MacDee23's forum posts

Avatar image for MacDee23
MacDee23

129

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#1 MacDee23
Member since 2011 • 129 Posts

[QUOTE="MacDee23"][QUOTE="oldkingallant"] You obviously haven't played it. I've yet to play a game with movements as realistic as Crysis, not to mention it has some of the best motion blur in gaming. If you want the most realistic movement in gaming, install the mod Real Lifesis. Look it up, the graphics are improved and the movement is completely realistic. I don't have it installed because I don't like it, but it's what you're looking for. I don't mean higher res and FPS, I mean best lighting, scale, textures, water and nature effects, character models, etc. Crysis wins that battle. I'm done arguing with someone who's clueless.ferret-gamer

Well character models, the king is now LA Noire. No other game comes close to having better models. It has revolutionised how all games will focus their attention on facial expressions. So Crysis doesn't win best models. I would say Crysis wins best physics in an fps game. I don't think any other game has so much real time phsical effects in it thats for sure. Best lighting and textures is quite subjective because what looks pretty for some will not look pretty for others. Probably would agree on Crysis having best water effects though and although there are games that i believe do some of the singular things better than Crysis, i would probably agree that Crysis is the best game that incorporates everything in one piece of software.

LA noire isnt even released, yet, and while the facial animations are pretty decent, the models dont look anything out of this world.

Regardless of that, just how many games can you name with character models that come close to this?

I agree it looks amazing. But is it really so much better than these ? (apologies if some are cgi, but i believe they are in game, please correct me if i am wrong and i can get some more) edit - (i put some better pics up) http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/action/callofduty7workingtitle/images/0/1/?full_size=1 http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/action/callofduty7workingtitle/images/0/6/?full_size=1 http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/action/callofduty7workingtitle/images/0/7/?full_size=1 http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/action/callofduty7workingtitle/images/0/14/?full_size=1
Avatar image for MacDee23
MacDee23

129

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#2 MacDee23
Member since 2011 • 129 Posts
[QUOTE="MacDee23"][QUOTE="oldkingallant"]

You have to take scale into account. However it's true, unmodded Crysis probably isn't graphics king, Metro 2033 probably is, despite its linearity. However just one mod (all I have installed is Natural Mod) can push it over the edge and reclaim its title as graphics king. I'm interested in trying Mirror's Edge just to see what it looks like.

oldkingallant
Also depends what you mean by "graphics" aswell. If you mean highest resolution and best framerates, then PC will always win. But graphics go so much deeper than that. Graphics imo also incorporate the whole visual feel, like camera movements. If anyone claims the camera movements in Crysis are as good as any modern game they are talking out their backside. So many new games come out with amazing camera shake that it actually looks like someone is filming it right in front of you. Also the way models move. New fps games have alot more realistic moving models than Crysis and this to me all adds up to the word "graphics".

You obviously haven't played it. I've yet to play a game with movements as realistic as Crysis, not to mention it has some of the best motion blur in gaming. If you want the most realistic movement in gaming, install the mod Real Lifesis. Look it up, the graphics are improved and the movement is completely realistic. I don't have it installed because I don't like it, but it's what you're looking for. I don't mean higher res and FPS, I mean best lighting, scale, textures, water and nature effects, character models, etc. Crysis wins that battle. I'm done arguing with someone who's clueless.

Well character models, the king is now LA Noire. No other game comes close to having better models. It has revolutionised how all games will focus their attention on facial expressions. So Crysis doesn't win best models. I would say Crysis wins best physics in an fps game. I don't think any other game has so much real time phsical effects in it thats for sure. Best lighting and textures is quite subjective because what looks pretty for some will not look pretty for others. Probably would agree on Crysis having best water effects though and although there are games that i believe do some of the singular things better than Crysis, i would probably agree that Crysis is the best game that incorporates everything in one piece of software.
Avatar image for MacDee23
MacDee23

129

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#3 MacDee23
Member since 2011 • 129 Posts

You have to take scale into account. However it's true, unmodded Crysis probably isn't graphics king, Metro 2033 probably is, despite its linearity. However just one mod (all I have installed is Natural Mod) can push it over the edge and reclaim its title as graphics king. I'm interested in trying Mirror's Edge just to see what it looks like.

oldkingallant
Also depends what you mean by "graphics" aswell. If you mean highest resolution and best framerates, then PC will always win. But graphics go so much deeper than that. Graphics imo also incorporate the whole visual feel, like camera movements. If anyone claims the camera movements in Crysis are as good as any modern game they are talking out their backside. So many new games come out with amazing camera shake that it actually looks like someone is filming it right in front of you. Also the way models move. New fps games have alot more realistic moving models than Crysis and this to me all adds up to the word "graphics".
Avatar image for MacDee23
MacDee23

129

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#4 MacDee23
Member since 2011 • 129 Posts
[QUOTE="soulitane"][QUOTE="MacDee23"][QUOTE="soulitane"] But in the last 15 years a generation hasn't lasted as long as this one, I personally don't see there being any major jumps in the graphics on PC until new consoles are made.

Ye this is true. In one of my first posts i made in this thread i did say that console games that (graphically) hold PC games back might be a good thing for PC gamers because it means their machines will last alot longer. Crysis 2 is a good example imo. If it wasn't being released on consoles, a % of PC gamers wouldnt be able to play it, unless they spent more money on hardware upgrading their machines.

I don't understand your last sentence, the engine is much more optimized which could be because of consoles. Or are you saying that if it wasn't on consoles it wouldn't be as optimized? If so that's just an assumption.

Not saying anything about optimisation, just stating that the level design has to majorly change as a console game rather than as a PC only game. The Pc can handle alot wider and open areas than a console and hold alot more in memory concerning textures and such. Because it is on console aswell they will have to tone down the level design to make the game playable with decent framerates on consoles. As a result, the game also gets toned down on the PC, compared to what the PC could of achieved. I am merely saying that although cross-platform games do hold PC potential back somewhat, this may not be a bad thing for PC gamers as this means the game will also run on lesser powerful machines than if the game was a PC exclusive. (and alot of graphically high PC exclusives tend to be very very power hungry)
Avatar image for MacDee23
MacDee23

129

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#5 MacDee23
Member since 2011 • 129 Posts
Also the best facial graphics of any game to date will be LA Noire. It p***es over every other game to date and will continue to do so until another game catches up with the technology that LA Noire has developed.
Avatar image for MacDee23
MacDee23

129

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#6 MacDee23
Member since 2011 • 129 Posts
I'm going to go out on a whim here ans say that Black Ops looks graphically better than Crysis. Compare these 2 videos - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNCxCcQ-PZo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTLpwBreHVo and honestly tell me Crysis looks better. Crysis looks bland in comparison imho. I know it processes a huge amount more than Black OPs with more realistic physics and larger viewing distances, but the actual graphics of what you are playing, the winner simply goes to Black OPs because it looks......better.
Avatar image for MacDee23
MacDee23

129

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#7 MacDee23
Member since 2011 • 129 Posts
[QUOTE="soulitane"][QUOTE="MacDee23"][QUOTE="soulitane"] Now where did I say cheap rig? I just used rig. Also you're just using more assumptions with your theories, as of right now you don't know what will happen to PC gaming in the next 4 years. Why are you bringing up in 10 years, do you expect the consoles to last another 10 years?

In order to compare a PC price to a console price, you have to use a cheap rig as an example. Otherwise the PC would just end up costing alot more. So you have to compare like for like prices. Which means a cheap rig and nothing else. You may be right about cheap rigs lasting alot longer in the future, but based on the last 15 years of PC gaming, i highly doubt it.

But in the last 15 years a generation hasn't lasted as long as this one, I personally don't see there being any major jumps in the graphics on PC until new consoles are made.

Ye this is true. In one of my first posts i made in this thread i did say that console games that (graphically) hold PC games back might be a good thing for PC gamers because it means their machines will last alot longer. Crysis 2 is a good example imo. If it wasn't being released on consoles, a % of PC gamers wouldnt be able to play it, unless they spent more money on hardware upgrading their machines.
Avatar image for MacDee23
MacDee23

129

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#8 MacDee23
Member since 2011 • 129 Posts
[QUOTE="soulitane"][QUOTE="MacDee23"][QUOTE="soulitane"] Having to buy 2 rigs would be assuming that the person wants to play games at their best or that PC games are going to advance that much in the next few years, so that's just what ifs. The upgrades are purely optional and are not necessary to continue playing PC games, saying you have to do it is like me saying that you must buy kinect. PC games can be lots much cheaper, you know steam sales. In them sales you can get games at cheaper prices than nearly all console games. Trading games in does make them cheaper but it's something I would never do personally (not saying that that's everyones belief).

I personally would say if you buy a cheap rig today, it would not hold up to any new game in even 4 years time even at lowest settings, let alone in 10 years time. Expecting a cheap PC to last 10 years is highly optimistic imo, it wouldnt even last 5.

Now where did I say cheap rig? I just used rig. Also you're just using more assumptions with your theories, as of right now you don't know what will happen to PC gaming in the next 4 years. Why are you bringing up in 10 years, do you expect the consoles to last another 10 years?

In order to compare a PC price to a console price, you have to use a cheap rig as an example. Otherwise the PC would just end up costing alot more. So you have to compare like for like prices. Which means a cheap rig and nothing else. You may be right about cheap rigs lasting alot longer in the future, but based on the last 15 years of PC gaming, i highly doubt it.
Avatar image for MacDee23
MacDee23

129

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#9 MacDee23
Member since 2011 • 129 Posts
[QUOTE="soulitane"][QUOTE="MacDee23"]@Solitaine I agree with you, but there is also counter arguments to this aswell. The 360 and the PS3 have been designed to last 10 years, in the course of 10 years, you will need to buy 2 rigs or make some major upgrades to your PC hardware to carry on playing the newest games. Also, you can not trade PC games in, whereas with console games you can, and this negates much of the price of them. Also Pc games are not that much cheaper than console games. Alot of console games are half price only 1-2 months after initial release, and you can pick up some great games for 5 - 10 dollars which are less than a year old and buy pre-owned games that are considerably cheaper. I would highly argue against the price of games making up the price margin difference between the hardware. The only thing that could make this margin change imo is the price of Xbox Live. But this is something you dont have to buy if you dont want to.

Having to buy 2 rigs would be assuming that the person wants to play games at their best or that PC games are going to advance that much in the next few years, so that's just what ifs. The upgrades are purely optional and are not necessary to continue playing PC games, saying you have to do it is like me saying that you must buy kinect. PC games can be lots much cheaper, you know steam sales. In them sales you can get games at cheaper prices than nearly all console games. Trading games in does make them cheaper but it's something I would never do personally (not saying that that's everyones belief).

I personally would say if you buy a cheap rig today, it would not hold up to any new game in even 4 years time even at lowest settings, let alone in 10 years time. Expecting a cheap PC to last 10 years is highly optimistic imo, it wouldnt even last 5.
Avatar image for MacDee23
MacDee23

129

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#10 MacDee23
Member since 2011 • 129 Posts
@Solitaine I agree with you, but there is also counter arguments to this aswell. The 360 and the PS3 have been designed to last 10 years, in the course of 10 years, you will need to buy 2 rigs or make some major upgrades to your PC hardware to carry on playing the newest games. Also, you can not trade PC games in, whereas with console games you can, and this negates much of the price of them. Also Pc games are not that much cheaper than console games. Alot of console games are half price only 1-2 months after initial release, and you can pick up some great games for 5 - 10 dollars which are less than a year old and buy pre-owned games that are considerably cheaper. I would highly argue against the price of games making up the price margin difference between the hardware. The only thing that could make this margin change imo is the price of Xbox Live. But this is something you dont have to buy if you dont want to.