Crysis-Final vs. Crytek-Screens

Crysis-Final vs. Crytek-Screens

http://www.pcgames.de/aid,626967/News/Ego-Shooter/Crysis_Halten_vorab_veroeffentlichte_Screenshots_ihre_Versprechen/

Here is a amazing Screenshot:

http://www.pcgames.de/?menu=browser&article_id=626967&image_id=755083

It wouldn't surprise me if Crytek had developed the game and had it running on a PC with some hardware that is not available to the public yet. I mean they have said the game isn't able to be run at the most highest setting on available tech at the moment.1005

Nah, they didn't even have directx 10 cards at the time when those screenshots were released. Preview screenshots about an upcoming game are usually not taken from within the game. They could be made with the actual 3D engine but effetcs are added afterwards to make them look better. You see that with just about every game.

Game developers don't have access to newer hardware than you or me. That's a myth.

I love those first movies (from the beggining of 2006) where they show real-time some features that are Vista and DX10-only. And it looks better than the final release too.

I'm sure that Crytek had prototype hardware.

And if I remember well, at E3 06 they were emulating DX10 on DX9, I guess it's the same trick that was discovered after launch...

Nah, they didn't even have directx 10 cards at the time when those screenshots were released. Preview screenshots about an upcoming game are usually not taken from within the game. They could be made with the actual 3D engine but effetcs are added afterwards to make them look better. You see that with just about every game.

Game developers don't have access to newer hardware than you or me. That's a myth.

Gog

I disagree, Nvidia and Crytek have a very close relationship and in interviews they said they are in constant contact with them. They even coordinated the release of the 8800GTs with Crysis. I'm sure most developers dont have access but Crytek does imo. Same goes for intel, they had the Quads awhile before they were released.

[QUOTE="1005"]It wouldn't surprise me if Crytek had developed the game and had it running on a PC with some hardware that is not available to the public yet. I mean they have said the game isn't able to be run at the most highest setting on available tech at the moment.Gog

Nah, they didn't even have directx 10 cards at the time when those screenshots were released. Preview screenshots about an upcoming game are usually not taken from within the game. They could be made with the actual 3D engine but effetcs are added afterwards to make them look better. You see that with just about every game.

Game developers don't have access to newer hardware than you or me. That's a myth.

Yup. They were rendered outside the game and not in real time.

Jesus, how biased can you get? Look at those screenshots. Apart from the first one (which actually looks better than the apha shot), they all look like they're running on medium/low settings ffs. The shadows look like turd, and the lighting looks messed up (supposedly dark areas are too light), and textures look simply horrible (look at the general guy or whatever). And I don't know if you lot have noticed, but when I've been playing the map Armada in MP, the inside of the ship definetly looks exactly the same/better than in those alpha screenshots. I am aware of all of this drama surrounding the supposedly "downgraded" graphics in the final version - whether this is true or not - I'm personally waiting to get my hands on the 3870X2, then I'll play through Crysis SP and make my decision.

Oh, and I forgot to mention - THIS is what has swayed me into believing that Crysis's graphics HAVE NOT been downgraded, and also persuaded me to buy a very expensive GPU in the near future 8)

http://www.incrysis.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=13020&p=3

Jesus, how biased can you get? Look at those screenshots. Apart from the first one (which actually looks better than the apha shot), they all look like they're running on medium/low settings ffs. The shadows look like turd, and the lighting looks messed up (supposedly dark areas are too light), and textures look simply horrible (look at the general guy or whatever). And I don't know if you lot have noticed, but when I've been playing the map Armada in MP, the inside of the ship definetly looks exactly the same/better than in those alpha screenshots. I am aware of all of this drama surrounding the supposedly "downgraded" graphics in the final version - whether this is true or not - I'm personally waiting to get my hands on the 3870X2, then I'll play through Crysis SP and make my decision.

Oh, and I forgot to mention - THIS is what has swayed me into believing that Crysis's graphics HAVE NOT been downgraded, and also persuaded me to buy a very expensive GPU in the near future 8)

http://www.incrysis.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=13020&p=3

Crysis does not look as good as promised... YET...

Crytek will release the highest level shaders in a patch when computers can actually handle them...

[QUOTE="Gog"]

Nah, they didn't even have directx 10 cards at the time when those screenshots were released. Preview screenshots about an upcoming game are usually not taken from within the game. They could be made with the actual 3D engine but effetcs are added afterwards to make them look better. You see that with just about every game.

Game developers don't have access to newer hardware than you or me. That's a myth.

bignice12

I disagree, Nvidia and Crytek have a very close relationship and in interviews they said they are in constant contact with them. They even coordinated the release of the 8800GTs with Crysis. I'm sure most developers dont have access but Crytek does imo. Same goes for intel, they had the Quads awhile before they were released.

That just tells that Crytek knew about the 8800GT coming out, not that they had the actual hardware. Even if they did, the 8800GT doesn't even perform as well as a 8800GTX.

[QUOTE="bignice12"][QUOTE="Gog"]

Nah, they didn't even have directx 10 cards at the time when those screenshots were released. Preview screenshots about an upcoming game are usually not taken from within the game. They could be made with the actual 3D engine but effetcs are added afterwards to make them look better. You see that with just about every game.

Game developers don't have access to newer hardware than you or me. That's a myth.

Gog

I disagree, Nvidia and Crytek have a very close relationship and in interviews they said they are in constant contact with them. They even coordinated the release of the 8800GTs with Crysis. I'm sure most developers dont have access but Crytek does imo. Same goes for intel, they had the Quads awhile before they were released.

That just tells that Crytek knew about the 8800GT coming out, not that they had the actual hardware. Even if they did, the 8800GT doesn't even perform as well as a 8800GTX.

There is somthing odd about those 'now' comparison screens.

The Crysis I play looks better in many respects than the initial preview video / screens....

[QUOTE="Gog"]

[QUOTE="1005"]It wouldn't surprise me if Crytek had developed the game and had it running on a PC with some hardware that is not available to the public yet. I mean they have said the game isn't able to be run at the most highest setting on available tech at the moment.SEANMCAD

Nah, they didn't even have directx 10 cards at the time when those screenshots were released. Preview screenshots about an upcoming game are usually not taken from within the game. They could be made with the actual 3D engine but effetcs are added afterwards to make them look better. You see that with just about every game.

Game developers don't have access to newer hardware than you or me. That's a myth.

1st off how could they have created the game for directx 10 if they didnt have directx 10 during development!??

2nd off the game was orginally to work only on DirectX 10 and only for Vista and they changed that so that XP could run it. Kind of hard to develop, then re-factor something when you dont even have the technology!

3rd off development companies DO have access to both software tools and hardware that is not accessable to the public. Saying they dont is actually the myth.

You know, this "secret shaders" crap is all speculation. Not once has anyone from Crytek or EA said anything about an Ultra High setting or new shaders being unlocked when new hardware comes out "that can handle it."squidney2k1

I'm pretty sure I read in an official article or interview somewhere that Crytek was indeed confirming that. Can't seem to find it, though.

[QUOTE="squidney2k1"]You know, this "secret shaders" crap is all speculation. Not once has anyone from Crytek or EA said anything about an Ultra High setting or new shaders being unlocked when new hardware comes out "that can handle it."JP_Russell

I'm pretty sure I read in an official article or interview somewhere that Crytek was indeed confirming that. Can't seem to find it, though.

I dont know, I am running it on very high, with a Q66 and an HD3870 its fluid on 1440x900

and it looks stuning, like amovie you watch from first-person... I cant agree with the comparison cause I dont think the game looses realism compared to the "target-pics"...

in deed there is an ultra-high-setting option, wich will not introduce new shaders, but ramps up every effectthat is in the game,

full water reflections, more rays and beams and smoother edgeAA and better overall AA, there are effects youCAN'T unable under DX9 with a confic-tweak... most likly the advanced motion-blur and object-motion blur and higher-quality depht of field

greetz

1st off how could they have created the game for directx 10 if they didnt have directx 10 during development!??

2nd off the game was orginally to work only on DirectX 10 and only for Vista and they changed that so that XP could run it. Kind of hard to develop, then re-factor something when you dont even have the technology!

3rd off development companies DO have access to both software tools and hardware that is not accessable to the public. Saying they dont is actually the myth.

SEANMCAD

1. Game development on Crysis took more than 3 years. 3-4 years ago, directx 10 harwdare didn't exist. How do you think games are developed for consoles that don't yet exist? Do you think developers have access to consoles 3 or 4 years before the general public? They emulate the hardware them on so-called development kits.

2. It's the other way around. The game was originally meant for directx 9 and XP. Vista and directx 10 support was only added in the last stage of development. Developers don't make games for an OS that even MS didn't know when it would be released. When they started working on directx 10, directx 10 hardware was not available yet and that's the reason why you can run those very high settings on directx 9: the developers had to emulate directx 10 on directx 9 cards and left those functions in the code.

3. They do have access to tech info and certain hardware beforehand, but not years in advance like you seem to suggest, at most a several months.

[QUOTE="1005"]It wouldn't surprise me if Crytek had developed the game and had it running on a PC with some hardware that is not available to the public yet. I mean they have said the game isn't able to be run at the most highest setting on available tech at the moment.Gog

Nah, they didn't even have directx 10 cards at the time when those screenshots were released. Preview screenshots about an upcoming game are usually not taken from within the game. They could be made with the actual 3D engine but effetcs are added afterwards to make them look better. You see that with just about every game.

Game developers don't have access to newer hardware than you or me. That's a myth.

... man thats too crazy.... tell me its not :D

Open the console and type con_restricted 0 and then hdr_level 1.5

The game will have more HDR brightness and looks more similiar to what that indoor lightning looks like in the prerelease screen