PDA

View Full Version : "Crysis Engine - Quite Possibly Photo Realistic"


Plasmatic
06-10-2006, 01:15 AM
Recently the Crysis Engine also known as Cry Engine 2 developed by the makers of the popular PC game Farcry, has been getting a ton of attention with recent demos of the mind blowing graphics it can produce. We recently ran across some images of the graphics the Crysis Engine can produce compared to what they look like in real life and the results are shocking.

source: http://infinitylabs.net/2006/06/07/crysis-engine-quite-possibly-photo-realistic/#more-173


It does look quite good, but I'd still like to see it in action.

heavyness
06-10-2006, 01:23 AM
that shit is bananas...!

Joss
06-10-2006, 01:32 AM
Come on, we all knew this is what the future of gaming would look like. :scream:

Now I have to go salivate watching the in-game videos from E3 again.

Thanks a lot!

RobertoOrtiz
06-10-2006, 01:40 AM
SWEET MUCA MUCAA!



wow

-R

mech7
06-10-2006, 01:47 AM
It will be far from photo realistic.. though one small step closer :p

DDS
06-10-2006, 01:49 AM
okay...it runs on directx10...
...directx10 runs on vista...
...vista release date is spring 2007 (and increasing)...
...Crysis game is to be released in end of 2006
...correct me if I'm wrong...
...directx10 doesn't run in XP!

this game in directx9 will look like any other one!!!:bounce: When it comes out it won't be able to run at full capabilities and all the screenshots will look like typical promo shots, then in 2007 or later when Vista comes out everybody will have played the game already in XP...pfff great move! :applause:

Largo39
06-10-2006, 01:57 AM
The problem (as always) is still the shadows/lighting. although so much better than before, they are still not as soft as they should be. otherwise, that looks pretty amazing!

MisfitAnimator
06-10-2006, 05:24 AM
:eek:
Mother of Pearl!
Time for a new computer.

heavyness
06-10-2006, 05:39 AM
okay...it runs on directx10...
...directx10 runs on vista...
...vista release date is spring 2007 (and increasing)...
...Crysis game is to be released in end of 2006
...correct me if I'm wrong...
...directx10 doesn't run in XP!

this game in directx9 will look like any other one!!!:bounce: When it comes out it won't be able to run at full capabilities and all the screenshots will look like typical promo shots, then in 2007 or later when Vista comes out everybody will have played the game already in XP...pfff great move! :applause:

i like the fact they are future proofing the game. the fact alone that when people buy a new pc running directx 10, they will already have a game ready to play and utilizing the new hardware. Half Life 2 showed off HDR rendering later in the game's life and people flocked to dl the demo level. the gamers on the pc will play the game again for eye candy.

Jozvex
06-10-2006, 06:18 AM
Gooood heavens that looks great!

I need to find these E3 videos...

claybub
06-10-2006, 06:32 AM
oh...dear....god... that looks pretty damn awesome. lighting just needs a tad more attention.

SoLiTuDe
06-10-2006, 07:42 AM
okay...it runs on directx10...
...directx10 runs on vista...
...vista release date is spring 2007 (and increasing)...
...Crysis game is to be released in end of 2006
...correct me if I'm wrong...
...directx10 doesn't run in XP!

this game in directx9 will look like any other one!!!:bounce: When it comes out it won't be able to run at full capabilities and all the screenshots will look like typical promo shots, then in 2007 or later when Vista comes out everybody will have played the game already in XP...pfff great move! :applause:

You can d/l the beta from microsoft :)

albedo4800hp
06-10-2006, 08:35 AM
Gimme a break considering that 90% of this is just texturing I don't see the point anyone can take some highres textures and plaster them on some polygons and it will look photoreal for that particular shot on that particular day with that particular scene arrangement. That might be photorealistic for one second but that's about it. Btw the grass looks horrible!

sforsyth
06-10-2006, 09:13 AM
Btw the grass looks horrible!

That's supposed to be grass!?

Sorry, couldn't resist. Grass is crap and I'm sure they'd admit that themselves. Looks more like a fuzzy green blur hovering over the ground. Rest of it looks good alright, shadows aren't anywhere near as soft as they could be though, and there's a lot of bloom going on to hide stuff, and generally the lighting is too dark or too bright depending where you're looking. But hey, it's easy to criticize!

tozz
06-10-2006, 10:09 AM
Hey mom, look at me, I'm glooooooowing, just like all the other kids!
Now add the choppy animated "everyone looks exactly the same" models and try the "photo realism" again :)
I have a feeling it will actually lower gameplay rather than increase it, but that's up to the player I guess.

TimMehmet
06-10-2006, 10:18 AM
@albedo/tozz: ignorance? I guess you havent seen the game trailers of it running realtime.
theres a whole bunch from E3 here take your pick http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?fs=1&id=2509
I reccommend the interview too

ParamountCell
06-10-2006, 10:39 AM
I have a feeling it will actually lower gameplay rather than increase it, but that's up to the player I guess.

yea i may have to agree with you on that one. But man those images are stunning, my only fear is how realistic are developers prepeared to make the taking of lives. I wouldnt want to see realistic characters being decapitated, and having guts spilt all over. But an those visuals are nice.

Johny
06-10-2006, 11:09 AM
eye candy = never saw anithing like it,pretty much wins in every aspect, its REAL !

fun factor = almost none, its fun to watch, but to play...well...shoot shoot, random armored guy dies, shoot again, reload weapon in 2 seconds ...its more of a tech demo than a game :(

GoranNF
06-10-2006, 11:18 AM
Pretty awesome,especially the first one,it's almost the same.

DDS
06-10-2006, 11:23 AM
You can d/l the beta from microsoft :)

he he...a beta that isn't even as good as XP beta at the same stage? no thanks :D

DDS
06-10-2006, 11:29 AM
i like the fact they are future proofing the game. the fact alone that when people buy a new pc running directx 10, they will already have a game ready to play and utilizing the new hardware. Half Life 2 showed off HDR rendering later in the game's life and people flocked to dl the demo level. the gamers on the pc will play the game again for eye candy.

yeah but they just have to wait some months to release the game to make the release be perfect, it has been done before. IMO it will be better to play directly the game candy + the gameplay as a first time to make a great game experience :) otherwise replaying the game just to see it in directx10 would be like watching a graphic demo from nvidia.

the-negative
06-10-2006, 11:40 AM
What the... Crysis is delayed ALONG with Vista till '07.
(And it's also possible that crunch time couldn't work nicely with the complexty of the engine.)

L.Rawlins
06-10-2006, 12:38 PM
Gah! My eyes... It burns! It burns! :eek:

:D

JeroenDStout
06-10-2006, 12:49 PM
From an artistic perspective, I think "SiN: Emergence" versus "Half LifeČ" is some proof that the engine is a horribly small player in nice looking graphics. Art team is far more important, the engine is more of the slave of the art-team than the other way around for me. Not that major studios share that vision.

Anyway, this all proves nothing. At school I saw a boxing game on the XBOX-360, which had skin bloody realistic. I was just awe-struck. Then, some 8 seconds later, I noticed how the animation was crappy, and how the skin only really held up if it didn't move, it was just a nice shader, not realistic skin. Take a screenshot and it looks realistic: Make it move, and you need a lot more talent than smart pixel shaders.

I'm certainly not in favour of a ludic approach to making games, I pefer narratic, but I am saying that there is more to moving graphics than there is to creating still images.

DDS
06-10-2006, 01:22 PM
What the... Crysis is delayed ALONG with Vista till '07.
(And it's also possible that crunch time couldn't work nicely with the complexty of the engine.)

any link that proves that?

-SD-
06-10-2006, 03:10 PM
In all of the E3 interviews (text or video) the Crytek guys said Crysis will come out this winter (Q4 2006).

The "Crysis is delayed because of Vista is delayed" is old news and does no longer apply...

cosmonaut
06-10-2006, 03:51 PM
If that game is anything like Far Cry it is going to rule :buttrock: I've been drooling over every screen shot/movie since it was announced even though I know it's going to look nearly that good on my machine.

bmwolf
06-10-2006, 06:02 PM
Not trying to add fuel to the fire(if there is one) but isn't the consumer retail launch of Vista the only one that is delayed? Meaning that the big name computer manufacturers like Dell/Alienware, HP, etc.. will still be able to provide working DX10 PCs with vista preloaded later this fall(pending another delay). I imagine that many people will be purchasing new pcs to coincide with the Vista launch, therefore at least some PCs with Vista will be on the market when this game is scheduled to hit.

Sucks for the people that prefer to build their own, myself included. I'll probably just wait to play it though.

I still don't understand the people that argue that this is not the most technically stunning realtime game/tech demo yet.:shrug:

To each their own I guess.

JeroenDStout
06-10-2006, 07:22 PM
It's technically the most advanced of it's kind - yet I guess a lot of people are just done being stunned for a bit, too.

albedo4800hp
06-10-2006, 08:31 PM
@albedo/tozz: ignorance? I guess you havent seen the game trailers of it running realtime.
theres a whole bunch from E3 here take your pick http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?fs=1&id=2509
I reccommend the interview too
Yeah saw them and I don't say the engine is impressive and sure it is it is great and is kicking Unreal 3 for its money but calling it photoreal is a bit too much of leaning out of the window if you ask me. As I said it might look photoreal maybe under some certain really small particular settings and that is mostly because the texture are real textures taken from photos. But as someone else already pointed out when things start moving and interacting it falls all apart pretty fast. Or worse I think when you go close enough to some of the details you will see they are far from photoreal as well. The grass as I already pointed out is a good example.

P_T
06-10-2006, 09:47 PM
I saw the gameplay trailer in that shed area, apart from the grass it really does look good specially with the added physics.

Not sure about those clouds, they look like floating poops. :p

ParamountCell raised a good point though, with all the improvement on graphics, the damage on enemies are comical. Take Gears of War for example, the cartoony blood and body exploding seem out of place with the quite realistic visual. It reminds me of the old Mortal Kombat and it looks distracting.

Soldier of Fortune type of damage regions would suit these graphical enhancement very well although the gore would probably be very disturbing.

CupOWonton
06-11-2006, 12:52 AM
What they should do, is take the hitbox to the next level. When you shoot someones leg, it snaps in half and bone juts out as a small splash of blood puffs out into the air. That would make so many angry mothers have an explosion of close minded rage so vast it might actualy envelope half of the US western and eastern coasts into 2 seaperate black holes of legal actions.

bmwolf
06-11-2006, 02:24 AM
I could agree with that albedo4800hp. I think we have a very long time before games are truly photoreal. I can definitely see problems arising where animation,voice acting, physics... don't match the graphics. Could be a big problem this generation.

-SD-
06-11-2006, 10:33 AM
More comparison pics:

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/9116/crysishawaii0su.th.jpg (http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/9116/crysishawaii0su.jpg) http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/9279/crysissunrays6zj.th.jpg (http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/9279/crysissunrays6zj.jpg)

sforsyth
06-11-2006, 10:39 AM
Now that just strikes me as weird!
These comparisons don't help out all, in fact, they highlight the differences and show even more just how FAR it is from being photorealistic. Why do that? It's hardly making farcry look good... Don't get me wrong, it's impressive, but to call them near photoreal is just insulting to anyone with a pair of eyes, they're nowhere near.

FelixMB
06-11-2006, 01:43 PM
hey,

whether naturalistic or not - who cares.
whether it will be released before or after vista - who cares.

crytek is doing a great job - they try to achieve naturalism
and seem to be infront of companys such as id or epic.

crysis looks more "photorealistic" cause they want to achieve
a more believable look - not only by adding mblur//fov and
all these technical aspects.

PureFire
06-11-2006, 02:14 PM
Looks a MILLION times better than anything id Software or Valve have ever put out...Well done...I cant wait to play :D

Cypher666
06-11-2006, 02:44 PM
From an artistic perspective, I think "SiN: Emergence" versus "Half LifeČ" is some proof that the engine is a horribly small player in nice looking graphics. Art team is far more important, the engine is more of the slave of the art-team than the other way around for me. Not that major studios share that vision.

Couldn't have said it better myself. The amount of games that come out boasting "Next Gen" engines with "shader model 548.0" but fall flat on there arse because of bad artwork is amazing. Photoreal is not a word that will not be associated with gaming for some years to come, we can't even make totally physicaly correct shaders for software renderers yet, even the ones that come close take a very long time to render.

What I'm worried about is the direction that the gaming is taking these days. Take Crytek for example, their first game (Far Cry) revolved around running through tropical islands shooting mutants, nothing revolutionary but it was fun none the less. There second game (Crysis) involves running through tropical islands shooting Aliens, see a pattern? Crytek could have just called this a straight sequel and I wouldn't have anything to bitch about, instead they choose to take the exact same formular from the first game, slap in an updated graphics engine, and try to pass this off as an original game. I mean they could have at LEAST changed the setting, or even offer us a different style of gameplay. It's a trend I see in alot of modern games, with developers using the "aint broke, don't fix it" line, instead of trying to utilise modern tech for innovation.

-SD-
06-11-2006, 02:52 PM
Crytek could have just called this a straight sequel and I wouldn't have anything to bitch about, instead they choose to take the exact same formular from the first game, slap in an updated graphics engine, and try to pass this off as an original game.
Crytek simply cannot name their upcoming game as "Far Cry sequel" because Ubisoft completely owns the Far Cry IP (Ubi has made all the other FC games, by the way). Crytek's publisher has been EA since June 2004.

JA-forreal
06-11-2006, 09:17 PM
Crytek is making 3d games look better I'll say for sure. But...proper CG reality is way to complex for computers right now. We can only approximate the concepts of visual reality on a computer with todays tech. It can only get better.

Feyd-Rautha
06-12-2006, 05:23 PM
I was at E3 this year and this game easily stood out graphically from everything else IMO. Nearly evryone else that went to the show that I talked to felt the same way. The amazing thing is that it actually looks this good when it's in motion, if not better.

Geta-Ve
06-12-2006, 06:20 PM
IMO, everything looks like plastic... or at least very specular..and flat.. I don't like them too much. they are pretty good, technically. But personally I find them dull and boring.

eek
06-12-2006, 06:47 PM
They need to dial back the blooming. Its what makes it standout.

P_T
06-12-2006, 06:53 PM
What they should do, is take the hitbox to the next level. When you shoot someones leg, it snaps in half and bone juts out as a small splash of blood puffs out into the air. That would make so many angry mothers have an explosion of close minded rage so vast it might actualy envelope half of the US western and eastern coasts into 2 seaperate black holes of legal actions.

Not really the next level, the Soldier of Fortune game I mentioned had exactly just that, a superior hitbox compare to other FPS at the time. If I remember correctly, it had around 31 zones that you can hit and display different types of damage. I remember shooting someone in the eye and seeing a hole through the head upclose complete with gory exit wound at the back of the head. The game had a password lock for the violence level though.

Here's a screenshot of something similar to what you said. Bear in mind this game is 6 years old hence the outdated graphic. Imagine this kind of damage in next gen graphic. Like I said, the gore would be very disturbing but would match the rest of the realism that those developers are trying to achieve.http://www.davo.d2.cz/soubory/Sofa/hg2-big.jpg

Gentle Fury
06-12-2006, 10:47 PM
How did valve do it so soon??? Half Life 2 has some of the best graphics ive ever seen in a game and its system requirements are minimal. I think it actually looks better than F.E.A.R. and that game runs like crap on a system that HL2 runs incredibly smooth on.

The thing im noticing is that HL2 already did it.......AMAZING graphics.....AMAZING lighting....AWESOME physics.......and it doesnt require half the power of say.....Condemned: Criminal Origion, which in my opinion looks exactly the same as Doom 3 (which also looked and ran like crap.)

Is it just sloppy coding? Or is it that Valve communed with Aliens to create the perfect game engine available?

I don't know......btw...the grass in that is aweful.....and the environments dont look much better than HL2 and the distant mountains look like Google Earth.

And im sure its choppy as all the others.

Gentle Fury
06-12-2006, 10:51 PM
just to add one more note....Far Cry was far ahead of its time....and ran beautifully...so if this is as well written it should be amazing.

arjan_meerten
06-12-2006, 11:04 PM
I don't know 100% sure, but I thought I heard them say in an interview on e3 that everything they showed did run on directX9.

Lordstormdragon
06-12-2006, 11:04 PM
I'm not sure what the hype is all about. I loved FarCry, and thought it was beautifully rendered even on my antiquated Geforce 4 (at the time...) Now I'm playing Quake 4 on a Geforce 5500, and the graphics are awesome, if STILL far behind what the game is capable of. And I've played Unreal Championship 2 on the XBOX, and IT looks great too!

When are people going to learn? Graphics don't mean much. Gameplay is everything. Quake 4 is every bit as fun, if not more mind-blowingly violent, than FarCry or Unreal 2 or any other FPS that is well-written.

And to call this "photorealism" here at CGtalk? What, are you people just pointedly ignoring all the 3DS and Maya artwork here? The XSI stuff, and even the Vue Infinite images?

It's almost insulting. Almost.

arjan_meerten
06-13-2006, 01:04 AM
For me gameplay comes on second place and graphics on first place, only if you see them as seperate things. I think things like the animation, graphics and physics, are gameplay. A game with very good grapics helps me to get more immerged in to the game. I love games where you really can enjoy the surroundings and really gives you the feeling you are there.
With good grapics I don't especialy mean realism. The graphics has to be a whole in style. For instance a game like gta where the textures are very low res I don't have a problem with it if al the textures are all blurry the same way. A game where you have very high res detail textures I don't want to see low poly characters, I want to see the same detail in all the aspects of the game, like animation and physics. But I really just want to play games with good graphics and good gameplay :)

MrPositive
06-13-2006, 01:51 AM
Wow I'd enjoy exploring that world......

richcz3
06-13-2006, 04:43 AM
I thought Far Cry was going to be purely eye candy then it turned out to be one of my best single play experiences to date. For once a game that wasn't like riding on rails. (at least the first couple of levels). I still fire it up just to play some ot the jungle levels.

Visually it's a stunnng game and still one of the biggest rendered environments. I'm looking forward to the next installment. With that said i hope they put as much time into the story and gameplay in this next update.

SquishMe
06-13-2006, 05:01 AM
The tech demo I saw for Crysis had severe LOD popping problems, and very jittery shadows. I assume these issues have been dealt with since then. Apart from that it looked great.

EpShot
06-13-2006, 05:21 AM
it really early to say much, last i heard they were 'emulating" directX 10 (course this could eb bull, but is it even ready yet?) its not supposed to support directX9

-SD-
06-13-2006, 12:52 PM
For your information, Crysis will use DirectX 9 with Windows XP and DirectX 9/10 with Windows Vista. The last information I read was that Crysis really is a DX9 game but the DX10 stuff is built on top of CryENGINE 2 to show off Vista's gaming capabilities and, of course, to help kick start the DX10 video card business.

ThomasMahler
06-13-2006, 01:14 PM
When are people going to learn? Graphics don't mean much. Gameplay is everything.

Oh come on. Without studios developing their engines and pushing the limits when it comes to realtime CG, you would've never been able to play any of the games you mentioned, cause First Person Shooters needed hardware and real time engines to be at a certain point to become interesting.

There'll always be a need to push the technology behind it. Is that more important than good gameplay? Of course not, but the technology behind it makes even better gameplay possible.

It's correct to say that it's about the games, not the graphics, but I heard this line 50 gazillion times already, I'm sure everyone knows it at this point.

Leionaaad
06-13-2006, 01:26 PM
Art team is far more important, the engine is more of the slave of the art-team than the other way around for me. Not that major studios share that vision.

Anyway, this all proves nothing.

Agree. People focus a lot on features of the engine and they usually tend to give to much credit to the technology. Then you hear things like "the Doom III engine is very dark" and such.
I was amazed by the capabilities of HalfLife2.

Far Cry featured a lot of vegetation, and that was their main sellingpoint. A good approach, really.
What I say is: This new engine is good, but everything that is amazing in it is just a logical step in the evolution of the game engines.
Besides...with a good art department, you can make things for QuakeIII that will stand it's grounds...

PyRoT
06-13-2006, 02:58 PM
The e3 Crysis demo was runing on two directx9 cards to simulate directx10.

+

Crysis is the next game from Germany's Crytek, makers of 2004's excellent Far Cry, and the great thing about the team is that if you compliment them for the awesome technology in Crysis, they almost get defensive about it and explain that they developed the technology to allow for better gameplay. Indeed, the demo showed how you'll continually make tactical decisions, so this isn't a brainless run-and-gun shooter. Do you sacrifice firepower for speed? Or will you use stealth rather than brute force?

Source (http://www.gamespot.com/features/6151435/p-9.html)

Tomek

cosmonaut
06-13-2006, 03:12 PM
I thought Far Cry was going to be purely eye candy then it turned out to be one of my best single play experiences to date. For once a game that wasn't like riding on rails. (at least the first couple of levels). I still fire it up just to play some ot the jungle levels.

Visually it's a stunnng game and still one of the biggest rendered environments. I'm looking forward to the next installment. With that said i hope they put as much time into the story and gameplay in this next update.

Amen to that. Up till the trigents showed up Far Cry was/still is the FPS I've ever played. The story was crap but for an FPS it's not really that important. Still, I read an interview with one of the Crytek guys a few months back and they admitted to both problems (play slowdown with trigents-inside and the story issues) with the game and promised to address them in Crysis.

Also, I can't believe how picky people are being in this thread. For a realtime engine this looks AMAZING! Sure it's not perfect (and that grass is downright bad) but take it for what it is, an incredible looking realtime 3d engine. Certainly looks far more impressive than anything I've seen on the 360/PS3 so far...

havokzprodigy
06-13-2006, 03:40 PM
Also, I can't believe how picky people are being in this thread. For a realtime engine this looks AMAZING! Sure it's not perfect (and that grass is downright bad) but take it for what it is, an incredible looking realtime 3d engine. Certainly looks far more impressive than anything I've seen on the 360/PS3 so far...

It could be spitting gold bars out the TV on the living room floor, and they would be saying "Yeah but it's not platinum".

Peddy
06-13-2006, 03:51 PM
well, to be honest, i really doubt it will be platinum. id like to at least a little realistic here people.

deadplant155
06-13-2006, 03:59 PM
Gimme a break considering that 90% of this is just texturing I don't see the point anyone can take some highres textures and plaster them on some polygons and it will look photoreal for that particular shot on that particular day with that particular scene arrangement. That might be photorealistic for one second but that's about it. Btw the grass looks horrible!
exactly.

of course it looks "photoreal" it's just pictures plastered onto some polygons. it's like going and taking a picture of my car and using it as a texture on a plane in maya and saying "look, i made a photo real car in 3d, huzzah!"

seriously you guys...

Ninjas
06-14-2006, 12:32 AM
I guess you guys haven't watched the demo? Realtime softshadows, SSS etc. is what makes these images look good. Texturing helps, just like it does in any CG. If you think they are just usiing a color map wrapped around geometry, I think you must not be very up-to-date on games' graphics technology.

Gentle Fury
06-18-2006, 06:33 PM
OMG, ok, anything negative said about this came must be taken back!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3502375929069803475

That is just nothing short of unbelievable!

edit....just finished watching the whole clip.....honestly, if i didnt see someone operating the game i wouldnt have thought it possible....that is so amazing its not funny...the 2nd scenario looks like the future battle scenes from T2....in real time.....and i dont mean, style wise....i mean its like hes controlling a freakin movie!!

This is exciting!! When is some game company going to create a real-time render engine that optimizes your geometry and textures to run smoothly and perfectly like this in real time for production?? Imagine having an animated scene....fully animated...then do all the camerawork handheld in a FPS style format? Could you imagine the possibilities for film making?? incredible work guys!! This is truely the Lord of The Rings for the gaming industry!

PyRoT
06-18-2006, 07:51 PM
Yeah this game is really cool. The interactivity of the environment in terms of destructibility is very cool. THe only thing missing iis deformable terrain (from what I can tell). This is something that should never be immitted thesedays.

mustique
06-18-2006, 09:51 PM
I watced the video, but I still can't believe. :buttrock:
The Crysis engine will be the king of the hill!

eek
06-18-2006, 10:29 PM
That video is truely stunning - can we have actually game devs chip in here. I could talk about frame buffer stuff, fps, rigging etc. But it seems most of the replies here of people flatly slating the shots and clips arent GDs and dont know half the time and effort to make an engine look good, let alone make it run smoothly, not go over memory etc

Hats off to crytek, amazing stuff.

P_T
06-19-2006, 03:31 AM
I've seen the huge alien level in E3 video, not the jungle level though, very cool indeed. destructable Jungle + minigun = wait for a Predator mod. :D

Just a couple of things. Finding guns on the jungle floor bit looks a little irritating if not frustrating and that airstrike thing looks like it's forced into the game.

mustique
06-20-2006, 01:06 PM
Over at 3dbuzz.com, they sent a link to website dedicated to crysis with lots of eye candy :)

http://incrysis.com/crysis/index.php?option=com_ponygallery&Itemid=99999999&func=viewcategory&catid=1

aaron111
06-20-2006, 11:44 PM
Yeah, this game looks amazing - probably the best looking graphics and physics in any game to date on any platform. I think the reason people are being critical is because the name of the thread was "Quite possibly photo realistic" and clearly it is not photo real. I think they are still years away from a real time engine that can fool the eye in that way, but as I said this does look amazing.

deadplant155
06-22-2006, 06:23 PM
For me gameplay comes on second place and graphics on first place, only if you see them as seperate things. I think things like the animation, graphics and physics, are gameplay. A game with very good grapics helps me to get more immerged in to the game. I love games where you really can enjoy the surroundings and really gives you the feeling you are there.
With good grapics I don't especialy mean realism. The graphics has to be a whole in style. For instance a game like gta where the textures are very low res I don't have a problem with it if al the textures are all blurry the same way. A game where you have very high res detail textures I don't want to see low poly characters, I want to see the same detail in all the aspects of the game, like animation and physics. But I really just want to play games with good graphics and good gameplay :)
that's not possibly true. if graphics are more important to you, you'd go watch a movie. the only differences between games and movies are 1) interactivity (see: gameplay) and 2)movies are photoreal, while games are not. if you don't care about interactivity (gameplay), you'd go watch tokyo drift or some other mindless garbage with flashy cars and beautiful people.

even just saying that gameplay takes a second seat to graphics is ridiculous, i'd rather play the n64 version of goldeney than the majority of first person shooters out today.

oh, and a little more on-topic, i saw this game at e3....it's not that great even in motion. the most impressive thing to me is the physics. and the thing couldn't have been running at more than 10-15 frames per second, is that really a tradeoff people are willing to make?

EpShot
06-22-2006, 08:23 PM
he wants to feel emmersed ina game, so i think a movie is out of the picture.. if that wasnt' obvious to begin with.

as for crysis at e3, it would dip to 15fps, but ran normaly at 25. which isn't bad consideign is a dx10 only game running on an emulated version. and not due for quite a while.

CGTalk Moderation
06-22-2006, 08:23 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.