NEW far cry 2 gameplay footage - better than crysis!

its better looking than crysis. look at the foliage and the lighting effects along with the draw distance. one catch! ITS ON A CONSOLE. believe it or not. watch the video. then comment.

http://www.gametrailer.com/player/39009.html

not better no....nice tho...but not better....

linked:

http://www.gametrailer.com/player/39009.html

its better looking than crysis. look at the foliage and the lighting effects along with the draw distance. one catch! ITS ON A CONSOLE. believe it or not. watch the video. then comment.

http://www.gametrailer.com/player/39009.html

pooper_trooper

No

Yes

Crysis

Looks good

I've only seen videos of both, so I'll take your word for it that Crysis has way better textures, but going by the videos FC2 looks more realistic.FerdMertz

Well, Crysis is kind of a science-fiction world, so you might forgive them for being a bit mroe stylized.

its better looking than crysis. look at the foliage and the lighting effects along with the draw distance. one catch! ITS ON A CONSOLE. believe it or not. watch the video. then comment.

http://www.gametrailer.com/player/39009.html

pooper_trooper

It certainly looks like a more compelling game than Crysis to be sure.Pariah_001

In your opinion, right?

It certainly looks like a more compelling game than Crysis to be sure.Pariah_001

At least that's for certain.

i wonder what version that was? the ps3 version is said to have superior AA, i didn't see any aliasing issues in that footage, so what was that the ps3 version or mabe there it was 360 and there is no superior AA on the ps3 and that was all fanboy claiming this and that? idk, what ever it is, it looked like the console graphics king.... too bad tho, neither of themt can touch my hp blackbirds' 260gtx oc :PLibertySaint

its impossible for the ps3 version to have better AA, you can always force 16x aa on the pc version

It certainly looks like a more compelling game than Crysis to be sure.Pariah_001

im way more hyped for crysis warhead than fc2, The fact I haven't seen anything in fc2 that has any destructable environment makes me wonder if its more of this all graphics and no physics. average graphic with great physics is way better than great graphics and no physics.

you, console versions aside, i think far cry 2 maxed out on pc looks better than crysis. crysis is this beautifull island with god rays coming from the sky, some repetitive water effect, trees that all look the same, simple building destruction with metal plates just flying everywhere. far cry 2 has a way better physics engine under the hood, and is a free roaming game, while crysis is small bits of an island by small bits, because the crysis engine as it is right now isnt able to render a full scale land with the detail far cry 2 has. crysis looks good, but isnt graphically impressive as far cry 2 is.papi_lekker

[QUOTE="Pariah_001"]It certainly looks like a more compelling game than Crysis to be sure.imprezawrx500

im way more hyped for crysis warhead than fc2, The fact I haven't seen anything in fc2 that has any destructable environment makes me wonder if its more of this all graphics and no physics. average graphic with great physics is way better than great graphics and no physics.

Destructible environments is fine if everything else in the game is fine.

Crysis had a lot of great things going for it, but it never really came together in the end. I remember people speculating some great scenarios, especially with the destructible environments falling in on enemy troops; the reality was that those massive palm trees fell at really odd angles that never quite worked the way you expected it to, and in the end the best thing to do was shoot the enemy in the head anyway. Other things include: the A.I wasn't up to par with the mission design, the so-called sandbox was really an illusion of several wide, broad levels, and even the latter third of the game decided to throw that away in favour of a linear corridor shooter.

The only thing that has lingered with me long after I completed Crysis was the nice, pretty graphics.

I'm not sure if Far Cry 2 has physics on a larger scale than Crysis, but it does have an adequate amount of it. Fire is one element of physics, and if I remember correctly, it's also affected by wind. So if you haven't seen anything related to physics in Far Cry, yo haven't been paying attention. Nevertheless, if they can make you feel like a vulernable yet dangerous predator in the African continent by pulling all their features together (thus making the sum greater than its parts), then that's something Crytek should take note of. They had many great elements, but they never worked in harmony.

its better looking than crysis. look at the foliage and the lighting effects along with the draw distance. one catch! ITS ON A CONSOLE. believe it or not. watch the video. then comment.

http://www.gametrailer.com/player/39009.html

pooper_trooper

It certainly looks like a more compelling game than Crysis to be sure.Pariah_001

THe last Jackal trailer looked fantastic.

For a trailer.

[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"]

[QUOTE="Pariah_001"]It certainly looks like a more compelling game than Crysis to be sure.FrozenLiquid

im way more hyped for crysis warhead than fc2, The fact I haven't seen anything in fc2 that has any destructable environment makes me wonder if its more of this all graphics and no physics. average graphic with great physics is way better than great graphics and no physics.

Destructible environments is fine if everything else in the game is fine.

Crysis had a lot of great things going for it, but it never really came together in the end. I remember people speculating some great scenarios, especially with the destructible environments falling in on enemy troops; the reality was that those massive palm trees fell at really odd angles that never quite worked the way you expected it to, and in the end the best thing to do was shoot the enemy in the head anyway. Other things include: the A.I wasn't up to par with the mission design, the so-called sandbox was really an illusion of several wide, broad levels, and even the latter third of the game decided to throw that away in favour of a linear corridor shooter.

The only thing that has lingered with me long after I completed Crysis was the nice, pretty graphics.

I'm not sure if Far Cry 2 has physics on a larger scale than Crysis, but it does have an adequate amount of it. Fire is one element of physics, and if I remember correctly, it's also affected by wind. So if you haven't seen anything related to physics in Far Cry, yo haven't been paying attention. Nevertheless, if they can make you feel like a vulernable yet dangerous predator in the African continent by pulling all their features together (thus making the sum greater than its parts), then that's something Crytek should take note of. They had many great elements, but they never worked in harmony.

Firstly, let me just say I respect your opinion but your experience differs to mine quite considerably. There is no hiding I am a big fan of the game. I found the physics quite amusing on several play-throughs. I've never dropped a tree on anyone, but ive had a load of guards in a shack while im on the roof, looking for me and i've punched the roof in to fall on them. I've punched walls in and blown old shacks in and see debris flyout and kill near by korean soldiers.

I know the levels weren't one big open sandbox, but the size of the environments were certainly impressive. To have such eye-candy over a large scale really adds to the immersiveness of being in a large real-world environment. There are some levels where you just stop by a village and can have fun abducting the guards and watching th ai react to sounds and the disappearance of their comrades. One i even grabbed a guy from behind whilst peeing 8) Then there are times, when I killed some soldiers and back up comes in the form of patrols slowly moving into the area. At night watching them patrol by and being stealthy is very atmospheric and immersive. For me the gameplay has tons of options in stealthplay or gun play. You even have the option of running through the levels without hardly killing a soldier.

I've never played a combat game that gives you so much freedom, so much to play with and so many styles of play that crysis presents. In my opinion the people that compare Crysis as a generic shooter or imply as such probably just play the game as a generic shooter. The point is the game gives you that option, on the other hand, you can make the combat completely different altogether. It's how you play it, not the level size that counts.

[QUOTE="Pariah_001"]It certainly looks like a more compelling game than Crysis to be sure.DAZZER7

In your opinion, right?

Of course.

It's how you play it, not the level size that counts.

DAZZER7

Yeah, I'm sure you can go out of your way to have fun, etc. You mentioned it's however you want to play it that makes the game special. I honestly don't buy that idea from many games unless they truly expand upon that.

In a game like Crysis, there's many ways to do a lot of things, but usually there's one way that's the absolute most efficient way to achieve a goal. Bioshock was in the same boat as well, you can have fun with your plasmids, but it wasn't necessary to complete the goal. Those two games might have a lot of breadth, but it didn't necessarily equate to more depth in terms of options.

If the mantra is "It's how you play these games", why not apply it to all games?

Let's go straight for the jugular with Halo. Why not manually handicap yourself and go around playing the game with a plasma pistol the entire time, because you can do that, and it will change your playing sty-le somewhat.Why not go on a melee spree in Call of Duty? It'll make the game very intense as you try sneak past enemy lines to take them out from behind?

See the problem with this "freedom" in games such as Crysis and Bioshock is that there is no incentive to go out of your way to change up the gameplay. In Assassin's Creed, for example, you only had to do three missions to get enough information to take down the main enemy. You could gain more information if you wanted to, and that would increase the information surrounding your main assassination. If Crysis or Bioshock were Assassin's Creed, getting more information would've been done in vain: there would be no rewards. It would just be there for the sake of being there.

Each situation in Crysis was done in isolation: if I used stealth to achieve one mission objective, doing that same mission again all guns blazing would lead to the same scenario for the next mission. If Crysis wanted to truly excel in what it was trying to achieve, the way you play should affect the game. But when you did different things each time, you'd end up with the same result. If you want to see a sandbox game that does that, look at GTA IV. Doing certain activities and choosing certain friends lends you to play the game differently. One girlfriend can get the cops of off you if you're nice to her, but the minute she knows you're cheating on her she pulls the plug. Get-out-of-jail free cards begone.

If Crysis did the same thing, we would see stealth players rewarded with easier missions down the line. Communication jamming as secondary (or even tertiary) objectives at hard to reach areas would render enemy tacics useless. Act like the Terminator from the get go and the North Koreans should be bringing tactical ops and more armour as you progress through the game. It didn't happen, though.

What's the point I'm trying to prove? Crysis, being a game about "freedom", has a lot of freedom for nothing. You can apply manual handicaps to linear games and say "it's how you play it that makes it fun", but Crytek gives you more options by encoding more 0's and 1's in their code.

If Crysis were like STALKER, with a risk-vs-reward system on how you play the game, then we're talking.

Each situation in Crysis was done in isolation: if I used stealth to achieve one mission objective, doing that same mission again all guns blazing would lead to the same scenario for the next mission. If Crysis wanted to truly excel in what it was trying to achieve, the way you play should affect the game. But when you did different things each time, you'd end up with the same result. If you want to see a sandbox game that does that, look at GTA IV. Doing certain activities and choosing certain friends lends you to play the game differently. One girlfriend can get the cops of off you if you're nice to her, but the minute she knows you're cheating on her she pulls the plug. Get-out-of-jail free cards begone.

FrozenLiquid

Every mission forces you into a style of play in a linear scenario, same goes for nearly every game out there - including games that 'offer choice' like Bioshock - opting for the agressive combat role nearly every single time.

In Crysis while your progression is set, you can go about every large scenario as you see fit, without compromising game design. You want to stealth it, you can do it for an entire mission, go rambo, you can do that too - utterlly seamlessly changing betweeen play styles on the fly - instead of an RPG like 'set into' one playstyle (as the game was originally designed to have you upgrade the suit for a single play style).

Alot of the brilliance in the game design is its freeform nature - somthing many games are still lacking. Take for example the mission where you escape from the dig, to an extraction point at night. You are given a point A to B to traverse to, and a massive amount of ground to cover. How you go about it is pureley up to you, which means sneaking past enemy defences, or plucking off soldiers from hedges, is equally rewarding as jumping into a car and hurtling through enemy lines, and being a complete bullet magnet. You are going to have loads of fun either way, and you can keep going back to try again and again and again.

Sure the game could have been more like risk and reward, however punishing the player down the line for not opting for a type of play style could simply ruin the gameplay and game design, as ultimatley its forcing the player not to experiment, rather focus completely on a style of play, which defies the point of open levels that allow creative and tactical freedom.

Even in a game like STALKER tactical freedom could only be so much - Stealth in the game could be nigh impossible at close quaters or medium range, and was all purley determined on more of a luck basis, wheras games like Bioshock make stealth utterlly useless, direct combat was almost always the best option.

Of course Crysis faltered in the final quater, its game design shifted to direct linear fps - call of duty styled scripted combat, and for all its worth it was good and enjoyable, but was completely missing what made the game fun in the first place.

[QUOTE="DAZZER7"]

It's how you play it, not the level size that counts.

FrozenLiquid

Yeah, I'm sure you can go out of your way to have fun, etc. You mentioned it's however you want to play it that makes the game special. I honestly don't buy that idea from many games unless they truly expand upon that.

In a game like Crysis, there's many ways to do a lot of things, but usually there's one way that's the absolute most efficient way to achieve a goal. Bioshock was in the same boat as well, you can have fun with your plasmids, but it wasn't necessary to complete the goal. Those two games might have a lot of breadth, but it didn't necessarily equate to more depth in terms of options.

If the mantra is "It's how you play these games", why not apply it to all games?

Let's go straight for the jugular with Halo. Why not manually handicap yourself and go around playing the game with a plasma pistol the entire time, because you can do that, and it will change your playing sty-le somewhat.Why not go on a melee spree in Call of Duty? It'll make the game very intense as you try sneak past enemy lines to take them out from behind?

See the problem with this "freedom" in games such as Crysis and Bioshock is that there is no incentive to go out of your way to change up the gameplay. In Assassin's Creed, for example, you only had to do three missions to get enough information to take down the main enemy. You could gain more information if you wanted to, and that would increase the information surrounding your main assassination. If Crysis or Bioshock were Assassin's Creed, getting more information would've been done in vain: there would be no rewards. It would just be there for the sake of being there.

Each situation in Crysis was done in isolation: if I used stealth to achieve one mission objective, doing that same mission again all guns blazing would lead to the same scenario for the next mission. If Crysis wanted to truly excel in what it was trying to achieve, the way you play should affect the game. But when you did different things each time, you'd end up with the same result. If you want to see a sandbox game that does that, look at GTA IV. Doing certain activities and choosing certain friends lends you to play the game differently. One girlfriend can get the cops of off you if you're nice to her, but the minute she knows you're cheating on her she pulls the plug. Get-out-of-jail free cards begone.

If Crysis did the same thing, we would see stealth players rewarded with easier missions down the line. Communication jamming as secondary (or even tertiary) objectives at hard to reach areas would render enemy tacics useless. Act like the Terminator from the get go and the North Koreans should be bringing tactical ops and more armour as you progress through the game. It didn't happen, though.

What's the point I'm trying to prove? Crysis, being a game about "freedom", has a lot of freedom for nothing. You can apply manual handicaps to linear games and say "it's how you play it that makes it fun", but Crytek gives you more options by encoding more 0's and 1's in their code.

If Crysis were like STALKER, with a risk-vs-reward system on how you play the game, then we're talking.

Ok, but certainly in the first few levels, Crysis kind of presents the levels as an open battlefield and says, here is your objective, go about it as you see fit. I think it did that aspect very well. I'm the type of player to who that appeals. I think the game could have been much improved if stealth play had yielded more rewards. Especially, kidnapping a korean soldier...could have maybe given you new objectives or intel. I think they missed an opportunity there.

Bioshock was alright, but I'll agree the novelty of using the plasmids soon wore off. My favourite experiences ironically in bioshock were the scripted/setpeice sections, like the bit where you're at that machine, you turn round and there is a guy stood right behind you or where the woman is nursing a pistol in a pram.

Going back to Crysis, I do believe people are overly critical of it's gameplay because it is 'the' graphical showpeice that it is. I've seen a lot of posts on the boards from people who clearly havent played the game and want to find something to criticise. But I agree that the game presents no incentive for different styles of play and could have had more depth in certain areas. However, that has still not stopped me putting the disk back in and playing through the early levels for the simple 'messing around' factor.

Whilst we're on it, I would like to agree with you on Stalker. Take a look at my post history and you will see I am a massive fan of the game. Stalker has taken up much more of my time than Crysis has or ever will. Right now, I'm making slow progress through using the oblivion lost 2.1 mod. If only I could just get more bandages for my wounds, I'm forever dying from bleeding to death lol.

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"][QUOTE="DAZZER7"]

It's how you play it, not the level size that counts.

DAZZER7

Yeah, I'm sure you can go out of your way to have fun, etc. You mentioned it's however you want to play it that makes the game special. I honestly don't buy that idea from many games unless they truly expand upon that.

In a game like Crysis, there's many ways to do a lot of things, but usually there's one way that's the absolute most efficient way to achieve a goal. Bioshock was in the same boat as well, you can have fun with your plasmids, but it wasn't necessary to complete the goal. Those two games might have a lot of breadth, but it didn't necessarily equate to more depth in terms of options.

If the mantra is "It's how you play these games", why not apply it to all games?

Let's go straight for the jugular with Halo. Why not manually handicap yourself and go around playing the game with a plasma pistol the entire time, because you can do that, and it will change your playing sty-le somewhat.Why not go on a melee spree in Call of Duty? It'll make the game very intense as you try sneak past enemy lines to take them out from behind?

See the problem with this "freedom" in games such as Crysis and Bioshock is that there is no incentive to go out of your way to change up the gameplay. In Assassin's Creed, for example, you only had to do three missions to get enough information to take down the main enemy. You could gain more information if you wanted to, and that would increase the information surrounding your main assassination. If Crysis or Bioshock were Assassin's Creed, getting more information would've been done in vain: there would be no rewards. It would just be there for the sake of being there.

Each situation in Crysis was done in isolation: if I used stealth to achieve one mission objective, doing that same mission again all guns blazing would lead to the same scenario for the next mission. If Crysis wanted to truly excel in what it was trying to achieve, the way you play should affect the game. But when you did different things each time, you'd end up with the same result. If you want to see a sandbox game that does that, look at GTA IV. Doing certain activities and choosing certain friends lends you to play the game differently. One girlfriend can get the cops of off you if you're nice to her, but the minute she knows you're cheating on her she pulls the plug. Get-out-of-jail free cards begone.

If Crysis did the same thing, we would see stealth players rewarded with easier missions down the line. Communication jamming as secondary (or even tertiary) objectives at hard to reach areas would render enemy tacics useless. Act like the Terminator from the get go and the North Koreans should be bringing tactical ops and more armour as you progress through the game. It didn't happen, though.

What's the point I'm trying to prove? Crysis, being a game about "freedom", has a lot of freedom for nothing. You can apply manual handicaps to linear games and say "it's how you play it that makes it fun", but Crytek gives you more options by encoding more 0's and 1's in their code.

If Crysis were like STALKER, with a risk-vs-reward system on how you play the game, then we're talking.

Ok, but certainly in the first few levels, Crysis kind of presents the levels as an open battlefield and says, here is your objective, go about it as you see fit. I think it did that aspect very well. I'm the type of player to who that appeals. I think the game could have been much improved if stealth play had yielded more rewards. Especially, kidnapping a korean soldier...could have maybe given you new objectives or intel. I think they missed an opportunity there.

Bioshock was alright, but I'll agree the novelty of using the plasmids soon wore off. My favourite experiences ironically in bioshock were the scripted/setpeice sections, like the bit where you're at that machine, you turn round and there is a guy stood right behind you or where the woman is nursing a pistol in a pram.

Going back to Crysis, I do believe people are overly critical of it's gameplay because it is 'the' graphical showpeice that it is. I've seen a lot of posts on the boards from people who clearly havent played the game and want to find something to criticise. But I agree that the game presents no incentive for different styles of play and could have had more depth in certain areas. However, that has still not stopped me putting the disk back in and playing through the early levels for the simple 'messing around' factor.

Whilst we're on it, I would like to agree with you on Stalker. Take a look at my post history and you will see I am a massive fan of the game. Stalker has taken up much more of my time than Crysis has or ever will. Right now, I'm making slow progress through using the oblivion lost 2.1 mod. If only I could just get more bandages for my wounds, I'm forever dying from bleeding to death lol.

i take my hat of to both of you for managing intelligen disscorse in a den of fanboys :P

[QUOTE="DAZZER7"][QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"][QUOTE="DAZZER7"]

It's how you play it, not the level size that counts.

thegoldenpoo

Yeah, I'm sure you can go out of your way to have fun, etc. You mentioned it's however you want to play it that makes the game special. I honestly don't buy that idea from many games unless they truly expand upon that.

In a game like Crysis, there's many ways to do a lot of things, but usually there's one way that's the absolute most efficient way to achieve a goal. Bioshock was in the same boat as well, you can have fun with your plasmids, but it wasn't necessary to complete the goal. Those two games might have a lot of breadth, but it didn't necessarily equate to more depth in terms of options.

If the mantra is "It's how you play these games", why not apply it to all games?

Let's go straight for the jugular with Halo. Why not manually handicap yourself and go around playing the game with a plasma pistol the entire time, because you can do that, and it will change your playing sty-le somewhat.Why not go on a melee spree in Call of Duty? It'll make the game very intense as you try sneak past enemy lines to take them out from behind?

See the problem with this "freedom" in games such as Crysis and Bioshock is that there is no incentive to go out of your way to change up the gameplay. In Assassin's Creed, for example, you only had to do three missions to get enough information to take down the main enemy. You could gain more information if you wanted to, and that would increase the information surrounding your main assassination. If Crysis or Bioshock were Assassin's Creed, getting more information would've been done in vain: there would be no rewards. It would just be there for the sake of being there.

Each situation in Crysis was done in isolation: if I used stealth to achieve one mission objective, doing that same mission again all guns blazing would lead to the same scenario for the next mission. If Crysis wanted to truly excel in what it was trying to achieve, the way you play should affect the game. But when you did different things each time, you'd end up with the same result. If you want to see a sandbox game that does that, look at GTA IV. Doing certain activities and choosing certain friends lends you to play the game differently. One girlfriend can get the cops of off you if you're nice to her, but the minute she knows you're cheating on her she pulls the plug. Get-out-of-jail free cards begone.

If Crysis did the same thing, we would see stealth players rewarded with easier missions down the line. Communication jamming as secondary (or even tertiary) objectives at hard to reach areas would render enemy tacics useless. Act like the Terminator from the get go and the North Koreans should be bringing tactical ops and more armour as you progress through the game. It didn't happen, though.

What's the point I'm trying to prove? Crysis, being a game about "freedom", has a lot of freedom for nothing. You can apply manual handicaps to linear games and say "it's how you play it that makes it fun", but Crytek gives you more options by encoding more 0's and 1's in their code.

If Crysis were like STALKER, with a risk-vs-reward system on how you play the game, then we're talking.

Ok, but certainly in the first few levels, Crysis kind of presents the levels as an open battlefield and says, here is your objective, go about it as you see fit. I think it did that aspect very well. I'm the type of player to who that appeals. I think the game could have been much improved if stealth play had yielded more rewards. Especially, kidnapping a korean soldier...could have maybe given you new objectives or intel. I think they missed an opportunity there.

Bioshock was alright, but I'll agree the novelty of using the plasmids soon wore off. My favourite experiences ironically in bioshock were the scripted/setpeice sections, like the bit where you're at that machine, you turn round and there is a guy stood right behind you or where the woman is nursing a pistol in a pram.

Going back to Crysis, I do believe people are overly critical of it's gameplay because it is 'the' graphical showpeice that it is. I've seen a lot of posts on the boards from people who clearly havent played the game and want to find something to criticise. But I agree that the game presents no incentive for different styles of play and could have had more depth in certain areas. However, that has still not stopped me putting the disk back in and playing through the early levels for the simple 'messing around' factor.

Whilst we're on it, I would like to agree with you on Stalker. Take a look at my post history and you will see I am a massive fan of the game. Stalker has taken up much more of my time than Crysis has or ever will. Right now, I'm making slow progress through using the oblivion lost 2.1 mod. If only I could just get more bandages for my wounds, I'm forever dying from bleeding to death lol.

i take my hat of to both of you for managing intelligen disscorse in a den of fanboys :P

It's why we're called hermits :p

[QUOTE="LibertySaint"]i wonder what version that was? the ps3 version is said to have superior AA, i didn't see any aliasing issues in that footage, so what was that the ps3 version or mabe there it was 360 and there is no superior AA on the ps3 and that was all fanboy claiming this and that? idk, what ever it is, it looked like the console graphics king.... too bad tho, neither of themt can touch my hp blackbirds' 260gtx oc :Pimprezawrx500

its impossible for the ps3 version to have better AA, you can always force 16x aa on the pc version

I think he mean't for consoles, and FYI it was reported the 360 had 2xAA vs noAA on ps3.

That aside, for 3 year old tech and 512mb of ram...the consoles are handling it very well. The volumetric effects and shadowing are pretty awesome.

That video is a looooong way from Crysis level graphics AND physics from what I can see. It was also very jerky and clearly running at 30 fps.

Lets hope it looks better on PC.

its better looking than crysis. look at the foliage and the lighting effects along with the draw distance. one catch! ITS ON A CONSOLE. believe it or not. watch the video. then comment.

http://www.gametrailer.com/player/39009.html

pooper_trooper

That video is a looooong way from Crysis level graphics AND physics from what I can see. It was also very jerky and clearly running at 30 fps.

Lets hope it looks better on PC.

Stonin

Nothing really impressive tbh, especially next *ahem* Crysis, which had sublime shooting mechanics imo.. or even next to a game like Call of Duty 4.

Not better than crysis, for one they can run it on consoles :lol:hongkingkong