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

[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"]

[QUOTE="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

shakmaster13

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

Don't think so his model looks beastly in the unmodded warhead as well.

crysis 1 is more realistic looking, but not by much,but crysis 2 has better gameplay and is beautiful to look at, it really is a great game.

My copy just came in today and I am just blown away by how beautiful it looks. The shadows and lighting are just marvelous.

Playing at 1920x1200 and Very High settings. Yes, my 4870 can handle it :D

My copy just came in today and I am just blown away by how beautiful it looks. The shadows and lighting are just marvelous.

Playing at 1920x1200 and Very High settings. Yes, my 4870 can handle it :D

ralph2190

Crysis warhead does not look as good as crysis 1. As for those crysis 2 pics? I swear the god, the first feels consolish. The colors especially, kz2 much?dakan45

[QUOTE="dakan45"]Crysis warhead does not look as good as crysis 1. As for those crysis 2 pics? I swear the god, the first feels consolish. The colors especially, kz2 much?GeneralShowzer

[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"][QUOTE="dakan45"]Crysis warhead does not look as good as crysis 1. As for those crysis 2 pics? I swear the god, the first feels consolish. The colors especially, kz2 much?dakan45

[QUOTE="dakan45"][QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"] + Horrible blur Crytek weren't kidding when they said they took a lot of influence from Killzone.Elann2008

Details on how to do this kind sir. I r too laszy atm to google.

This took me less than 30 mins to search and find and TWEAK on my own. Credit to another forum user for finding the Tweak Guide page. You're somewhere out there.. I forgot your name. :) Here we go:

Crysis 2 Tweaks (Fast Start)

C: Program Files (x86)>Electronic Arts>Crysis® 2 (Once you're here, there will be a System Cfg file at the bottom last) Double-Click and insert any of the tweaks/configs on the page at the left indentation.

+r_MultiGPU=1
+cl_fov=90 (*change this to whatever you like)

+pl_movement.power_sprint_targetFov=90
+r_motionblur=0
+r_Glow=0

+r_FSAA=0
+r_UseEdgeAA=0

Here's the link to more tweaks/configs:

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


Nvidia SLi users/owners, go here:

http://www.evga.com/articles/00463/Default.asp

1. Download the link that is found just above "FAQ."

2. Save/download/install.

3. Reboot PC.

4. Complete.


**** Results. I went from 28-35fps (chugging), to 55+ fps consistently after the SLi enhancement install.****


If this doesn't help you,

1. Download "Nvidia Inspector."

2. Once you have it downloaded, click the driver settings button/icon at the middle of the Nvidia Inspector program.

3. Once you're inside, find the section under "SLi" and change the 3 lines to "TWO" GPU's. They are all set to

"Default" as the suffix.

4. This should boost your SLi GPU usage %.

5. Complete.

Do this and your Crysis 2 experience will be 10 times better. The FSAA and Edge Anti Aliasing are the first two things that need to go. When you disable these, the graphics are SHARPER. No fuzziness.

+r_Glow=0

Elann2008

[QUOTE="Elann2008"]

+r_Glow=0

ZimpanX

Interesting. Did it make things look better? Just curious. As far as I know, +r_Glow=0 is disable bloom effect.

Elann2008

[QUOTE="Elann2008"]

Interesting. Did it make things look better? Just curious. As far as I know, +r_Glow=0 is disable bloom effect.

ZimpanX

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

OMG do I see low res textures on everything in the evironment. Must be a console port.

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.

hartsickdiscipl

Wow firstly the lighting system in Crysis 2 is superior to Crysis. Secondly the say that it doesn't come close is being illogical and blinded.

My copy just came in today and I am just blown away by how beautiful it looks. The shadows and lighting are just marvelous.

Playing at 1920x1200 and Very High settings. Yes, my 4870 can handle it :D

ralph2190

Indeed it makes me wonder if these people who are hating on the game has actually played it. :o

Crysis warhead does not look as good as crysis 1. As for those crysis 2 pics? I swear the god, the first feels consolish. The colors especially, kz2 much?dakan45

The colors on the console version is actually muted and the overall image quality is blurry. So I don't know what you are talking about.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

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.

Pedro

Wow firstly the lighting system in Crysis 2 is superior to Crysis. Secondly the say that it doesn't come close is being illogical and blinded.

The colors on the console version is actually muted and the overall image quality is blurry. So I don't know what you are talking about.Pedro

The Crysis 2 demo was tweak-able. You guys should know that. You can also tweak the system config file in the final game. I've done it and many people have done it and it works perfectly fine. You can disable bloom, blur, FSAA, and edge anti-aliasing. Using these tweaks makes the game look A LOT sharper and more defined. And it's really, really easy to do. Oh, and you can also change the Field of View (FOV). EVGA also released an SLi enhancement patch that doubles the frame rate for sli users.Elann2008

[QUOTE="Pedro"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

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.

KHAndAnime

Wow firstly the lighting system in Crysis 2 is superior to Crysis. Secondly the say that it doesn't come close is being illogical and blinded.

[QUOTE="-CheeseEater-"] Your signature is flipping golden mate. 8)psn8214

Thanks man! :)

I don't know, Crysis 2 feels like a real throw back. Maybe it would come close if it had decent physics, or other effects. If you shot a branch in Crysis 1, it would break off. If you shoot a branch in Crysis 2, you'll see a bullethole - not on the branch itself, but it'll be sitting a few inches in front of the branch, sitting still while the branch swings away from the bullet hole in the wind. In Crysis 1, the water was 3-dimensional and had depth. In Crysis 2, from what I've seen the water is cardboard flat and unspectacular. Just from the one hour I played the singleplayer, I spotted so many graphical inconsistencies that I couldn't even make note of them all. The glass isn't even capable of chipping away in this game. If you shoot a huge window, you either break it completely, or not at all. Even HL2 had more impressive glass effects than that.KHAndAnime

I understand what you are saying. The physics is not as available as in Crysis. As for the water, it is not cardboard flat. It has dimension but if you have been to NY you would notice that the water is equally uneventful. Because Crysis scenario was on a tropical islands, it just makes sense for the water to have more depth.

The main difference between the two games is the lighting. The render style between to two games are rather different. Crysis 2 is more stylised than Crysis.

Did they patch in DX11 yet?

Crysis not maxed but very high/custom setup through the freely accessable notepad file called autoexec.cfg. In comparison, Crysis 2 also offers a config file that allow for a few tweaks such as altering FoV and disabling a few things.

Oh and there might be high res foliage in some/most of them. Wish I could be arsed with reinstalling Crysis, reconfiguring it properly and take new screenies.

From your comment, you just reaffirmed all the haters that claimed Crysis 1 was just a glorified tech demo. Shooting down trees.. bullet holes? I didn't play Crysis 1 to shoot down trees. When I did, I found it to be utterly boring and mundane. Elann2008

It's so easy to just go for the throat like that is'nt it?

Yeah shooting down trees, yeah bullets holes. Those tiny differences are all over the place and while you never specifically notice that bullet hole hovering in front of a branch, it leaves an overall impact. Actually, that's why it looks like a high res console game. lots of small compromises that manage to mar the experience in unison. Especially considering the predecessor did'nt compromise (much).

Edit:

And the demo for good measure. I tweaked the cfg of course but I expect that's fair game:

Crysis 1 and Warhead run around 3 millions of triangles maxed (with some custom maps even reaching 20+ millions per frame) compared against 1.5-1.7 millions per frame in Crysis 2.

The lack of detail in geomtry comparing Crysis 2 to Crysis 1/Warhead is blatant:

The downgrade in the modelling and wireframe is not only visible in the regular enemies but also on the hands of the main character and weapons. The gauntleits in Crysis 2 are blocky, with fingers more close to LEGO bricks instead of this smooth surfaces.

Water has also much better shaders and the textures had way more resolution than in Crysis 2:

The scale is way larger and there's a lot of maps in which water and land vehicles offers viable options to displacements and combat.

Crysis 2 is superior only in lightning and some new shader effects, but Crysis 1 and Warhead and ever Crysis Wars had better image quality thanx to his much bigger polygon count, better modelling, higher resolution in textures, better shaders for water, parallax mapping and sharp image without the need of insanely agressive HDR levels, annoying levels of blur or a weapon and FOV that makes you almost blind in tons of situations.

Is Crysis 2 a bad game -technical point of view-? No, but overal is inferior to his precursors.

Is Crysis 2 a bad game -technical point of view-? No, but overal is inferior to his precursors.

Ondoval

And the game is from friggin 2007, this is backwards world now, this really is the first time in history games are devolving in the interactivity and depth department (as in graphics and gameplay)

I really hate this s***, i was a console gamer until 2005 and changed because how boring and static console games are. I was always envious of my cousin who was a pc gamer and had games with so much more depth.

And now devs want one platform (which would be okay if consoles would be more pc-oriented but its the other way around), a very boring platform and the worst part is most people like the way they are heading. the only problem is... is i pay €1200 for my console :(

Seeing what Crysis 2 has become, and the people on this forum made me want to bash my PC in.

It seems that our 1200$ PC's are good for nothing than playing console quality games with console control scheme but in 1080p.

And you're not allowed to give any criticism, you should be happy with this, if not you're a "whiner"...

And it would be OK too, if only there were just a couple of games like Crysis that made use of the hardware and were "PC centric" but nothing is left...

My PC is obsolete now...

GeneralShowzer

Well, there's always BF3

[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"]

Seeing what Crysis 2 has become, and the people on this forum made me want to bash my PC in.

It seems that our 1200$ PC's are good for nothing than playing console quality games with console control scheme but in 1080p.

And you're not allowed to give any criticism, you should be happy with this, if not you're a "whiner"...

And it would be OK too, if only there were just a couple of games like Crysis that made use of the hardware and were "PC centric" but nothing is left...

My PC is obsolete now...

FatSlasH

Well, there's always BF3

Ok, that was a bit overdramatic, there are a lot of stuff left, I'm pre-ordering BF3 the first chance i get..

But Crysis 2 feels like the final blow me for me, which was one of my favorite games of all time...I trusted Crytek's reassurances about this game.. Never in a million years did i thought that it would be this bad.

This was my first post on gamespot...

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/27232982/what-is-the-best-pc-game-ever-made

LOL....(check the reply too)

[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

Seeing what Crysis 2 has become, and the people on this forum made me want to bash my PC in. It seems that our 1200$ PC's are good for nothing than playing console quality games but in 1080p. And you're not allowed to give any criticism, you should be happy with this.. And it would be OK too, if only there were just a couple of games like Crysis that made use of the hardware and were "PC centric" but nothing is left... My PC is obsolete now...

GeneralShowzer

I'm putting my hope in small european developers, just like with movies. Most hollywood movies are total crap with no depth whatsover in character development and story, so I look for good movies in the obscure and old scenes. I do the same with gaming, although its harder because gaming is much younger.

But for every crysis 2, there is a Stalker franchise (if they screw it up, there will be something different) for every Dragon Age 2, there is a Dragon Age 1 and/or Witcher...

The golden time of AA titles has fallen, real quality is in new ip games and unknow/indie developers, that is why we should support every mount and blade, risen, stalker, cryostasis, amnesia... and the pc supporting developers (Blizzard, Valve, creative assembly, ...)

Also I think the verbal fighting of this devolution is pretty pointless and will only piss off people who still enjoy their streamlined games (I don't claim these console oriented games are bad, they are just... well... boring to me, static). So that is why i normally don't comment on this kind of topics, because its pointless and it would only anger me.

[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"][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.

lucfonzy

Also, a more knowledgeable GS user made an extensive analysis ...see above?

I'm never going to buy Crysis 2 , but i have played it on PC.

Crysis 1 and Warhead definitely look better. But the main problem is just the overall restrictiveness of the gameplay so far. It's become more of a linear shooter with some open areas rather than a big playground with only the end objective being specified. It's still a good game, but it just doesn't feel like Crysis.

Seeing what Crysis 2 has become, and the people on this forum made me want to bash my PC in.

It seems that our 1200$ PC's are good for nothing than playing console quality games with console control scheme but in 1080p.

And you're not allowed to give any criticism, you should be happy with this, if not you're a "whiner"...

GeneralShowzer

Don't be so rude, you still can play Crysis, Warhead, Bad Company 2 and the gorgeous Shogun 2, and new marvels as The Witcher 2, Guild Wars 2 and BF3 are incoming. Also. I'm in deception due Crysis 2 because isn't the glorious sequel I did dream, but this doesn't turn the game in a entirely bad game.

I'd just like to say that those of you who are bashing Crysis 2 are being unreasonable. Did you really expect Crytek to make a game that looks better AND runs better than the original Crysis? Sure, the original Crysis looked amazing, but it crippled most systems. So, Crytek made the (right) decision by cutting back just a bitto create a game that looks comparable to the original AND runs MUCH better. You can't have it both ways.

I'd just like to say that those of you who are bashing Crysis 2 are being unreasonable. Did you really expect Crytek to make a game that looks better AND runs better than the original Crysis?BluRayHiDef

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

I'd just like to say that those of you who are bashing Crysis 2 are being unreasonable. Did you really expect Crytek to make a game that looks better AND runs better than the original Crysis?gameguy6700

No, I expected them to either make a game that looked better and ran even worse...gameguy6700

1. It would be senseless to make a game that looks better but runs WORSE. What would be the point of a game that no-one could enjoy?

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

I'd just like to say that those of you who are bashing Crysis 2 are being unreasonable. Did you really expect Crytek to make a game that looks better AND runs better than the original Crysis?gameguy6700

A game that looks just as good as the previous two would still leave people out of the loop. Unless you have a high end video card, you're not going to be able to enjoy the graphics fidelity of Crysis. Even to this day, you need a high end card to max out the game and run it smoothly. Sure, there's the option of using lower settings, but the game looks quite ugly unless it's maxed out, since it has practically no art **** It relies on raw polygons and triangles for it's visual edge. Hence, they made the best decision from a business standpoint: Creating a game that looks close to the original but not as good (so that it could run better than the original and allow more people to enjoy it).

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

1. It would be senseless to make a game that looks better but runs WORSE. What would be the point of a game that no-one could enjoy?

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

I'd just like to say that those of you who are bashing Crysis 2 are being unreasonable. Did you really expect Crytek to make a game that looks better AND runs better than the original Crysis?BluRayHiDef

A game that looks just as good as the previous two would still leave people out of the loop. Unless you have a high end video card, you're not going to be able to enjoy the graphics fidelity of Crysis. Even to this day, you need a high end card to max out the game and run it smoothly. Sure, there's the option of using lower settings, but the game looks quite ugly unless it's maxed out, since it has practically no art **** It relies on raw polygons and triangles for it's visual edge. Hence, they made the best decision from a business standpoint: Creating a game that looks close to the original but not as good (so that it could run better than the original and allow more people to enjoy it).

I'm just going to be frank about this. IT IS WHAT IT IS. People can either accept it or not. Complaining about it and bashing it over and over again isn't going to change anything. Either buy the game or forget about it. Crytek is a business. They designed the game in such a way that would maximize profits. Sorry if you feel left out, because for every "Die Hard PC Gamer" that's lost, there's an accepting PC gamer and 5 console gamers who'll enjoy the game and accept it for what it is. In the end, Crytek wins and you guys who are complaining are the ones who lose. No matter how much you criticize Crytek, they're going to make their money.

I'm just going to be frank about this. IT IS WHAT IT IS. People can either accept it or not. Complaining about it and bashing it over and over again isn't going to change anything. Either buy the game or forget about it. Crytek is a business. They designed the game in such a way that would maximize profits. Sorry if you feel left out, because for every "Die Hard PC Gamer" that's lost, there's an accepting PC gamer and 5 console gamers who'll enjoy the game and accept it for what it is. In the end, Crytek wins and you guys who are complaining are the ones who lose. No matter how much you criticize Crytek, they're going to make their money.

BluRayHiDef

I'd just like to say that those of you who are bashing Crysis 2 are being unreasonable. Did you really expect Crytek to make a game that looks better AND runs better than the original Crysis? Sure, the original Crysis looked amazing, but it crippled most systems. So, Crytek made the (right) decision by cutting back just a bitto create a game that looks comparable to the original AND runs MUCH better. You can't have it both ways.

BluRayHiDef

Is not only Crysis and Warhead, I honestly think that Bad Company 2 and other recent games as Shattered Horizon, ArmA II and Metro 2033 had better graphics than Crysis 2, and hey, BC 2 is a multiplatform game that sold over 2.5 million units in PC without the need to nerf the visuals or disable DX 10/11.

I'd just like to say that those of you who are bashing Crysis 2 are being unreasonable. Did you really expect Crytek to make a game that looks better AND runs better than the original Crysis? Sure, the original Crysis looked amazing, but it crippled most systems. So, Crytek made the (right) decision by cutting back just a bitto create a game that looks comparable to the original AND runs MUCH better. You can't have it both ways.

BluRayHiDef

What about Warhead. Besides, that was in 2007...

Crytek really invested in the lighting, but otherwise everything else looks like a slight downgrade to Crysis...

Yes. I expect a game that looks better, and runs better than the original Crysis... Its been almost 4 years...