Crysis 2 = Reaching photorealism

Main difference between Crysis and Crysis 2 is that in the 1st, the textures were inconsistent; in the 2nd they are consistently bad. It really hurts the PC version, they obviously could be a lot better. These days I can barely find a game in wich Textures or any RAM intensive features affects performance even in mid-ware card.

The first game had a few instances where in motion yes it was like 95% of photorealism. Crysis 2....not so much :|

Arma II is reaching photorealism. Or Shattered Horizons. Crysis 2...not so much.GeneralShowzer

Crysis 2 needs higher texture resolutions and then could be considered

Until that is the case, the original has nearly reached it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shZzYkpl5Nk

[QUOTE="DreamCryotank"]

Same palm tree copy and pasted over and over.

devious742

Oblivion

Just Cause 2

STALKER

Stalker has much more variety. :evil: I'm just saying with Crysis 2, it seems as if Crytek spent more time crafting a semi photorealistic New york, instead of an enviroment that doesn't need half the assets. Crysis 1s levels consist of huts, trees and rocks. Crysis 2 consists of parked cars, signs, billboards, buildings, landmarks, subways, ect. Ofcourse there's no excusing the quality of assets, as it seems Crytek completely forgot to create PC specific versions. :x

It would be Photorealistic if the world had a permanent blur mode.

[QUOTE="devious742"]

[QUOTE="DreamCryotank"]

Same palm tree copy and pasted over and over.

DreamCryotank

Oblivion

Just Cause 2

STALKER

Stalker has much more variety. :evil: I'm just saying with Crysis 2, it seems as if Crytek spent more time crafting a semi photorealistic New york, instead of an enviroment that doesn't need half the assets. Crysis 1s levels consist of huts, trees and rocks. Crysis 2 consists of parked cars, signs, billboards, buildings, landmarks, subways, ect. Ofcourse there's no excusing the quality of assets, as it seems Crytek completely forgot to create PC specific versions. :x

Are you sure you actually played through Crysis?

crysis 2 photorealis? how far will the fanboyism go?

What a laugh.

Some people spent years downplaying Crysis 1's graphics. Now some are trying to argue its console optimized, meaning downgraded, sequel is photorealistic...

AHEM... More ArmA II.

AHEM... More ArmA II.

thespywholied

What a laugh.

Some people spent years downplaying Crysis 1's graphics. Now some are trying to argue its console optimized, meaning downgraded, sequel is photorealistic...

AnnoyedDragon

Very true, why are they comparing Crysis 1 bad textures to Crysis 2's good textures? Those Crysis 2 textures in many cases are worse then the bad textures from Crysis 1.. also I think part of the reason why some of textures in Crysis 1 wasnt as good as they could have been is because the the sheer scale the levels and limits of Pc hardware from 2006-2007, mainly video memory. Its funny that alot of these bashers are trying to compare a console limted based game to a Pc game where the player interaction area are not even close.

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

What a laugh.

Some people spent years downplaying Crysis 1's graphics. Now some are trying to argue its console optimized, meaning downgraded, sequel is photorealistic...

04dcarraher

Very true, why are they comparing Crysis 1 bad textures to Crysis 2's good textures? Those Crysis 2 textures in many cases are worse then the bad textures from Crysis 1.. also I think part of the reason why some of textures in Crysis 1 wasnt as good as they could have been is because the the sheer scale the levels and limits of Pc hardware from 2006-2007, mainly video memory. Its funny that alot of these bashers are trying to compare a console limted based game to a Pc game where the player interaction area are not even close.

Arma II is reaching photorealism. Or Shattered Horizons. Crysis 2...not so much.GeneralShowzer

Shattered horizons looks more like old mid-90's game cgi to me.

Very true, why are they comparing Crysis 1 bad textures to Crysis 2's good textures? Those Crysis 2 textures in many cases are worse then the bad textures from Crysis 1.. also I think part of the reason why some of textures in Crysis 1 wasnt as good as they could have been is because the the sheer scale the levels and limits of Pc hardware from 2006-2007, mainly video memory. Its funny that alot of these bashers are trying to compare a console limted based game to a Pc game where the player interaction area are not even close.

04dcarraher

I actually tried to explain that to one person, but they weren't having it. Apparently you should be able to render half a level in view distance, without it having any impact on video memory usage. Never mind Crysis 2 clearly has to render a lot less on screen, going as far as to fog out the distance, yet somehow managed to do even worse textures.

And to the people in denial regarding that. Find me a bad texture in Crysis 1 that Crysis 2 doesn't have worse, find me a good texture in Crysis 2 that Crysis 1 doesn't do better. Crysis 2 recycled some of the original textures from the first game; and they are half the resolution of the originals. I'd hardly call that improving over the originals.

Crysis 1 was developed when 256mb-640mb was what you could expect from a common to high end card. Now 512mb is considered the minimum, so what's Crysis 2's excuse for low texture resolution? Other than of course just copy/pasting them over from consoles, which is pretty much the reason.

Crysis 2 = Reaching photorealism... only if the tops of my photos tear a lot and the closer I look at it the more stuff pops in.

Arma II is reaching photorealism. Or Shattered Horizons. Crysis 2...not so much.GeneralShowzer

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

What a laugh.

Some people spent years downplaying Crysis 1's graphics. Now some are trying to argue its console optimized, meaning downgraded, sequel is photorealistic...

blues35301

Very true, why are they comparing Crysis 1 bad textures to Crysis 2's good textures? Those Crysis 2 textures in many cases are worse then the bad textures from Crysis 1.. also I think part of the reason why some of textures in Crysis 1 wasnt as good as they could have been is because the the sheer scale the levels and limits of Pc hardware from 2006-2007, mainly video memory. Its funny that alot of these bashers are trying to compare a console limted based game to a Pc game where the player interaction area are not even close.

crysis 1 might be more technically impressive, due to the draw distance and massive amounts of foliage possible. But crysis 2 just hands down looks far better, and far more realistic.

What about things like character models and animations and lighting that are much better in crysis 2? why are we all hung up on having a treasure hunt trying to find the worste textures?

and even when it comes to textures, the ugly textures, are much less noticeable in crysis 2 than in crysis 1 during normal play. Crysis 1 wasnt afraid to put a giant ugly low res texture directly in your face. Seems to me like crysis 2 hides its ugly textures better.

Alot of the ugly crysis 1 pics look like someone actually playing the game, alot of the ugly crysis 2 pics are people running around zooming in on various textures....

snip

markinthedark

I consider most of this to be preference based, because I disagree with a lot of the quality claims.

Where are these better character models? I haven't seen them, unless they're hiding somewhere under the blur. I swear the character animations in the intro were running sub 30 as well, they just didn't look right.

Maybe Crysis 2 was so damn blurry, that people assume the art assets hiding under it all were better. Well PC gamers get called arrogant and elitist a lot, but anyone suggesting consoles are producing better textures/art assets than PC are certainly in that category.

[QUOTE="blues35301"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

Very true, why are they comparing Crysis 1 bad textures to Crysis 2's good textures? Those Crysis 2 textures in many cases are worse then the bad textures from Crysis 1.. also I think part of the reason why some of textures in Crysis 1 wasnt as good as they could have been is because the the sheer scale the levels and limits of Pc hardware from 2006-2007, mainly video memory. Its funny that alot of these bashers are trying to compare a console limted based game to a Pc game where the player interaction area are not even close.

markinthedark

crysis 1 might be more technically impressive, due to the draw distance and massive amounts of foliage possible. But crysis 2 just hands down looks far better, and far more realistic.

What about things like character models and animations and lighting that are much better in crysis 2? why are we all hung up on having a treasure hunt trying to find the worste textures?

and even when it comes to textures, the ugly textures, are much less noticeable in crysis 2 than in crysis 1 during normal play. Crysis 1 wasnt afraid to put a giant ugly low res texture directly in your face. Seems to me like crysis 2 hides its ugly textures better.

Alot of the ugly crysis 1 pics look like someone actually playing the game, alot of the ugly crysis 2 pics are people running around zooming in on various textures....

IDK, I just don't really see your point about Crysis 2.

[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"]Arma II is reaching photorealism. Or Shattered Horizons. Crysis 2...not so much.AAllxxjjnn

God. Are we still crying about C2's graphics? I've found that, as a game, I've been having more fun with Crysis 2 than I've had with the original. Sure the game has it's issues and the textures are terrible in places but I've been having a blast with the game.

AHEM... More ArmA II.

thespywholied

Wth is this lol. That looks like a photo, does it really look like that ingame?

[QUOTE="thespywholied"]

AHEM... More ArmA II.

edidili

Wth is this lol. That looks like a photo, does it really look like that ingame?

People have been talking about photoralism in videogames since Mortal Kombat if not before. So please people stop guessing, yes it will be there some day but not today.

Is this a joke thread?

I have yet to see a single screenshot from Crysis 2 that can even be slightly confused as photorealism.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

snip

AnnoyedDragon

I consider most of this to be preference based, because I disagree with a lot of the quality claims.

Where are these better character models? I haven't seen them, unless they're hiding somewhere under the blur. I swear the character animations in the intro were running sub 30 as well, they just didn't look right.

Maybe Crysis 2 was so damn blurry, that people assume the art assets hiding under it all were better. Well PC gamers get called arrogant and elitist a lot, but anyone suggesting consoles are producing better textures/art assets than PC are certainly in that category.

Well thats the thing, if i watch lord of the rings at 24fps and 480p. I consider that to be more photrealistic than crysis 1 maxed out at 60fps.

In my mind there is alot more to what makes something look good than resolution and fps.

The main character in crysis 1 looks mentally disabled, and i dont think thats the look they were going for... alot of the character models werent modeled as proportionately and animated as realistically.

If you wanna tell me the crysis 1 character models have higher resolution textures or even more polygons, maybe they do... i would believe you... but they look and move like animatronic gorillas, whereas the ones in crysis 2 look and move more like actual human beings imo.

To the average gamer, i would be willing to be 90% of them would think crysis 2 looks like the better game if you sat them down and let them play both games for the first time.

Photorealism?

Filthybastrd

The game looks pretty amazing, why show bad screenshots? Here are two i took myself last night

Meh. Game looks awesome but I dunno about photorealism.

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

snip

markinthedark

I consider most of this to be preference based, because I disagree with a lot of the quality claims.

Where are these better character models? I haven't seen them, unless they're hiding somewhere under the blur. I swear the character animations in the intro were running sub 30 as well, they just didn't look right.

Maybe Crysis 2 was so damn blurry, that people assume the art assets hiding under it all were better. Well PC gamers get called arrogant and elitist a lot, but anyone suggesting consoles are producing better textures/art assets than PC are certainly in that category.

Well thats the thing, if i watch lord of the rings at 24fps and 480p. I consider that to be more photrealistic than crysis 1 maxed out at 60fps.

In my mind there is alot more to what makes something look good than resolution and fps.

The main character in crysis 1 looks mentally disabled, and i dont think thats the look they were going for... alot of the character models werent modeled as proportionately and animated as realistically.

If you wanna tell me the crysis 1 character models have higher resolution textures or even more polygons, maybe they do... i would believe you... but they look and move like animatronic gorillas, whereas the ones in crysis 2 look and move more like actual human beings imo.

To the average gamer, i would be willing to be 90% of them would think crysis 2 looks like the better game if you sat them down and let them play both games for the first time.

Um you think Nomad is mentally disabled? and that character models werent modeled as proportionately and animated as realistically? come on now you cant be serious? Nomad at least speaks, andCrysis 2 suit looks more like gorilla shaped person.

:lol: hell no.

EDIT: first of all it doesn't even go for realism, second of all there's a hell of alot of improvements to be made to the graphics.

Meh. Game looks awesome but I dunno about photorealism.

h575309

To be honest i dont think games are going to be hitting photrealism, the resolution is to the point where things seems unnaturally sharp.

If you look at a movie picture like this...

liek, omg look at all the blurry textures... crysis 1 looks much more photrealistic!

[QUOTE="h575309"]

Meh. Game looks awesome but I dunno about photorealism.

markinthedark

To be honest i dont think games are going to be hitting photrealism, the resolution is to the point where things seems unnaturally sharp.

If you look at a movie picture like this...

liek, omg look at all the blurry textures... crysis 1 looks much more photrealistic!

Lol @ the beard texture

[QUOTE="h575309"]

Meh. Game looks awesome but I dunno about photorealism.

markinthedark

To be honest i dont think games are going to be hitting photrealism, the resolution is to the point where things seems unnaturally sharp.

If you look at a movie picture like this...

liek, omg look at all the blurry textures... crysis 1 looks much more photrealistic!

games are becoming unnaturally sharp compared to real life? or compared to screenshots of DVD movies?

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="h575309"]

Meh. Game looks awesome but I dunno about photorealism.

theuncharted34

To be honest i dont think games are going to be hitting photrealism, the resolution is to the point where things seems unnaturally sharp.

If you look at a movie picture like this...

liek, omg look at all the blurry textures... crysis 1 looks much more photrealistic!

games are becoming unnaturally sharp compared to real life? or compared to screenshots of DVD movies?

both, games have way too high a contrast and color saturations. In real life we view light reflections rather than direct light sources like on a monitor or HDTV.

Well thats the thing, if i watch lord of the rings at 24fps and 480p. I consider that to be more photrealistic than crysis 1 maxed out at 60fps.

In my mind there is alot more to what makes something look good than resolution and fps.

markinthedark

All you are doing is turning a objective argument about technical information, into a subjective argument; where you can talk about personal perceptions.

Those animations were jerky and appeared sub 30fps, all the interpretation in the world isn't going to change that.

The main character in crysis 1 looks mentally disabled, and i dont think thats the look they were going for... alot of the character models werent modeled as proportionately and animated as realistically.

If you wanna tell me the crysis 1 character models have higher resolution textures or even more polygons, maybe they do... i would believe you... but they look and move like animatronic gorillas, whereas the ones in crysis 2 look and move more like actual human beings imo.

To the average gamer, i would be willing to be 90% of them would think crysis 2 looks like the better game if you sat them down and let them play both games for the first time.

markinthedark

There is nothing objective about any of this argument, its a bunch of opinions and preferences that can neither be quantified or put to the test.

I could visibly see that the Crysis 2 models were of a lower technical quality than the ones in Crysis 1. They actually hid them under a layer of blur filters to try and hide that fact. Which is perfectly understandable, given that they were cut and paste from consoles. What isn't reasonable is claiming they are better, while admitting yourself you have no evidence to support these claims.

Stop using subjective reasoning as a counter argument to objective criticisms.

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

To be honest i dont think games are going to be hitting photrealism, the resolution is to the point where things seems unnaturally sharp.

If you look at a movie picture like this...

liek, omg look at all the blurry textures... crysis 1 looks much more photrealistic!

markinthedark

games are becoming unnaturally sharp compared to real life? or compared to screenshots of DVD movies?

both, games have way too high a contrast and color saturations. In real life we view light reflections rather than direct light sources like on a monitor or HDTV.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

games are becoming unnaturally sharp compared to real life? or compared to screenshots of DVD movies?

SaltyMeatballs

both, games have way too high a contrast and color saturations. In real life we view light reflections rather than direct light sources like on a monitor or HDTV.

Its still a light source if you can see it in the dark. You turn off the light, you can no longer read a book, but you can still read a webpage on your OLED monitor. Because the objects we traditionally see like a book or a photograph simply reflect light rather than produce it.

This would be my idea of approaching photorealistic:

These not so much. But, I consider both (plus some racing games on consoles) to be more photorealistic than any of the Crysis games.

http://uk.kotaku.com/5788625/crysis-2-vs-real-life

Definatly the most photerealistic game i have seen

Xbox 360 pics

yay for Arma 2