Discussion in 'Games' started by 1nf3rn0x, Feb 25, 2013.
It also has zombies and dinosaurs!
nah, not even close. i was going to install crysis 3 but i heard it would give me a virus. so i don't know first hand but from what erocker tells me bf3 graphics are not as good.
I was gonna install Crysis 3 play with everyone for a day on TS then leave because I can't handle it when people talk to me. Then cry on another TS to people who don't care about me but act like they do.
Is it that virus called "W32/EAftw.BF3ruckz.aaeh" ?? Cause I think I got it.
yea, that is the one being spread around. sure, crysis 3 graphics are the best out there. much better than bf3 but you MAY get a virus according to internet rumor. the choice is yours: best graphics + virus ...or... ok graphics and no virus.
this crysis 1 is beautiful they may have made some improvments to the later engines but imo its all watered down so that console peasants can play PC games.
I think Ill stick with a game that's fun and the controls don't suck. BF3 all day.
I agree. Crysis 1 with mods is damn pretty.
The big problem with this discussion is most people don't seem to have trained their eye for detail very well. And every complaint I've seen is talking about things not specific to Crysis 3 but to every game on the pc. Just looking at the nanosuit hand on the guns you can see the leap of detail over Crysis 2. The MaLDoHD v4 that impressed me so much a week ago now bores me, and we've long ago surpassed Crysis 1 even with mods. I have to mention that because some people still think this looks better than 2 despite it having half the polygons and way less environmental and lighting detail, which brings me back to the point that hardly anyone seems to have trained their eye for the level of detail this discussion requires.
How about Sniper 2, based on Cry engine 3?
i think it has alot more to do with visual trickery. for example camo (cell?) painted guns are matte which allows you not to use lighting effects on the object sure it shines a little but i mean your using simple shadows at best. and lets not forget world size in crysis 1 i can go wherever i please. Thats alot to load and still look good. That said it stands to reason I can make a 20ft/20ft section look way better with the same amount of memory usage.
im not saying the game looks bad. Im just saying I think crysis 1 takes the cake you really cant compare 2 engines. they have changed so much its not as simple as comparing the frostbyte engines. you went from open world to medium linear. I prefer the original cryengine and think its more of an engineering feat. no big deal
That and Crysis 1 uses real-time lighting on EVERYTHING. There are really no tricks to it. Leaves cast individual shadows and such. As for the physics of the engine Crysis 2 and 3 are not even in the same ball park as Crysis 1. People talk about the "trained eye" have no clue what they are even looking at.
Basically Crysis 1 STILL cannot be run on todays gen of consoles but Crysis 2 and 3 can. That should tell you everything.
What benchmark are you using to make those claims about the physics?
I've spent hours upon hours in a heavily modified Crysis 1 for various screenshot contests, and despite running slower than Crysis 3 the graphics just aren't there. There's no AO on the grass, tiled textures everywhere, trees are low poly jokes. The sequels are massively optimized, that is how they run better while presenting better visuals. If you like a map layout from one better than in the later games that's a far cry from being a graphics issue.
Well Crysis 2 and 3 aren't maxed out on consoles... And I heard rumors of them porting Crysis 1 to consoles, scaled down of course.
Bust apart any shed in Crysis 1. Watch the sun scale across the sky and watch the shadows. Honestly man I don't think you know what you are talking about. All the lighting in the new Crysis games are stagnate and has zero real time physics. They might look better but they have a LOT less going on and use a LOT of trickery. If you had those visuals in Crysis 1 not a rig on the planet would run it.
dragon age 3 should be something be realy good
You mean like what happens in this demo?
No like this......
That's true real time lighting. Individual leaves and such. Crysis 1 was VERY well optimized. Its just the technology it used was super demanding. These new Crysis game use a lot of trickery.
You keep implying I don't know what I'm talking about, then you say something no one can take seriously like "has zero real time physics." Did you even play 3? Everything I hid behind literally crumbled under enemy fire. Are you even firing these games up? I’ve bounced between all of them at least weekly since they’ve come out. I know them better than you apparently.
This, if there were to be anything to his "argument." If, and it’s a big if, the Crysis 1 engine can do a few things better then Cryengine 3 can do many things better. What seems more likely to me is they’re restraining their usage of the new engine to keep a higher performance level, but they’re definitely getting more bang for their buck.
And even in a scenario where Crysis 1's engine is more capable, we're not talking about what the games could look like we're talking about what they do look like, and Crysis 1 has been left in the dust long ago.
That "breaking apart" is pre animated mumbo jumbo. That's not even close to the same level of physics in Crysis 1.
Crysis 1 had far better shadowing and lighting. Crysis 3 has more features and can get some fairly impressive visuals but at the end of the day Lighting and Shadow effects play a huge role in overall graphical representation.
Crysis 3 they focused more on static lighting and shadows to greatly improve performance this allowed them to push Tessellation to ridiculously unneeded levels in Crysis 2 for instance.
However its already been stated by Maldo whos modded all the games that most of the terrible performance in Crysis 3 at the highest settings can be blamed on broken Physics on items like rope lol.
So in theory while extra newer features have been added they simplified and dumbed down a more important aspect while still cocking things up.
At the end of the day Crysis 1 with Dynamic Lighting and Shadowing can achieve a more realistic blend of color tone saturation lighting shadowing and subsurface scattering.
Crysis 2 and 3 subsurface scattering lighting shadows etc are more akin to what is seen in Unreal Engine and less like the Crysis of old. Again this does allow them to push DX11 effects with similar or better frame rates however It still doesnt change the fact they had to simplify many thing to get to that point. And that Crysis 3's performance issues are tied to a ROPE physics settings beting set to update once ever 2 frames
this means if FPS is 60 a rope on screen drops FPS to 30 due to update frequency. Physics in All crysis games are rather lackluster good from a proprietary standpoint but nothing amazing.
Yea CE2 has better lighting, but CE3 does water and reflections way better. Plus the physics in CE3 although kill FPS look awesome. Ignoring the rope physics the cloths swaying from the rush of wind in the first map of Crysis 3 look amazing. Plus I'd say particles look better in CE3 as well.
Physics are always more important than graphics to me. One of the main reasons why GTA IV is still great.
The sandbox editor for Crysis 1 was amazing. I probably messed with it for over a hundred hours alone. The game itself....meh....
Mirrors Edge looks better.
Separate names with a comma.