Crytek claims that..
- Thread starter Gerard
- Start date
Yes, but the liar at Crytek said the game would scale well and run on midrange hardware well which it doesn't and now he says it again.
I couldn't disagree more about the comments on far cry and crysis gameplay. I thought it was brilliant to way you could attack any situation in so many different ways. You can play the game over and over in different ways if you wished.
The great graphics, sound and gameplay really immerse you in the game which makes it really enjoyable to play. I seem to be pretty alone in my view though (apart from a lot of internet/magazine game revews).
The great graphics, sound and gameplay really immerse you in the game which makes it really enjoyable to play. I seem to be pretty alone in my view though (apart from a lot of internet/magazine game revews).
^ I agree with you re. Farcry, for gameplay and variety of how you can approach each level each time you play it theres still no other FPS out there that is as good
Re. Crysis, not played it but the original post is interesting, looks like it may get a proper patch in about a year to be more scaleable lol
Re. Crysis, not played it but the original post is interesting, looks like it may get a proper patch in about a year to be more scaleable lol
I'm with you. Too many people seem blinded and unable to see past using the mavity gun over and over again in HL2. yawn.
The sounds part of the reason why immersion is crap with the enemies shouting comments at you a 12 year old would be embarrassed to say.
"im gonna lay the smackdown on you" Wtf is this? WWE fan enemies in the game?
Obviously the graphics are nice but when enemies come out with crap like that it just ruins any immersion factor.
Last edited:
The thing that really bugged me was the dx9/10 jungle fight vid. The game came out looking absoloutely nothing like that.
Anyone seeing that level of detail in the stock game? I sure as hell don't. Mods brought it up to near that level but they often had glitches on the few non jungle levels.
yea, what happened to the game. Why doesn't it look like that
yea, what happened to the game. Why doesn't it look like that
It does look like that...If not more impressive in some places
Yeah when its modded, stock game doesn't look even near that good.
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/6115/comparisonshotxt0.jpg
That pic pretty much sums it up.
Last edited:
It doesn't look like that even when it's modded. Let's forget about unachievable levels of anti aliasing and smoothing of the edges. Some of the features are simply not present anywhere in the real game. If you take a look at that picture you'll notice for example the light shining THROUGH semi transparent textures - very realistic effect, but it's just nowhere to be found in that engine. Same with the smoke and dust around secondary blast radius.
No-one. I was just using it as a comparison.Who even mentioned HL2?
The majority of people who slate Farcry and Crysis for allegedly being repetitive tend to love HL2. Which is far far more repetitive.
As to the original trailers. It didn't suprise me that the game didn't look like that. Even so, it is still far nicer than any other game that came out at the time.
The engine supports these effects, just to say it is actual gameplay was very missleading.
you can get close to that with modding, i don't doubt for a second that cryengine2 can actually reproduce that in real time, but the framerate would be shocking i think, but give crytek a break, crysis has had 3 patches and performance has improved without a shadow of a doubt, get reasonable framerate though whole game using custom settings on my 8800GTS at 1280*1024 and im sorry but whoever said 'it looks crap without FSAA' is talking utter b***ocks, it looks pretty impressive with edge AA and some other tweaks, single biggest eyecandy thing in crysis is HDR, if you can nail HDR just right it looks spectacular, custom TODs help as well
Because we don't have rendering supercomputers costing millions and take hours to render a few images.Why doesn't it look like that
yea, what happened to the game. Why doesn't it look like that
*sigh*
The game does look like that, or at least pretty damn close
You are all being fooled by the motion blur. It makes eveything look softer and more realistic. trust me take loads of pictures of crysis, whilst you are moving and it will look as good as that.
A (pretty bad) example. I could get better ones if i tried
Its easy to see that the blur and depth of field effects make the screenshots look far better than when actually playing it. It is clear to see. That concept image is taken whilst he moves, thus everything is slightly blurred and looks softened and more realistic as you cant pick out the flawed details and edges.
Associate
- Joined
- 16 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,724
- Location
- Worcestershire
Seconded, Crysis beats anything currently available hands down, COD4 ? don't make me laugh, grass, bushes etc, nothing moves its completely dead & lifeless & a huge disapointment to me a I actually bought the game after reading 'good as or better than Crysis graphics' ,lol
Seems to me that its obvious that anyone claiming screenshots aren't actual ingame shots doesn't have a good enough setup to run it because my system can match any of those shots at good framerates no problem.
Before I upgraded I played on Medium but I didn't **** the game off cos it wouldn't run on max settings on my then AGP system
Even parts of the game unseen are hugely detailed such as deep under the sea which is full of life inc. plankton, corals & tropical fish, sharks etc. you can even shoot flocks of birds out of the sky. All the foliage is moving in the wind & casting realtime shadows, explosions shake & bend nearby trees or actually fell them, you walk along the beach & leave footprints in the sand, the ripples in the water have rainbow refractions just like the real thing.
Is there really another game that comes anywhere remotely close to this?