Insane graphics

[PwntUpRage]

Take a look at some of these screenshots these high end computers are getting.

Makes mine look like crap.

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread...014&page=26

[rookie]

Watch it, check out their FPS. They just maxxed it all to take some screenshots. The campaign won't be playable that way.

But sure, it does look amazing and now that it comes from user-pcs and is non-photoshopped I feel free to say it is the best graphics I've seen yet. Now the campaign has to be just as great.

[Rocky]

It does look good, but I got to say, not that much more amazing than say, Call of Juarez, which was released on the PC about ayear ago (?), it has foliage, depth of field, and remarkable water effects, but more importantly, it has double digit FPS on a mid range PC, something Crysis cannot claim.

So, overall, sorry, not impressed.

[Sup]

Agreed. As someone who kinda understands how engines are put together, Crysis is definitely impressive. The lighting and shadowing is really advanced, but it's all subtle stuff that won't really do much to make the game look better. Whereas the strong, lightly stylized art in CoJ makes the game a whole lot more appealing than Crysis's inconsistent photochopped stuff, and the engine, despite having less bells and whistles, definitely did enough.

Let's not forget UT3, either -- it's a scifi action game, nothing that will appeal to any of you, but it's visually stunning and running just fine on modern PCs, at least up into the high settings.

[PwntUpRage]

Not that I want to argue too much on Crysis's behalf as I may not even be buying it now (not impressed by gameplay) but I went to the Juarez site to have a look:

http://www.coj-game.com/

These screenshots don't seem to compare?

Edited October 26, 2007 by PwntUpRage

[rookie]

Yeah well, that's because they don't. CoJ graphics are pi**-poor compared to Crysis. The character-details such as enviromental details are nearly non-existent. So is the shadow/lightening.

Take a look at the shoots from page 39 and 40 where peeps are running the game with the newest DirectX (Nov 07) and the Beta Drivers. There is a huge increase of FPS.

If one is not impressed with those graphics - especially the physics and character-detail besides the obviously huge levels, it more sounds like a comment on a hyped game than on the technology and gameplay itself. The comment on the Mid-range PC prooves that, there is noone out there yet with a Mid-range PC that reported back on settings and Fps.

And for UT3 it sure does look just as impressive as Crysis, but I'm not seeing such a big investment in physics there besides the mostly dark setting that makes shadows nearly useless on some maps.

After all this waiting and peeps getting Crysis to work properly the game seems to have lived up to the hype.

Now all the peeps with mid-range PCs, that most likely didn't pre-order it and therefore no screens are online from machines like that ATM, must step forward over the weekend (so will I - at least try the demo) and report the performance on their system. As long as there is no screen from mid-range PC with Fps and settings out there, how could one say Crysis cannot claim that ?

How many games had poor performances on release and got a huge increase after new drivers got released over the time after the launch ? Should "the game of the year" be an exception ? Didn't think so. For now I'll go with what users provide and get negative on the whole mid-range-thing once the demo gets released to public tomorrow and people proover otherwise.

[Sup]

Trouble is, by the time Crysis is running smooth, a ton of other games that look just as good as or much better than it will be out too.

[rookie]

Crysis is running smooth on many rigs out there already and most of those, who complain try to run the game at ridiciously high settings with 1600+ res and everything maxed out. They should take a break and go down to 1280 and voila there you have it running smooth.

[Sup]

You have a point. But those same pcs *can* run ut3 at 1600+res with everything maxed out and, while the engine is somewhat simpler, in many ways the game looks better.

I'm not saying crysis is an awful game, but it certainly isn't most important pc release since sliced bread halflife.

[Rocky]

Rookie, I run a mid range PC (infact, slighty higher) going by Steam Survey, and the Cysis demo runs like a DOG, even if I claw the thing back to 800x600 on my WS monitor.

Yeah well, that's because they don't. CoJ graphics are pi**-poor compared to Crysis. The character-details such as enviromental details are nearly non-existent. So is the shadow/lightening.

That's plain wrong rookie. Have you even played it? You're looking at static screenshots. Listen to someone who has played BOTH; If I adjust both games to give me 20+ FPS (ie barely playable) CoJ looks in a different league to Cyrsis!

Here's a movie I made over a year ago from CoJ, check it out, bearing in mind video compression.

[PwntUpRage]

Yep, your vid, even compressed looks better than the screeshots at CoJ's site. Odd that they wouldnt put better quality shots on there?

I've watched my 9 year old play the UT3 tournament demo a few times. The game never sits still long enough for me to appreciate the graphics I guess, I've just never thought of it as nothing more than a slightly updated older game.

[rookie]

Sorry Rocky, I wasn't aware you played the Demo yet. I remembered you participating in the Beta which you seemed to have uninstalled pretty fast.

Therefore I though "Ah well, I can compare them both, too" and was judging by the media I was checking out.

Now I better hide under a very small rock.

Btw You are actually able to grab a horses as* in CoJ ? j/k

To find some way out of this humiliation:

I did look at a lot of CoJ-media and none of them was looking as good as in this vid. Looking from that vid it does look very good and more surprisingly is the fact it is one year old.

On the other hand in all these forums I've been reading ppl playing the demo they had near high-end or ultra-high-end machines and tried to play the game in settings made me scratch my head.

Obviously I was wrong and apologize for that.

Now I'm taking a look for that rock I was mentioning ....

[Rocky]

LOL, no need to hunt for a rock.

I see people posting double frame rates now for Crysis using beta drivers, so maybe they got it fixed. I saw Tinker post a d/l for the SP demo a moment ago, so it might be worth trying that, but I have to admit I don't know if I can be bothered - the mp demo was such a disapointment.

But no, you can't grab the CoJ horses as*, but you can ride it! Can you do that in Crysis?

Not to hijack the thread, but I have another CoJ movie here somewhere with the games characters and depth of field onshow, worth watching. If I can find it I'll put it up tomorrow.

[rookie]

Fastest download for the Demo I ran along so far is Filefront.

Still an hour to go though - still looking for a mirror where I can download at full speed. I'll keep a look-out for fast mirrors and post them as they come.

Gamershell.com has a fast(er) mirror up now as well (Netherlands 1000Mbit)

Edited October 27, 2007 by rookie

[Rocky]

Fileplanet don't even list it yet.

Here's that other CoJ movie I made with the characters in it.

[GrimeyAK]

Actually FilePlanet does have it. You just have to click on the subscriber beta and then reserve the demo. At least that's what I did. I'm downloading at about 600-700kb/s.

[Sup]

I've just never thought of it as nothing more than a slightly updated older game.

Well, there are two entirely different ways to look at it. People who are interested in fad gameplay styles like Crysis' open world ironsights stuff see 'older game' and people who have been playing shooters MP seriously for ten years see 'classic'.

Take a look through the highres shots here. It's scifi and it may not appeal to you personally, but there's no denying the quality of ut3's art: http://www.unrealtournament3.com/

[rookie]

So I played the demo on my GF 6800 Ultra on 1024 res, all settings low except for Shader and Sound, those I put on Medium. I get around 20-40fps, mostly the game stays over 30fps. The graphics on that settings look better then FarCry on highest settings(glad about that - though the Comic-style look isn't existent anymore - thank you Crytek), besides the missing AA of course, but I can take that.

The overall-performance is quite good for my ######ty system, so the statement about the ability of older systems to run the game turned out true after all. Over the weekend I'll tweak the settings a bit, knowing I don't have much room to test. The final version I have to borrow from a friends to check out the performance of the launch-version and see about improvements. If it runs slightly better and I can turn some things up, I'll buy it.

The only bug I noticed so far, is the often later spoken voice. Goog-patrol is dead for about 30 seconds and I still hear them talking before they finally shout out their last "OOOUUH" - wait they are dead for a minute now.

Gameplay defintely is nice - I tried the demo first time on default difficulty and it took me about 20Mins to finish w/o stopping once. This is long for a demo these days. I will try the highest difficulty and take a closer look at everything over the weekend. Everyone who loved/loves FarCry will be glad to see the inofficial sequel to it's game with new gameplay and a new story, which is being told nice and makes you feel inside a Hollywood-Action movie with an awesome soundtrack.

Edited October 27, 2007 by rookie

[GrimeyAK]

Wow, my PC actually restarted at one point when I loaded a checkpoint. It hadn't done that since I last upgraded my PSU. Is there some tool I could download or a website I could go to to check power consumption?