Sorry if this is to many pictures.I just want yall to see the lighting effects and shadows this games pulls off.This would bring xbox to its knees.Ive seen doom on pc and this game even looks better than that to me and doom on xbox looks shitty compared to the pc version of that.
Far Cry on next gen machines..?
- Thread starter PARANOiA
- Start date
But if xbox could do that u would be like omg look at this best looking thing there is.If you think them pics look fugly something is wroung.Them are the most realistic pics of a game thats out.No other game comes close but doom3 maybe and i thought halflife2 but it looks oksince last time i looked.
Infinity_ said:
My point has nothing to do on which platform those screenshots are from - they just don't appeal to me in anyway, other than a technical perspective in which it does not fail to impress. I actually find FarCry to be leaps and bounds away from looking realistic - I think both Doom 3 and Half-Life 2 do a much better job at what they're trying to achieve: Doom 3 coming very close to CG-look and Half-Life 2 being very realistic in terms of representation and work of physics. At this point, the most realisitc looking moments I had in gaming are undoubtedly from MGS2 (only the tanker-scene outside in the rain) and the GT3 wet tracks. To me, a game trying to mimic reality should try to emphasize more on physics (like for wind, rain effects, animation of characters, realisitc movement, lighting etc) and less on the amount of textures, per pixel effects etc. The most realistic thing represented in those screens is probably the water which does look indeed very good and the lighting. Everything else is just colorful and IMO comes across as very fake looking. Even the characters are quite disappoiting in that regard looking very fake and like barbie dolls.
IMHO, the most impressive and most realistic looking video of a game I've seen was the first video of Resident Evil 4 with the rain and intense lightning effects. (Haven't seen the Half-Life 2 video yet)
Everything of the above is of course IMO.
I agree with pretty much everything u said Phil, especially the fact that there is a need to focus on physics and particles, and not on textures, which i'm happy will be the way at least Sony will go for in the next generation (extending the "phylosophy" they always kept faithful to).
Having said that, Farcry is one hell of a goodlooking game, surely the prettiest (technically) i've ever played. Some of the post-processing effects are very clever and good-looking indeed. And the water too, which is far from "looking real", but it does look pretty nonetheless. Shame it's so damn slow even on high end machines.
Personally i'm much much more keen on Painkiller, which has a physics engine (the Havok2) that can become a minigame in itself. Can't wait to play HL2 and more games based on the Havok2 physics engine.
And of course i can't wait to see what next-gen machines will handle physics and animation-wise, seen how even MS is going the "lotsa CPU power" way...
Having said that, Farcry is one hell of a goodlooking game, surely the prettiest (technically) i've ever played. Some of the post-processing effects are very clever and good-looking indeed. And the water too, which is far from "looking real", but it does look pretty nonetheless. Shame it's so damn slow even on high end machines.
Personally i'm much much more keen on Painkiller, which has a physics engine (the Havok2) that can become a minigame in itself. Can't wait to play HL2 and more games based on the Havok2 physics engine.
And of course i can't wait to see what next-gen machines will handle physics and animation-wise, seen how even MS is going the "lotsa CPU power" way...
About your commet about Resident Evil 4.Ive looked at some pics of this game and close up pics the cloths are blurry dont look good and the faces look good.They can do this because all the game is a person in a movie.What im saying all the backgrounds are prerenderd and u cant interact with them so they can take the power from doing all the background real time and put them on the faces etc.Its just a cheap way to make a game look good.You couldnt do a FPS game like this.A computer could do all of that and the background in realtime.So u have to look at it at that point.Farcry makes makes that game look shitty but it has a diffrent look for the men because thats how they wanted them to look and there isnt no prerenderd computer stuff in that game like RE4.Xbox cant even run farcry and a gamecube sure couldnt.
MonkeyLicker
Newcomer
Resident Evil 4 is 100% real-time.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that it wasn't.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that it wasn't.
Infinity_:
I was refering simply to the first video that was shown - the video was perhaps a bad representation of the game because it was filmed using a video-camera off a tv set. Still, the game featured some amazing lighting and wind/rain effects, similar to the MGS2 tanker scene. RE4 btw does not have pre-rendered backgrounds - though I do note that the latest released screnes are obviously no where near the detail of FarCry. From the amount of interactivity though and art-direction (especially night), I'd take it anyday.
Call me wierd, but keeping this strict on FPS games: I think KillZone's art direction puts FarCry's (and just about any other game, take out few Konami titles and a few others) to shame. The gritty colours used, the animation and the amount of action going on (planes crashing into buildings, smoke, fire, physics of crashing buildings) is so much more accurate and realistic representated, it isn't even funny.
I was refering simply to the first video that was shown - the video was perhaps a bad representation of the game because it was filmed using a video-camera off a tv set. Still, the game featured some amazing lighting and wind/rain effects, similar to the MGS2 tanker scene. RE4 btw does not have pre-rendered backgrounds - though I do note that the latest released screnes are obviously no where near the detail of FarCry. From the amount of interactivity though and art-direction (especially night), I'd take it anyday.
Call me wierd, but keeping this strict on FPS games: I think KillZone's art direction puts FarCry's (and just about any other game, take out few Konami titles and a few others) to shame. The gritty colours used, the animation and the amount of action going on (planes crashing into buildings, smoke, fire, physics of crashing buildings) is so much more accurate and realistic representated, it isn't even funny.
That game mightbe good what u talking about but there isnt no game at this time that comes close to the Gfx in farcry from the textures used and the lighting and all it almost looks real and there isnt no way its gone to run on xbox or any other concole unless its down graded alot.Look at the doom pics on xbox people are fussing because it looks like crap because it doesnt look like the pc version.Anyone that knows hardware knows xbox doesnt have the hardware to be better than a computer games.If any console did it would cost u over 1000 and no kids would buy that.I did have a xbox and i liked playing it but i sold it because i needed money at the time heh.I havent played farcry yet because i dont have a computer that can.I only have a laptop and it wont its kinda old.
I said that about RE 4 because all the other RE titles on gamecube have had pre renderd backgrounds and CG backgrounds.I went back and looked and it looks like it doesnt have them anymore because they dont look as real as they did before.You can take where they took ouff some stuff tho to make the people look better.The backgrounds are flat looking and the stuff have no detial.On the guys face looks nothing special texture wise and his cloths look shitty.All they did in this game was give it a color tone to make it look real but in the end if you look at it it doesnt have no detial on nothing.It just have that color of looking real to it.It looks good on gamecube dont get me wroung and might be the best looking game on gamecube but it just come close to the games on pc.Then again gamecube hardware isnt nothing to be happy about.This game looks like that scary game on ps2 gamecube and pc.i cant remember the name of it but its old silet hill i think.
<sigh>
As I already said, the points I am criticising about FarCry is platform independend - I am not arguing that Xbox or any current console could mimic what FarCry is pulling off - I am more arguing that a game doesn't need x amount of more textures, pixel-effects or polygons to look better - it all comes down to art direction in the end, which is why, I find the games I mentioned to be more visually impressive than what FarCry is representating.
To elaborate further on what my point is, a lecture on the power of art direction ... presented on 1999 hardware featuring games with subpar, repetitive textures, low polygons, no per pixel effects etc:
KillZone:
Metal Gear Solid 3:
Easily, you can spot the repetitive, low-res textures in both games. Polygons and the lighing is easily shattered by that of FarCry, yet, looking at the screens of both games, which do you think does a better job at representating realism? The point is, a game having better more detailed texutres, per pixel effects, more polygons doesn't necessarly make it look more realistic as shown in the above screens that are done on 1999 hardware - a hardware that could never replicate what is being done in those FarCry screens. I could post screens of GT3 as well, which arguably isn't that technically impressive as other more recent racers (PGR2, Burnout 2/3 etc), yet the wet track is one of the most stunning moments you'll find in a racer.
Those above screens of MGS3 may or may not be that impressive to you - yet it's the movement that makes it the stunning game it is. Download one of the latest movies (or last year's E3 trailer on MGS3) and you will see the second screne with everything in movement. You'd be hard put to notice the low-res textures or other PS2-esque issues, but will be easily stunned by the physics and animation of just about everything represented in that scene.
I actually find it very sad that a technical masterpiece such as FarCry is hammered simply because of lacking art. A game with this kind of engine could look so much better and realisitc.
So to put this silly debate to an end: is Killzone or MGS3 more technically more impressive than FarCry? No. Does MGS3/Killzone look better than FarCry? Certainly subjective - to me they do, by a long shot. They certainly are much closer at representating realism.
For further reference, here are more screens of MGS3 if you find them to be a better representation of the game:
http://ps2media.ign.com/ps2/image/MGS3snakeEater_051303_02.jpg
http://ps2media.ign.com/ps2/image/MGS3snakeEater_051303_11.jpg
http://ps2media.ign.com/ps2/image/MGS3snakeEater_051303_15.jpg
http://ps2media.ign.com/ps2/image/MGS3snakeEater_051303_17.jpg
http://ps2media.ign.com/ps2/image/MGS3snakeEater_051303_19.jpg
http://ps2media.ign.com/ps2/image/MGS3snakeEater_051303_18.jpg
http://ps2media.ign.com/ps2/image/MGS3snakeEater_051303_21.jpg
http://ps2media.ign.com/ps2/image/MGS3snakeEater_051303_23.jpg
Infinity_ said:
As I already said, the points I am criticising about FarCry is platform independend - I am not arguing that Xbox or any current console could mimic what FarCry is pulling off - I am more arguing that a game doesn't need x amount of more textures, pixel-effects or polygons to look better - it all comes down to art direction in the end, which is why, I find the games I mentioned to be more visually impressive than what FarCry is representating.
To elaborate further on what my point is, a lecture on the power of art direction ... presented on 1999 hardware featuring games with subpar, repetitive textures, low polygons, no per pixel effects etc:
KillZone:
Metal Gear Solid 3:
Easily, you can spot the repetitive, low-res textures in both games. Polygons and the lighing is easily shattered by that of FarCry, yet, looking at the screens of both games, which do you think does a better job at representating realism? The point is, a game having better more detailed texutres, per pixel effects, more polygons doesn't necessarly make it look more realistic as shown in the above screens that are done on 1999 hardware - a hardware that could never replicate what is being done in those FarCry screens. I could post screens of GT3 as well, which arguably isn't that technically impressive as other more recent racers (PGR2, Burnout 2/3 etc), yet the wet track is one of the most stunning moments you'll find in a racer.
Those above screens of MGS3 may or may not be that impressive to you - yet it's the movement that makes it the stunning game it is. Download one of the latest movies (or last year's E3 trailer on MGS3) and you will see the second screne with everything in movement. You'd be hard put to notice the low-res textures or other PS2-esque issues, but will be easily stunned by the physics and animation of just about everything represented in that scene.
I actually find it very sad that a technical masterpiece such as FarCry is hammered simply because of lacking art. A game with this kind of engine could look so much better and realisitc.
So to put this silly debate to an end: is Killzone or MGS3 more technically more impressive than FarCry? No. Does MGS3/Killzone look better than FarCry? Certainly subjective - to me they do, by a long shot. They certainly are much closer at representating realism.
For further reference, here are more screens of MGS3 if you find them to be a better representation of the game:
http://ps2media.ign.com/ps2/image/MGS3snakeEater_051303_02.jpg
http://ps2media.ign.com/ps2/image/MGS3snakeEater_051303_11.jpg
http://ps2media.ign.com/ps2/image/MGS3snakeEater_051303_15.jpg
http://ps2media.ign.com/ps2/image/MGS3snakeEater_051303_17.jpg
http://ps2media.ign.com/ps2/image/MGS3snakeEater_051303_19.jpg
http://ps2media.ign.com/ps2/image/MGS3snakeEater_051303_18.jpg
http://ps2media.ign.com/ps2/image/MGS3snakeEater_051303_21.jpg
http://ps2media.ign.com/ps2/image/MGS3snakeEater_051303_23.jpg
Dont get mad heh its just a debate.I see what you saying but its the color the game uses on them two but if you look at it at my view them two games look crappy because of the detail on the textures they look flat like its just a picture flat and blurry like u said.I see your saying farcry looks better in its own way and it does look way better.Now lets say they changed the color of the textures of farcry and the art of it.It would make them games look crappy because only thing that looks good on the games is the art.Now if we look at doom 3 on pc even tho i dont think its useing as much power of farcry thats the art u are looking for in that and it looks way ahead of anything on consoles.I see whatr your saying tho and im sorry if i came off the wroung way but i didnt understand what u ment by it.
I looked at them pictures they look ok.The grass doesnt look real and the ground is flat no detail and the man has no detial.What i like about farcry u can see the incress on there arms of there muscles and the seems on there pants ans the water is the best looking water ive ever seen but if they did take some of the colors out yea it would look more real like u like.
I just dont like consoles.I had a xbox and had one game but i only has it because i didnt have computer after mine messed up.I got the xbox to give me something to do.Ive never played it online tho but people told me it laged because it couldnt handle online play after u got about 14 16 players and thats the max in games.There is one game on computer that allows 70+ players.What games u like ?
LOL I swear some of yall console fans would think pc games wouldnt looked good even if it looked real.Lets see thinks of doom 3 and how xbox fans was like wow this game will be best looking game on xbox by look at the pc pictures and then xbox pictures come out and it looks like crap and they then say they could have did better than that etc.Its kind of funny 
try playing over 16 people on a console it wont happen Not only because it want allow it but it would bog it down to much.
try playing over 16 people on a console it wont happen Not only because it want allow it but it would bog it down to much.Similar threads
