So, so tired. Or why Crysis is a poop head.

[mihirkula]

Yes...agreed regarding gameplay....disappointing when you compare it to COD4 or FEAR .......... and the ending was just ludicrous and underwhelming.

But nah, HL2's visuals maxxed are nowhere near Crysis maxed.... especially with the entirely destructible environment.

 

[royalcrown]

Now its confirmed that you're extremely sad because you can't play Crysis on your rig.

Don't worry... in a few years time when you get a $5000 Nehalem rig you will be able to play.

Regarding your extreme gaming argument... there are two reasons why the sales are declining:

1) Sh!tload of piracy

2) System requirements.

where are you making up these prices from? I can play crysis on very high and i have an 80 dollar mb, 88 dollar cpu, 35 dollar ps, and a 169 dollar videocard, how does that equal anything NEAR what your making up ?

 

[mactronix]

Do we really need ultra graphics realism for a game to be fun? Obviously Warcraft 3 had better graphics than 2, but did that make it more fun? Do we need more realism than Oblivion, HL2, and Doom3 offer? Will Starcraft 2 be better than the first?

Diablo 2 was a lot better than the first, because it was a much bigger game.

Do you really need to play Crysis at high resolutions with everything maxed out for it to be fun?

No we totally dont need it some of the games that have given me the most fun over the years have been simple flash games. However as with all things the need is for the hardware to do what is needed, not flat out but with some degree of ease. This brings with it extra performance. Then you need something that makes your card stand out from the competition so your devs take some of this extra power and turn it towards making better image quality, enhanced AA etc. so then the game devs codes a game to use these new features and the competition makes a card that can do what yours did and better. Of course this cards is invariably bigger better and faster than yours. And so it goes on untill they get over the top and start concentrating on power saving and efficiancy. So that turns out to be a short history of graphics cards that i didnt intend to write when i started but never mind.
It comes down to basic human nature to always want better, bigger,faster etc. Its not just Computing it happens all over.
Mactronix

 

[mihirkula]

where are you making up these prices from? I can play crysis on very high and i have an 80 dollar mb, 88 dollar cpu, 35 dollar ps, and a 169 dollar videocard, how does that equal anything NEAR what your making up ?

oh boy you're bad at catching up with sarcasm.

anyhow those aren't DESIRED framerates you get on your rig. As far as i know you were actively posting on the GTX280 benchies thread.. so you should know what i mean.

 

[speedbird]

Crysis is the most advanced graphical game currently available and probably for a while to come, well until the next big release comes around. There have been those who say things like "well COD4 looks just as good and runs faster" that is just not true, COD4 is nowhere near as good graphically. It stands to reason that such a game like Crysis needs a fast machine to make the most of it.
There seems to be much misinformation when it comes to consoles, I've played many games on a variety of platforms that are anything but Smooth and suffer choppy framerates.

 

[royalcrown]

Yes...agreed regarding gameplay....disappointing when you compare it to COD4 or FEAR .......... and the ending was just ludicrous and underwhelming.

But nah, HL2's visuals maxxed are nowhere near Crysis maxed.... especially with the entirely destructible environment.

Yeah, the destructibility is good, but I'll tell you specifically where (in the demo at least) that crysis is way over hyped..

1. when crawling through the vegetation, large groups of branches and weeds move like 1 solid triangle, and the textures on them look flat and pixalated, same for certain objects like lockers, generators and what have you (ie the signal jammer).

2. the cartoon koreans, especially their ARMS

3. The water in hl2 looks just as good.

4. trees tend to look exactly the same and fall the same way, no matter where and how you shoot them.

5. the nuke animation is WEAK.

So yeah, I think halflife 2 looks just as good, not necessarily as destructible or complex

 

[royalcrown]

oh boy you're bad at catching up with sarcasm.

anyhow those aren't DESIRED framerates you get on your rig. As far as i know you were actively posting on the GTX280 benchies thread.. so you should know what i mean.

well yeah, but my epeen doesn't need 60 fps, just a solid 30 and I am good.

 

[mihirkula]

Yeah, the destructibility is good, but I'll tell you specifically where (in the demo at least) that crysis is way over hyped..

1. when crawling through the vegetation, large groups of branches and weeds move like 1 solid triangle, and the textures on them look flat and pixalated, same for certain objects like lockers, generators and what have you (ie the signal jammer).

2. the cartoon koreans, especially their ARMS

3. The water in hl2 looks just as good.

4. trees tend to look exactly the same and fall the same way, no matter where and how you shoot them.

5. the nuke animation is WEAK.

So yeah, I think halflife 2 looks just as good, not necessarily as destructible or complex

1) u can't crawl like that in HL2

2) Agreed

3) Disagreed

4) Trees don't fall at all in HL2 ainnit... and they look the same there too

5) No nuke anim at all in HL2.

anyway i'm not saying HL2 is a cr@p game.... i'm a huge fan ..... and i was more satisfied after i played HL2 than after i played crysis ...thats mostly because i hated the ending of Crysis ... to say the story was a cliche is an understatement. My point is graphics wise Crysis outperforms HL2, thats all.

 

[speedbird]

So yeah, I think halflife 2 looks just as good, not necessarily as destructible or complex

Half Life 2 still looks, but I'm sorry I don't see how it looks just as good as Crysis. Crysis is absolutely breathtaking, I stopped several times to admire the scenery :lol:

 

[royalcrown]

1) u can't crawl like that in HL2

2) Agreed

3) Disagreed

4) Trees don't fall at all in HL2 ainnit... and they look the same there too

5) No nuke anim at all in HL2.

anyway i'm not saying HL2 is a cr@p game.... i'm a huge fan ..... and i was more satisfied after i played HL2 than after i played crysis ...thats mostly because i hated the ending of Crysis ... to say the story was a cliche is an understatement. My point is graphics wise Crysis outperforms HL2, thats all.

I don't think it does outperform it strictly on graphics because:

Everything looked good even close up in HL2, not A lot of things looked good and some crappy like crysis, there was no nukes true, but the only thing that really looked canned wqere dents when you hit something with the crowbar and bullet marks.

I do however think that that is because crysis has a lot more to render and keep track of, so they had to take some rendering shortcuts. I agree that they probably can't render every leaf independently, BUT considering how people hype it as the most graphically awesome came ever and the devs basically said it was godlike, my opinion is that it is vastly overrated looks wise.

 

[mihirkula]

^... maybe you're playing in low settings.. because it IS one of the most graphically GODlike games ever.

 

[radium69]

Indeed, overhyped? well no , I think it is a great game, that pushes hardware developers further. Half Life 2 comparing to Crysis? You have got to be kidding me.

The water was beatiful in HL2 certainly, but it looks good in Black and White 2 and AOE3 aswell.

In HL2,
Not as much freedom as in Crysis
You cannot destruct as much,
Not nearly as realistic.

Are there any leaves in half life 2 !?!?!?
I haven't been able to shoot leaves and see them move in HL2? Do you?

I, myself have been staring at crysis it's view. And it is absolutely amazing... The rocks in HL2 were also allot square like.

Great games both though... I just like Crysis, cause it is simply breathtaking. And you can adept, strategize and rethink. I remember paying 300 euro for my old 6800 GT , now with my GTS 512 i've spend money well.

Just thought i'd clear that up.

 

[royalcrown]

no, i played the demo on very high, DX10 on the system in my sig, and I played hl2, after it, finished last week.

 

[royalcrown]

Indeed, overhyped? well no , I think it is a great game, that pushes hardware developers further. Half Life 2 comparing to Crysis? You have got to be kidding me.

The water was beatiful in HL2 certainly, but it looks good in Black and White 2 and AOE3 aswell.

In HL2,
Not as much freedom as in Crysis
You cannot destruct as much,
Not nearly as realistic.

Are there any leaves in half life 2 !?!?!?
I haven't been able to shoot leaves and see them move in HL2? Do you?

I, myself have been staring at crysis it's view. And it is absolutely amazing... The rocks in HL2 were also allot square like.

Great games both though... I just like Crysis, cause it is simply breathtaking. And you can adept, strategize and rethink. I remember paying 300 euro for my old 6800 GT , now with my GTS 512 i've spend money well.

Just thought i'd clear that up.

That is what I am saying, because there are so many more objects and the state of each destructible object has to be kept track of and other things like AI, I think they had to short crysis on the rendering dept to free up some horsepower, whereas hL2 was not as destructible and more static, so they did not have to take shortcuts on certain objects or up close textures.

 

[radium69]

Compare for yourself... I own both games, Also I think that HL2 is pretty much straight forward all the time... and it doesn't give a lot of freedom in some missions.

 

[Guest]

if you wanna make crysis look better at the same frame rates try TRIPLE C PACK

look it up on google... makes it look better in my opinion with better frames

 

[radium69]

also FYI, half life 2 was on 16xAF and 4 keer AA and crysis @ zero aa. and high settings. on DX9

 

[San Pedro]

Anyone remember when the head of Crytek claimed he could play Crysis with a x1900 on high settings and get smooth gameplay?

Anyway, I don't think it's all that well optimized, and BTW, that should mean less code, but I also think it could have been much worse.

It also wasn't a great game, alright, but I prefer most of the other first person shooters that I have. I thought a lot of the reviews were much too generous because of the graphics.

 

[royalcrown]

Yah, I payed both, Crysis does look awesome at some things, like the shadowing, weapons, suit, but they also have some not so awesome things in there, like the koreans, cartoonlike and fake...combine were much more realistically rendered, some close up textures look super dated and like they are rendered 640x480, and the foliage looks good till you crawl through it, I can actually tell which parts of the bushes are triangles because the texture looks flat, not transparent, and large blocks move like a well...large block. That's not how things move in the real world, I have a tree branch 8 inches from my window to prove it.

When you look at things in HL2 close up, they don't look blocky, or flat, but they are static also.

In crysis things look really good till you get super close to SOME things, HL2..EVERYTHING looked good close up, but not a lot of stuff moved or blew up either.

 

[San Pedro]

About HL2 vs. Crysis: Freedom is way overrated, and I didn't think there was all that much in Crysis, more of an illusion for most parts. Hell, the Delta Force games gave you more freedom. HL2 didn't bother with freedom because the game was like playing through a movie or a TV series. The structure of the game allowed the devs to pace the game much better as well as make a more engaging story. Crysis definitely has better graphics (once played on a projector with 5' screen that was sweet), but some things HL2 did better. I think the ragdoll physics and the models of NPCs was better in HL2 and facial animations. I also think the source engine does open space better than any other game.

 

[Guest]

rag doll physics... crysis? you serious?

there aren't rag doll physics in crysis lol

as soon as they die.... they go stiff immediately... and the only thing that moves them is picked up objects like a barrel or something... even grenades and C4 doesn't move those 4000 pound bodies lol

yeah ... the foliage in crysis looks amazing... until your up close then it looks like sh*t

 

[royalcrown]

that's what I mean...close up...like the "jammer" and certain surfaces..look like ****..not godlike at all.

 

[ovaltineplease]

The visuals in Crysis look significantly better than anything comparable on the market at very high quality settings, for that matter they look better at a med settings with high textures than anything else on the market

Some of you people are nitpicking small details and making a mountain out of a molehill, for the details that Cryengine2 offers, it is well optimized and you will basically find no other game which can do the things Crysis does in the same visual detail.

Comparing screenshots is nice, but the big difference between Crysis and other games is that when Crysis is IN MOTION it looks significantly better than other games in motion.

Having a weak video array is not going to give you the same results as having a strong video array in the game. The fact is that you cannot blame Crytek for ATI's **** and a lack of decent competition driving GOOD mainstream GPU prices up into the 400$+ range.

People like to make comparisons to games like UT3 or CoD4; ahem, CoD4 - non animated low detail skyboxes? I wanted to vomit every time I was in a night mission.

UT3 terrain textures look very washed out, but it is a much better comparison to Crysis than any other game engine on the market at least. I still think Cryengine produces much better and cleaner looking effects than UE3 does.

I've played through half life 2 probably a half dozen times so far from Hl2 straight through to EP2. I think that the best feature of HL2's source engine was textures and lighting effects, they really did exceptionally well with that. However, it still doesn't have near the same detail that Crysis does in its environments, outdoor or otherwise - for its time it was bar none the best, however it is getting dated.

I think 3/4 of the reason why Crysis gets criticized for visuals in the same way that Farcry got criticized is because they try to push the envelope in their games for visuals; because of this both Farcry and Crysis beat the living crap out of PCs when they were released which ultimately drives people to pick them apart minor flaw by minor flaw.

The only thing worth taking potshots at in Cryengine is the KPA AI, but thats the only thing in my opinion.

-end essay, laff

 

[ovaltineplease]

rag doll physics... crysis? you serious?

there aren't rag doll physics in crysis lol

as soon as they die.... they go stiff immediately... and the only thing that moves them is picked up objects like a barrel or something... even grenades and C4 doesn't move those 4000 pound bodies lol

yeah ... the foliage in crysis looks amazing... until your up close then it looks like sh*t

Get out of your computer chair, go outside, find the nearest rock, hold it an inch and a half away from your eyeball - tell me if it looks like anything "visually impressive"

"GOD, PLEASE FIX RL GRAPHICS! You need better optimization God!"

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

It also wasn't a great game, alright, but I prefer most of the other first person shooters that I have. I thought a lot of the reviews were much too generous because of the graphics.

However this isn't a discussion on opinions of gameplay / story content so much as graphics and optimization/playability of the various settings features.

Arguing gameplay is like arguing Coke vs Pepsi.