Actually the thing about crysis is that its no processor heavy at all. 80% of the game's processes are all GPU related thats why there is no difference between a duel core or a quad core processor in game when running the same video card.

Also for the thread - wait for Source Engine 2 and Unreal Engine 4 (both are in the works). UE4 according to Mark Rein will be 5 - 10 times that of UE3 and I can only imagin how strong Source 2 will be. 

oh wow that is pretty amazing.

i'm more interested in how the physics is done though.

take those barrels falling done for instance. you can be sure half of them would be deformed if not downright destroyed if they're falling down like that for real. however, no machines on earth (i estimate that not even say a 20,000 processor supercomputer) can do that in "real time".

if you treat those barrels as rigid bodies, which looks like what they do here, that's very simple physics. not interesting or realistic at all.

naznatip's nuclear explosion clip to me looks more convincing though. maybe partly has to do with the lighting, and partly has to do the debris modeling. after all, the human eye can only discern up to a certain threshold. i would have like still more "dust" or debris etc in the nuclear explosion clip though. but they did a good job masking those inevitable shortcomings (possibly from lighting, i don't know).

naznatip's second clip is much less impressive, largely because too many bodies are treated as rigid bodies. not interesting.

it's largely because of these reasons i never find myself interested at all in so-called "great/real graphics" games. realism, those games' selling point, becomes exactly their bane. the more real life element they claim, the more faults i can start finding. so to me, decision by artists to mask those shortcomings play perhaps a bigger of a role in bringing me realism.

games like ratchet and clank, to me, is "great graphics". it's never meant to depict the "real world" anyway, so there's no reference point for me to critique, and i have no issues with their art decisions.

I thought this thread was going to link to a different video displaying the quality of the physics engine in Crysis:





Now that tank (at the 2:20 mark) shows off some interesting physics...

sqrl: again the pc is superior in many ways but the theoretical floating point capability of the cell absolutely destroys any intel CPU. This cannot be used for all algorithms but physics are possibly one of the best areas. Many universities buy cell blades from IBM for these types of computations. You have to program for it, sometimes you will need to use different algorithms. But the power of this CPU is amazing. If you have the right tasks even the newest most expensive pentium doesn't even come close. If you cannot optimize the computational task though or if it us more complicated faster clocked general purpose CPUs will have advantages.

These are all pretty impressive, but why do they put all that detail in the barrels and then they do not even dent or bust or anything when they fall on top of each other or rocks? And after all the thats really cool comments, there has to be asked, Why? What is the point of this kind of stuff when it is only cool for the time you see it, then it is just uhh ok what now?

Kyros, by now you should know that the "theoretical" numbers Sony want's you to eat up don't come close to the real-world performance numbers, so stop talking about them.  You are not helping your argument, which wasn't a good one to begin with.

ouch they were harsh on crysis......

They were also inaccurate, as G4 tends to be. Don't get me wrong, Crysis isn't a great game, but it's not for the reasons they claim. Those things they showed with the AI and physics are bugs, which are rare. I beat the entire game and experienced that AI bug maybe 3 times (in a 10 hour game) and maybe 4 physics bugs. Compare that to Mass Effect where you could experience that many bugs in a couple hours. A few bugs don't make the game bad. What makes the game mediocre is that it's extremely repetitive. Of course, some people don't mind this, but those are also the people who liked Assassin's Creed.

Edit: and here is where you see G4's fanboyism. Those few bugs that are rare in Crysis but comon in Mass Effect caused Crysis to get a 3, but gave Mass Effect a 5. Gotta love "G4: TV for people who need to be told everything on the 360 is perfect."

Well, I'll admit, those were some really nice physics, beautiful looking graphics, but there's just a few issues that I just know are picking nits, but I can't really help it.

1.) how is it that after teh 300 barrel explosion, the grass in the center of the explosion was still green and looking perfectly undamaged, as were teh surroundings in general. they might have been blackened and a few trees knocked over, but where was the crater? unless I missed that.

2.) Do the barrels always suffer absolutely no damage if they aren't completely blown up? I saw barrels falling 1000 feet and not even getting dented, heck, I don't even think the paint got scratched.

That is so amazing.