Toy Story
Toy Story 2
Surf's Up
Madagascar
A Bug's Life
Antz
Ant Bully
Well you get the idea.........etc Crysis look's better than any Animated movies I have seen Lately!!!!
This topic is locked from further discussion.
what im trying to say is that, all the games that are based on the films such as shrek look horrible, crysis is an actual game and it looks AMAZING if you try to make shrek into a game (which has been done) it looks **** becuase crytek spent years to make crysis a game that also looks amazingTobio19
yeah crysis looks good, but are you a moron? since when does game graphics hold up to CGI (animated movies?)
It doesn't go take a look or get some glasses
the thing is, CG movies tend to be cartoony in visual style, while crysis is attempting to be as lifelike as possible, so a direct comparison is a little pointless
like comparing team fortress 2 with something realistic looking, the visual styles are so contrary that a direct comparison cannot really be made
crysis certainly uses light and shadow in a far more detailed and realistic way than we tend to get in CG movies, but CG movies have much more detailed surfaces and character model detail, like thousands of individual hairs on a creature - real time reproduction of stuff like that is a long, long way off - at least in a realistic way that is affected by light and physics as would be seen represented in a CG movie
we're a long way from reproducing CG quality in real time - but it will come, eventually
Toy Story
Toy Story 2
Surf's Up
Madagascar
A Bug's Life
Antz
Ant Bully
Well you get the idea.........etc Crysis look's better than any Animated movies I have seen Lately!!!!
Tobio19
not really. they are cartoons, while crysis is real life. look at movies like shrek.
the thing is, CG movies tend to be cartoony in visual style, while crysis is attempting to be as lifelike as possible, so a direct comparison is a little pointless
like comparing team fortress 2 with something realistic looking, the visual styles are so contrary that a direct comparison cannot really be made
crysis certainly uses light and shadow in a far more detailed and realistic way than we tend to get in CG movies, but CG movies have much more detailed surfaces and character model detail, like thousands of individual hairs on a creature - real time reproduction of stuff like that is a long, long way off - at least in a realistic way that is affected by light and physics as would be seen represented in a CG movie
we're a long way from reproducing CG quality in real time - but it will come, eventually
mfsa
Amen brother
What are we comparing, exactly? Crysis graphics to the stellar rendering in CGI movies? I for one am always amazed when I see another Pixar fim with realistice hair and so on.
My two cents:
Crysis does look brilliant as awhole, but the individual pieces? Anybody else think that Half-Life 2+ Fakefactory Cimematic has better character textures then Crysis? (you can see pores with FF.) How about the water? Bioshock is the clear winner. Crysis water looks like an update for the Water in Battlefied 2. (a major one, don't get me wrong, but jeez...Bioshock!)
I don't want to do any topic necromancy here, but Crysis looked brilliant when it was first displayed. Now, what, 2 years later? It still looks great, but not as great as the release dates for Unreal Tournament 3 and other power hitters draw closer, slated for release within days of Crysis. Only time will tell.
Another point of interest is the Graphical quality for computational ability. How wel will these games scale for lower end computers? Low end computer will mostly likely pwn crysis with visual quality from Unreal 3 powered games.
Just some thoughts. (no flames I haven't ahs any coffee yet, just got up 15 minutes ago. :P)
have you actually played crysis yet? i did (the multiplayer beta). And i can tell you that it really is the most impressive game i have seen. Half life 2 + FF may have better textures, but dont forget its a mod and that there probably will be a better texture pack for crysis. As for the water, i would say its pretty tied between bioshock and crysis. But then again, bioshock was focused on giving realistic water, while in crysis, its more about the moveable vegetation, breakable trees, insanely detailed leaves and the shadows. Honestly, no game released this year will even come close to look as good as crysis.What are we comparing, exactly? Crysis graphics to the stellar rendering in CGI movies? I for one am always amazed when I see another Pixar fim with realistice hair and so on.
My two cents:
Crysis does look brilliant as awhole, but the individual pieces? Anybody else think that Half-Life 2+ Fakefactory Cimematic has better character textures then Crysis? (you can see pores with FF.) How about the water? Bioshock is the clear winner. Crysis water looks like an update for the Water in Battlefied 2. (a major one, don't get me wrong, but jeez...Bioshock!)
I don't want to do any topic necromancy here, but Crysis looked brilliant when it was first displayed. Now, what, 2 years later? It still looks great, but not as great as the release dates for Unreal Tournament 3 and other power hitters draw closer, slated for release within days of Crysis. Only time will tell.
Another point of interest is the Graphical quality for computational ability. How wel will these games scale for lower end computers? Low end computer will mostly likely pwn crysis with visual quality from Unreal 3 powered games.
Just some thoughts. (no flames I haven't ahs any coffee yet, just got up 15 minutes ago. :P)
Shrodinger
All you just did was validate my 2 points, namely Bioshock water either looks better or is equal too crysis water, and that HL2 +FF has better textures.
I will now quote from my original post:
"Crysis does look brilliant as awhole, but the individual pieces?"
And more importantly:
"Another point of interest is the Graphical quality for computational ability. How wel will these games scale for lower end computers? Low end computer will mostly likely pwn crysis with visual quality from Unreal 3 powered games."
The end. :)
"How about the water? Bioshock is the clear winner." . Is that saying its equal? Anyways, the most important point is that crysis beats games at their own speciality. Bioshock was focusing on water effects, crysis' water beats/ties it, even if its not their main objective. And you cant really compare a game+mod against a stock game, unless you add the same kind of modto the stock game, for comparing graphics that is.All you just did was validate my 2 points, namely Bioshock water either looks better or is equal too crysis water, and that HL2 +FF has better textures.
I will now quote from my original post:
"Crysis does look brilliant as awhole, but the individual pieces?"
And more importantly:
"Another point of interest is the Graphical quality for computational ability. How wel will these games scale for lower end computers? Low end computer will mostly likely pwn crysis with visual quality from Unreal 3 powered games."
The end. :)
Shrodinger
"How about the water? Bioshock is the clear winner."
You are correct. I should have chosen my words better. (I did however plead the lack of coffee. :P)
And while I can see my arguments in my head, obviously you can't. What I am really going with on the whole FF shindy is the work was done by 1 guy, where as Crytek has a whole team. Twas mere speculation and my push for power to the everyman. I am really just showing devotion to the FF mod.
You must admit though, that I did, from the beginning put in that "Crysis does look brilliant as a whole."
I appreciate speaking with a levelheaded individual who can put up with my pre-cafinated bull****.
Peace.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment