Far Cry 2 vs Crysis

Interesting paragraph pulled from the article posted earlier.

"Well there is no doubt that porting our engine to the PlayStation 3 is the more challenging of our two ongoing conversion projects, but that works to our advantage in the end. We feel certain we have the ability to get the most that is possible out of that platform, and therefore PS3 games which run on our engine in the future will definitely stand significantly apart from other games that don't."

pseudocaesar

Maybe from the 360 version but not the pc.

I will make Warcraft 3 map that have all things dunia engine can do lol

It will just be RTS and will not have such good graphics :roll:

OMG its such a head ache replying to you guys.

Most of you just go on giving personal opinion.Please dont bother replying to me without any proper backup/proof(Other wise i will not answer).I have included proper backup and proof in each of posts.And you guys just go on crying like kids.I knew it was a bad idea to talk about this with kiddish hermits(thats what they call em here) like you guys.lol..

"Do you even understand what you are talking about. The CryEngine 2 is pretty much undisputed throughout the industry as being able to achieve the highest graphical fidelity. If you believe that FarCry 2, especially the console version is visually better than Crysis them I'm gonna say you're alone on this one mate lol."

My point wasnt that AT ALL.From the begining i am comparing the optimization/looks/features of DUNIA and CRYENGINE 2.Which in any experienced or smart opinion DUNIA is far better in every aspect.My point is not to compare CONSOLES and PCS.I clearly mentioned in my first post that PCs will be far more superior than consoles.

"I know, this lesner87 is becoming quite amusing...he's not Wok7 is he? or his little brother?"

So you guys make fun of a person who provides his facts and proof over here ? :D

"The CryEngine 2 is a monster.

Nothing can really compare.

If Warhead is any indication it can be a monster, and run on a huge number of gaming computers, with its newly optimised CryEngine 2 (that will come as a patch for Crysis). "

This is your monster engine ?

http://www.ripten.com/2008/04/07/ps3360-cry-engine-2-to-look-near-high-settings-on-pc/

"Did you read my whole post? At the very beginning I say the engine is heavily modified, but never the less it is easier to build upon something than start from scratch (which is what Crytek did with Cryengine 2). Why else do you think they built the engine on Cryengine 1 instead of making a new engine themselves (after all they have to pay Crytek for the use of the engine no matter how heavily modified it is). So yes they do deserve credit for the great work they have done with the engine (and from what I have seen they have done a great deal), but to me Crytek is more deserving of praise when it comes to making engines."

They would do that because its a smarter thing to do.Theres a difference between obssesions and aims :).So my point proved.

lesner87

Hermits Kiddish? are you serious?

But again they decrease them in a way that they are ENTIRELY un-noticeable.Let me think of an example for you,yea for example compare both the 360 and PS3 version of GTAIV.lesner87

No, design might make them look less noticable, but it won't remove everything. Low-res textures, hurt even more by lack of AF are a standart "feature" for all modern console games and aliasing is still noticable. So no..the difference is obvious

e Ps3 didnt have ANY antialising where as the 360 version did.Now compare them side by side Ps3 verison seems to have been better antialised :).The reason : Because the DESIGNED THE GRAPHICS THEMSELVE to look antialised.Understand my point ? So similarly these tricky tweaks dont require ANYTHING at all from the hardware but once they are caught in motion they cheat your eye.

haha, joke post? Crysis runs smooth on my pc and the new crysiswarhead PC for 600$ can run the new crysis warhead with And thats not the fault of the hardware.Its the FAULT OF CRYENGINE 2.IS that enough to prove my point :) ?

kozzy1234

CryEngine2 isn't badly optimised, it just displays graphics too good for most cards to handle. Of course it wasn't perfectly optimized and there was still room for optimisation, but that's what they did in Crysis Warhead: it looks even better than Crysis, while at the same time it also runs a lot faster. I doubt FC2 will be as nicely optimised as Warhead, especialy considering that the demos were far from smooth despite running on TWO 8800Ultras in SLI, a hardware that runs Warhead smoothly

some quotes from impressions of FC2 demo from a guy who actualy played both console and PC versions on E3

http://farcry2game.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1560

y first experience with Far Cry 2 was slightly disappointing. I first took the E3 demo for a spin on the Xbox 360, and here's why: the Far Cry 2 demo room at E3 had several builds of the game running for media members to play, but only one of the demos was the PC version. All of the other demo stations were Xbox 360s or PlayStation 3s. Even worse, when I first visited the Far Cry 2 demo room, the Dell XPS devoted to the game was actually turned off.

Why? Because, according, to the Ubisoft team, the PC was overheating (it was pretty hot in that cramped demo room). But apparently, the temperature wasn't high enough to get the notoriously fragile Xbox 360s to overheat and enter the "read ring" death stage. Obviously, I was a little concerned that Ubisoft only had one PC running Far Cry 2 and that the system overheated. Was this game going to be incredibly taxing like Crysis? What were the hardware requirements for this game? I had a lot of questions. So I went back the next day to Ubisoft's demo room and got on the PC version, which was back up and running. And the results from my second try with Far Cry 2 were leaps and bounds better than my first.

Visually, there is no comparison between the PC and console versions. That may sound like an obvious statement, of course, but it's worth emphasizing. The magnificent fire propagation effects that Ubisoft has treated us to in early trailers and gameplay videos were on full display in the E3 demo, but on the consoles, the fire animation was extremely bland and lacked the kind of detail and texture of the PC version. Similarly, the lighting and environmental weather effects were outstanding on the PC but didn't have the same kind of punch on the consoles. In terms of graphics, the PC version of Far Cry 2 looks almost as impressive as Crysis; the game is punctuated with vivid explosions, beautiful jungle environments and rich character renders much like Crysis. Ubisoft's newly constructed Dunia game engine delivered top notch visuals in this demo.

I see alot of people claiming over here that Crysis is the best thing since sliced bread,usually hermits and i personally think that they have a very biased view most probably due to the fact that Far Cry 2 is going to both consoles.If we all have un biased views,which people at GS will never have.We can see that games like Crysis can be ported to console.Ofcourse i do agree that PCs will always be FAR more superior.But UPTIL now there hasnt been any new feature invented on PCs to make games look much cooler(example soft-shadowing).All the features of PCs (currently) can be ported to the consoles.The latest cards which have come only have RAW power not any new feature.Correct me if i am wrong.

Heres a small comparison video :

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

Heres another video showing of Warhound(X360),Dead Island(X360),Crysis,Farcry 2.

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

So now tell me which one do you think looks better ?

lesner87

LOL WHAT???

I think this vid speaks for itself

LINK

[QUOTE="killerfist"]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isnt Far Cry using a dumbed down engine because it was made with consoles in mind?

Crysis is PC only.

lesner87

HAhaha who gave you that idea ? Dunia engine is even better than Cryengine 2.Dunia is made by UBISOFT and is in production EVEN before Crysis came out.

Its not crap but they have VERY WELL optimized the engine.Thats ANOTHER advantage over the Cryengine 2.The Cryengine 2 undoubtably was the most horrible engine EVER made in terms of optimization (Four way SLI 9800GTX could only pull around 55+ average on Cryengine 2)Imagine that sh** !

4 way SLI scales horribly by the way. a 2 sli machine can out preform a quad sli

This is your monster engine ?

http://www.ripten.com/2008/04/07/ps3360-cry-engine-2-to-look-near-high-settings-on-pc/

lesner87

It cant run on high settings on consoles, because of the consoles hardware limitation.

Surprise suprise, if anything you enforce it.

1. Ubi got licence for the engine ages ago.

See Far Cry Instincts.

Ubi own the rights to the Far Cry name.

Hence them making Far Cry 2.... which is not even a sequal to Far Cry.... All it is, is an IP title.

[QUOTE="killerfist"]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isnt Far Cry using a dumbed down engine because it was made with consoles in mind?

Crysis is PC only.

lesner87

HAhaha who gave you that idea ? Dunia engine is even better than Cryengine 2.Dunia is made by UBISOFT and is in production EVEN before Crysis came out.

Its not crap but they have VERY WELL optimized the engine.Thats ANOTHER advantage over the Cryengine 2.The Cryengine 2 undoubtably was the most horrible engine EVER made in terms of optimization (Four way SLI 9800GTX could only pull around 55+ average on Cryengine 2)Imagine that sh** !

FC2 doesn't even come close to Crysis graphics. It will undoubtly have some very nice effects with the fire etc. But the overall look, textures, detail and character models are all far better in Crysis from what I've seen.

I'll wait till I play FC2 since Crysis had pretty good graphics but the character animations in FC2 look more impressive than CrysisFFXIII360

:roll: oh you would say that.

Next you will make an account Crysis2360 :roll:

I get really mad whenever a person says Cryengine2 is horribly optimised. If you just think at the power it does(extreme amount of vegetation, insanely large maps, lighting, textures) how can run as smooth as butter? I mean cmon. The maps of crysis are huge. Offcourse anybody who gets my point also know that its not perfectly optimised but for the graphics that the engine can do that already incredible right? A least Warhead will run like air. If an 8600 can do it why not my 8800GTS 512 and my QuadCore right?

As for FarCry. When I saw all the gameplay videos trailer and stuff I felt it was sorta lacking . I can't really tell what was but I think it has to be the vegetation. The vegetation is bad, not horrible but it looks bad compared to Crysis. Well Compared to Crysis it is but then is has does have nice vegetation. But the thing that I really saw in the Dunia engine was the flames. the flames in FarCry is wow! I'd still say the NEW CryEngine 2(Crysis Warhead) is still better now.

I see alot of people claiming over here that Crysis is the best thing since sliced bread,usually hermits and i personally think that they have a very biased view most probably due to the fact that Far Cry 2 is going to both consoles.If we all have un biased views,which people at GS will never have.We can see that games like Crysis can be ported to console.Ofcourse i do agree that PCs will always be FAR more superior.But UPTIL now there hasnt been any new feature invented on PCs to make games look much cooler(example soft-shadowing).All the features of PCs (currently) can be ported to the consoles.The latest cards which have come only have RAW power not any new feature.Correct me if i am wrong.

Heres a small comparison video :

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

Heres another video showing of Warhound(X360),Dead Island(X360),Crysis,Farcry 2.

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

So now tell me which one do you think looks better ?

lesner87

Having read through the entire thread, it is safe to say the weight of opinion is against you.