Funny enough I am your direct opposite. Tearing and aliasing don't seem to bother me but the first thing I notice in a game is pop-in. Not that it distracts or diminishes the experience but I tend to notice it more than the other stuffs.
[360, PS3] Crysis 2
- Thread starter ultragpu
- Start date
Funny enough I am your direct opposite. Tearing and aliasing don't seem to bother me but the first thing I notice in a game is pop-in. Not that it distracts or diminishes the experience but I tend to notice it more than the other stuffs.
djskribbles
Legend
For me, it depends on how bad it is. Tearing usually bugs me the most if it's near the center of the screen, otherwise I'm fine with it. Aliasing doesn't bother me too much, unless there's lots of bright edges and lots of crawling steps all over; in C2, it didn't bother me too much. Pop in probably bugs me the least, but it can be pretty bad in C2.
ihamoitc2005
Veteran
Biggest problem with beer goggles is when you wake up
Crysis 2 is not that bad but graphical flaws like pop-in and frame-rate problems are really bad by modern standards. The textures are ok, some good some bad. Nothing special one way or another. The lighting is the only thing that looks good but, unless you are judging by a list of acronyms and technical jargon, is no prettier than many other multiplatform games. COD Black Ops looks just as pretty as Crysis 2 and has a much better video resolution (frame-rate x resolution per frame) and much less flaws.
I think the problem is Crytek made some bad decisions. They wanted to have many acronyms and technical jargon so they sacrificed memory, frame-rate and AI, with no real improvement in the appearance of the final product but have gained many impressive-sounding things to talk about in interviews.
Crysis 2 is not that bad but graphical flaws like pop-in and frame-rate problems are really bad by modern standards. The textures are ok, some good some bad. Nothing special one way or another. The lighting is the only thing that looks good but, unless you are judging by a list of acronyms and technical jargon, is no prettier than many other multiplatform games. COD Black Ops looks just as pretty as Crysis 2 and has a much better video resolution (frame-rate x resolution per frame) and much less flaws.
I think the problem is Crytek made some bad decisions. They wanted to have many acronyms and technical jargon so they sacrificed memory, frame-rate and AI, with no real improvement in the appearance of the final product but have gained many impressive-sounding things to talk about in interviews.
If Black Ops looks as great as Crysis 2, then why isn't rated up there with the best by many like Crysis 2 is? Surely not every reviewer is blinded by the hype like you've apparently claimed in all your posts.
Also, it's lighting, not textures or resolution, that makes the biggest impact (over half, IMO) on the graphics to most end users.
Now thats just wrong...
I remember I was the one in minority defending Black Ops graphics because I really thought they looked great,especially for 60fps.But better than Crysis 2?I'm not sure if you are joking or what...ShadowRunner
Veteran
I think a few people genuinely think that. I remember the 'Best Graphics' thread we had before and we had COD being held up above U2 by quite a few people, back when to most other people U2 was cleary above everything else out at that time. Ironically i remember a few of those people prefering COD are the same as the people prefering Crysis 2 now, so it isnt even as simple as saying some people prefer higher framerate etc. Sure you can question peoples motives in some cases but in the end the only thing you can say for certain is that people will always disagree...
Last edited by a moderator:
Heard that there is an update for crysis on the 360, anyone have a clue what it's for?
Actually to clarify what I mean earlier, the random pop up of a tree switching to a higher LoD doesn't bother me much. However cascading shadows that just appear as I walk along, or instances in MoH's campaign where the detailed textures would pop in 20 feet in front of you, that stuff drives me nuts.
Of course it all depends on the game. I can't stand jaggies, but Halo 3 didn't bother me for example.
Actually to clarify what I mean earlier, the random pop up of a tree switching to a higher LoD doesn't bother me much. However cascading shadows that just appear as I walk along, or instances in MoH's campaign where the detailed textures would pop in 20 feet in front of you, that stuff drives me nuts.
Of course it all depends on the game. I can't stand jaggies, but Halo 3 didn't bother me for example.
ihamoitc2005
Veteran
Hello
I did say it looked just as good as Crysis 2. This is, perhaps, a subjective statement so perhaps we can ask, since both games have some similar style and settings, what, on the screen (not meaningless jargon and acronyms) makes Crysis 2 special. I have looked over and over and I cannot see anything that I have not seen before and I see many things (really bad frame-rate, pop-in, etc) that are below standard for 2010/2011 console game release.
Now thats just wrong...
I did say it looked just as good as Crysis 2. This is, perhaps, a subjective statement so perhaps we can ask, since both games have some similar style and settings, what, on the screen (not meaningless jargon and acronyms) makes Crysis 2 special. I have looked over and over and I cannot see anything that I have not seen before and I see many things (really bad frame-rate, pop-in, etc) that are below standard for 2010/2011 console game release.
I'm starting to think we need a crysis vs. everything thread just like we have a KZ3 graphics type thread.
I'm not sure how CoD and Crysis have similar settings, never realized aliens were in CoD
Anyways, making comparisons is pointless. CoD aims for 60fps and is FAR more linear than crysis while Crysis pushes more effects on the screen at a slower frame rate in much more open environments.
Not sure what version you've played, but the frame rate only really chugs in sections during the first few hours, after that it's pretty smooth. Of course CoD will always seem smoother than other shooters since it's pushing for a higher frame rate.
Also, like NotTarts said before, the lighting makes a huge difference. In the end, it's pointless, I doubt pop up wouldn't be an issue if CoD had environments as large and dense as those in Crysis 2 for example.
Last edited by a moderator:
ihamoitc2005
Veteran
I'm not sure how CoD and Crysis have similar settings, never realized aliens were in CoD
When I said both have similar style and setting I meant that both have city environment and attempt for "realistic" visual style.
Another COD BO console video. Great lighting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z42vPQyQGNU
Last edited by a moderator:
Now thats just wrong...
Nah , he's not joking .... the guy is a real trooper
Whats so special?Lighting is hands down best in biz,very high quality post processing effects on consoles,fire,smoke effects and water are best I have ever seen in console game and than the shaders and character models,all look anything but average.It also helps that it runs at considerably higher resolution than Black Ops.
And whats with this really really bad frame rate?Yea,it can be bad(but playable) in first couple of chapters.But later its very very smooth and graphics just get better and better.
Yea,Black Ops has its fine moments,IMO its one of the best looking FPS games on consoles and it runs at 60fps but I seriously can't believe that someone finds it looking more impressive than Crysis 2 on 360.
Try to watch "Unsafe Heaven" on youtube and tell me what you think about it
I had an urge to platinum this game, so I finished the campaign on Supersoldier.
It was then when I noticed three things:
1) Trophy for reaching level 50, yea well guess its fine
2) Trophy for getting every skillshot in MP, one of them requires you to kill 5 guys within 5 seconds (in a 6 vs 6 game about guys fighting in super suits)....brilliant !
3) Trophy for playing a MP match 6 months after the first time you played it, yea 6 MONTHS !
Basically no one will be able to platinum this game til september at the very least. And you can't fake it as with Lost Planet 2 by changing your PS3's time as you are required to play a full MP match, which means you have to login to PSN and that resets your time.
Who the hell came up with these? I think I'll trade it for Motorstorm: Apocalypse as well, good thing I didn't used the bonus codes.
It was then when I noticed three things:
1) Trophy for reaching level 50, yea well guess its fine
2) Trophy for getting every skillshot in MP, one of them requires you to kill 5 guys within 5 seconds (in a 6 vs 6 game about guys fighting in super suits)....brilliant !
3) Trophy for playing a MP match 6 months after the first time you played it, yea 6 MONTHS !
Basically no one will be able to platinum this game til september at the very least. And you can't fake it as with Lost Planet 2 by changing your PS3's time as you are required to play a full MP match, which means you have to login to PSN and that resets your time.
Who the hell came up with these? I think I'll trade it for Motorstorm: Apocalypse as well, good thing I didn't used the bonus codes.
I'm almost at the end of the campaign now. And, like other people have stated, there is a sudden and noticeable improvement in the smoothness of the game around the half way point. On the PS3 at least.
The graphics, so far, are what I expected from Crytek. They are pretty good on screen but look much better on paper!! It has moments of fleeting brilliance where the screen almost seems to hit all the tick boxes on the paper, but they are few and far between. There are a number of glitches and errors that mar the presentation, pop ins and pop ups, clipping errors. I've had dissapearing guns, floating bodies and one CELL member who appeared to have died on an elastic band and just kept bouncing up and down!
The content and general gameplay are a different thing. The enemies are pretty dumb and the paths through levels are painfully apparent. I also find it annoying that the gravel voiced suit has to tell me every time I engage the armour or stealth mode. After playing Bulletstorm it just feels very ordinary. But it is still a fairly solid shooter with better than average graphics.
The graphics, so far, are what I expected from Crytek. They are pretty good on screen but look much better on paper!! It has moments of fleeting brilliance where the screen almost seems to hit all the tick boxes on the paper, but they are few and far between. There are a number of glitches and errors that mar the presentation, pop ins and pop ups, clipping errors. I've had dissapearing guns, floating bodies and one CELL member who appeared to have died on an elastic band and just kept bouncing up and down!
The content and general gameplay are a different thing. The enemies are pretty dumb and the paths through levels are painfully apparent. I also find it annoying that the gravel voiced suit has to tell me every time I engage the armour or stealth mode. After playing Bulletstorm it just feels very ordinary. But it is still a fairly solid shooter with better than average graphics.
dragonelite
Veteran
Haha i had a dead cell soldier launch a car a bit into the air because of that elastic bug. I think its the clipping issue that is breaking up the ai for human soldier getting stuck in geometry etc.
Funny how quickly opinion changes. When the game first game out it was heralded as the highly acclaimed technical landmark FPS on a console. Now just barely two weeks in, its all about bugs, lack of AA, DOF, decrease in textures and its graphics are just above average. If anything this whole thing teaches us, that is to not set our expectation so high and stay away from the hype. I was only interested in this game since released day and I think the game is great despite the all of the bugs and has some of the best graphics out there despite cutting some corners.
Can't get mad for developers squeezing as much as they can out of an aging system.
Can't get mad for developers squeezing as much as they can out of an aging system.
There are bugs and there are pop ins,thats for sure.But game is not AA hungry and it looks pretty smooth on my TV neither are textures bad.Whoever says that is straight out lying.I'm sure people understand that textures in PC and console version are like for like and while PC textures compared to titles like Metro 2033 aren't that hot in console version they are good as anything out there.
As for DOF I'm pretty sure its been discussed already,there is nothing wrong with it and it looks very very nice in console version.Dunno who even brought that BS...
Similar threads
