game with best graphic so far!

[Neb]

yea... people are pulling an awful lot of bullshots out here for a thread that is about the best game graphics.

Nobody knows what unreleased games will look like when completed and running on a machine with full effects.

Only games that you have played should count. :smile:

so all of you without a next gen machine can just read now.

Perhaps it is best so, only games released. But then no Crysis, no LBP, No Jak3, "votes" then becouse none of them are released...

 

[pjbliverpool]

I'd bet real money that there'll be some kind of a Crysis game on a console and it'll look almost as good. I mean they say it'll run on your old ATI 9xxx - both the Xbox and the PS3 can do way better than what such a PC can present...

Im pretty sure the min requirment is SM3 so we are talking a 6600GT or X1600XT, I seem to recall Crytek quiting those cards. I presume slower isn't included purely from a horsepower point of view.

Obviously both consoles can do much better than that too but then Crysis will look nothing like what we have seen so far on a 6600GT

 

[DJ12]

Perhaps it is best so, only games released. But then no Crysis, no LBP, No Jak3, "votes" then becouse none of them are released...

It's not Jak3, that was out ages ago, it's Rachet and Clank.

Anyway, it's of little importance. Crysis shouldn't be in this thread even when it is released seeing as it isn't a console game.

 

[patsu]

I'd bet real money that there'll be some kind of a Crysis game on a console and it'll look almost as good. I mean they say it'll run on your old ATI 9xxx - both the Xbox and the PS3 can do way better than what such a PC can present...

...

A few quick questions in my mind:

but what's the known PC specs for running that coastline demo "as is" ? How well did it run (frame rate and screen size) ? How big is the game world (How long did it take them to create it, how long to load) ?

Can one play in it today (alpha or beta is ok !) ? Is it a game yet ?

 

[Neb]

It's not Jak3, that was out ages ago, it's Rachet and Clank.

Anyway, it's of little importance. Crysis shouldn't be in this thread even when it is released seeing as it isn't a console game.

Ratchet and Clank it was!
I think the author of this thread meant all games on all platforms, but seeing as there isn't any general console+PC+other forum section this would be the one to use then. Or do you propose that it would be better to have the same thread in both the console section and PC section but restricting PC game votes to PC section and vice versa?

 

[pjbliverpool]

It's not Jak3, that was out ages ago, it's Rachet and Clank.

Anyway, it's of little importance. Crysis shouldn't be in this thread even when it is released seeing as it isn't a console game.

More accurately the thread should be moved to the primary games forum as the thread starter clearly meant to include PC games.

 

[pjbliverpool]

...

A few quick questions in my mind:

but what's the known PC specs for running that coastline demo "as is" ? How well did it run (frame rate and screen size) ? How big is the game world (How long did it take them to create it, how long to load) ?

Can one play in it today (alpha or beta is ok !) ? Is it a game yet ?

Specs and framerates are unknown at present. The gameworld is huge, at least an 8KM draw distance although 16KM was mentioned in one of the vids. Its playable in some early form as it was at GDC and it was almost certainly playing on an 8800GTX (or two) because of the DX10 effects.

 

[scooby_dooby]

They have shown a bit of game footage. See the links above. Also, many of the games people are noting (BFBC, LBP, R&C, etc) are not released either. Out of such titles we have seen substantially more of Crysis. So I can understand how one could argue that these games are not released so one personally wouldn't consider them, but that should apply equally to all the games not released. e.g. Like links to R&C

True, but Crysis is a game engine as well as a game, and as such they are producing a wide variety of screens/videos that will never be in a game at all. Hardly a valid submission to best 'game' gfx imo.

At least with Mass Effect, or R&C, what we're seeing is from an actual game. Who knows where these Crysis shots are from, or whether they will ever appear in the game.

 

[scooby_dooby]

It is strange that they call Crysis shots BS considering real time game scenes have been shown since last year and even been playable by GDC/E3 visitors.

I don't really have a problem with those screens, but I haven't seen alot of thos posted. It's these one's IGN-Dave keeps posting comparing an empty rooom to real life, or a scenic mountain view from 10,000 feet in the air, that I think are pointless.

 

[Techno+]

http://www.crysis-online.com/Media/Images/Screenshots/comp04.jpg
Guess which ones the game and which ones a real photo

the one on the left is real, and the one on the right is the game.

 

[patsu]

True, but Crysis is a game engine as well as a game, and as such they are producing a wide variety of screens/videos that will never be in a game at all. Hardly a valid submission to best 'game' gfx imo.

At least with Mass Effect, or R&C, what we're seeing is from an actual game. Who knows where these Crysis shots are from, or whether they will ever appear in the game.

I don't really have a problem with those screens, but I haven't seen alot of thos posted. It's these one's IGN-Dave keeps posting comparing an empty rooom to real life, or a scenic mountain view from 10,000 feet in the air, that I think are pointless.

Ah I see. All good points.

 

[IGNDavid]

I don't really have a problem with those screens, but I haven't seen alot of thos posted. It's these one's IGN-Dave keeps posting comparing an empty rooom to real life, or a scenic mountain view from 10,000 feet in the air, that I think are pointless.

Look at the videos I and others have posted. If you didnt know, links to videos, screenshots etc. are blue

 

[patsu]

Look at the videos I and others have posted. If you didnt know, links to videos, screenshots etc. are blue

Don't quite understand this statement. But I think what Scooby meant is that the context for interpreting these shots are missing (even though they may look good). So it may be apples vs oranges.

 

[Neb]

Don't quite understand this statement. But I think what Scooby meant is that the context for interpreting these shots are missing (even though they may look good). So it may be apples vs oranges.

The thing is that there are tons of screenshots/videos showing Crysis being played in real-time by devs or journalist where you can see the graphics upclose and they do look every bit as good as the far distant view screenshots.

 

[patsu]

The thing is that there are tons of screenshots/videos showing Crysis being played in real-time by devs or journalist where you can see the graphics upclose and they do look every bit as good as the far distant view screenshots.

Sure ! People will believe what they want to (I don't really mind or care ).

Game graphics are essentially limited by a lot of factors (cost, s/w and h/w performance, game world flexibility and size, load time, development time, talent and art style, ...).

I just need to know the assumptions, requirements and constraints of the technology behind these screens and demos to form my own judgement beyond pretty pictures and visual demos. e.g., Has Crysis been demoed for 1 complete level ?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Shifty, you are really barking up the wrong tree in regards to Crysis lighting.

Don't get me wrong. Crysis' lighting is awesome. I'm only talking tech for those (IGNDavid) arguing about the techniques between games, trying to identify one game as being technically superior to another. For those thinking Crysis' GI is the same sort of thing as LBP, I'm just correcting them.

Crysis doesn't take the 3D volumetric lighting solution of LBP and apply it to big rooms and long views. Crysis (as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong!) uses precalculated lighting maps (presumably including richer lighting detail like PRT?) and blends between them/processes them to adjust to changing lighting conditions. That's a fundamentally different technique to LBP. Looking at stills and saying 'this looks like GI to me' doesn't tell you the techniques used to obtain that look, so doesn't let you compare techniques. And when the techniques are very different, how can you claim one to be technically superior? Which is trechnically superior - an apple or an orange?

Then how do you argue technical superiority of very different styles? Ratchet and Clank has been shown, and some of the stuff there looks extremely impressive (pending clarification of what's being rendered and how much of that high-IQ is realtime). Yet it's a very different look to Crysis. Is an engine with half the detail and 4x the image-quality better or worse technically? The whole technical argument should be dropped IMO. 'Technical achievement' tries to legitimize a topic that's not based on rational analysis and never can be, because 'best looking' is very subjective. And technical achievement measures different targets for different games. Then again, looking at the topic starter it's obvious this wasn't intended as a debate so much as a 'look how awesome Crysis is on PC, all you console people' statement.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Look at the videos I and others have posted. If you didnt know, links to videos, screenshots etc. are blue

And while you're at it, could you please stop posting these useless 400x300px images that hide every single flaw?

Don't get me wrong, Crysis is the bar as far as I'm concerned. When I first saw the trailer with the realistic foliage, and lighting back in 05, I said to myself "Give me those GFX, and I'll be happy forever". To me, Crysis is the nextgen bar, I'll be happy if the systems can meet that level, and i'm not looking for more.

But some of these screens you're throwing up are just PR tech demo's, and totally useless.

 

[Neb]

Sure ! People will believe what they want to (I don't really mind or care ).

Game graphics are essentially limited by a lot of factors (cost, s/w and h/w performance, game world flexibility and size, load time, development time, talent and art style, ...).

I just need to know the assumptions, requirements and constraints of these screens and demos to form my own judgement beyond pretty pictures and visual demos. e.g., Has Crysis been demoed for 1 complete level ?

Has LBP, Ratchet and Clank 3, KZ2, (insert non released game here) shown a whole level?

ASWER: No they show parts becouse they dont whant to spoil a whole level to the fans or viewers!

 

[patsu]

Has LBP, Ratchet and Clank 3, KZ2, (insert non released game here) shown a whole level?

ASWER: No they show parts becouse they dont whant to spoil a whole level to the fans or viewers!

That's what I'm talking about. At least LBP has 1 simple level from start to finish (But they didn't show me the initial load time... I might use MotorStorm as a worst case load time here). I have not even seen Lair, let alone R&C3 and KZ2 to comment about them. So I'll reserve my judgement.

EDIT:
Note that this is just my personal yardstick. You don't have to follow.

 

[Neb]

QUOTE=scooby_dooby;948541]And while you're at it, could you please stop posting these useless 400x300px images that hide every single flaw?[/QUOTE]

I didn't here you or others complain in the LBP thread about the 400x300 or less res images posted in the first page of that thread, you would class them to as useless?

Neverthless just visit IGN or any other and view full size screens or must I guide you to them (I'll link them for you if you whant)?

Also I believe 800x600 is the max image size at this forum, yes?

http://www.crysis-online.com/Media/[