• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Crysis then and now

D

Dethfrumbelo

Golden Member
Pics

What the hell kind of hardware would you need to run that early build? Even with those obvious cutbacks, the demo still runs like Leonard Nimoy in depleted Uranium shoes.
 
yeah, what's up with that?

Doom 3 was like that too. The alpha built had way better lighting and graphics.
 
I think the original pic is BS. i think its either a real pic or its a FMV type render video, not in game.
 
Originally posted by: pontifex
I think the original pic is BS. i think its either a real pic or its a FMV type render video, not in game.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think somebody later admitted that was like a Maya render or something similar.
 
have you considered that maybe the demo is what it means... a demo?
Why speculate and assume on a demo release. WHy not just wait for the actual release before asking these questions???

danny~!
 
Originally posted by: DannyLove
have you considered that maybe the demo is what it means... a demo?
Why speculate and assume on a demo release. WHy not just wait for the actual release before asking these questions???
Click to expand...
Dude, seriously.
They are NOT going to increase polygon and lighting detail 10 times between the retail and the demo. It would delay it even longer and they cant afford it. Demos are put out so people can see what a game is actually going to look like on their system.
BETAS are designed to gauge performance and discover problems and get player feedback, but they are already past that.

 
I think the original was clearly prerendered. Just shows you how stupid all those omg crysis comments from an year or two ago turned out to be.
 
They did the same thing with that Killzone game, pretending that it was being rendered realtime, as if someone was actually playing it. What's the point of doing that? People are going to find out in the end.
 
Originally posted by: EvilComputer92
I think the original was clearly prerendered. Just shows you how stupid all those omg crysis comments from an year or two ago turned out to be.
Click to expand...


I have been bitching about this for so long. They pulled it with Oblivion, they pulled it with HL2, it keeps happening.


The difference is tremendous between those two pics.


It does disappoint, and the foliage does look shitty compared to the earlier previews. At the very least they ought to include that setting in the full version, allowing for hardware to keep up. Assuming it even exists anymore or ever did in the first place
 
This map that someone made for the demo looks just as good as the promo video from 1 year ago. Basically if you choose the correct lighting and time of day settings for a map it will look almost exactly like what they showed in the trailers a year ago.
 
Originally posted by: Frackal
Originally posted by: EvilComputer92
I think the original was clearly prerendered. Just shows you how stupid all those omg crysis comments from an year or two ago turned out to be.
Click to expand...


I have been bitching about this for so long. They pulled it with Oblivion, they pulled it with HL2, it keeps happening.


The difference is tremendous between those two pics.


It does disappoint, and the foliage does look shitty compared to the earlier previews. At the very least they ought to include that setting in the full version, allowing for hardware to keep up. Assuming it even exists anymore or ever did in the first place
Click to expand...

Yeah I have noticed the same thing. I remember all this crazy AI that half life 2 was suppose to have. When it was released the enemies didn't do half the stuff they had in the videos.
 
I disagree with the OP and all the others jumping on the slam-Crysis bandwagon. The scenes being rendered in the "comparison" photos are completely different. It's like comparing apples and oranges. One has motion, smoke, and a low-hanging sun, while the other is completely static and has completely different foliage and a completely different lighting scenario. The comparison is useless and says nothing about the quality of the engine then and now.

Its also hilarious that half the threads complain that it looks too good and they should have designed for lower hardware requirements, and half the threads say it looks like crap and should be more "future proof" to take advantage of tomorrow's technology. Make up your minds people!

Personally, I think they game looks great and it plays well in my book considering what you're getting graphically. I will play it and enjoy it and not complain (unless its buggy or doesn't function correctly, in which case I will complain since we all waited so long for the game to come out).
 
Originally posted by: SexyK
I disagree with the OP and all the others jumping on the slam-Crysis bandwagon. The scenes being rendered in the "comparison" photos are completely different. It's like comparing apples and oranges. One has motion, smoke, and a low-hanging sun, while the other is completely static and has completely different foliage and a completely different lighting scenario. The comparison is useless and says nothing about the quality of the engine then and now.

Its also hilarious that half the threads complain that it looks too good and they should have designed for lower hardware requirements, and half the threads say it looks like crap and should be more "future proof" to take advantage of tomorrow's technology. Make up your minds people!

Personally, I think they game looks great and it plays well in my book considering what you're getting graphically. I will play it and enjoy it and not complain (unless its buggy or doesn't function correctly, in which case I will complain since we all waited so long for the game to come out).
Click to expand...
Whining about sh!t on forums is the thing these days.

I think, from the demo at least, they've done a pretty damn good job. Can't wait for the full version... I'll have my informed opinion after that.
 
Even with these comparisons... Crysis still looks better than any other PC shooter out there today and really than any other PC game period (especially on highest settings)... So I don't think we can complain too much. Plus imagine if the game still did look like that? I don't think any of us could run it even with quad SLI.
 
i'd rather watch a pre-rendered video of the whole game with the early graphics shown rather than play it as it is now. the original crysis videos looked amazing.
 
Originally posted by: schneiderguy
This map that someone made for the demo looks just as good as the promo video from 1 year ago. Basically if you choose the correct lighting and time of day settings for a map it will look almost exactly like what they showed in the trailers a year ago.
Click to expand...

I feel better now. That video looked good.
 
This topic remind of when ps2 was about to launch and sony show a video of the famous FFVIII ballroom dance scene and claim that ps2 game are going to look as good as the dance scene and when ps2 launch, it look no where close to it
 
there was an interview where the crytek guys that even said the hardware out right now isn't capable of rendering the game with all it's bells and whistles, they said something along the lines that they are going to update the game as the newer hardware becomes available, i'm not sure if they'll stay true to their word but that's what the guy in the interview said.
 
It makes me laugh when people around complain about Crysis running at 15 FPS on max settings. I wonder if those persons ever wondered if the GeForce 8 and Radeon HD2900 were the very last generation of GPU's to ever see the light of the day in the rest of humanity's existence. It's as if every single game of so called "next generation" HAD TO run at 60FPS on this OLD generation.

Look, guys, this is what we call a regular evolution cycle.

Have the gaming community of the PC platform FORGOT about that ?!

1) New GPU Gen is made
2) That new Gen runs somewhat old-to-recent games much better
3) It lasts so for a year or so
4) New game generations arrive
5) The GPU Gen in question starts to show signs of age
6) New game generation pushes the envelop of today's GPU Gen
7) People complain about it
8) Newer GPU Gen is released
9) People don't complain about it anymore
10) Everyone is happy for a year or so ...

And the cycle resumes. So, are the GTX owners getting frustrated that their little puppy can't run ANY games at 40+ FPS now ? I think so. Just face it, Crysis is the BEGINNING of a new gaming era, it really is just the tip of an iceberg to come, and everyone is going to need a special new boat to resist the impact on that one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top