By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC - Real Life or Crysis?

I also must comment that crysis looks even more realistic in motion. I have never seen anything close in another game where the leaves blow in the wind realistically, also falling trees even look like they fall properly.

@Gilgamesh, that Crysis pick you picked look like it has horrible lighting, it looks like it was taken from a dx9 setup.



Around the Network

They all look fake to me, I've never been in a jungle though, but that's not how plants look.



I'm Unamerica and you can too.

The Official Huge Monster Hunter Thread: 



The Hunt Begins 4/20/2010 =D

KillerMan said:

And leo-j said that MGS4 is better looking game. =D It was epic thread...

talking about him... where is him?

 



So two weeks ago I bought a brand new computer... Core I7 processor, Nividia 295GTX graphics card, 4gb of memory.  So I can play Crysis maxed out.  First let me start by saying Crysis does look amazing.  However, these pics I always see are very misleading.  When playing the game at a high resolution you can easily tell its a game and while it can sometimes come semi close, there is never a point where you would literally question if you were looking at a game or real life.  Yet these rl/crysis comparison pics are always low res or pixelated and even after playing the game I can hardly tell the real pictures from the crysis ones.  So the bottom line is, Crysis is amazing, but the game does not look like real life nearly to the degree that all these comparison pictures suggest.

One other note, and I probably shouldn't do this but now that I got to play Crysis on max settings and the Killzone 2 demo I just wanted to make a quick comparison.  Crysis has better textures, more environment detail and much more realistic environments.  On the otherhand Killzone 2 seems to have much better character models, gun models, and animations.  Basically, there are aspects of Crysis that are out of Kilzone 2's league, but there may be an equal number of aspects of killzone 2 that are out of crysis' league.  IMO



double post... delete



Around the Network
Cheeseburger said:

So two weeks ago I bought a brand new computer... Core I7 processor, Nividia 295GTX graphics card, 4gb of memory. So I can play Crysis maxed out. First let me start by saying Crysis does look amazing. However, these pics I always see are very misleading. When playing the game at a high resolution you can easily tell its a game and while it can sometimes come semi close, there is never a point where you would literally question if you were looking at a game or real life. Yet these rl/crysis comparison pics are always low res or pixelated and even after playing the game I can hardly tell the real pictures from the crysis ones. So the bottom line is, Crysis is amazing, but the game does not look like real life nearly to the degree that all these comparison pictures suggest.

One other note, and I probably shouldn't do this but now that I got to play Crysis on max settings and the Killzone 2 demo I just wanted to make a quick comparison. Crysis has better textures, more environment detail and much more realistic environments. On the otherhand Killzone 2 seems to have much better character models, gun models, and animations.

I play Crysis at maximum too and the only UNREAL thing I could found in the game was the water...

I mean, it is great, feels natural, but the behavior of it with objects is just awkward... By far the best water I saw in a game was from Uncharted...

 



Cheeseburger said:

So two weeks ago I bought a brand new computer... Core I7 processor, Nividia 295GTX graphics card, 4gb of memory.  So I can play Crysis maxed out.  First let me start by saying Crysis does look amazing.  However, these pics I always see are very misleading.  When playing the game at a high resolution you can easily tell its a game and while it can sometimes come semi close, there is never a point where you would literally question if you were looking at a game or real life.  Yet these rl/crysis comparison pics are always low res or pixelated and even after playing the game I can hardly tell the real pictures from the crysis ones.  So the bottom line is, Crysis is amazing, but the game does not look like real life nearly to the degree that all these comparison pictures suggest.

One other note, and I probably shouldn't do this but now that I got to play Crysis on max settings and the Killzone 2 demo I just wanted to make a quick comparison.  Crysis has better textures, more environment detail and much more realistic environments.  On the otherhand Killzone 2 seems to have much better character models, gun models, and animations.  Basically, there are aspects of Crysis that are out of Kilzone 2's league, but there may be an equal number of aspects of killzone 2 that are out of crysis' league.  IMO

Do you play maxed out settings in dx9 or dx10?  I ask because the default max dx9 settings look kinda crappy.  BTW, Crysis Warhead looks even better, I'm actually looking into getting the texture mod thats out there (although a 2GB download is kinda depressing).

 



I agree, I do think uncharted probably had the best water.  The only thing with uncharted, was it was almost as if the water had higher than normal amounts of surface tension....if that makes any sense.



largedarryl said:
Cheeseburger said:

So two weeks ago I bought a brand new computer... Core I7 processor, Nividia 295GTX graphics card, 4gb of memory.  So I can play Crysis maxed out.  First let me start by saying Crysis does look amazing.  However, these pics I always see are very misleading.  When playing the game at a high resolution you can easily tell its a game and while it can sometimes come semi close, there is never a point where you would literally question if you were looking at a game or real life.  Yet these rl/crysis comparison pics are always low res or pixelated and even after playing the game I can hardly tell the real pictures from the crysis ones.  So the bottom line is, Crysis is amazing, but the game does not look like real life nearly to the degree that all these comparison pictures suggest.

One other note, and I probably shouldn't do this but now that I got to play Crysis on max settings and the Killzone 2 demo I just wanted to make a quick comparison.  Crysis has better textures, more environment detail and much more realistic environments.  On the otherhand Killzone 2 seems to have much better character models, gun models, and animations.  Basically, there are aspects of Crysis that are out of Kilzone 2's league, but there may be an equal number of aspects of killzone 2 that are out of crysis' league.  IMO

Do you play maxed out settings in dx9 or dx10?  I ask because the default max dx9 settings look kinda crappy.  BTW, Crysis Warhead looks even better, I'm actually looking into getting the texture mod thats out there (although a 2GB download is kinda depressing).

 

dx 10..  And I am in no way saying it looks crappy... Just that these comparison pictures make it seem like you can'y tell crysis apart from real life, but you can.

 



I completely agree, crysis does not look RL (unless you really cherry pick), I found the overuse of God-rays a little to obvious for it to be RL. I honestly thought the game looked amazing for being in such a lush jungle environment.

I couldn't imagine what the game would look like if Crytek chose a more enclosed corridor style shooter, although that wouldn't point out the obvious strengths of their graphics engine.