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

Forums - PC - Real Life or Crysis?

IllegalPaladin on 10 February 2009
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).

 

Welcome to the world of mods.

I picked up the fakefull enhancement of Half-Life 2, Episode 1, and Episode 2 (minus the crappy custom character models) and that was a 4gb download. Though I'd say it was worth it for the most part because it puts new life into the Source engine by putting more details on nearly everything.

 



Around the Network
KillerMan on 10 February 2009
whorenraged said:
KillerMan said:

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

talking about him... where is him?

 

 

I heard he left this site. Shame because he was funny guy. =/



largedarryl on 10 February 2009
IllegalPaladin said:
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).

 

Welcome to the world of mods.

I picked up the fakefull enhancement of Half-Life 2, Episode 1, and Episode 2 (minus the crappy custom character models) and that was a 4gb download. Though I'd say it was worth it for the most part because it puts new life into the Source engine by putting more details on nearly everything.

 

Oh don't get me wrong, some mods are more than worth the download size (I have been most impressed with the texture improvements to M2:TW).  I am actually more torn over whether or not 2GB is worth the time for Crysis, mainly because the textures in Crysis are pretty good already.

I was actually really interested in the texture updates for Fallout 3, now there is a texture mod worth my bandwidth.

 



IllegalPaladin on 10 February 2009

lol, reminds me of Jarrod's texture mod for Oblivion.

After getting mods and tweaking the ini files, Oblivion looks like a much better game. It'd imagine it's similar for Fallout 3?



largedarryl on 10 February 2009

When I played through Oblivion on my PC, it could barely run the game at the lowest settings, so I only saw screenshots of the mods. For Fallout 3, I haven't played with the mods either (having trouble getting into the game), I have more fun playing with the modding tools for Fallout 3 (which is about the only thing I still like Bethesda for is the modding tools).

This talk reminds me of the great modding days with Civ 4, when Blake was creating an AI mod for Warlords that blew away the default AI, only to have him fall of the face of the forum planet, later to find out he was hired to rewrite the AI code for Beyond the Sword.
It just seems that there are modders out there that are far more talented than people that get paid to do these things. I have actually yet to see a PC game that has moddable assests not be improved by anonymous internet Joe.



Around the Network
FastFord58 on 10 February 2009
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

 

I will disagree but not completely. Character models and model textures in Crysis obliterate KZ2s, sorry. You can tell that just by looking at hands, let alone everything else. Same with the gun models.

 

The pre-physics animation, I will agree with you on that. KZ2s animations are better than Crysis.



"Man is born free but is everywhere in chains" - Rousseau

SleepWaking on 10 February 2009

it doesn't look like reallife but still damn good. I just love posting images.

 

 



Sqrl on 10 February 2009
Slimebeast said:
Sqrl said:
Sharky54 said:

 

Yeah, very well rendered and hi res. Much more then 1080p or anything of the such. You should see the water effects on this thing they call "the ocean" its pretty beastly. The devolpers made the sun too bright when on it though. Can cause eye problems. But over all very pretty.

It's been a while since I've read up on this but iirc the research indicates that most people can't see better than 1080p at proper viewing distance. 

 

 Doubt this because then the modern movies at the movie theatre wouldn't be filmed and showed in 2500x1500 (or is it even 3500x2000 or something).

Filming movies at 2500x1500 or any UHD resolution has nothing to do with the eye's limitation at proper viewing distance. The further your screen is the less pixels you will be able to actually percieve, this is easy to imagine if you think about a TV moving off into the horizon until it is a single pixel to your perception.  On the other hand when it comes close to you, or when you get close to your TV you can see individual pixels. Thus the comment about proper viewing distance.  A maximum pixel perception is directly tied to the distance you view the screen at.  For entertainment purposes it is irrelevant if you can put your face up to your screen and see pixels because that is not how you will actually be using the screen.

The reasons you would film at higher resolutions are many, there are a ton of editing advantages to it, but even then if you had a theatre that could support the full resolution (they do exist) you could do it simply because the people sitting in the first 10 rows or so are too close.  I honestly don't know what the average size of a movie screen is but for even say a 30ft diagonal screen the minimum distance would be around 40 to 45 ft which is why in the front of most theatres there is a rather large space between the first row and the stage/screen.

 
To Each Man, Responsibility
IllegalPaladin on 10 February 2009
Sqrl said:
Slimebeast said:
Sqrl said:

It's been a while since I've read up on this but iirc the research indicates that most people can't see better than 1080p at proper viewing distance. 

 

 Doubt this because then the modern movies at the movie theatre wouldn't be filmed and showed in 2500x1500 (or is it even 3500x2000 or something).

Filming movies at 2500x1500 or any UHD resolution has nothing to do with the eye's limitation at proper viewing distance. The further your screen is the less pixels you will be able to actually percieve, this is easy to imagine if you think about a TV moving off into the horizon until it is a single pixel to your perception.  On the other hand when it comes close to you, or when you get close to your TV you can see individual pixels. Thus the comment about proper viewing distance.  A maximum pixel perception is directly tied to the distance you view the screen at.  For entertainment purposes it is irrelevant if you can put your face up to your screen and see pixels because that is not how you will actually be using the screen.

The reasons you would film at higher resolutions are many, there are a ton of editing advantages to it, but even then if you had a theatre that could support the full resolution (they do exist) you could do it simply because the people sitting in the first 10 rows or so are too close.  I honestly don't know what the average size of a movie screen is but for even say a 30ft diagonal screen the minimum distance would be around 40 to 45 ft which is why in the front of most theatres there is a rather large space between the first row and the stage/screen.

 

 

Even that's not far enough, though I'm one to prefer sitting farther back anyway.

I sat in the front group of rows when watching The Return of The King..... NOT FUN



Sqrl on 10 February 2009

@Illegal,

Yup, most of the time it's only about half the distance needed.



To Each Man, Responsibility