Crysis: Warhead didn't win Technical Graphics?!

[QUOTE="kozzy1234"]

[QUOTE="munu9"]Well, technically, MGS4 or GTA IV running on PS3 hardware is more technically impressive than crysis warhead visuals on a top end gaming PC. munu9

hell no, i own MGS4, GTA IV and Crysis Warhead and its not even close, Crysis Warhead graphics on my pc >>>> MGS4, GTIV, Gears of war2 graphicson my ps3 and 360.

And people who actually ARE qualified(Computer Science Majors/Programmers like myself) would tell you in a heartbeat that even THEN Crysis wins.

The size of the levels given the number of objects, poly counts, texture draws, and lighting complexities combined with the AI and Physics going on make Crysis absolutely unrivaled in terms of technical impressiveness given the hardware. The fact that it even RUNS on modern hardware is miraculous. And they don't use ANY tricks. Which is insane. They ACTUALLY do 99% of these techniques the REAL way, not just simulating these effects....

Techniques like Parallax Occlusion Mapping and Ambient Occlusion(2 techniques created/mastered by Crytek) are on a whole other level of graphical complexity. The physics engine used by Crytek is on an OS level complexity in terms of its memory management given that it can actually HANDLE 15K+ objects on screen at once without crashing. It may not run fast, but the simply fact that it is not crashing is a massively impressive accomplishment. The shaders are the best in the industry bar none. The fact that 50 different shaders are used to render a single face is a testament to the technical impressiveness of the engine. The level of detail in the lighting effects with water reflection/refractions as well as godrays and real-time lighting is impressive.

Crysis is amazingly well optimized. It pushes the hardware it is given to the absolute maximum for EVERY SINGLE FRAME.

Nobody at Gamespot would have been even remotely qualified to make a judgement on what was more impressive given the hardware and it is painfully obvious given how WRONG they are even if they DID assume that.

I have a ps3, a 360 and a gaming pc. Hopefully I won't be treated as a fanboy. I played and finished MGS4, Gears 2 and Warhead. In my opinion, MGS4 has the best and nicest cutscenes, it's not only pretty, but we can see all the time they spent in preparing the coregraphies and its really impressive. However, while you are playing, I think honnestly its the least impressive of the three overall... (and i'm not saying its ugly, it has some great moments and great graphics). Gears 2 is for me still today the pretiest console game, whoever finished this game has to admit they did a great job ( the smoke effect in the last level is simply incridible) but of course, nothing on console can match warehead, it's as simple as this... Farcry 2 is a good idea to picture how it would look like on console, and obviously whoever has played crysis on a high end pc and farcry 2 on console can have an idea of what i'm talking about.

I have nothing against having MGS4 as game of the year, but not having Gears 2 as one of the contenders is a bit sad and unfair in my opinion... I can see people playing Gears 2 far into 2009 thanks to its multiplayer. I haven't played MGS4 after finishing its great campaingn.

Still waiting for the guy who was calling me a fanboy and who said i dont own a ps3 to come back into the thread :roll:

Because only ps3 'haters' think crysis warhead looks the best graphically right? :roll:

[QUOTE="risc-vs-cisc"]

Its crysis warhead an expansion pack that came out 10 months after crysis .How hard is it to comprehend this? Verses a game that had how many years of Dev time and how many millions of dollars spent on it . It should be obvious that this award takes all aspects of development into consideration including hardware limitation's and what Dev's must go through to simulate or fake effect's that the pc can achieve with a library all ready compiled for them. It takes talented artists and lots of optimization to achieve the level of immersion in mgs4 the attention to detail with such limited hardware is rarely seen. If this was all about specs and not what was technically done to immerse the user you wold never EVER see a console game on that list.

Vandalvideo

Absolute garbage you can call it a standalone all you want but its still just an expansion pack released 10 months after crysis which had over a million lines of code 4gb of texture data and 85,000 shaders. All reused in the expansion pack warhead. Technical also means difficult and attention to detail. You obviously don't have a clue how hard and time consuming it is to bake in shadows on ever map and most objects and to get it right so it looks natural and matches the light source's as well as baked in light maps on most textures ,and then theirs all the frustum culling to get the best frame rates possible. All of that is Handeld by the shaders on the pc.I suggest you read my post again and take your time to comprehend it.

Absolute garbage you can call it a standalone all you want but its still just an expansion pack released 10 months after crysis which had over a million lines of code 4gb of texture data and 85,000 shaders. All reused in the expansion pack warhead. Technical also means difficult and attention to detail. You obviously don't have a clue how hard and time consuming it is to bake in shadows on ever map and most objects and to get it right so it looks natural and matches the light source's as well as baked in light maps on most textures ,and then theirs all the frustum culling to get the best frame rates possible. All of that is Handeld by the shaders on the pc.I suggest you read my post again and take your time to comprehend it.risc-vs-cisc

[QUOTE="risc-vs-cisc"]Absolute garbage you can call it a standalone all you want but its still just an expansion pack released 10 months after crysis which had over a million lines of code 4gb of texture data and 85,000 shaders. All reused in the expansion pack warhead. Technical also means difficult and attention to detail. You obviously don't have a clue how hard and time consuming it is to bake in shadows on ever map and most objects and to get it right so it looks natural and matches the light source's as well as baked in light maps on most textures ,and then theirs all the frustum culling to get the best frame rates possible. All of that is Handeld by the shaders on the pc.I suggest you read my post again and take your time to comprehend it.Vandalvideo

Im assuming this is just a joke post and you forgot to put one of these at the end:P

Im assuming this is just a joke post and you forgot to put one of these at the end:Prisc-vs-cisc

[QUOTE="kozzy1234"][QUOTE="Kratos-Sackboy"]

Doubt it. Most of your comments are about bashing PS3 games and PS3 itself.

Kratos-Sackboy

LOL, my ps1, ps2 and ps3 dissagree with you fanboy.

I own all systems this gen and almost all systems since atari and nes, so do some research before you talk trash little one.

My over 200 ps1 games in my collection say hello:)

You cant have conversations nicely so you resort to bashing.

In my opinion Crysis is graphcis king, i play PC and consoles the same, im not a fanboy of either.

Well how about you post pics? or your PSN ID huh? I used to have a 360 but sold it for a PS3. Check my profile or just go to xbox.com for proof. Yet you dont have proof.

[QUOTE="Kratos-Sackboy"][QUOTE="kozzy1234"]

LOL, my ps1, ps2 and ps3 dissagree with you fanboy.

I own all systems this gen and almost all systems since atari and nes, so do some research before you talk trash little one.

My over 200 ps1 games in my collection say hello:)

You cant have conversations nicely so you resort to bashing.

In my opinion Crysis is graphcis king, i play PC and consoles the same, im not a fanboy of either.

Dynafrom

Well how about you post pics? or your PSN ID huh? I used to have a 360 but sold it for a PS3. Check my profile or just go to xbox.com for proof. Yet you dont have proof.

Watch out... hes going to say your account is me posting under another name:lol:

I believe MGS4 deserves it's day in the sun and it's title GOTY, but to say it's has better graphic tech then Warhead is a little bit hard to take. MGS4 really doesn't need that much praise as to say it triumphs PC graphics. Whats the point in upgradeing your PC when you can just buy a PS3 and you are at the pinnacle of graphics(which is a crock).

Did they really need to step on PC graphics to launch MGS4 into the stratosphere? If you want to experience truly stunning visuals and want to see what this gen has to offer in graphic tech turn to no other but to the PC and play Crysis. MGS4 is a great game and I love GameSpot but it's just that I disagree with them over this.

I would love to see crytek make another game to take advantage of highend hardware in the PC. So come on, give credit where credit is due.

I believe MGS4 deserves it's day in the sun and it's title GOTY, but to say it's has better graphic tech then Warhead is a little bit hard to take. MGS4 really doesn't need that much praise as to say it triumphs PC graphics. Whats the point in upgradeing your PC when you can just buy a PS3 and you are at the pinnacle of graphics(which is a crock).

Did they really need to step on PC graphics to launch MGS4 into the stratosphere? If you want to experience truly stunning visuals and want to see what this gen has to offer in graphic tech turn to no other but to the PC and play Crysis. MGS4 is a great game and I love GameSpot but it's just that I disagree with them over this.

I would love to see crytek make another game to take advantage of highend hardware in the PC. So come on, give credit where credit is due.

VirtuaCast

I think your post sums up the ignorance of this place. the pc absolutely destroys all consoles when it comes to specs including multiplats and this should be obvious. The fact that a console game was even nominated should tell you that this award isn't about specs that's why they say technical.

[QUOTE="Kratos-Sackboy"][QUOTE="kozzy1234"]

LOL, my ps1, ps2 and ps3 dissagree with you fanboy.

I own all systems this gen and almost all systems since atari and nes, so do some research before you talk trash little one.

My over 200 ps1 games in my collection say hello:)

You cant have conversations nicely so you resort to bashing.

In my opinion Crysis is graphcis king, i play PC and consoles the same, im not a fanboy of either.

kozzy1234

Well how about you post pics? or your PSN ID huh? I used to have a 360 but sold it for a PS3. Check my profile or just go to xbox.com for proof. Yet you dont have proof.

Might take me awhile to post all my ps1 and ps2 games, but there is my ps3 and MGS4 :P

MGS 4 isnt even impressive looking. :|Jamiemydearx3

Only if you can comprehend the limitations of the ps3,having to use a real time parser "flex i/o" as a bus so the gpu can communicate with the spe's which the devs only get 5 and not 8. Then theirs the weak rsx and 256mb of ram and to top it off you have the risc in-order ppe cpu. Gears 2 has better specs than mgs4 simply because the hard ware allows for it .Theirs only one game that impressed me like mgs4 did and that was stalker clear sky.

The awards this year were pretty lame, but is it possible that GS was discussing hardware limitation vs. overall technical graphics? I'm not saying MGS4 would win here, but it would certainly make more sense than it does now; making a game like MGS4 on the PS3 hardware was clearly one hell of a graphical achievement.SeanBond

Yes technical can mean difficulty and attention to detail which they are clearly using by nominating any console game.

Might take me awhile to post all my ps1 and ps2 games, but there is my ps3 and MGS4 :P

kozzy1234

[QUOTE="VirtuaCast"]

I believe MGS4 deserves it's day in the sun and it's title GOTY, but to say it's has better graphic tech then Warhead is a little bit hard to take. MGS4 really doesn't need that much praise as to say it triumphs PC graphics. Whats the point in upgradeing your PC when you can just buy a PS3 and you are at the pinnacle of graphics(which is a crock).

Did they really need to step on PC graphics to launch MGS4 into the stratosphere? If you want to experience truly stunning visuals and want to see what this gen has to offer in graphic tech turn to no other but to the PC and play Crysis. MGS4 is a great game and I love GameSpot but it's just that I disagree with them over this.

I would love to see crytek make another game to take advantage of highend hardware in the PC. So come on, give credit where credit is due.

risc-vs-cisc

I think your post sums up the ignorance of this place. the pc absolutely destroys all consoles when it comes to specs including multiplats and this should be obvious. The fact that a console game was even nominated should tell you that this award isn't about specs that's why they say technical.

We all are so ignorant because GameSpot award title is vague? Sounds pretty arrogant to me.

Buy your logic PCs are going to have a harder time winning this award in the future. I have a problem with that. Just because some thing is harder to do doesn't make it technicaly better. If the award was named Greatest technical feat, Greatest Development technique, or Greatest Devlopement procedure I could understand, but Best graphics/ Technical? Under that title they should gave the award to Warhead, Gamespot should change the name and drop best graphics part as well.

Crytek also did a remarkable job at pushing the boundaries of both game design and technology and taking full advantage of hardware. Thats why I bought the game and why I upgraded my hardware, If Devs are not capable of pushing the PC hardware to the limit, why spend the money and upgrade my PC? Crysis screams technical that's why it was made it thrives off of it, to downplay its technical aspect is a crime is and hurts the series. MGS4 on the other hand doesn't need it to survive. That's why I was ranting about the hardware regardless if the PCs hardware is mechanically superior it shouldn't be knocked for it. Warhead is the emphasis of next gen technology and technically has better graphics then MGS4.

its because MGS4 still manage to look good despite the technical limitations whereas Crysis warhead runs on a computer that could of been 3 to 4 times stronger than PS3's capability

[QUOTE="risc-vs-cisc"][QUOTE="VirtuaCast"]

I believe MGS4 deserves it's day in the sun and it's title GOTY, but to say it's has better graphic tech then Warhead is a little bit hard to take. MGS4 really doesn't need that much praise as to say it triumphs PC graphics. Whats the point in upgradeing your PC when you can just buy a PS3 and you are at the pinnacle of graphics(which is a crock).

Did they really need to step on PC graphics to launch MGS4 into the stratosphere? If you want to experience truly stunning visuals and want to see what this gen has to offer in graphic tech turn to no other but to the PC and play Crysis. MGS4 is a great game and I love GameSpot but it's just that I disagree with them over this.

I would love to see crytek make another game to take advantage of highend hardware in the PC. So come on, give credit where credit is due.

VirtuaCast

I think your post sums up the ignorance of this place. the pc absolutely destroys all consoles when it comes to specs including multiplats and this should be obvious. The fact that a console game was even nominated should tell you that this award isn't about specs that's why they say technical.

We all are so ignorant because GameSpot award title is vague? Sounds pretty arrogant to me.

Buy your logic PCs are going to have a harder time winning this award in the future. I have a problem with that. Just because some thing is harder to do doesn't make it technicaly better. If the award was named Greatest technical feat, Greatest Development technique, or Greatest Devlopement procedure I could understand, but Best graphics/ Technical? Under that title they should gave the award to Warhead, Gamespot should change the name and drop best graphics part as well.

Crytek also did a remarkable job at pushing the boundaries of both game design and technology and taking full advantage of hardware. Thats why I bought the game and why I upgraded my hardware, If Devs are not capable of pushing the PC hardware to the limit, why spend the money and upgrade my PC? Crysis screams technical that's why it was made it thrives off of it, to downplay its technical aspect is a crime is and hurts the series. MGS4 on the other hand doesn't need it to survive. That's why I was ranting about the hardware regardless if the PCs hardware is mechanically superior it shouldn't be knocked for it. Warhead is the emphasis of next gen technology and technically has better graphics then MGS4.

I completely agree, and I hope you read my previous posts because that's the only way to explain it.

I completely agree, and I hope you read my previous posts because that's the only way to explain it.risc-vs-cisc

I hope you will go read my previous post as well..

Even if the graphics award did work that way, there is not a single person at Gamespot qualified to make a judgement like that because none of them have ANY Computer Science experience or any real knowledge of Computer Architecture. Not to mention the fact that they would still be wrong giving MGS4 the award. Crysis has way more going on per frame than most people even realize. Even with the hardware as advanced as PC hardware is, the things that Crysis is doing every frame is still a massive technical feat. In terms of raw optimization and raw tech, no other engine comes even remotely close to CryENGINE 2.0

MGS4 may have to work with the inferior PS3 hardware but it honestly isn't pushing all that much. Polygon Counts, Texture Draws and Lighting calls are all rather average in MGS4. The graphics are just a testament to good design. And that has nothing to do with the "Best Graphics - Technical" award. The "Technical" graphics award should NOT reward games that are good at tricking people into thinking the graphics are high end. Because MGS4 does just that. It should reward the games with the best TECHNICAL graphics. Be it just raw looks(what Gamespot would be qualified to judge) or actual technical demands(something nobody at Gamespot is qualified to judge).

Either way, your arguements for MGS4 as the "Best Graphics - Technical" winner fall rather flat when you honestly consider what the award is for. No matter how you interpret it, MGS4 should not have been the winner. And I think even Gamespot knows that. It ultimately just came down to the question "Do we really want to give it to Crysis twice?" Because Crysis is so far ahead of the curve graphically, that it has no competition. Why even give the award when the competition simply does not exist?

Crysis and Crysis Warhead graphics >>>>>>>> allkozzy1234

Even though I thought Crysis: Warhead deserved to win technical Graphics, a lot of other websites gave the award to MGS4 too so you can't just blame it all on Gamespot.fabz_95

As I mentioned above, the general thoughts regarding Crysis: Warhead and the "Best Graphics" award were that ultimately why even do the awards if Crysis is a serious contender. Anyone with eyes can tell you who the winner will be. So, the idea was to nominate Warhead because it truly does have amazing graphics, but never actually seriously consider it for the award.

Anyone who listens to a lot of podcasts could have told you this. Because I have been getting this vibe for the past 2 months when they have done some early GotY awards discussions. Or even just when they discuss graphics in general.

Crysis is always excluded from conversations about graphics because it simply is on a whole other level that including it would make the discussion end immediately.

MGS 4 isnt even impressive looking. :|Jamiemydearx3

Well, technically, MGS4 or GTA IV running on PS3 hardware is more technically impressive than crysis warhead visuals on a top end gaming PC. munu9

Crysis has high res textures, mapping and poly count. Thats it.trasherhead

[QUOTE="trasherhead"]Crysis has high res textures, mapping and poly count. Thats it.McdonaIdsGuy

LOL :lol:

1 character on screen at a time :D

[QUOTE="McdonaIdsGuy"][QUOTE="trasherhead"]Crysis has high res textures, mapping and poly count. Thats it.Generalmojo

LOL :lol:

1 character on screen at a time :D

[QUOTE="Generalmojo"]

[QUOTE="McdonaIdsGuy"]

lol,lest forget then crysis amazing physics,destructible enviroments amazing character models and animations your post only shows that u haven't even see crysis in motion. McdonaIdsGuy

LOL :lol:

1 character on screen at a time :D

ok fine..............3 then happy ?.?

[QUOTE="McdonaIdsGuy"][QUOTE="Generalmojo"]

LOL :lol:

1 character on screen at a time :D

Generalmojo

ok fine..............3 then happy ?.?

Try 40. This was without any lag at all.

crysis is an old gameRigga911

[QUOTE="munu9"][QUOTE="kozzy1234"]

hell no, i own MGS4, GTA IV and Crysis Warhead and its not even close, Crysis Warhead graphics on my pc >>>> MGS4, GTIV, Gears of war2 graphicson my ps3 and 360.

horrowhip

And people who actually ARE qualified(Computer Science Majors/Programmers like myself) would tell you in a heartbeat that even THEN Crysis wins.

The size of the levels given the number of objects, poly counts, texture draws, and lighting complexities combined with the AI and Physics going on make Crysis absolutely unrivaled in terms of technical impressiveness given the hardware. The fact that it even RUNS on modern hardware is miraculous. And they don't use ANY tricks. Which is insane. They ACTUALLY do 99% of these techniques the REAL way, not just simulating these effects....

Techniques like Parallax Occlusion Mapping and Ambient Occlusion(2 techniques created/mastered by Crytek) are on a whole other level of graphical complexity. The physics engine used by Crytek is on an OS level complexity in terms of its memory management given that it can actually HANDLE 15K+ objects on screen at once without crashing. It may not run fast, but the simply fact that it is not crashing is a massively impressive accomplishment. The shaders are the best in the industry bar none. The fact that 50 different shaders are used to render a single face is a testament to the technical impressiveness of the engine. The level of detail in the lighting effects with water reflection/refractions as well as godrays and real-time lighting is impressive.

Crysis is amazingly well optimized. It pushes the hardware it is given to the absolute maximum for EVERY SINGLE FRAME.

Nobody at Gamespot would have been even remotely qualified to make a judgement on what was more impressive given the hardware and it is painfully obvious given how WRONG they are even if they DID assume that.

Haha wow, I am impressed.

*This call is for all MGS4 fanboys, please exit the thread at this time*

MGS4 doesnt look better than Warhead, but I believe it won because it advance technical aspect of graphics. Warhead verus previous Crysis VERUS Metal Gear Solid verus previous similiar games.ArisShadows

I keep hearing things like this, but if the reason was because Warhead didn't advance on a game that took a long time for PCs to catch up on, it should never have been nominated.

They choose to compete MGS against one of the best a PC can offer. If Warhead didn't have a chance on its own merits based on a technicality, don't include it.

I have played both, and IMO Gamespot is right.
Crysis's graphics are about "Look how pretty these rocks in this game here are"
While in Mgs I basically forgot I was even playing a game.
There was no moment in Crysis that was on the same level as the Vamp/Raiden Snake/Gekkos fight, with the split screen.

Oh well, I had a good life.

Murdered by fanboys in 5...4...3

[QUOTE="horrowhip"][QUOTE="munu9"] That's not my point! My point is it's more technically impressive to get a game like MGS4 running on PS3 hardware than it is to get a game like crysis warhead to run on a gaming PC. Anyone can make a game more technically impressive just in graphics than MGS4 if they have powerful enough hardware. But to be limited to PS3 hardware and make a game like MGS4 is apparently more impressive than crysis on gaming PC's fatzebra

And people who actually ARE qualified(Computer Science Majors/Programmers like myself) would tell you in a heartbeat that even THEN Crysis wins.

The size of the levels given the number of objects, poly counts, texture draws, and lighting complexities combined with the AI and Physics going on make Crysis absolutely unrivaled in terms of technical impressiveness given the hardware. The fact that it even RUNS on modern hardware is miraculous. And they don't use ANY tricks. Which is insane. They ACTUALLY do 99% of these techniques the REAL way, not just simulating these effects....

Techniques like Parallax Occlusion Mapping and Ambient Occlusion(2 techniques created/mastered by Crytek) are on a whole other level of graphical complexity. The physics engine used by Crytek is on an OS level complexity in terms of its memory management given that it can actually HANDLE 15K+ objects on screen at once without crashing. It may not run fast, but the simply fact that it is not crashing is a massively impressive accomplishment. The shaders are the best in the industry bar none. The fact that 50 different shaders are used to render a single face is a testament to the technical impressiveness of the engine. The level of detail in the lighting effects with water reflection/refractions as well as godrays and real-time lighting is impressive.

Crysis is amazingly well optimized. It pushes the hardware it is given to the absolute maximum for EVERY SINGLE FRAME.

Nobody at Gamespot would have been even remotely qualified to make a judgement on what was more impressive given the hardware and it is painfully obvious given how WRONG they are even if they DID assume that.

Haha wow, I am impressed.

*This call is for all MGS4 fanboys, please exit the thread at this time*

If horrowhip is right, this looks like the time for an Ownage Approved Cert.

If Warhead was a full game it probably woud've won. But its an expansion pack so thats probably why it didn't.

And yes the graphics of Warhead are better then MGS 4.

Its crysis warhead an expansion pack that came out 10 months after crysis .How hard is it to comprehend this? Verses a game that had how many years of Dev time and how many millions of dollars spent on it . It should be obvious that this award takes all aspects of development into consideration including hardware limitation's and what Dev's must go through to simulate or fake effect's that the pc can achieve with a library all ready compiled for them. It takes talented artists and lots of optimization to achieve the level of immersion in mgs4 the attention to detail with such limited hardware is rarely seen. If this was all about specs and not what was technically done to immerse the user you wold never EVER see a console game on that list.

risc-vs-cisc

still MGS4 won, it doesnt matter if you are the most genius computer geek on earth.

so go cry elsewhere.

still MGS4 won, it doesnt matter if you are the most genius computer geek on earth.

so go cry elsewhere.

dantesergei

If all these gaming websites told you to jump off a bridge, would you?

Of course not.

Use your own eyes and judgement, Crysis is the BEST looking game out now,

I am not one who really cares about graphics, but Crysis: Warhead was without a doubt the best looking game in 2008. I don't know why video game websites like Gamespot are giving the award to MGS4, but their either losing it or just plain wrong. MGS4 is still the best looking console game so far this generation.

Just for the fanboys, yes, I've played both games. I am not going to post pictures of what I own because I prefer to be a private person. Besides, Kozzy already owned a PS3 fanboy, and I really don't feel I have to post any pictures. If you don't believe me, then don't. I really don't care.

I have played both, and IMO Gamespot is right.
Crysis's graphics are about "Look how pretty these rocks in this game here are"
While in Mgs I basically forgot I was even playing a game.
There was no moment in Crysis that was on the same level as the Vamp/Raiden Snake/Gekkos fight, with the split screen.

Oh well, I had a good life.

Murdered by fanboys in 5...4...3

Koba123

:roll: you are a fanboy though, that statement is proof.