The Witcher 2 vs crysis(1,2)

[QUOTE="Arach666"][QUOTE="sleepingzzz"]

Funny how hermits are always the first to jump into graphic king threads saying they are dumb and just shouldn't be made. Now here they are starting up new threads.

DragonfireXZ95

It's a joke. I wasn't really directing anything at the TC. More about hermits in general and if you haven't notice I mostly play PC games and I'm also in the threads about graphics kings. I didn't think I would need to type this out and that it would be obvious.

[QUOTE="sleepingzzz"]

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"] No kidding, the TC has 13 posts when I write this. How can he already be considered a hermit? Some logic just escapes people no matter how bold and in-your-face it is.DragonfireXZ95

It's a joke. I wasn't really directing anything at the TC. More about hermits in general and if you haven't notice I mostly play PC games and I'm also in the threads about graphics kings. I didn't think I would need to type this out and that it would be obvious.

Oh lord. Save my self from what? I'll say all PC games look like garbage and the crapiest game on my PS1 looks ten times better. I can say what ever I want. What are you going to do about it over the net. Please don't make me laugh. I didn't even have to make that post but, believe what ever you want.

Crysis 1, but The Witcher 2 comes very close...

*sigh* Can this **** please stop?

These spam threads are making me less excited about playing The Witcher 2 when I finally am able to. :|

Crysis is able to achieve photorealism, so the tech is better. But Witcher 2 being a fantasy game has a much broader color palette and much more style, so it can look a lot more appealing that way.

FatSlasH

So you did'nt actually play Crysis.

Edit: This is exactly the same as the Witcher 2 gfx king thread we had yesterday, and how about people start showing some screenshots of their modded Crysis? I'm getting rather sick of the game being mentioned while I'm nearly the only person who can actually provide anyhing tangible.

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

Crysis 1 is better technically. Haven't blown up a house in the Witcher 2 yet.

mitu123

*sigh* Can this **** please stop?

These spam threads are making me less excited about playing The Witcher 2 when I finally am able to. :|

Kandlegoat

[QUOTE="mitu123"][QUOTE="Barbariser"]

Crysis 1 is better technically. Haven't blown up a house in the Witcher 2 yet.

MFDOOM1983

[QUOTE="MFDOOM1983"][QUOTE="mitu123"] In BC2 you can destroy buildings and parts of the ground but doesn't make it technically better.mitu123

Trees are terrain and I break those apart to smash upon the heads of my Korean enemies in Strength mode :twisted:

[QUOTE="FatSlasH"]

Crysis is able to achieve photorealism, so the tech is better. But Witcher 2 being a fantasy game has a much broader color palette and much more style, so it can look a lot more appealing that way.

Filthybastrd

So you did'nt actually play Crysis.

Edit: This is exactly the same as the Witcher 2 gfx king thread we had yesterday, and how about people start showing some screenshots of their modded Crysis? I'm getting rather sick of the game being mentioned while I'm nearly the only person who can actually provide anyhing tangible.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="MFDOOM1983"] But that's scripted destruction.ChubbyGuy40

Trees are terrain and I break those apart to smash upon the heads of my Korean enemies in Strength mode :twisted:

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"] Crysis's isn't even more advanced and you can put holes in buildings as well. All you destroy are shacks in Crysis, and still doesn't haveterrain deformation.

mitu123

Trees are terrain and I break those apart to smash upon the heads of my Korean enemies in Strength mode :twisted:

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"] Crysis's isn't even more advanced and you can put holes in buildings as well. All you destroy are shacks in Crysis, and still doesn't haveterrain deformation.

mitu123

Trees are terrain and I break those apart to smash upon the heads of my Korean enemies in Strength mode :twisted:

BC2 doesn't let me destroy jeeps by shooting the gas can on the back :(

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

Trees are terrain and I break those apart to smash upon the heads of my Korean enemies in Strength mode :twisted:

ChubbyGuy40

BC2 doesn't let me destroy jeeps by shooting the gas can on the back :(

That's physics, not graphics -.-,

This means nothing. Physics are a part of technical graphics.

and it's something you could do since hl2, not even vaguely impressive.

Never blew up a house in HL2 either. Must have played a different game.

(tw2 could do that if you made one of those stupid shacks too)

Incorrect. "Stupid Shacks" are already present for a great portion of the Witcher 2, along with more fragile structures such as tents and wooden palisades. Had you shot off an Aard at one of them, you would have noticed that your hand-made shockwave spell had absolutely no effect on it.

Inconsistancy

Looks like people aren't getting my point - sure, the Witcher 2 has an amazing amount of detail, beautiful lighting and yadda yadda yadda. It's probably the best looking game I've played in three years.

But Crysis can tangle with it in all of those aspects, and it adds the ability to grenade a house to smithereens and headshot people from a mile off. Scale and interactivity count for something too in technical graphics; static environments are rather easier on the processor than dynamic ones. On the technical front, the Witcher 2 is out of its league. Its artistic design is what allows it to be so incredibly pleasing on the eyes.

Crysis 2 shouldn't even be mentioned. Haven't played witcher 2... but a 14 GB new game vs a 7GB old game? Yeah, Crysis still owns.woonsa

[QUOTE="woonsa"]Crysis 2 shouldn't even be mentioned. Haven't played witcher 2... but a 14 GB new game vs a 7GB old game? Yeah, Crysis still owns.i5750at4Ghz

No, Crysis still has the best graphics overall. There are some games that are out like Metro 2033 and TW2 which look better in some ways, but overall Crysis is still king.

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"][QUOTE="woonsa"]Crysis 2 shouldn't even be mentioned. Haven't played witcher 2... but a 14 GB new game vs a 7GB old game? Yeah, Crysis still owns.woonsa

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]

That's physics, not graphics -.-,

This means nothing. Physics are a part of technical graphics.

and it's something you could do since hl2, not even vaguely impressive.

Never blew up a house in HL2 either. Must have played a different game.

(tw2 could do that if you made one of those stupid shacks too)

Incorrect. "Stupid Shacks" are already present for a great portion of the Witcher 2, along with more fragile structures such as tents and wooden palisades. Had you shot off an Aard at one of them, you would have noticed that your hand-made shockwave spell had absolutely no effect on it.

Barbariser

Looks like people aren't getting my point - sure, the Witcher 2 has an amazing amount of detail, beautiful lighting and yadda yadda yadda. It's probably the best looking game I've played in three years.

But Crysis can tangle with it in all of those aspects, and it adds the ability to grenade a house to smithereens and headshot people from a mile off. Scale and interactivity count for something too in technical graphics; static environments are rather easier on the processor than dynamic ones. On the technical front, the Witcher 2 is out of its league. Its artistic design is what allows it to be so incredibly pleasing on the eyes.

That's why I said 'IF YOU MADE ONE OF THOSE STUPID SHACKS' you have to MAKE THEM, if it's not made, it wont work, things aren't magic in video games, you think a piece of cloth in a game knows it's a piece of cloth? It's tagged as a piece of cloth, it's not just... Oh, cloth texture? Time for me to act like cloth, derp.

Physically dynamic objects are no more difficult to render than normal objects, if they're both recieving dynamic lighting, it's equally as hard for the gpu to render them. If the processor sucks, then the physically dynamic objects may cause the frame to lag, as they're not ready to be re-rendered in time for the frame.

Crysis is still technologically better.. Witcher 2 looks amazing but I think it has little to do with technological gain.. Just the sheer detail of everything thatshows how indepth and committed the dev was.sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Crysis is still technologically better.. Witcher 2 looks amazing but I think it has little to do with technological gain.. Just the sheer detail of everything thatshows how indepth and committed the dev was.JangoWuzHere

About all you can really claim for Witcher 2 in definite superiority is that it has a much higher amount of dynamic lights working, they have some of the best DoF around, and their MLAA works better than MSAA in crysis or the Edge AA in crysis.

I think Crysis has better technical graphics, but i do like TW artstyle.

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"][QUOTE="woonsa"]Crysis 2 shouldn't even be mentioned. Haven't played witcher 2... but a 14 GB new game vs a 7GB old game? Yeah, Crysis still owns.woonsa

crysis has no weak spots like tw2 with its awful shadows

Cranler

"Incorrect" [bout the shacks] Are you joking? Just 'cause it's not implemented doesn't mean the engine couldn't handle it, are there any exploding shacks in Crysis2?!? NO THERE AREN'T, And the engine can still handle it.

Doesn't matter. It's still not in the game and the game is what we are judging.

And for your information, the lack of destructible shacks is considered to be a graphical step-down for Crysis 2 - and I've not once claimed that Crysis 2 is superior to the Witcher 2 in graphics, so that's an utterly pointless comment.

That's why I said 'IF YOU MADE ONE OF THOSE STUPID SHACKS' you have to MAKE THEM, if it's not made, it wont work, things aren't magic in video games, you think a piece of cloth in a game knows it's a piece of cloth? It's tagged as a piece of cloth, it's not just... Oh, cloth texture? Time for me to act like cloth, derp.

I don't have to "make a stupid shack". They're already in the game and they still don't blow up, even if you toss an Aard or a bomb at them. All this waffling about how "you could blow them up if they were actually "made" is completely meaningless because it's not in the game. That's like saying that I'm stronger than an Olympic Weightlifter because if I "made" myself grow larger muscles I could outcompete them. :|

The Witcher 2's physics are inferior. Deal with it.

Inconsistancy

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"] "Incorrect" [bout the shacks] Are you joking? Just 'cause it's not implemented doesn't mean the engine couldn't handle it, are there any exploding shacks in Crysis2?!? NO THERE AREN'T, And the engine can still handle it.

Doesn't matter. It's still not in the game and the game is what we are judging.

And for your information, the lack of destructible shacks is considered to be a graphical step-down for Crysis 2 - and I've not once claimed that Crysis 2 is superior to the Witcher 2 in graphics, so that's an utterly pointless comment.

That's why I said 'IF YOU MADE ONE OF THOSE STUPID SHACKS' you have to MAKE THEM, if it's not made, it wont work, things aren't magic in video games, you think a piece of cloth in a game knows it's a piece of cloth? It's tagged as a piece of cloth, it's not just... Oh, cloth texture? Time for me to act like cloth, derp.

I don't have to "make a stupid shack". They're already in the game and they still don't blow up, even if you toss an Aard or a bomb at them. All this waffling about how "you could blow them up if they were actually "made" is completely meaningless because it's not in the game. That's like saying that I'm stronger than an Olympic Weightlifter because if I "made" myself grow larger muscles I could outcompete them. :|

The Witcher 2's physics are inferior. Deal with it.

Barbariser

Physics doesn't automatically apply to objects in games, or other 3d programs, you have to tell them to.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, have you ever heard that phrase? Not implemented =/= cannot be implemented.

I didn't say they were superior, I just said that shacks exploding aren't impressive, doable since hl2, or even earlier and that I bet they could be implemented into tw2. /facedesk.

They are not in the game

Go to Lobinden's river bank.

Physics doesn't automatically apply to objects in games, or other 3d programs, you have to tell them to.

Uhh, yeah, this is pretty obvious. So what?It's not like lighting, textures and meshes spontaneously generate themselves according to the developer's whim either. :roll:

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, have you ever heard that phrase? Not implemented =/= cannot be implemented.

Of course I know this - this is basic logic. Want to know some even more basic logic? Absense of evidence does not equal presence of evidence.

I didn't say they were superior, I just said that shacks exploding aren't impressive, doable since hl2,

Half-Life 2 does not have destructible shacks. Period. The biggest things you can interact with in that game are car-sized objects.

or even earlier and that I bet they could be implemented into tw2. /facedesk.

I don't care if they could be "implemented" or not. Every game has the potential to have good physics/graphics/whatever if their developer wanted to stuff it in. What people ALWAYS judge in a graphics thread is whatever happens to be IN THE GAME. It doesn't matter if the Witcher 2 and Half Life 2 "could" have shacks that you can blow up. The only thing relevant is that they DON'T have that and Crysis DOES, which gives it a leg up in the technical department.

Inconsistancy

They are not in the game

Go to Lobinden's river bank.

Physics doesn't automatically apply to objects in games, or other 3d programs, you have to tell them to.

Uhh, yeah, this is pretty obvious. So what?It's not like lighting, textures and meshes spontaneously generate themselves according to the developer's whim either. :roll:

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, have you ever heard that phrase? Not implemented =/= cannot be implemented.

Of course I know this - this is basic logic. Want to know some even more basic logic? Absense of evidence does not equal presence of evidence.

I didn't say they were superior, I just said that shacks exploding aren't impressive, doable since hl2,

Half-Life 2 does not have destructible shacks. Period. The biggest things you can interact with in that game are car-sized objects.

or even earlier and that I bet they could be implemented into tw2. /facedesk.

I don't care if they could be "implemented" or not. Every game has the potential to have good physics/graphics/whatever if their developer wanted to stuff it in. What people ALWAYS judge in a graphics thread is whatever happens to be IN THE GAME. It doesn't matter if the Witcher 2 and Half Life 2 "could" have shacks that you can blow up. The only thing relevant is that they DON'T have that and Crysis DOES, which gives it a leg up in the technical department.

Inconsistancy

W2 is more appealing to me, though it's a bit of technical vs. artistic aspects of graphics. W2 can look amazing at certain times of the day and with certain atmospheric conditions (rain, fog, etc ...)

Just took this capture of Crysis Warhead at enthusiast setting and I don't think anything else on the market beats this graphically. http://i54.tinypic.com/f3t476.jpggpuking

Guys, stop saying Crysis 1 has better graphics than Crysis 2. Because it doesn't. Crysis + Mods does, but vanilla of both sees Crysis 2 win easy. If Crysis 2 gets similar mod support then it will easily take the cake.gamebreakerz__

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]Inconsistancy

And no, the corrugated steel shacks do not exist in tw2, and even if they were, you'd still have to apply the appropriate constraints for them to do anything.

"Doable since hl2", didn't say IN hl2's main un-modded game, the engine could do it.

"Absence of evidence does not equal presence of evidence." That's quite possibly the dumbest statement I've ever read.

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]lightleggy

And no, the corrugated steel shacks do not exist in tw2, and even if they were, you'd still have to apply the appropriate constraints for them to do anything.

"Doable since hl2", didn't say IN hl2's main un-modded game, the engine could do it.

"Absence of evidence does not equal presence of evidence." That's quite possibly the dumbest statement I've ever read.

But it'd look good, graphically pleasing. :roll:

Also, you can bake pre-rendered physics, and just run the resulting animation in-game, making it look like there's physics running, when there really isn't... so it wouldn't look dead, necessarily.

[QUOTE="gamebreakerz__"]Guys, stop saying Crysis 1 has better graphics than Crysis 2. Because it doesn't. Crysis + Mods does, but vanilla of both sees Crysis 2 win easy. If Crysis 2 gets similar mod support then it will easily take the cake.mitu123

I certainly don't.

For every flaw Crysis 1 has, Crysis 2 has..... Erhm, 2.... And that's with nerfed physics and scale.

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]Inconsistancy

How very convincing. The rationality in your argument simply cannot be defeated. :roll:

And no, the corrugated steel shacks do not exist in tw2, and even if they were, you'd still have to apply the appropriate constraints for them to do anything.

.... That's exactly my point. There are WOODEN (read: more fragile) structures of similar size, and they are NOT programmed to blow up when you hit them with an appropiate amount of force. This means that Crysis has an automatic physics advantage over the Witcher 2 because it actually makes USE of what the engine can do.

Of course, you still haven't shown that the Witcher 2's engine can support the physics that the Cryengine can, so I'm not sure why I'm even bothering when every single one of your arguments uses the "repeat the same thing over and over again" tactic and just about nothing else.

"Doable since hl2", didn't say IN hl2's main un-modded game, the engine could do it.

And what the engine "can" do is totally irrelevant to what it actually "is" doing in a game. The fact that the only other FPS developer to have put in that level of destructibility in their games from HL2 onwards was Dice suggest that actually inserting a destructible shack is not as easy and dismissable as you think.

"Absence of evidence does not equal presence of evidence." That's quite possibly the dumbest statement I've ever read.

If you can't see exactly how the statement ties in with the stuff you've brought up, then that is not my problem. After all, you apparently thought I was saying that the HL2/TW2 engines "can't" have good physics, and then you said something like "the lack of physics in the games doesn't mean that the games can't handle it". Except that you seem to be saying "the lack of physics in the games means that the games can handle it anyway". Which doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

[QUOTE="lightleggy"][QUOTE="Inconsistancy"] Physics =/= graphics, already said it, don't care if you think they are, they aren't.

And no, the corrugated steel shacks do not exist in tw2, and even if they were, you'd still have to apply the appropriate constraints for them to do anything.

"Doable since hl2", didn't say IN hl2's main un-modded game, the engine could do it.

"Absence of evidence does not equal presence of evidence." That's quite possibly the dumbest statement I've ever read.

Inconsistancy

But it'd look good, graphically pleasing. :roll:

Also, you can bake pre-rendered physics, and just run the resulting animation in-game, making it look like there's physics running, when there really isn't... so it wouldn't look dead, necessarily.

Guys, stop saying Crysis 1 has better graphics than Crysis 2. Because it doesn't. Crysis + Mods does, but vanilla of both sees Crysis 2 win easy. If Crysis 2 gets similar mod support then it will easily take the cake.gamebreakerz__

[QUOTE="gamebreakerz__"]Guys, stop saying Crysis 1 has better graphics than Crysis 2. Because it doesn't. Crysis + Mods does, but vanilla of both sees Crysis 2 win easy. If Crysis 2 gets similar mod support then it will easily take the cake.lightleggy