The art cannot even take it a close by lightyears (unless you meant the real-life video part encoding? oO ). Art alone cannot give you the things take really makes it life like in movement. I've seen the ending and I fail to see how it even looks more realistic than Ghost Recon 2 city scene for the first xbox. And GR2 certainly is on another level technically and then GRAW for xbox360 runs rigns around GR2 and Bravia level demo runs rings around GRAW. But that is for another thread. :smile:
The ps2 metal gear solid 2 new york street looks very very good, I'd have to see the first ghost recon, how it handled distant textures*(cause several titles I played on the original xbox had horrible blurathon a few meters ahead, horrible texture filtering.). The ps2 city while textures might shimmer at some angle, the excellent camera placement diminished or eliminated shimmering entirely in some segments, leading to crisp textures into the distance.
I've seen GRAW on 360 the way it's designed gives away the computer graphics nature of it.
The reality of Crytek is that it can demand Gigs of RAM for assets, and you're not going to match that texture fidelity on consoles. A look at this road surface
http://i30.tinypic.com/m92hdh.png shows quality the consoles just can't fit! A similar and fantastically looking engine may be possible but the quality of images would have to come from elsewhere to awesome texture resolutions on everything. Perhaps procedural synthesis could take some textures and apply some cracks and generate a road? I think we've seen so little of procedural synthesis though that devs must be more concerned leveraging processing elsewhere. It's interesting from the POV of a challenge, but still the most pointless of conversations! "Can a $300 console beat a $2000 PC in IQ?" Let's go visit car forums and
try talking about $5000 cars outdoing $40000 cars...
Maybe there's something wrong with several of my monitors, or maybe you're just joking here, cause that looks like a blurry ps2 texture. I saw sharper textures in Gears of War, heck some were so sharp that it was possibly close to the 720p display limits, extremely tiny details side by side one or two pixels apart.
Unreal Tournament 3 for ps3, has several extremely good textures, of course just like gears there are exceptions here and there, and some very very large open levels. I was actually surprised, given most of my previous experience with Unreal Engine 3 games.
If people were serious about conversing about console performance, they'd take specific points of CryEngine and discuss possibilities, rather than just splashing up screenshots with no more argument than 'can't do it, can do it.'
As for the physics, they're pretty tame. The teapots are actually working on a sphere-model, bouncing like balls rather than teapots, which is the most efficient physics entity possible.
People have many times mistaken gt4 cars for real life, while several games with far more powerful hardware have failed to fool the same people even once, that's the power of art.
There are several ps2 games with practically horizon reaching draw distances and many objects on screen, and that was on 32MB main ram.
Again reminding people of the power of art, many have been disappointed with the ps3 and 360 silent hill sequel, comparing it to screens of silent hill 3 a ps2 title. The ps2 title, looked better in the eyes of many, and in my eyes. In the end what's put on screen is what matters, if tricks and mirrors get you similar or even better results(sometimes fooling people into thinking something is real life or CG), than there's no arguing with it.
