Does Crysis/ Crysis Warhead really look better than Crysis 2?

EDIT:

For those of you who haven't played the game, this should give you an idea of what it's like. The game looks great on "Extreme".

I've read numerous posts in which people have said that Crysis 2 does not compare to the original Crysis and Crysis Warhead in terms of visuals. However, I think this is completely false. Here are some screen captures I just took. Analyse them and draw a conclusion. The settings for each are the following:

Crysis Warhead:

1920x1080

All settings set to "Enthusiast"

4xAA

Crysis 2:

1920x1080

Settings set to "Extreme"

*Not able to alter AA

Character Models:

Crysis Warhead:

Crysis 2:

Surroundings:

Crysis Warhead:

Crysis 2:

They don't to me, but its really close. I prefer the art style of Crysis 2. I like the vibrant colors.

Yes... In many ways. Also, scale, physics, destructibility, motion blur, can you drive a car in Crysis 2 for more than 10 seconds without running into an artificial obstacle, didn't think so. Crysis is the more advanced game, i can find you a comparison by german tech masters themselves :)GeneralShowzer

The higlighted portion of your statement has nothing to do with graphics.

There's no way the original Crysis wins in physics.

Whatever Crysis 2 does better than the original is lost due to temporal AA. That's a horrible technology.

[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"]Yes... In many ways. Also, scale, physics, destructibility, motion blur, can you drive a car in Crysis 2 for more than 10 seconds without running into an artificial obstacle, didn't think so. Crysis is the more advanced game, i can find you a comparison by german tech masters themselves :)BluRayHiDef

The higlighted portion of your statement has nothing to do with graphics.

Please turn off motion blur if possible. :)

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"]Yes... In many ways. Also, scale, physics, destructibility, motion blur, can you drive a car in Crysis 2 for more than 10 seconds without running into an artificial obstacle, didn't think so. Crysis is the more advanced game, i can find you a comparison by german tech masters themselves :)GeneralShowzer

The higlighted portion of your statement has nothing to do with graphics.

The two images above show that in terms of texture quality on character models and non-organic objects, there's no quality difference..what so ever. In fact, one could even say that Crysis 2's models look better because of the coloring and contrast. This is my point. Also, Crysis 2 offers more vertical space in its maps.

[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

The higlighted portion of your statement has nothing to do with graphics.

BluRayHiDef

The two images above show that in terms of texture quality on character models and non-organic objects, there's no quality difference..what so ever. In fact, one could even say that Crysis 2's models look better because of the coloring and contrast. This is my point. Also, Crysis 2 offers more vertical space in its maps.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"]Yes... In many ways. Also, scale, physics, destructibility, motion blur, can you drive a car in Crysis 2 for more than 10 seconds without running into an artificial obstacle, didn't think so. Crysis is the more advanced game, i can find you a comparison by german tech masters themselves :)GeneralShowzer

The higlighted portion of your statement has nothing to do with graphics.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"]Yes... In many ways. Also, scale, physics, destructibility, motion blur, can you drive a car in Crysis 2 for more than 10 seconds without running into an artificial obstacle, didn't think so. Crysis is the more advanced game, i can find you a comparison by german tech masters themselves :)GeneralShowzer

The higlighted portion of your statement has nothing to do with graphics.

[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

The higlighted portion of your statement has nothing to do with graphics.

Advid-Gamer

[QUOTE="Advid-Gamer"][QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"] Yes it does, it shows that Crysis is a game on larger scales, and having better graphics on a larger scale is more impressive.Elann2008

It seems that everyone loves to stir up controversy by hating on a game for the most unimportant reasons.

Only played a few chapters of Crysis 2 and so far it feels "neck and neck" with Crysis/Warhead visually. Some things in Crysis 2 looks better than in the first while some other things are slighty less impressive.

In that first Crysis 2 screenshot, you can see a concrete pylon through the guy's shoulder. The guns, your hands, and the environment textures look much better in the Warhead screen. The face looks better in Crysis 2. It's weird though. I don't know how to describe it well, but the face in Crysis 2 looks more like a painting of a face in that world, while the Warhead face looks more like a face that fits with the rest of the environment. It's like his clothes and scarf are glued to his body. Of course, the nanosuits are so tight fitting that they are the same in both games.

In that first Crysis 2 screenshot, you can see a concrete pylon through the guy's shoulder. The guns, your hands, and the environment textures look much better in the Warhead screen. The face looks better in Crysis 2. It's weird though. I don't know how to describe it well, but the face in Crysis 2 looks more like a painting of a face in that world, while the Warhead face looks more like a face that fits with the rest of the environment. It's like his clothes and scarf are glued to his body. Of course, the nanosuits are so tight fitting that they are the same in both games.

guynamedbilly

That's because you're viewing him through a screen. In that scene, you're behind a wall of glass over which imagery is displayed.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="Elann2008"] I see a lot of that going on around here. People making baseless opinions and turning them to facts when they haven't even played the game first-hand. It's ridiculous.

GeneralShowzer

It seems that everyone loves to stir up controversy by hating on a game for the most unimportant reasons.

Gotta blame someone, can't blame crytek.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="Elann2008"] I see a lot of that going on around here. People making baseless opinions and turning them to facts when they haven't even played the game first-hand. It's ridiculous.

GeneralShowzer

It seems that everyone loves to stir up controversy by hating on a game for the most unimportant reasons.

Wow. The topic backfired becuase YOU disagree with it. Way to put your opinion forward as fact.

[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

It seems that everyone loves to stir up controversy by hating on a game for the most unimportant reasons.

BluRayHiDef

Wow. The topic backfired becuase YOU disagree with it. Way to put your opinion forward as fact.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"] You made a topic, it backfired, now it's the hataz fault.GeneralShowzer

Wow. The topic backfired becuase YOU disagree with it. Way to put your opinion forward as fact.

Perception is subjective. I'm not talking about the technical aspects, such as the number of polygons or things like that. I'm talking about what you see right in front of you. When you're looking at something, you don't say "Well, this one has less polygons, so it looks worse." What matters is the final product, what you see in front of you, that results from whatever methods were used to achieve them. It's simple: Does it LOOK better? This is a question that doesn't entail takingpolygon count and similiar other details into consideration. Hence, you've missed the point of this thread.

[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

Wow. The topic backfired becuase YOU disagree with it. Way to put your opinion forward as fact.

BluRayHiDef

Perception is subjective. I'm not talking about the technical aspects, such as the number of polygons or things like that. I'm talking about what you see right in front of you. When you're looking at something, you don't say "Well, this one has less polygons, so it looks worse." What matters is the final product, what you see in front of you, that results from whatever methods were used to achieve them. It's simple: Does it LOOK better? This is a question that doesn't entail takingpolygon count and similiar other details into consideration. Hence, you've missed the point of this thread.

Since it's purely subjective..

In that first Crysis 2 screenshot, you can see a concrete pylon through the guy's shoulder. The guns, your hands, and the environment textures look much better in the Warhead screen. The face looks better in Crysis 2. It's weird though. I don't know how to describe it well, but the face in Crysis 2 looks more like a painting of a face in that world, while the Warhead face looks more like a face that fits with the rest of the environment. It's like his clothes and scarf are glued to his body. Of course, the nanosuits are so tight fitting that they are the same in both games.

guynamedbilly

As for the graphics, I haven't played the game but from what I've seen I say Crysis still looks better.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"] I gave you proof, an article by a magazine that specializes in this kind of stuff, written by experts who get payed to do what they do. Two screenshots you posted are not does not prove anything. GeneralShowzer

Perception is subjective. I'm not talking about the technical aspects, such as the number of polygons or things like that. I'm talking about what you see right in front of you. When you're looking at something, you don't say "Well, this one has less polygons, so it looks worse." What matters is the final product, what you see in front of you, that results from whatever methods were used to achieve them. It's simple: Does it LOOK better? This is a question that doesn't entail takingpolygon count and similiar other details into consideration. Hence, you've missed the point of this thread.

My dude, just answer the following questions:

Comparing the two sets of images presented in the OP, which game has better looking character models and background/ object models? Give and honest answer and provide an explanation based on WHAT YOU SEE IN THE IMAGES.

Whatever Crysis 2 does better than the original is lost due to temporal AA. That's a horrible technology.

Baranga

This. Fortunately it can be disabled, to the best of my knowledge.

Ok, what character looks better now, the Crysis 2 one or this one?

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/screenshots/original/2008/09/face_comprasion_new_resize.jpg

Crysis warhead looks better imo

I think both games are very similar, the art direction in Crysis 2 is a complete 180 from the jungle setting of C1, so it's kind of hard to tell. I would lean with Crysis 2, but I absoultely HATE the water effects, they look TERRIBLE.

Ok, what character looks better now, the Crysis 2 one or this one?

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/screenshots/original/2008/09/face_comprasion_new_resize.jpg

GeneralShowzer

2 things

1: I have come to expect you in every Crysis 2 thread thread jacking so you can Crysis hate. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but you are going overboard.

2: Your link doesn't work

[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"]

Ok, what character looks better now, the Crysis 2 one or this one?

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/screenshots/original/2008/09/face_comprasion_new_resize.jpg

jacobhazard1704

2 things

1: I have come to expect you in every Crysis 2 thread thread jacking so you can Crysis hate. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but you are going overboard.

2: Your link doesn't work

I don't get this Crysis 2 is inferior to Crysis in every way and this "what screenshot looks better" doesn't prove a thing...

and

As said before in this thread, the reason why Crysis 2 has sharper and clearer textures and other effects is because the environments are much smaller and have infinitely less stuff to render than Crysis 1 did. Which makes it easier to optimize, as the AI has less pathfinding to do, there's no destroyable trees, no foilage etc.

I personally think Crysis 2 looks good and better than the Original in a few ways, but as a whole I still prefer the open-ended envrionment of the original Crysis over it. And there's no doubt that when speaking of things techincally there's far more advanced tech behind the Original. Like I said though, Crysis 2 looks great in what they intended to achieve.

So far, I honestly think Crysis 2 looks better then Crysis on vanilla settings.

Lets face it, Crysis is a 3 year old game. A lot of the graphics and tech in Crysis looks outdated, even by today's standards. Crysis might have been super amazing back in the day, but now its pretty standard among the PC crowd.

So far, I honestly think Crysis 2 looks better then Crysis on vanilla settings.

Lets face it, Crysis is a 3 year old game. A lot of the graphics and tech in Crysis looks outdated, even by today's standards. Crysis might have been super amazing back in the day, but now its pretty standard among the PC crowd.

JangoWuzHere

Crysis is shaper then Crysis 2. Can someone tell how to Remove the ugly AA and Bloom/Blur?

Nvm....Found it.http://forum.notebookreview.com/gaming-software-graphics-cards/564063-crysis-2-tweak-guide.html

[QUOTE="Baranga"]

Whatever Crysis 2 does better than the original is lost due to temporal AA. That's a horrible technology.

psn8214

This. Fortunately it can be disabled, to the best of my knowledge.

[QUOTE="JangoWuzHere"]

So far, I honestly think Crysis 2 looks better then Crysis on vanilla settings.

Lets face it, Crysis is a 3 year old game. A lot of the graphics and tech in Crysis looks outdated, even by today's standards. Crysis might have been super amazing back in the day, but now its pretty standard among the PC crowd.

GeneralShowzer

It's one of the most demanding games, not the best looking game...atleast compared to other games today. Games like Metro 2033 look really good maxed out.

i'm liking crysis 2 better. not a big fan of the motion blur though.Batang_X990

WTB: a tutorial to turn off this motion blur crap.

It makes me insides turn its that horrid. Also why is there no Low? Its just "High,VeryHigh,Extreme"

I played about 5 minutes of it, its pretty good. I like it. If i could ton down the Blur,Bloom,AA to what i want it to me id be happy.

Yes Both Look better and larger first crysis has much larger scale of levels

http://screenshot.xfire.com/s/76859753-4.jpg

http://screenshot.xfire.com/s/82419491-4.jpg

http://screenshot.xfire.com/s/94861836-4.jpg

http://screenshot.xfire.com/s/89970375-4.jpg

http://screenshot.xfire.com/s/94831846-4.jpg

http://screenshot.xfire.com/s/86224040-4.jpg

http://screenshot.xfire.com/s/94833097-4.jpg

http://screenshot.xfire.com/s/94835624-4.jpg

http://screenshot.xfire.com/s/94835772-4.jpg

I don't get this Crysis 2 is inferior to Crysis in every way and this "what screenshot looks better" doesn't prove a thing...

and

GeneralShowzer

What's with the makeup? He looks like Jared Leto!

IMO, TBH, Crysis 2 doens't look really that impressive. Sure they were developing it as a multiplat.. but, the game sacrafices scale, for not really any noticable graphical improvement...

Not only that, Crysis is 3 years old, and there budget was tiny...

IMO Crysis looks better...

IMO, TBH, Crysis 2 doens't look really that impressive. Sure they were developing it as a multiplat.. but, the game sacrafices scale, for not really any noticable graphical improvement...

Not only that, Crysis is 3 years old, and there budget was tiny...

IMO Crysis looks better...

Urworstnhtmare

Yes. Crysis and Warhead are more impressive-looking games. I will agree that the characters in Crysis 2 look at least as good, but that's about it. The lighting and method of AA is horrible. I don't think the overall quality of the graphics in Crysis 2 is even close.

[QUOTE="Urworstnhtmare"]

IMO, TBH, Crysis 2 doens't look really that impressive. Sure they were developing it as a multiplat.. but, the game sacrafices scale, for not really any noticable graphical improvement...

Not only that, Crysis is 3 years old, and there budget was tiny...

IMO Crysis looks better...

i5750at4Ghz

I thought it was smaller than that. But I stand corrected. Still. It is considered small be FPS standards...

Still, Crysis look better IMO...

So far, I honestly think Crysis 2 looks better then Crysis on vanilla settings.

Lets face it, Crysis is a 3 year old game. A lot of the graphics and tech in Crysis looks outdated, even by today's standards. Crysis might have been super amazing back in the day, but now its pretty standard among the PC crowd.

JangoWuzHere

No, it's still the best-looking game. Metro 2033 is the only real challenger so far, and that's too bleak and uses too few colors to truly challenge.

Your signature is flipping golden mate. 8)-CheeseEater-

Thanks man! :)

[QUOTE="jacobhazard1704"]

[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"]

Ok, what character looks better now, the Crysis 2 one or this one?

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/screenshots/original/2008/09/face_comprasion_new_resize.jpg

GeneralShowzer

2 things

1: I have come to expect you in every Crysis 2 thread thread jacking so you can Crysis hate. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but you are going overboard.

2: Your link doesn't work

I don't get this Crysis 2 is inferior to Crysis in every way and this "what screenshot looks better" doesn't prove a thing...

and