Crysis 3 - Return of real PC Anti-Aliasing (MSAA)

[blackened23]

Good grief man, too many pictures in this thread

[PowerK]

Originally Posted by monster88

the MSAA provided in the c3 beta seems to have poor coverage on things like rails, fences, and geometry in the distance. i have the game set to 8xMSAA and there is still tons of aliasing on the aforementioned areas. seems like a bad AA algorithm or poor implementation.

That's what MSAA is. MSAA only applies to polygon edges.

[f1sherman]

Originally Posted by RussianSensation

Looks like Cats 13.2 beta 4 helped a lot. HD7850 is nearly as fast as an HD6970, while an 800mhz HD7950 is approaching HD6990:

lol told ya

It's Crysis 2 all over again.

As AMD is getting the hang of the game, Crysis 3 is transforming itself into a future benchmark, and overall great looking and well optimized game.
3 days ago it was yet another blurry console port , with low res textures, low view distance and graphics from 2007., botched by Nvidia and Crytek by refusing to adopt Forward+.

[f1sherman]

Originally Posted by monster88

ok, so after reading a few posts in here regarding "low -res textures" and C3/C2 supposedly looking worse than C1 (which i found humoring) i just couldn't contain myself any longer and had to reinstall c1/warhead on my rig.
below are some screens i just took of C1, COMPLETELY maxed out and modded, CCC TOD, reli config, rygel's "HD" textures. slicers HD foliage, chickens "HD" rocks etc. downsampled 272x1700 to 1920x1200, 8xMSAA. textures are definitely NOT one of c1's high points......



as you can see, there are some really, REALLY, TERRIBLE looking textures in this game. in fact, outside of the foliage (after slicers HD foliage mod), much of the textures in this game are generally pretty horrible.
quite frankly, i'm getting tired of this seeming crysis 1 fanboy cult which continues to fervently defend and laud crysis 1 as the reigning graphical champion. it's not, and i think it's really time to move on from that sentiment.
do i think it's still great looking in certain areas? absolutely. but it can also look very underwhelming as well, and in A LOT of areas, too.

to me, whether modded or unmodded, the game simply looks/ "feels" like a 6 year old game, which obviously, is what it is.

in no way, shape or form, does this game look better than crysis 2 dx11 with maldo hd textures, or even crysis 3 for that matter.

Thanks for the pics and the analysis.

Don't game too much! Or you might lose eyesight like our fellow forum users

[ShadowOfMyself]

Agree with monster88... I dont know if its nostalgia or whatever (lol, for a 6 year old game?), but Crysis 1 doesnt look nearly as good as people claim

I havent played 3 yet but just from watching the videos on the youtube page, I can tell it looks WAY better in every sense, I dont understand what the hell people are looking at

I bet you all havent even looked at the game in years, or youd realize it looks way worse than what you remember (and dont bring mods into this, you should compare default vs default)

[f1sherman]

Originally Posted by ShadowOfMyself

I bet you all havent even looked at the game in years, or youd realize it looks way worse than what you remember (and dont bring mods into this, you should compare default vs default)

But why without mods?
There's this XYZ photo-realistic mod for Crysis.

Because it's a fair comparison.
Because we are comparing two games, not two modded games.
Because Crysis 3 is in BETA, and has no mods.
Because we have no trouble disagreeing even without modded factor.

But if you really think original Crysis is so superb, how does it fare against Maldo's work with Crysis 2

[ShadowOfMyself]

Either way, I know how it feels because just the other day I had the same experience with The Elder Scrolls... I was watching a youtube vid of all the games from 1 to 5, and in my mind, I still remember Morrowind looking amazing when I got it back in 2002... when it showed up in the video, I couldnt believe it... "Is THIS the same game? No way..."

Super blocky characters, horrible textures, etc... I was shocked, this was not the game I remembered playing

Im guessing the exact same thing is happening here, though to a lesser degree obviously, since Crysis DOES look good, just nothing special anymore

[hans030390]

Any chance someone here or elsewhere has comparison screenshots between graphics settings? I'm primarily interested in high vs very high settings.

[Grooveriding]

Originally Posted by hans030390

Any chance someone here or elsewhere has comparison screenshots between graphics settings? I'm primarily interested in high vs very high settings.

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps...-test-gpu.html


High



Very High





Weird thing is that Very High has vegetation missing that is showing in High settings. Looks the same to me.

[RussianSensation]

Originally Posted by f1sherman

lol told ya

3 days ago it was yet another blurry console port , with low res textures, low view distance and graphics from 2007., botched by Nvidia and Crytek by refusing to adopt Forward+.

I never said anything about Nvidia botching Crysis 3. I said NV has no interest in pushing F+ game engines at the moment because you'd want to use compute shaders for best approach with that model. You could minimize the MSAA performance hit from 33-40% of Crysis 3 on GTX680/HD7970 to 15-18% with an F+ engine.

Originally Posted by f1sherman

It's Crysis 2 all over again.

Exactly, like Crysis 2 it was hyped to have next gen graphics and has nothing of the sort.

Nothing I said changes things for me about Crysis 3's technical merits/performance optimizations:

1) Crysis 3 does not look like a true next generation PC game that will set the standard for PC graphics for 3-4 years like Far Cry 1 or Crysis 1 did. Looking better than Crysis 1 after 6 years is not impressive. It should be WOWing us. When I first launched Crysis 1 on my 8800GTS, I was wowed. I am not wowed by any of Crysis 3 videos / screenshots that actually show the gameplay, not some random photoshopped cut-scenes on NV's website that don't even show actual gameplay.

2) GTX680/HD7970 perform in the low 40 fps range with 4xMSAA at 1080P, which is still a huge performance hit due to the deferred lighting game engine. HD7970GE's performance moved from just 39 fps to 44 fps at VHQ with 4xMSAA. That means Cat 13.2 B4 driver solves absolutely nothing in terms of playability with MSAA/SMAA on VHQ setting;

3) The game still runs like a dog on single GPU cards given the level of graphics it offers and MSAA/SMAA is still the single most punishing performance setting. What I would have liked instead is for Crytek to bring my 7970 to 25-27 fps through next gen textures, physics effects, realistic lighting (other DX11 effects), high polygon models, etc. If anything, with MSAA performance improving, it shows even more that the game underneath is barely Crysis 2 improved. Looks like Crytek created a lot of hype and I am not seeing these next gen graphics they've been hyping for a year. You are essentially spending $400-500 extra to enable 4xMSAA/SMAA, which is not the same as upgrading from Low/Medium to get to High/Very High. To me MSAA/SMAA is like putting makeup on a naturally beautiful girl. Crysis 3 right off the bat does not seem to start its life as a next gen game. It looks like Crysis 2 with high-rez texture pack at launch and the ability to enable 8 AA modes that happen to be very punishing. What I've been waiting for is a PC game that makes Crysis 1/Metro 2033/Witcher 2 look like "PS3" being compared to "PS4." Is Crysis 3 going to end up looking better than those games? Probably, but marginally so, rather than revolutionizing the graphics landscape.

[notty22]

It's possibly going to be game of the year. And the Star Wars game linked , looked terrible. I'd like to know what you consider a next gen game?

Forget all your FPS comparison justifications. Those are excuses , or a justification of pre-disposed OPINION.

edit: At the very least , these flip flopping long winded reasons why gamers should shun or stay away or whatever your point of negativity is towards a beta MP tech demo is hard to understand. Why judge the game before the actual complete game-play, levels, single player and final feel is revealed. It seems like you are going to not like this game no matter what?

edit, Final: I hope : Want to add. I don't want to debate the Star Wars game(Youtube video). Because, no one is a bigger Star Wars fan, than me. I've seen them all in the theatres, and bought the first DOS games, for any reason, but the most because I love sci-fi and the Star Wars Universe. Will give any new game a chance.

[Haserath]

I set everything to low and I still like the look of the game... I think you guys are setting the bar too high for current graphics tech.

I wonder if next gen consoles will switch to F+?

[f1sherman]

Originally Posted by RussianSensation

I never said anything about Nvidia botching Crysis 3. I said NV has no interest in pushing F+ game engines at the moment because you'd want to use compute shaders for best approach with that model.
You could minimize the MSAA performance hit from 33-40% of Crysis 3 on GTX680/HD7970 to 15-18% with an F+ engine.

That's like saying that Federer should switch to two hand backhand,
because his recent loss to Murray has been 22-27% due to Roger's one-hand backhand having 15-18% longer recovery time.

This whole Forward+ MSAA % advantage is getting a bit too Lieutenant-Commander-Data silly.
Crysis 3 is built upon arguably the most advanced engine out there ATM.
Advocating Crtytek switching to Forward+ has no basis with reality, even if Lt. Cmdr. Data 15-18% MSAA were true.


3) The game still runs like a dog on single GPU


Well yeah...if you keep insisting on using unplayable setting (4xMSAA), and going after next higher (8xMSAA) once 4x becomes playable

• it's BETA(!),
• there is no shame in using non-maximum quality
• small visual difference between HQ and VHQ is actually a good thing, particularly if min. fps @ High > average fps @ VHQ

[Will Robinson]

Originally Posted by notty22

It's possibly going to be game of the year. And the Star Wars game linked , looked terrible. I'd like to know what you consider a next gen game?

Forget all your FPS comparison justifications. Those are excuses , or a justification of pre-disposed OPINION.

edit: At the very least , these flip flopping long winded reasons why gamers should shun or stay away or whatever your point of negativity is towards a beta MP tech demo is hard to understand. Why judge the game before the actual complete game-play, levels, single player and final feel is revealed. It seems like you are going to not like this game no matter what?

edit, Final: I hope : Want to add. I don't want to debate the Star Wars game(Youtube video). Because, no one is a bigger Star Wars fan, than me. I've seen them all in the theatres, and bought the first DOS games, for any reason, but the most because I love sci-fi and the Star Wars Universe. Will give any new game a chance.

A big Star Wars fan huh....nobody bigger you say?
Wow..that's awesome dude.
By the way,which theater did you go to on opening night for the first installment?(Episode 4 "A New Hope")
I remember how thrilled my friends and I were as we walked out of the theater,everyone clapped like crazy at the end.

[notty22]

n/m

[BFG10K]

Originally Posted by RussianSensation

Exactly, like Crysis 2 it was hyped to have next gen graphics and has nothing of the sort.

I disagree there - the downtown areas in the afternoon sun looked amazing. Some of the water + vegetation areas looked really good too.

[Aristotelian]

Originally Posted by BFG10K

I disagree there - the downtown areas in the afternoon sun looked amazing. Some of the water + vegetation areas looked really good too.

Absolutely agree with you. There were moments in the downtown core on the rooftops towards the end, with the lighthouse and the vegetation on the rooftop with all of the reflections that were quite stunning.

[RussianSensation]

Originally Posted by notty22

It's possibly going to be game of the year. And the Star Wars game linked , looked terrible. I'd like to know what you consider a next gen game?

Looked terrible? I guess I want games to look more like movies.

Next generation graphics to me would be this in real time (not just cinematic cut-scenes), without mods.



Actual particle effects, proper DOF, high resolution textures, etc.







At least like this without any mods:

http:// beautifulskyrim . yolasite . com/gallery.php
http://skyrim.nexusmods.com/mods/24828

[notty22]

Originally Posted by RussianSensation

Looked terrible? I guess I want games to look more like movies.

Next generation graphics to me would be this in real time (not just cinematic cut-scenes), without mods.



Actual particle effects, proper DOF, high resolution textures, etc.

Forget the exact context, but I remember a post where you were giving thumbs up to Gran Turismo 5 screen shots. So I don't really grasp your new found elitism.

[SirPauly]

Originally Posted by RussianSensation

Actual particle effects, proper DOF, high resolution textures, etc.

GPU Particle effects, very welcomed!

[RussianSensation]

Originally Posted by notty22

Forget the exact context, but I remember a post where you were giving thumbs up to Gran Turismo 5 screen shots. So I don't really grasp your new found elitism.

That was a long time ago, when I was comparing Dirt 2 to GT5, etc., and before Project CARS matured. Also, I am talking about Crytek setting the standard for 3-4 years with Crysis 3, not about just comparing Crysis 3 to Crysis 1. If they didn't hype their graphics so much, I wouldn't be scrutinizing the graphics to this extent.

Project CARS makes GT5's graphics look last generation. I am always impressed when any company pushes things to the next level, which makes spending $500-1000 on GPUs more worthwhile.



http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/sh...postcount=3359

If a game looks near photo realistic and I'd need $800-1,000 of GPUs to run it, I'd spent that $. If I have to spend $800 to go from 0xMSAA to 4xMSAA, I could care less. MSAA/SMAA does not fix low resolution textures, lower polygon models, etc.

Originally Posted by BFG10K

I disagree there - the downtown areas in the afternoon sun looked amazing. Some of the water + vegetation areas looked really good too.

Blacklight Retribution - free game.

Compared to its graphical competitors, such as Witcher 2, Metro 2033, BF3, Crysis 2 failed to stand-out. It wasn't an ugly game, but it wasn't revolutionary in any way. In fact, in many places Crysis 2 is a huge step back compared to Crysis 1 graphically.

Originally Posted by ShadowOfMyself

Crysis DOES look good, just nothing special anymore

No one is arguing that Crysis 1 is the best looking game. It's about it revolutionizing the PC graphics for years to come. In many ways, Crysis 1 still has more advanced graphics in some aspects than even Far Cry 3. This is vanilla Crysis vs. Far Cry 3. A 2007 game against a late 2012 game. It shouldn't even be a contest but Far Cry 3 is not convincingly better in every way.

Are you willing to bet that Crysis 3 will look nearly as good as 2017-2018 PC FPS games? I think you guys are forgetting how old Crysis 1 is. If you played PC games in 2006-2007 and you fired this up, your jaw hit the floor and your 8800GTX was doing 25 fps. When I fired up Crysis 2, I felt it didn't even best Witcher 2, Metro 2033 or BF3. Many PC gamers actually think Crysis 2 looks worse than Crysis 1 without MaldoHD mods. Crysis 3 doesn't look like the same revolutionary advancement that Crysis 1 brought either. I have no doubt Crysis 3 will surpass Crysis 1 graphically without problems, but will it shake the industry in the same way?

This is C3 with every setting on Very High, except no MSAA/SMAA. This does not look like a some next generation PC game. I don't know why so many of you are defending Crysis 3's graphics as if you are so emotionally vested in the franchise. Look outside for next generation graphical inspiration in other games. Compared to that, Crysis 3's graphics are not setting the bar for the PC, not even close. When Crysis 1 came out, I don't remember a single game, modded or not, that looked better. If C3's single player campaign looks way better than Multiplayer, I'll change my view. It just doesn't feel like Crysis 3 was 100% developed for next generation GPUs from the ground-up like the first game was.

[RussianSensation]

Originally Posted by notty22

Why judge the game before the actual complete game-play, levels, single player and final feel is revealed. It seems like you are going to not like this game no matter what?

I am not stating anything negative about Crysis 3 in terms of gameplay, level design, AI, "feel", etc. I am specifically discussing 2 key things: (1) Does Crysis 3 have jaw dropping next generation graphics like Crysis 1 did; (2) Will Crysis 3 set the standard for PC graphics for years to come like Crysis 1 did, making us excited about GPU upgrades?

If you need to revisit history of how Crysis 1 was revolutionary both graphically and performance wise, see my quick post here.

My guess is most people here didn't even play Crysis 1 for years until it came out because their GPUs weren't powerful enough. Once they fired up the game in later years, say 2009-2010, of course it didn't seem revolutionary any longer. If you played the early pre-release Crysis 1 demo in 2007, the game looked mind-blowing. To put this into context, when GTX280 came out more than 6 months after Crysis, it could barely manage 35 fps at 1080P, and that's without everything maxed out (VHQ shaders, etc.). If Crytek pushed the envelope the same way with C3, a card like GTX690/Titan would only hit 35 fps at 1080P on HQ, not VHQ.

[SirPauly]

Did never go bonkers about Crysis and thought the original Far Cry was a bigger jump graphically from shader use -- to HDR.