Anti-aliasing appreciation thread (lol)

[caz32]

The flexibility of Crysis makes it a great game. One of my personal favorites, but it doesn't match up to HL2. Crysis is a good flexible sandbox game, with good shooting but a dire story and nothing else particularly outstanding. HL2 is a complete game. HL2 tells a great story, and it tells it well. HL2 does pacing perfectly. HL2 has great characters. HL2 has atmosphere. The shooting in HL2 is great and feels skill based.

I love the guns in HL2 and the feel of them, only game I've played recently where guns actually feel nice is borderlands

PC gaming definitely owes a great deal to cryengine for sure.
It acts as a counter to UE3 in terms of what we look for in graphics.

ps.

These are Xbox screenshots of a Farcry spinoff, can tell the poster never played it

I thought they were, cause I don't remember it looking that good

 

[Omaeka]

PC gaming definitely owes a great deal to cryengine for sure.
It acts as a counter to UE3 in terms of what we look for in graphics.

Cryengine, Source & Unreal are the 3 biggest names in customizable engines, people can actually create whole new games after getting their hands on construction versions of the engines, right?

Tbh, we most likely have Source to thank for the ability to do that on the others, so maybe Half-Life 2 has done something.

 

[Omaeka]

PC gaming definitely owes a great deal to cryengine for sure.
It acts as a counter to UE3 in terms of what we look for in graphics.

These are Xbox screenshots of a Farcry spinoff, can tell the poster never played it

Aye, I only played it on Xbox.

I can go and find a million games from 2004 that looked better than the original Half-Life 2 though, if you want.

EDIT: MY FIRST EVER DOUBLE POST!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

MERGE MY POSTS PLEASE MODS! BEFORE I KILL SOMEBODY!!

YES! BRB!

 

[Murray]

Half Life 2 > Crysis.

Sure Crysis might look "better" but no way does HL2 look bad at all, played it again recently and was enjoyed it way more than playing any games like Crysis, BF3 etc.

Half Life 2 is one of the best FPS games of all time. I also played HL1 recently and I didn't think that looked bad at all either, I guess I just don't care about graphics looking "realistic", more so the game running smoothly and playing well.

 

[orderoftheflame]

Still nothing revolutionary, Steam is awesome but I'm sure we'd 'survive without it'.

Digital Distribution is a huge part in PC gaming now, and Steam paved the direction big time. It's still the leader by a long way. We'd "survive" without PC games entirely... Steam has made a far bigger difference to gaming than the CryEngine, by a country mile.

As for the games it paved the way for, again; they haven't done anything but be great games, no game outside of the Source engine has the Source engine to thank for anything.

See my edit regarding physics?

I'm not sure I get this point at all... You're saying that source would have been a better product if another company had asked Valve for a "strategic partnership" and put a lot of the ideas and effort into their own engine? Or that Source is worse because Valve decided to stand on their own two feet?

The feel and look of BF3 was the best to date in the series, I have no idea why BF3 gets all the hate it does, its a good game.

Because the gameplay and smoothness of other engines is better? I'll concede that's opinion, but compared to engines like IdTech and Unreal, it's clunky in terms gameplay feeling. It's very pretty, but it's not a great game.

I can go and find a million games from 2004 that looked better than the original Half-Life 2 though, if you want.

While you're at it.. If you find any that are held in higher regard and are considered better games by the majority of the PC gaming community let me know!

 

[Murray]

Still nothing revolutionary, Steam is awesome but I'm sure we'd 'survive without it'.


The feel and look of BF3 was the best to date in the series, I have no idea why BF3 gets all the hate it does, its a good game.

I sure as hell wouldn't have bought at least 100 of the PC games I have if it wasn't for steam. Steam really helped PC gaming IMO.

BF2 was easily the best in the series, I think almost anyone would agree with me there but no doubt that BF3 looks the best but only because it was realised to recently.

 

[Omaeka]

Digital Distribution is a huge part in PC gaming now, and Steam paved the direction big time. It's still the leader by a long way. We'd "survive" without PC games entirely... Steam has made a far bigger difference to gaming than the CryEngine, by a country mile.

Lets not get into this, we can survive without anything bar food and water.

See my edit regarding physics?

I'm not sure I get this point at all... You're saying that source would have been a better product if another company had asked Valve for a "strategic partnership" and put a lot of the ideas and effort into their own engine? Or that Source is worse because Valve decided to stand on their own two feet?

No, I'm saying the Cryengine did more for the advancement of graphics (WHAT THIS WHOLE TOPIC IS ABOUT) than Source ever has or ever will. I respect what Valve has done.

Because the gameplay and smoothness of other engines is better? I'll concede that's opinion, but compared to engines like IdTech and Unreal, it's clunky in terms gameplay feeling.

Personally, I prefer that, Battlefield 3 is meant to be the middle ground between **** like Call of Duty and simulators like ArmA, it works as an arcade game but has a degree of simulation, whether that was DICE's intention or not, its what we have.

While you're at it.. If you find any that are held in higher regard and are considered better games by the majority of the PC gaming community let me know!

Resident Evil 4, without that = no Gears of War, without GoW = possibility of no huge advancement of the Unreal engine.

 

[KNiVES]

I honestly believe Steam is the one thing propping up PC gaming right now. Not just the diverse software line-up and accessibility that helps both developers and players, it has literally saved developers from going under. See Amnesia for example, they were going to go under until it was sold on Steam.

Resident Evil 4, without that = no Gears of War, without GoW = possibility of no huge advancement of the Unreal engine.

Massive, massive stretch that just isn't true. UE3 was in development before RE4 even came out, and Gears of War was inspired by Kill.Switch, not RE4.

 

[Omaeka]

I honestly believe Steam is the one thing propping up PC gaming right now. Not just the diverse software line-up and accessibility that helps both developers and players, it has literally saved developers from going under. See Amnesia for example, they were going to go under until it was sold on Steam.

When that has anything to do with graphics, let me know.

Massive, massive stretch that just isn't true. UE3 was in development before RE4 even came out, and Gears of War was inspired by Kill.Switch, not RE4.

Apparently Gears of War was also inspired by Zelda, you'll read a lot of **** in the internet. Cliff himself said multiple times that no RE4 = no GoW. How do we know that without GoW, the UE3 engine would have progressed for the better?

Reality > Speculations.

 

[KNiVES]

Chris Esaki was the lead designer of Kill.switch, who made the cover system and combat mechanics for that game and was bought in by Epic and Microsoft to work on the same systems for Gears of War.

The Steam comment I made was in response to Murray's post.

 

[Daichin]

Cryengine just used lots of the stuff that existed back then. Cryengine didn't invent whole new ways of rendering graphics.

The things we use now work better, and are whole new ways of rendering graphics. Crytek had nothing to do with those things being invented and their game didn't trigger those things being invented.

So yes, those things always would have happened because Crysis had nothing to do with them happening.

 

[Omaeka]

Chris Esaki was the lead designer of Kill.switch, who made the cover system and combat mechanics for that game and was bought in by Epic and Microsoft to work on the same systems for Gears of War.

So if I'm inspired by Van Gogh to paint art, and hire some random artist to help me create a piece of artwork, then the credit of inspiration goes to the latter? Wait wut?

 

[orderoftheflame]

No, I'm saying the Cryengine did more for the advancement of graphics (WHAT THIS WHOLE TOPIC IS ABOUT) than Source ever has or ever will. I respect what Valve has done.

It didn't really push the overall standard up though really, did it? Fine by itself, but how long did it take for anyone to beat it? Heck, if anything I'm sure it put other developers of tackling overambitious projects because of the huge backlash from the community. I don't see how you think it's spawned an entire "advancement" by itself at all...

I can't just take an engine and game on the shinyness of it's graphics alone... That's not what makes games good, you could just "play" 3DMark and tech demo's if it was.

Resident Evil 4, without that = no Gears of War, without GoW = possibility of no huge advancement of the Unreal engine.

Uh, no, regardless of the usual stretched truth garbage that Cliff Blezinsky makes up in the middle of interviews. UE3 was already in development, and he'd have made gears without RE4, even if there was influence from it.

 

[KNiVES]

So if I'm inspired by Van Gogh to paint art, and hire some random artist to help me create a piece of artwork, then the credit of inspiration goes to the latter? Wait wut?

The analogy would be closer to being inspired by Van Gogh and then hiring the guy himself to paint for you, instead of some random person. Everything I said has pretty much been spot on, there's no need to be so aggressive.

The History of Gears of War
Chris Esaki interview
Kill.switch gameplay

 

[Omaeka]

It didn't really push the overall standard up though really, did it? Fine by itself, but how long did it take for anyone to beat it? Heck, if anything I'm sure it put other developers of tackling overambitious projects because of the huge backlash from the community. I don't see how you think it's spawned an entire "advancement" by itself at all...

Its paved the way for extreme levels of graphics and was and still is a huge graphical benchmark, and its 5 years old. People talk about Crysis to this date and use it as an example of godlike graphics and test their hardware with it. Do you honestly think games like Metro, Battlefield 3, even Witcher 2 and Skyrim would look as good as they do today if Crysis wasn't in the past as the graphical pioneer of this generation?

I can't just take an engine and game on the shinyness of it's graphics alone... That's not what makes games good, you could just "play" 3DMark if it was.

Its also not what this topic is about.

Uh, no, regardless of the usual stretched truth garbage that Cliff Blezinsky makes up in the middle of interviews. UE3 was already in development, and he'd have made gears without RE4, even if there was influence from it.

Speculation bro, we aren't even talking about the graphics of Resident Evil 4 here neither, considering it had the pressure of working on both PC and console, something Half Life 2 didn't until 2006, and the fact it looks better than Half Life 2 anyway, gives it a technical edge over it, ran beautifully aswell.

Then there is Warcraft 3, which looks better than anything pre-2005, and was made in 2002, R.I.P Blizzard.

The analogy would be closer to being inspired by Van Gogh and then hiring the guy himself to paint for you, instead of some random person. Everything I said has pretty much been spot on, there's no need to be so aggressive.

The History of Gears of War
Chris Esaki interview
Kill.switch gameplay

I'm not being aggressive at all. Maybe your right, maybe Kill.Switch did more for the controls and feel of GoW, but graphically it looks like trash, I doubt it inspired anything in that department. Gameplay wise though, looks brilliant, shame I missed out on this title growing up.

 

[orderoftheflame]

Its paved the way for extreme levels of graphics and was and still is a huge graphical benchmark, and its 5 years old. People talk about Crysis to this date and use it as an example of godlike graphics and test their hardware with it. Do you honestly think games like Metro, Battlefield 3, even Witcher 2 and Skyrim would look as good as they do today if Crysis wasn't in the past as the graphical pioneer of this generation?

Why not? All of those games are logical developments of their predecessors and not linked to Crysis.. If you completely ignore Crysis's existence the rest of the industry continued to progress at a steady pace. Up to this point. I'd argue that there was no sudden spurt inline with Crysis's release, if anything the new consoles that we're released before hand would have had far more affect (good or bad..).

Why do you assume that without Crysis they would have taken another path? Crysis didn't introduce any new unique revolutionary techniques or technology, did it? It just used what had been done before ramped up and coupled with ridiculous (for the time) system requirements.

Source has had at least some new things for sure. Wasn't the Lost Coast a tech demo for some new HDR technique?

Speculation bro,

Hypocrite. Half your argument is speculation.

 

[Daichin]

Crysis didn't do ANYTHING new though. Crysis just had more polygons. More shaders. Higher resolution textures. More shaders. Also more shaders. It was a natural step up from existing technology but it was a step too far. It doesn't have all of the new technology and thats why it runs so badly. It did the same old things everything else did.

Other games would look just as good since they are making use of new technology, new hardware, new programming techniques.

Crysis didn't pioneer anything at all, it just did the same as everything else but had more of it.

Honestly, something like Rage with megatextures is more of a pioneer than Crysis is.

 

[CaptainRAVE]

Just Cause 2 just looks gorgeous! Still the best looking game imo due to the scale, view distance, and graphics combined - It's unreal!

Agreed, it looks fantastically good considering how well it ran.

 

[arc@css]

Am I right is saying you game at 1440x900, Omaeka? That'll explain why you're getting good performance from your 6850; not that it's a bad card, you just won't necessarily get that kind of performance with games when you increase the resolution and try to keep the same high levels of AA.

When you get a higher res monitor, I wonder if you'll still prefer AA over resolution? Let us know your thoughts when you do.

 

[Squark]

That's opinion though, I personally prefer the three games you just slated, HL2 is good but its not an insane, jaw dropping, revolutionary and down right godly title and hasn't done anything for video gaming in terms of development, maybe except being a great game. I can assure you if you didn't have the Crytek engine you most probably wouldn't have the Frostbite engine today.



It has one of the best combat engines I've ever played, only one I prefer is ArmA 2 and Metro.

I thought the gameplay in Crysis was rubbish, I got so bored/annoyed with it I never bothered to finish the game. HL² has always been great, and the fact that they keep improving the game engine over time to make it look better just makes it even greater