Shogun 2 is the graphics king. Crysis got dethroned.

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 withthat much of ahigh requirement it doesn't really impress me that much.

Warhawk_

[QUOTE="Warhawk_"]

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 withthat much of ahigh requirement it doesn't really impress me that much.

110million

It does look nice don't get me wrong but I thought that with the high requirements it would look way more detailed. But I guess the high requirements was for the things that you just said.

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

Not sure if serious....

If you want to argue Shogun 2 is technically more impressive sure , Its running so much thats fair but no it doenst look better. The charcter models are horrid in comparison and so are alot of the effects. Its expected as its an RTS and its impressive in other ways.

Its up there, but not Crysis up there

nah not at all. maybe on a technical level, but no overall crysis is still graphics king. plus i found shogun2 to be very boring. guess thats what happens when u come from a game like starcraft 2

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

My reaction.

Im sure the game looks great zoomed out. But the video showed some close ups that were NOT better than Crysis, some of the anamations where awful, there were lots of polygon collisions....

This is a bit fruitless to brag about until DX10 and 11 support patched in.

[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.

you realise you need a high fps to slow something down and keep it smooth dont you?

When I see an army running through long blades of grass, I wanna see them pushing through the grass and flattening it out, not running straight through it like the grass is some sort of hologram. having said that. this game just failed.

more characters but crysis and metro 2033 for that matter look better. a rts wont look better than crysis for a long time. imprezawrx500

Shogun 2 DOESN'T look good. Leave it to rest.Dynafrom

[QUOTE="Dynafrom"]Shogun 2 DOESN'T look good. Leave it to rest.Mozelleple112

I think Shogun 2 requires higher system spec than Crysis might explain it.

prey on 360 that came out 5 years ago looks better. joke thread? soapandbubbles

[QUOTE="soapandbubbles"]prey on 360 that came out 5 years ago looks better. joke thread? mitu123

[QUOTE="soapandbubbles"]prey on 360 that came out 5 years ago looks better. joke thread? mitu123

I could see someone making an argument for it.

But I did post a pic of the PC version.

Going by that other pic it seems dated in spots.

What I'm hearing is scale no longer matters. If so Fight night champion instant graphics king.i5750at4Ghz

People complaining about low poly count and animations?

Every character onscreen animates at once, in real time....

[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"]more characters but crysis and metro 2033 for that matter look better. a rts wont look better than crysis for a long time. True_Gamer_

Why do people call any random strategy game that something has in real time RTS? I have noticed this a lot around here.

[QUOTE="jhcho2"]

[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

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.

You misunderstand. You're using the 'having 1000 soldiers on screen' argument to claim that it is in that respect, better than Crysis. It is two different things altogether. Having multiple units on screen is a technical achievement on the CPU side. The photorealism of Crysis's graphics is a technical achievement on the GPU. And you are making this non apple to apple comparison. See anything wrong there?

And you are mistaking 'framerate drop' with 'performance issue'. Who ever said that framerate dropping from say 50fps to 40fps is a performance issue. Performance issue is when you're getting 30fps while other people with the exact same setup are getting 50fps at any one time. Or your graphics card shutting off, or having flickering problems. Those are issues. Framerate drops alone happen all the time. It's a sign that you're pushing your hardware to the max. And again, out of context.

Look at the textures on the samurai. It's superior to most corridor based third person shooter characters and people says the game isn't impressive...

Look at the textures on the samurai. It's superior to most corridor based third person shooter characters and people says the game isn't impressive...

RyuRanVII

I think most of us can agree that it's impressive. But to be a graphics king, everything from environmental to character textures must be good. Shogun environments are mediocre, only the detail on the soldiers are good, and the water effects.

It is a technical marvel, to be sure. But with this kind of gap in scale it is somewhat more difficult to name a definitive winner.