Game critics are easy to impress...B3Ders aren't 
lol you are right
[360, PS3] Crysis 2
- Thread starter ultragpu
- Start date
Game critics are easy to impress...B3Ders aren't
lol you are right
Oh I know why B3D are not impressed. The idea that a multiplatform game can be the best looking game on consoles.
Its like "it is not possible, teh ps3 exclusives are the best looking console game and are not possible on teh xbox360. This would mean that "gasp" teh xbox360 can actually have amazing graphics".
Oh I know why B3D are not impressed. The idea that a multiplatform game can be the best looking game on consoles.
Its like "it is not possible, teh ps3 exclusives are the best looking console game and are not possible on teh xbox360. This would mean that "gasp" teh xbox360 can actually have amazing graphics".
If you're looking for devoted fanboys, go to the System Wars
If you're looking for devoted fanboys, go to the System Wars
And why should I do that?
Becouse B3D is pretty "clean" place, and you are obviously looking for PS3 fanboys :|
Its like "it is not possible, teh ps3 exclusives are the best looking console game and are not possible on teh xbox360. This would mean that "gasp" teh xbox360 can actually have amazing graphics".
you have a point about peoples' perceptions that 360 is not as capable which is a mistaken perception
The fact that you made the kind of reply you did to my initial comments is very interesting and actually answers your own question.
And if you think that B3D is a clean forum then you should stop kidding yourself.
It should be clean be it is definitely not. It is just more civilized.
Granted it is not as obvious as in other forums.
djskribbles
Legend
Maybe this isn't what the media saw and gave impressions on, but were judging all that we have to judge and I can say with full honesty that those shots are not very impressive, and most people here seem to agree, as well as people over at GAF. Even if that's how the game looks as of now, I'm sure were all fully aware that there's still lots of time to make improvements and that's not what the final build will look like. I have no doubt that this will be a very impressive looking game come release time.
Sure there are obviously biased people here (although B3D is a lot more civilized than other boards), but I think that's not the case here, especially considering this is a multiplatform title.
Sure there are obviously biased people here (although B3D is a lot more civilized than other boards), but I think that's not the case here, especially considering this is a multiplatform title.
Last edited by a moderator:
To be fair, the game critics have been inconsistent. Sometimes they overlook some shortfalls (e.g., jaggies), sometimes they don't. Just like me, their judgement is subjective; so we can take our own opinions over theirs.
[size=-2]Cue Laa Yosh to come in and complain about the black dude's swollen neck.[/size]
[size=-2]Cue Laa Yosh to come in and complain about the black dude's swollen neck.[/size]
Well aren't you forgetting this one little game called Farcry 2..??
Its an open world game with a 50 sq km area instead of a limited sandbox like Crysis, boasts some of the most advanced rendering tech with pretty day/night cycles and also has a good physics engine/dynamic fire/a wind system/volumetric lights & clouds. All this while maintaining a good texture resolution throughout the map with AA support & a decent framerate on consoles. And last but not the least...it also manages to look good !
Like I once mentioned this before, One could care less about how much tech is going on in there if the end result is not impressive.
The environment in Crysis has much better artistry and larger repertoire of effects than Far Cry 2. I think people tend to forget that when making their comparisons. Just looking at the grass and ground, so much more effort was put into Crysis and Warhead than Far Cry 2. FC2's grass rotates about the first person camera like sprites and the ground textures are rather flat looking. Crysis uses a much more robust grass implementation that feels really dense and doesn't rotate about the camera. It looks much better. The ground textures have bits of sprites on top to give them a better feel of depth, and some use parallax occlusion. That's just the grass and ground. I'm not even going into the game's great use of translucencies with leaves........
As great as all this is, it did come with a huge cost in graphics power. In 2007 I was running Crysis 1 at high DX9 settings in WinXP at a 720p for smooth framerate using Crytek's optimizations. I had an 8800GTS 320 MB at the time. I now have a Radeon 5850 1 GB. It took 6 times the graphics horsepower to get smooth 1080p DX10 Very High Settings gameplay using Crytek's settings. That's pretty ridiculous. I'm sure the 320 MB of VRAM was a huge bottleneck on the 8800GTS, as a laptop 9800M GS 512 MB had an easier time running those same settings despite being a mobile part with 2/3 the shaders (64/28 TMUs/16 ROPs). Even better performance was to be had out of a Radeon 4670 1 GB I used to have.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sure the grass is 2D sprites, but I believe that its the end result which matters. Infact I didn't even had any idea about 2D grasses when I played the game, I was just too busy looking at the grass burning & bending permanently when I drive a vehicle over it. If I couldn't then I doubt if the rest of the masses which consist of much less informed people could tell that. You can go on & on about what Crysis on PC uses & FC2 doesn't but the question is does Crysis on consoles uses that too ? If yes then why should it look any uglier than the game on PC ? If its using better textures or using parallax shaders then it should look better than the thing you get in FC2...yet that's clearly not the case as of now. [again judging by those 2 screenshots]. And I'll mention the scale of FC2 again...its a lot bigger.
Since here we are talking about consoles, if a game manages to looks just as good or even better using less tech...then its obviously supposed to be a good thing & it should be a compliment to the devs. As I repeatedly keep mentioning, what good is great tech if the ultimate result is an avg to decent looking game ?
Case in example...we all know BFBC is a lot more tech heavy than MW2 yet for the many of the general audience, MW2 is a lot better looking & feeling (60FPS !) than BFBC2.
Since here we are talking about consoles, if a game manages to looks just as good or even better using less tech...then its obviously supposed to be a good thing & it should be a compliment to the devs. As I repeatedly keep mentioning, what good is great tech if the ultimate result is an avg to decent looking game ?
Case in example...we all know BFBC is a lot more tech heavy than MW2 yet for the many of the general audience, MW2 is a lot better looking & feeling (60FPS !) than BFBC2.
Agreed on both counts
What what what
Well, apparently Crytek is focusing a lot now on physics, not just graphics. Destroyable rigid bodies, deformable surfaces, cloth physics, etc... And even so it features many advancements over CE2, like reflections (good ones), GI, deferred lighting (particles like explosions and "lasers" now use regular lights and not crappy fill lights), SSS seems very much improved, godrays don't seem too dependant on having to look directly at the sun.
Billy Idol
Legend
I completely agree!! The end results counts, nothing more...buzz words don't help me while I play the game!
I only judge what I see and not something other see and tell me!
But I am man enough(!) to admit it...if the "secret" stuff blows my mind when it gets public!
Me, being a predominantly logic person (51% Vulcan, 49% Klingon), finds it interesting how much you have exposed yourself with this post...Oh I know why B3D are not impressed. The idea that a multiplatform game can be the best looking game on consoles.
Its like "it is not possible, teh ps3 exclusives are the best looking console game and are not possible on teh xbox360. This would mean that "gasp" teh xbox360 can actually have amazing graphics".
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh I know why B3D are not impressed. The idea that a multiplatform game can be the best looking game on consoles.
Its like "it is not possible, teh ps3 exclusives are the best looking console game and are not possible on teh xbox360. This would mean that "gasp" teh xbox360 can actually have amazing graphics".
or its just that the engine could be more suitable for PCs considering what it is trying to do?
Oh I know why B3D are not impressed. The idea that a multiplatform game can be the best looking game on consoles.
Its like "it is not possible, teh ps3 exclusives are the best looking console game and are not possible on teh xbox360. This would mean that "gasp" teh xbox360 can actually have amazing graphics".
Oh my, you really think people are insecure here? Post like that belongs to N4G or whatever.
Far Cry 2 was mentioned here of an example of a better game, what would happen if I gave it the treatment NeoGaf gave Crysis 2 by posting those terrible screens?
I go to youtube find a crappy vid, screencap it...woila
http://img59.imageshack.us/i/image1gl.jpg/
Wow what happened, that is one of the worst looking games I have ever seen! etc etc etc.
I picked a multiplatform game to be politically correct, but I can do that to ANY game quite easily, including Uncharted 2.
That is basically what is going on here with those two Crysis 2 screens, that were originally posted by a fanboy on Neogaf for the specific purpose to slam the game. You would think Beyond 3d would be above that type of thing, but I guess not.
Anybody who has seen the screen has seen the vid, and if you dont admit the vid is at least decently impressive, I think you're being disingenuous.
I think it's rather ridiculous that certain other forum posts a lot of bullshots of certain other games, then somehow thinks thats comparative to these screens.
I go to youtube find a crappy vid, screencap it...woila
http://img59.imageshack.us/i/image1gl.jpg/
Wow what happened, that is one of the worst looking games I have ever seen! etc etc etc.
I picked a multiplatform game to be politically correct, but I can do that to ANY game quite easily, including Uncharted 2.
That is basically what is going on here with those two Crysis 2 screens, that were originally posted by a fanboy on Neogaf for the specific purpose to slam the game. You would think Beyond 3d would be above that type of thing, but I guess not.
Anybody who has seen the screen has seen the vid, and if you dont admit the vid is at least decently impressive, I think you're being disingenuous.
I think it's rather ridiculous that certain other forum posts a lot of bullshots of certain other games, then somehow thinks thats comparative to these screens.
Care to elaborate.
Please don't put words into my mouth.
That's doesn't makes any sense
Why would you take a capture from the low quality youtube video when the Crysis 2 video is easily of a far superior quality than that ?
If you are to compare then go & take a screengrab from any of the FC2 HD videos in GT. It'd be a fair comparison then cause the HD videos in GT are just as much compressed & representative of the final game as the Crysis 2 video everyone here is referring to.
Similar threads
