 3.4ghz, 4GB DDR2 800mhz RAM, 5870 1GB and can get a very stable 30-40fps with maxed out Crysis in almost all situations at 1920x1200 (no AA).
Vampire Hunter Vizier
Neo Member
Loxley said:
I disagree (pics taken from crysis and warhead threads. All ingame shots.)
Vampire Hunter Vizier said:
I agree. The aircraft carrier in the last level of Crysis is so far ahead of anything in any game its ridiculous, Metro 2033 doesn't even come close. Literally everything about that level is perfect from a technical level. Lights and textures are perfect.
ZephyrFate
Banned
prettiest open world game yetkinggroin said:
ZephyrFate
Banned
Empty streets? The settlements are filled with people, wtf.WrikaWrek said:
I said open world, not of all games. Considering it's 6400 square miles, it's gorgeous.
Mr_Brit said:
it was a question of perfomance, not gameplay
Zefah said:
What about the assault on the snow level after they leave the sphere? Same with the train level in Warhead. I have hard time believing that you don't have dips below 30 in these intense moments.
Vampire Hunter Vizier said:
Yeah, pics are good but indoor enviromnets are bland. By the way CryEngone 2 can sustain only 15 light sources in one scene, Metro engine can carry out more than hundred easily. Also volumetric lighting is weaker in Crysis. Textures sometimes are MUCH worse, but given the huge scale, it's ok. Skin looks worse also and characters models are less detailed.
But I must say that Crysis isn't a linear corridor shooter, we don't how it would look if Crytek made the game this way (except, that there would be less lights).
nextgeneration
Member
luka said:
Yup, exactly. For the people who claim that 60 fps doesn't matter, let's say that you're given a choice of playing a game at 30 fps versus playing a game at 60 fps. Let's assume that the graphical detail is identical on both versions. Which version would you play? I think that most people would choose the 60 fps version.
bee
Member
crysis certainly is better at 50+fps, i just use edgeaa 2 and zero normal aa as i prefer the look but going back to it with double the framerate is certainly very nice indeed
as far as best looking pc game goes, metro 2033 in 3D not only beats it but completely blows it away, doesn't have the huge open environments though of course
as far as best looking pc game goes, metro 2033 in 3D not only beats it but completely blows it away, doesn't have the huge open environments though of course
DennisK4 said:
Yeah, eastern europe games tend to have insanely good texture work.
Western games tend to cover up really shoddy low res and overcompressed textures with as many pixel shaders and lighting effects as possible (killing all attempts at atmosphere imo).
I don't know if that's a style thing or something to do with western games being made for consoles which have low vram.
You touched upon it yourself.bhlaab said:
The reason textures in many modern PC games are bad is because they were made as multiplatform games. The low vram of the consoles sets the limit and often the developer can't be bothered doing a lot of separate texture work just for the PC version.
PC is still king in Eastern Europe so developers from there must meet the expectation of high texture quality that a mostly PC-gaming crowd demands.
Oh well, we often get High-Res texture mods from the great PC modders anyway. Still wish the devs would do the work themselves of course. I am very much a texture-whore kinda guy myself.
How About No
Member
bhlaab said:
Huh, that's an interesting point.
Maybe they also have more abandoned warehouses they can sneak into for reference? And also Chernobyl is just a drive away :O
Trickster
Member
DennisK4 said:
Well I haven't played JC2, so it's not my place to say.
But out of the games you mention, I've played Crysis, STALKER and GTA 4, and I don't understand why you would consider STALKER and GTA 4 as graphical top dogs, to me they are downright ugly in todays gaming market.
Buckethead
Banned
Same reason Luigi's Mansion looks better than 99% of Wii games.... developers are lazy and publishers love money.
I can agree with that, and I love both Empire and Napoleon myself, but GAF seems to hate those two games.ghst said:
For anyone interested, Napoleon improved the AI from Empire and Empire itself is a fantastic game with the DarthMod Empire Commander Edition Mod.
God, how I love the Total War series.
RustyNails
Member
Crysis was a goddamned beast. It will be 5 more years till our computers catch up in order to run it on ultra high settings.
Always-honest
Banned
what?.. that game didn't even look that good, even for a real nintendo game (Liked the game though).Buckethead said:
ZephyrFate
Banned
It's a fantastic looking game.kpop100 said:
JimmyRustler
Member
I don't see a reason why graphics should improve that fast like a few years ago. Make all games looks as fantastic as Uncharted 2 and improve the effects here and there and it doesn't even need to look better - ever! Developing graphics that are much better than this would only quadriple the costs to make a game. As if the costs aren't high enough already...
luka said:I'm disappointed in you Dennis. Apparently you're only a PC gamer for the sake of the screenshot thread.
AA has diminishing returns once you go higher than 8x anyway. 60 fps makes a huge difference in smoothness and motion.
This!
I swear some neogaf posters need my tag for the shit they say. Arguing 30fps doesn't effect a title like fps shows they have no clue about tics or how these games are built from the inside working at a much higher rate. Sorry 60fps and higher matters in any game where physics is heavily tied in to the response of a player's control. More fps means you can be more discerning about how well your controls can be manipulated.
Going lower than 40-75 fps in TF2 seems like it would be quite detrimental to me. Racing games and fighting games would also be really jerky I'd think. And if your FPS is varying noticeably then that can be super annoying to me...and I think of myself as a bit of a graphics horse, so it's not like I don't like better image quality.DennisK4 said:
I just don't like the feeling of slowdown/chugging when something loads in the background/you pan across a line of sight that shows faraway objects/lots of explosions go off etc.LCGeek said:
Have you actually played Crysis? This isn't unreal tournament where you need a $200 lazer mouse, 200fps and <40ms ping to enjoy the game. Crysis is more slow and methodical, you plan your ambush, rush in there and switch up your suit powers when needed. None of these actions require split second timing, presenting a gorgeous and lush Phillipine Island however does aid the experience in that it immerses you in the environment and helps you to actually notice small details that running on low settings wouldn't be as obvious, e.g. "maybe instead of running in guns blazing into that camp I'll jump up to that high ledge I saw using my binoculars enhanced by the high draw distance and pick off some sentries before applying my invisibility mode and sneaking in there to tear it up.". That would actually aid your gameplay experience, cutting down reaction times from 28ms to 20ms however wouldn't.
Similar threads
- Poll