COD4 V Crysis

Ulfhedjinn said:
Troll Rating: 3/10. A poor, unimaginative effort but some people will no doubt bite.[/ quote]

I don't think he is trolling. CoD4 doesn't have quite as impressive an engine as Crysis, but some of the levels in CoD4, e.g the sniper level, still look stunning. The Crysis engine manages to create beautiful foliage, but just doesn't seem very efficient and doesn't scale very well with current hardware. Ive seen it running on a QX9650 with 3 x GTX280 and even at 1920 x 1200 the framerate would occasionally hitch and drop into the teens.

As an overall game, CoD4 is much more immersive IMO. I enjoyed the first half of Crysis, but got bored once I started fighting the aliens and still have not been compelled to finish it.
Click to expand...
 
I've completed Crysis and COD4 three times each, and while Crysis is a better game now there's technology that can run it, COD4 is the superior piece of software IMO.
 
I found COD 4 more fun but crysis is a whole other beast technically. COD4 is on rails so they have much more control over whats happening on your screen at any one time and thats on top of the physics and postprocessing etc already mentioned that COD4 doesnt have. when a COD game lets you drive a jeep through the side wall of a house, into 2 guards stood in the bedroom , over the bed then out through the far wall while the roof caves in behind you we can compare like for like ;)
 
Gashman said:
the person above has it spot on, plus cryengine2 does **** loads more than COD4s engine, for example real-time PROPER physics, not some rubbish like in most games, wind affecting foliage, brushing past foliage, HDR and SSAO (first game to use i believe) and another thing it has on any other game, 30FPS in crysis is smooth as silk, 30FPS in COD4 is unplayable so its hard to compare to two TBH
Click to expand...

Excellent comparison.
 
i grant you COD4 was entertaining, single player though short was well thought out and the sniper level is one of my favourite levels in any FPS. when we compare it to say crysis: warhead, again its a relatively short game, little longer than COD4 i would say but don't quote me on this, the engine is superior in all respects though, especially when you look at the list of things it does at any one time in game, crytek have obviously put a lot more work into cryengine2 than the developers did in COD4, so i think its harsh and unfair to penalise them for pushing the boundries of gaming graphics/physics, people rant on about how its 'badly coded' or 'rushed because of EA' but 99% of them don't truely understand how much it does, and to claim something is badly coded when you have no idea how to code is just arrogant. another advantage crysis has over COD4 is sandbox2, the editor is pretty amazing if you can be bothered to sit and play around with it, the amount of physics you can cram into a level and it still run is mind boggling. another thing, yeah COD4 looks pretty good but again it can't be compared in the same argument to crysis, since crysis is bright, vibrant and filled with water/trees/sand/rocks for all the lovely beams to interact with (realistically of course) and by comparison COD4 is dark, gloomy and an altogether totally different enviroment, stand by my point that you can't fairly compare the two, look at these two links and take a look at the difference in locations:

http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/a...f-duty-4-modern-warfare-20070613104408260.jpg

http://www.tweakguides.com/images/Crysis_2.jpg
 
COD4 is brilliant for what it is and I personally think the graphics are very well done and clearly the developers have put in a lot of effort to make it run so well, but put simply, Crysis is in a league of it's own.

COD 4 looks brilliant, but if you actually stop in the middle of the action and take a good look at your surroundings, you'll quickly realise why it runs so smooth.

Unfortunately many people expect a completely linear relationship between observed graphical quality and game performance, which simply doesn't hold true.
 
Crysis all the way. If you have the machine which can max the graphics in that game, then you would not even be comparing. I totally agree with what post #3 said.
 
I was certainly not trolling!

I spend some frustrating time with both Crysis and Crysis W trying to get the game running at a point that was playable. Yes Crysis looks fantastic at max settings but you can't play it without getting a slide show or dropping the resolution.

My point was that I came to COD4 as a late purchase threw it in put everything at Max and couldn't believe how superb it looked along with playing smoothly without resulting to DX9 comand line fixes and hours of tweaking!

I still think some of the textures and environments in COD4 look on par with Crysis....IMO.

Comparing COD4 graphics to Crysis, ROFLAKLITA speak english please.
 
COD4 gives you 100FPS and looks like 8/10

Crysis gives you 20FPS and looks like a 9/10

COD4 wins hands down even though both games are complete rubbish in multiplayer...
 
I played both looked at all aspects. I still say Crysis is better though. I am looking forward to a Crysis sequel a lot more then say COD 5. Not saying COD4 was bad. No I enjoyed that game, but no where near as much as crysis.

As for Crysis being slideshow. Well I run it on Enthusiast (Very High) @ 1920x1200 and I get 20-30 fps (you dont need 100fps you joker) at all times with my 4870 and q6600 @3.6GHz and it runs buttery smooth. So speak for your self. Seems everyone here is comparing the games with systems that cant run Crysis at its max and then comparing. Sure on those system COD4 could be a better experience, but not on a PC that can run both max. That's my opinion anyways.
 
psychas said:
remember by comparing to games , u have to look in different aspects not only the graphics
Click to expand...

to me graphics are the least important...


+ i wanted to add i have played both Crisis + Crisis warhead... atm it seems that crisis looks better than warhead, and the FPS are identicle..

although i can run it at 1920*1200 for some reason, either way it lags the same if not more than crisis and ive tried adding the -DX9 thingy with no change..
 
It's interesting that the sniper level on COD4 seems very popular & yet you get only 2 shots at most to kill the bloke or it reloads to try again, kill him & that's the end of sniping.

Get yourself the sniper gun & scope on Crysis & keep it all thru several levels where you can snipe to your hearts content. Where's the comparison ?
 
I really dont understand why crysis gets all the praise it does?
Its gameplay IS linear regardless of what people are saying, the story is pretty pants and doesnt even finish in the game.

The engine attempts far too much for current hardware and subsequently craps itself.

Crysis has one gimmick, the nanosuit that it relies on and it doesnt even work that well - you cant do each of the powerups for very long rendering them pointless most of the time.

The range of weapons available is pretty poor and they all mostly feel the same

Oh and aliens....you what?!

Cod 4 isnt perfect i admit, but overall its a far better game than crysis can ever be, even if you have the hardware to run it
 
there is nothing better then sneaking to someone and knifing them from behind.

and crysis fist + maximum strength just does not live up to a knife :rolleyes:

sits and imagines what nerve gas will do in cod5
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom