Shogun 2 is the graphics king. Crysis got dethroned.

Behold... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ872cTYj44

All in game. :)

Have fun believing that :)

Umm... waiting to be impressed... *yawn*

The game is technically impressive in that there's literraly THOUSANDS of troops on the field all having these little battles with each other. This is a lot more impressive, TEHCNICALLY, than anything on Crysis 2.

But purely from a visual quality, graphics on an FPS like Crysis 2 are a lot better.

They should be. Crysis 2 isn't rendering whole armies, just a few dozen mobs tops.

I don't think a video card capable of rendering tens of thousands of troops at the quality of Crysis 2 exists yet.

The game is technically impressive in that there's literraly THOUSANDS of troops on the field all having these little battles with each other. This is a lot more impressive, TEHCNICALLY, than anything on Crysis 2.

But purely from a visual quality, graphics on an FPS like Crysis 2 are a lot better.

They should be. Crysis 2 isn't rendering whole armies, just a few dozen mobs tops.

I don't think a video card capable of rendering tens of thousands of troops at the quality of Crysis 2 exists yet.

Kinthalis

/thread

The game is technically impressive in that there's literraly THOUSANDS of troops on the field all having these little battles with each other. This is a lot more impressive, TEHCNICALLY, than anything on Crysis 2.

But purely from a visual quality, graphics on an FPS like Crysis 2 are a lot better.

They should be. Crysis 2 isn't rendering whole armies, just a few dozen mobs tops.

I don't think a video card capable of rendering tens of thousands of troops at the quality of Crysis 2 exists yet.

Kinthalis

still doesnt look as good uncharted 2, killzone 3 and life itself.Dibdibdobdobo

Not sure if serious....

[QUOTE="Kinthalis"]

The game is technically impressive in that there's literraly THOUSANDS of troops on the field all having these little battles with each other. This is a lot more impressive, TEHCNICALLY, than anything on Crysis 2.

But purely from a visual quality, graphics on an FPS like Crysis 2 are a lot better.

They should be. Crysis 2 isn't rendering whole armies, just a few dozen mobs tops.

I don't think a video card capable of rendering tens of thousands of troops at the quality of Crysis 2 exists yet.

savagetwinkie

Scale-based Graphics Sultans are boring.

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="Kinthalis"]

The game is technically impressive in that there's literraly THOUSANDS of troops on the field all having these little battles with each other. This is a lot more impressive, TEHCNICALLY, than anything on Crysis 2.

But purely from a visual quality, graphics on an FPS like Crysis 2 are a lot better.

They should be. Crysis 2 isn't rendering whole armies, just a few dozen mobs tops.

I don't think a video card capable of rendering tens of thousands of troops at the quality of Crysis 2 exists yet.

Frozzik

still doesnt look as good uncharted 2, killzone 3 and life itself.Dibdibdobdobo

still doesnt look as good uncharted 2, killzone 3 and life itself.Dibdibdobdobo

You are probably not serious but here it goes: There are like 50 PC games that look better than anything on PS3. Even Crysis 2 on consoles...i mean, on 360 :twisted: :P

On topic, i agree with TC. Shogun 2 looks simply incredible, especially considering it´s scale and amount of units!

Ah consolites dismissing rts games, can your games render huge terrain with thousands of soldiers fighting each other? If small scale but great gfx is all that matters on system wars there are plenty of benchmarks that just render the most awesome looking fuzzy cube.

Shogun is definitely up there in regards to graphics king. The attention to detail and scale is incredible.

Shogun 2 have amazing graphics and huge scale and at the same time can maintain very good fps. Defiantly the most technically impressive game out there.

[QUOTE="Dibdibdobdobo"]still doesnt look as good uncharted 2, killzone 3 and life itself.PAL360

You are probably not serious but here it goes: There are like 50 PC games that look better than anything on PS3. Even Crysis 2 on consoles...i mean, on 360 :twisted: :P

On topic, i agree with TC. Shogun 2 looks simply incredible, especially considering it´s scale and amount of units!

"While the engine analysis based on like-for-like footage suggests an advantage to the Xbox 360 version of Crysis 2, as we can see in these extensive tests, performance can be very, very variable and the small variations in frame-rate we see previously give way to some much bigger differences, depending on the level of action on-screen. The unavoidable conclusion we came to is that when frame-rate does crash in those affected areas, it's actually Crysis 2 on PS3 that holds up better."

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-crysis2-face-off?page=2

Really now, I'd say they're equivalent to eachother. Besides, anything on PC >> PS3/360

On topic,

Crysis looks a billion times better than this crap.

Technical graphics should encompass visuals and scale, a fighter looking better than a 60 hour RPG for example should not make the fighter automaticlally superior. Therefore Shogun 2 is king, at least for me. :)110million

Yah.. but at what point does the scale of it not matter anymore? Oblivion is better than Crysis?

If you have to consider scale, and I'm not saying you dont have to, then Just Cause 2 >>>>>>> Crysis

The game is technically impressive in that there's literraly THOUSANDS of troops on the field all having these little battles with each other. This is a lot more impressive, TEHCNICALLY, than anything on Crysis 2.

But purely from a visual quality, graphics on an FPS like Crysis 2 are a lot better.

They should be. Crysis 2 isn't rendering whole armies, just a few dozen mobs tops.

I don't think a video card capable of rendering tens of thousands of troops at the quality of Crysis 2 exists yet.

Kinthalis

The thread title is about graphics king, not army king. Way to take something out of context and pass it off as being within context. And you know why the video is in slow motion? Because if it wasn't, the framerate drop will be noticeable. Shogun 2 isn't taxing on the GPU. It's taxing on CPU, rendering independant movements of hundreds of soldiers. If you simply play around with the graphic setting, you'll notice that lower quality of anything doesn't do much (or as much as you'd hope) to improve the framerate, implying again that the GPU isn't likely the bottleneck. Hence, we shouldn't be talking about graphics king when the CPU is more of a concern than the GPU.

[QUOTE="Kinthalis"]

The game is technically impressive in that there's literraly THOUSANDS of troops on the field all having these little battles with each other. This is a lot more impressive, TEHCNICALLY, than anything on Crysis 2.

But purely from a visual quality, graphics on an FPS like Crysis 2 are a lot better.

They should be. Crysis 2 isn't rendering whole armies, just a few dozen mobs tops.

I don't think a video card capable of rendering tens of thousands of troops at the quality of Crysis 2 exists yet.

jhcho2

The thread title is about graphics king, not army king. Way to take something out of context and pass it off as being within context. And you know why the video is in slow motion? Because if it wasn't, the framerate drop will be noticeable. Shogun 2 isn't taxing on the GPU. It's taxing on CPU, rendering independant movements of hundreds of soldiers. If you simply play around with the graphic setting, you'll notice that lower quality of anything doesn't do much (or as much as you'd hope) to improve the framerate, implying again that the GPU isn't likely the bottleneck. Hence, we shouldn't be talking about graphics king when the CPU is more of a concern than the GPU.

[QUOTE="Dibdibdobdobo"]still doesnt look as good uncharted 2, killzone 3 and life itself.PAL360

You are probably not serious but here it goes: There are like 50 PC games that look better than anything on PS3. Even Crysis 2 on consoles...i mean, on 360 :twisted: :P

On topic, i agree with TC. Shogun 2 looks simply incredible, especially considering it´s scale and amount of units!

Is this a face in which you would take serious.

Well......

Is it???

[QUOTE="PAL360"]

[QUOTE="Dibdibdobdobo"]still doesnt look as good uncharted 2, killzone 3 and life itself.Dibdibdobdobo

You are probably not serious but here it goes: There are like 50 PC games that look better than anything on PS3. Even Crysis 2 on consoles...i mean, on 360 :twisted: :P

On topic, i agree with TC. Shogun 2 looks simply incredible, especially considering it´s scale and amount of units!

Is this a face in which you would take serious.

Well......

Is it???

Yes, yes of course :P

[QUOTE="PAL360"]

[QUOTE="Dibdibdobdobo"]still doesnt look as good uncharted 2, killzone 3 and life itself.Dibdibdobdobo

You are probably not serious but here it goes: There are like 50 PC games that look better than anything on PS3. Even Crysis 2 on consoles...i mean, on 360 :twisted: :P

On topic, i agree with TC. Shogun 2 looks simply incredible, especially considering it´s scale and amount of units!

Is this a face in which you would take serious.

Well......

Is it???

[QUOTE="Dibdibdobdobo"]

[QUOTE="PAL360"]

You are probably not serious but here it goes: There are like 50 PC games that look better than anything on PS3. Even Crysis 2 on consoles...i mean, on 360 :twisted: :P

On topic, i agree with TC. Shogun 2 looks simply incredible, especially considering it´s scale and amount of units!

blue_hazy_basic

Is this a face in which you would take serious.

Well......

Is it???

A lot of people think napoleon total war looks better.

A lot of people think napoleon total war looks better.

topgunmv

It's a technical marvel, consoles would melt!ToScA-

[QUOTE="ToScA-"]It's a technical marvel, consoles would melt!Cherokee_Jack

A lot of people think napoleon total war looks better.

topgunmv

After playing both, I personally think Shogun 2 looks better. Although I'm slightly biased because I love Samurais. :P

Technically amazing and visually great, but not AMAZING. Still a beautiful game but Crysis has it beat just from a visual stand pointdeadesa

To be honest, the AI in shogun 2 SUCKS. When you operate a full stack and an intense battle goes on, it can take over 30s for any command to register.Dynafrom

In games like these, any command will start to take a long time to register once you have a large amount of units since the CPU can only handly so many commands during each cycle the program is running.

The faster your processor, the better a game of this genre will run and also the user commands will register faster. That said, even the best of processors can be brought down to their knees the more intense the battles get.

Shogun 2 is too big to look as good as Crysis.

How are you getting anti-aliasing?Fightingfan

How are you getting anti-aliasing?Fightingfan

Sorry but Crysis looked way better then the game. I mean it looks ok but come on, with the game that requires you to use a Intel Core i5 and with ether a ATI HD 5000 and 6000 or the Nvidia GT 240 series, with 20 GB of free hard disk space, and 4 GB of ram, I would think that the game would blow Crysis away but no with a game with that much of a high requirement it doesn't really impress me that much.