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

Forums - PC - Graphics Crown still Crysis ?

ultima on 16 October 2009
Staude said:
CGI-Quality said:
Staude said:

The only thing that makes crysis "so special" are the combined visual output along with the physics engine.

The individual visual aspects can, and has been taken over.

The cry engine was made particularly for forrests and island terrain. If you look at the original cry-engine 3, you'll see city terrain that looks nowhere near as good as killzone 2s.

Now all 3 games stream data, crysis from your harddrive, killzone 2 and uncharted 2 from the disc.

Uncharted 2 has far far better animations. It has the best animations ever created by any game. It's incredible. Uncharted 1 has better animations than crysis. Both also has better lipsyncing.

Furthermore, uncharted models have greater polygon detail. IE they have more polygons, and from the looks of it, heavily optimised work.

Now crysis on the other hand uses primarily low polygon char models with normal maps. Normal map giving the details. Like a unreal engine 3 game, but at a bigger resolution.

It's said that crysis uses up to 60k in their char models, however, i've come to learn that it's more like 5k for the normal char model, and 60k for the models used in the intro.

Killzone 2, has better particle effects in my opinion, based on the fact that i've played through, crysis, crysis warhead and killzone 2. That's my call. It becomes especially aparent in the last level. The vista is some of the most incredible in particle effects i've seen in a video game.

Killzone 2 also has smoother animations by the way...

 

also both uncharted, uncharted 2..... and heck killzone 2 has far superior AI to crysis. The AI is pretty dumb in that game.

That's besides the point though. If you read through my post again and try to lecture me CGI, i'll have to facepalm you !

Sorry but I have some knowledge in this field that you may not.

 

The combined visual aspect and especially physics, Crysis wins by a long shot. But it's still been beaten in individual aspects.

Well, you aren't proving this factually to me. Even if you * facepalm * me, I'm not convinced. I've played and beaten EVERY game in this discussion. Yes, Killzone 2 and Uncharted 1 & 2 have aspects that exceed Crysis, in fact I never argued that. But from a FULL technical standpoint, which btw I have plenty of knowledge in that field, I don't have a degree for nothing, Crysis wins this out. As I said, Crysis is open-ended, UNLIKE the console games mentioned in this discussion. Also, look at the entire spectrum, there are more polygons EVERYWHERE in that world than any of the PS3 games mentioned here.

Put it this way, like you, I'm arguing based on my knowledge of the specs that went into each project, and what each display on screen, and although Killzone 2 and Uncharteds 1 & 2 have aspects that are greater, Crysis is the more technically advanced game. Since neither one of us have EVERY bit of info on these games though, we're arguing opinions for the most part, though both sides contain some facts.

I'm not trying to get you mad or act ugly towards you, but I think you need to learn how to debate without letting personal crudentials and condescending rhetoric enter the debate, it makes the argument look weaker than it very well may be.

The only one condecending here is you based on your prior post. You keep telling me i'm letting personal opinion get in the way while it is something that I have infact not done. Not only that, I used to be a pc gamer first and foremost. 

In the future, I also would strongly suggest you actually read what i'm writing as I never debated that any of the games from a full technical standpoint were above crysis. If you had cared to read my posts you would find that I've only debated that certain aspects of the games were above crysis. So what's your problem ?

And crysis is not really open ended. Don't judge a bear by it's covers.

I'm sorry, but what makes you say that Uncharted has better character models than Crysis if it isn't personal bias. I love Uncharted, but it doesn't have better looking character models; simple as that. Bump mapping can make a model seem a little more detailed than it actually is, but it cannot, for example make a character's head perfectly smooth.

And CE2 wasn't made specifically for rendering forests. Just because you haven't seen a decent shot of a different setting doesn't mean the engine is not capable of it. Crytek is good at making realistic looking forests (Far Cry, for example), that's why they stuck with the setting. A forest with a lot of vegetation is quite possible the most difficult thing to realistically render. If an engine can render a forest as good as CE2, you can bet it can render anything else at least as good if not better (provided it's in the right hands).

Also, AI is not a part of graphics, so it's irrelevant.

In short, Crysis has been beaten by some games in certain areas, but those areas weren't its focusing points to begin with. Oh, and it's highly unlikely that a console game will release this gen with a lightning engine to could even touch Crysis with a 4-foot stick.



           

Around the Network
Staude on 16 October 2009
ultima said:
Staude said:
CGI-Quality said:
Staude said:
 

The only thing that makes crysis "so special" are the combined visual output along with the physics engine.

The individual visual aspects can, and has been taken over.

The cry engine was made particularly for forrests and island terrain. If you look at the original cry-engine 3, you'll see city terrain that looks nowhere near as good as killzone 2s.

Now all 3 games stream data, crysis from your harddrive, killzone 2 and uncharted 2 from the disc.

Uncharted 2 has far far better animations. It has the best animations ever created by any game. It's incredible. Uncharted 1 has better animations than crysis. Both also has better lipsyncing.

Furthermore, uncharted models have greater polygon detail. IE they have more polygons, and from the looks of it, heavily optimised work.

Now crysis on the other hand uses primarily low polygon char models with normal maps. Normal map giving the details. Like a unreal engine 3 game, but at a bigger resolution.

It's said that crysis uses up to 60k in their char models, however, i've come to learn that it's more like 5k for the normal char model, and 60k for the models used in the intro.

Killzone 2, has better particle effects in my opinion, based on the fact that i've played through, crysis, crysis warhead and killzone 2. That's my call. It becomes especially aparent in the last level. The vista is some of the most incredible in particle effects i've seen in a video game.

Killzone 2 also has smoother animations by the way...

 

also both uncharted, uncharted 2..... and heck killzone 2 has far superior AI to crysis. The AI is pretty dumb in that game.

That's besides the point though. If you read through my post again and try to lecture me CGI, i'll have to facepalm you !

Sorry but I have some knowledge in this field that you may not.

 

The combined visual aspect and especially physics, Crysis wins by a long shot. But it's still been beaten in individual aspects.

Well, you aren't proving this factually to me. Even if you * facepalm * me, I'm not convinced. I've played and beaten EVERY game in this discussion. Yes, Killzone 2 and Uncharted 1 & 2 have aspects that exceed Crysis, in fact I never argued that. But from a FULL technical standpoint, which btw I have plenty of knowledge in that field, I don't have a degree for nothing, Crysis wins this out. As I said, Crysis is open-ended, UNLIKE the console games mentioned in this discussion. Also, look at the entire spectrum, there are more polygons EVERYWHERE in that world than any of the PS3 games mentioned here.

Put it this way, like you, I'm arguing based on my knowledge of the specs that went into each project, and what each display on screen, and although Killzone 2 and Uncharteds 1 & 2 have aspects that are greater, Crysis is the more technically advanced game. Since neither one of us have EVERY bit of info on these games though, we're arguing opinions for the most part, though both sides contain some facts.

I'm not trying to get you mad or act ugly towards you, but I think you need to learn how to debate without letting personal crudentials and condescending rhetoric enter the debate, it makes the argument look weaker than it very well may be.

The only one condecending here is you based on your prior post. You keep telling me i'm letting personal opinion get in the way while it is something that I have infact not done. Not only that, I used to be a pc gamer first and foremost. 

In the future, I also would strongly suggest you actually read what i'm writing as I never debated that any of the games from a full technical standpoint were above crysis. If you had cared to read my posts you would find that I've only debated that certain aspects of the games were above crysis. So what's your problem ?

And crysis is not really open ended. Don't judge a bear by it's covers.

I'm sorry, but what makes you say that Uncharted has better character models than Crysis if it isn't personal bias. I love Uncharted, but it doesn't have better looking character models; simple as that. Bump mapping can make a model seem a little more detailed than it actually is, but it cannot, for example make a character's head perfectly smooth.

 

.....

 

In short, Crysis has been beaten by some games in certain areas, but those areas weren't its focusing points to begin with. Oh, and it's highly unlikely that a console game will release this gen with a lightning engine to could even touch Crysis with a 4-foot stick.

Im not gonna talk about the rest. This is enough.

 

I said it had more polygonal detail because it has more polygons on its char models ? Like I said crysis uses normal maps for the char model details. Quite simply. Bump maps are a thing of the past. Normal and specular maps are what's the industry standard now.

 

Regarding the lighting engine, that's debatable. In some aspects sure, but in others it's been surpassed. I'm thinking particularly killzone 2 and all the different reflections in the game.. That being a part of the lighting engine counts.

 

Now i'm not gonna accept assault by various people for stating what I did, so before this gets out of hand I suggest you both actually care to read my posts.. That is also something I recommend in the future as I hate to debate over something pointless and state the same thing multiple times.



Check out my game about moles ^

Mudface on 16 October 2009
Staude said:

I hate to debate over something pointless and state the same thing multiple times.

Hehehe.



Staude on 16 October 2009
CGI-Quality said:
@ Staude

Well, if you've been arguing for only "aspects" of the games, then that has been my point from the beginning. I KNOW there are aspects that are better in the PS3 exclusives you mentioned, but my point still remains, Crysis is THE MOST technically advanced game to grace gaming. I think you have missed a simple point this whole time, and seem to be losing your cool, again btw, over a simple war of opinions.

I only said to you ONE time that you shouldn't let personal credentials get in the way of a debate. Where you came up with "I keep saying that", is beyond me. And by saying that you have more knowledge in this field than I do is VERY condescending, as not only may that be inaccurate, but it has nothing to do with my simple point, which you have not proven wrong. Also, your comment about, "if you lecture me CGI, I'll have to * facepalm * you"....

Are you freakin' kidding me? A lecture? I'm giving my take, as you're giving yours. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean that: A. I'm "lecturing" you or: B. We can't continue the debate constructively.

I made my point though, and I'm pretty sure it's correct, as you believe your point is, which I have no problems with. It's where you decided to let this debate go that is perplexing. You HAVE been condescending and have refused to listen to objection, as demonstrated by your replies to other posters.

Sorry bud, this is where our debate ends. If you'd like to continue you it, CONSTRUCTIVELY, PM me, as this is also hampering the thread.

If you hadn't mis-interprited what I had read we wouldn't have ended up in this mess. This one is entirely on your shoulders. I've pm'd you btw.



Check out my game about moles ^

ultima on 16 October 2009
Staude said:

Im not gonna talk about the rest. This is enough.

 

I said it had more polygonal detail because it has more polygons on its char models ? Like I said crysis uses normal maps for the char model details. Quite simply. Bump maps are a thing of the past. Normal and specular maps are what's the industry standard now.

 

Regarding the lighting engine, that's debatable. In some aspects sure, but in others it's been surpassed. I'm thinking particularly killzone 2 and all the different reflections in the game.. That being a part of the lighting engine counts.

 

Now i'm not gonna accept assault by various people for stating what I did, so before this gets out of hand I suggest you both actually care to read my posts.. That is also something I recommend in the future as I hate to debate over something pointless and state the same thing multiple times.

First of all, I'm going to adress your last paragraph. I'm not trying to insult you or anything and I'm extremely sorry if it seemed that way. We're just having a debate here... As for suggesting we read your posts, I wouldn't have replied if I haven't read your post. I could've misunderstood a point, but I certainly read it. And you contradict yourself by replacing half of my post by dots, implying you didn't care enough to read it.

Seriously, what makes you say that Crysis has low-polygon models? Can you prove to me that the detail is achieved using normal mapping? And what makes you believe that both weren't using the technique, which would still point towards Crysis having higher-polygon character models? My view on this stands, normal maps are used to an extent for wrinkles and such, but you cannot replicate these models with normal mapping.

Killzone doesn't have a comparable lightning engine to Crysis. First of all it has pre-baked lightning. Killzone may look incredibly good, but the light sources are always in the same position, casting pre-baked shadows. In Crysis, it's all dynamic. You can wait in one spot for the time of day to change and totally change the way the environment looks. This applies to every console game. No game (to my knowledge) has a real-time lightning engine to even come close to Crysis.

And here's my closing comment. You seem to think that technically graphics are subjective; they aren't. Either a game looks technically impressive or it doesn't. It's like math, even if different people correctly evaluate it, the result should still be the same. Artistic graphics are subjective. For example, RFOM looks really good to me, even though it uses a very simple graphics engine.



           

Around the Network
vlad321 on 16 October 2009

The only way PS3/360 people can push thhere are games better looking way than Crysis is if they admit there are Wii games looking better than KZ2, etc.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

dorbin2009 on 16 October 2009

I think we can make a Crysis drinking game with the original post. Everytime he wrote the word "Crysis" , take a shot. 



vlad321 on 16 October 2009
CGI-Quality said:
^^ I don't get that but ok....

If people are gonna argue art direction and stuff as solely being resposible fo being better than Crysis, then so can Wii owners say art direction is better than other PS3/360 games.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

Senlis on 17 October 2009

I just want to say that the video mentioned earlier:

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/gdc-09-cryengine-3/47412

is proof that PC innovate where consoles follow.




 

Citan on 17 October 2009

Give me a clear definition on what graphics are.
Is it most life-like? Certainly Silent Hill 3 characters looks and acts more human than any in crysis.
Or is graphics a definition on how real-life scenery is? Then crysis may be king.