Far Cry 2 the new graphics king?

[AzN]

Originally posted by: gorcorps

Originally posted by: EvilComputer92

Originally posted by: Raduque

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: StevenNevets

I think Crysis could very easily be ported to consoles, and saying that's not true is just a way to boost pc-gaming hype.

I doubt it. We've already seen the top end graphics that the Xbox 360 can push. And Crysis is well above that.

Link?

Take a look at Gears of War 2. Running that at 1280x720 is the maximum any console this generation is going to go.

Says who? Says you? You're not an expert and have nothing backing up that claim. Every new shooter on the consoles looks better and better, and while this gen won't be able to touch Crysis on a top end PC they'll still get it to look better that GoW2.

That said, Far Cry 2 will look great but it probably won't be up to Crysis level of awesome.

Considering the fastest consumer computer can run GOW or GOW2 based on UNREAL engine easily maxed out at the highest resolutions and not Crysis. Running Crysis on a console would be like looking at a slide show.

Xbox 360 is like 8600gts level of performance and PS3 is 7900gt level. There's just no way a console would run Crysis. Maybe if you turned down the detail say low or medium settings.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: skyofavalon
I play Warhead on Enthusiest at 1080p on a high end projector so I've seen everything it has to offer and I agree it is the graphics king.What I dont agree is that it looks light years ahead of every other game.There is a way bigger difference between a PS2 ---> PS3 game than there is between 360/PS3 ---> Crysis.It doesnt look like its from a different generation of games from Mass Effect,Fight Night,Gears of War,just the top of the food chain.

Mass Effect on 360 has its share of problems.It also has its moments(such as when you are talking to Wrex) that Crysis cant touch.

I doubt you played Warhead on enthusiast. And if you did, you probably didn't play it with a decent FPS. Even top of the line cards out right now cannot handle everything Crysis has to offer. And while Crysis' single player campaign doesn't look like it's from a different generation, if you search youtube for physics demos, they sure as hell do. The engine for Crysis is freaking amazing, but computers can't even handle it fully yet, and consoles barely have a prayer.

Every time I see the player model, even on medium details, in Crysis in the rain, I have to stop for a second and realize how fucking unbelievable it looks compared to everything else out.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: s44

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante

Originally posted by: skyofavalon
Mass Effect on 360 has its share of problems.It also has its moments(such as when you are talking to Wrex) that Crysis cant touch.

That might be because when you're talking to characters in Mass Effect, the models are most of what's being rendered, thus the high detail.

Right. If you want to play Mass Effect without constant texture popping, you need a PC.

Bingo. I play it on my computer with a Radeon 4870. It looks awesome, and there is no way in hell a Wii or 360 could play it like that.
The PS3 might do it OK, but I havent seen it yet.

 

[Malladine]

Originally posted by: shortylickens
How about asking if Far Cry 2 is going to be the new gameplay king?

ftw

 

[Beev]

Originally posted by: shortylickens
How about asking if Far Cry 2 is going to be the new gameplay king?

Why would we ask that? It very obviously won't be.

 

[Malladine]

Originally posted by: Beev

Originally posted by: shortylickens
How about asking if Far Cry 2 is going to be the new gameplay king?

Why would we ask that? It very obviously won't be.

The point is gameplay isn't getting the spotlight is should have these days. At least I believe that's his point.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: shortylickens
Bingo. I play it on my computer with a Radeon 4870. It looks awesome, and there is no way in hell a Wii or 360 could play it like that.
The PS3 might do it OK, but I havent seen it yet.

The most beautiful thing in Mass Effect was the sky boxes. Especially the one for Bring Down the Sky. Simply gorgeous. Everything else? Pretty standard. The entire games development is pretty clearly stifled by the memory limitations of the Xbox360. I don't even have to mention the elevators.

However, the story made up for everything lacking .

 

[jonks]

No, but who cares. The graphics looks terrific and if the game itself is fun then it will be better than Crysis. Especially if it runs well on a high end comp.

 

[CVSiN]

Originally posted by: skyofavalon
I like Crysis and Warhead,both are good games with great graphics, but the way some people talk about the graphics you would think that its the end all be all, wont ever get any better.The best looking 360/PS3 games hold their own against it.Its not like its the difference between a PS1 --> PS2 game or PS2 --> PS3.

I know the first time I played Crysis my first thought wasnt " oh man I can get rid of my 360 now " it was more like " ummmm... this is it ? ". If FarCry 2 doesnt take the crown,It will be a close 2nd.

/throws the BS yellow flag on that call..

what freaking game are you playing thats even in the same zipcode as Crysis in full DX10 support with a badass SLI system..
nothing is even close..

 

[skace]

Hey CVSiN, last time I saw you, I was playing that abortion of a game called Age of Conan

 

[gorcorps]

Originally posted by: shortylickens

Originally posted by: s44

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante

Originally posted by: skyofavalon
Mass Effect on 360 has its share of problems.It also has its moments(such as when you are talking to Wrex) that Crysis cant touch.

That might be because when you're talking to characters in Mass Effect, the models are most of what's being rendered, thus the high detail.

Right. If you want to play Mass Effect without constant texture popping, you need a PC.

Bingo. I play it on my computer with a Radeon 4870. It looks awesome, and there is no way in hell a Wii or 360 could play it like that.
The PS3 might do it OK, but I havent seen it yet.

Did you just lump the graphical power of the 360 and Wii together, and put the PS3 above in it's own category? Thus far with the games this gen 360 graphics = PS3 graphics.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: CVSiN

Originally posted by: skyofavalon
I like Crysis and Warhead,both are good games with great graphics, but the way some people talk about the graphics you would think that its the end all be all, wont ever get any better.The best looking 360/PS3 games hold their own against it.Its not like its the difference between a PS1 --> PS2 game or PS2 --> PS3.

I know the first time I played Crysis my first thought wasnt " oh man I can get rid of my 360 now " it was more like " ummmm... this is it ? ". If FarCry 2 doesnt take the crown,It will be a close 2nd.

/throws the BS yellow flag on that call..

what freaking game are you playing thats even in the same zipcode as Crysis in full DX10 support with a badass SLI system..
nothing is even close..

Yea, i've been looking at Far Cry 2 screen shots and it looks great, BUT, looking at those screenies then looking at my desktop wallpaper (a ultra high res render of a Crysis map) and there really isn't even a comparison.

As pc horsepower catches up, the CryEngine2 will really shine.

 

[JAG87]

Originally posted by: skyofavalon
I like Crysis and Warhead,both are good games with great graphics, but the way some people talk about the graphics you would think that its the end all be all, wont ever get any better.The best looking 360/PS3 games hold their own against it.Its not like its the difference between a PS1 --> PS2 game or PS2 --> PS3.

I know the first time I played Crysis my first thought wasnt " oh man I can get rid of my 360 now " it was more like " ummmm... this is it ? ". If FarCry 2 doesnt take the crown,It will be a close 2nd.

what kinda crack are you on?

everytime i look at 360/ps3 graphics my eyes bleed. yes lets play at 1280x720 with NO AA and NO AF on a 60 inch display. why dont you just carve my eyes out with a fork? Heck even at 1920x1080 it still looks like GARBAGE. I play on 30 inches at 2560x1600 (0.25 dot pitch) with 4x anti aliasing (Crysis being an exception to all of this). I'm not even gonna go into the framerate debate. 60 fps steady +vsync on... when will a console offer that kind of power and image quality?

Please dont even compare consoles to PC. consoles aren't even cheaper.. they just rely on the fact that most people already have a display in their house. what they really are is a gaming medium for the people that aren't tech savvy, just turn it on, pop in the disc, grab the controller and play. god forbid you should learn how to install drivers or what a fucking directory is.

Rock on.. keep playing with your huge pixel pitch and aliased lines.. which most people don't even see.. and thats the problem.

 

[JF060392]

no, FC games are console ports.

 

[gorcorps]

Originally posted by: JF060392
no, FC games are console ports.

What? There's only 1 other FC for the PC and it never made it to the consoles. There were console remakes many years later but it wasn't the same game, just bore the Far Cry name.

 

[CVSiN]

Originally posted by: skace
Hey CVSiN, last time I saw you, I was playing that abortion of a game called Age of Conan

yah what a terrible choice that was..

now into WAR. and the new Crysis.

 

[jjj807]

far cry 2 will just be another game to waste 400 dollars for a new graphics card to play a crap game.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Originally posted by: jjj807
far cry 2 will just be another game to waste 400 dollars for a new graphics card to play a crap game.

Sounds like someone got a new rig for Crysis...and thought it would be Jesus rather than a game.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Take a look at Gears of War 2. Running that at 1280x720 is the maximum any console this generation is going to go.

RE5 and KZ2 both look significantly better then GOW2, I honestly wasn't impressed by GOW2 at all from everything I have seen.

everytime i look at 360/ps3 graphics my eyes bleed. yes lets play at 1280x720 with NO AA and NO AF on a 60 inch display.

How do you shut AA off on the 360? I've had mine for a couple years now, never been able to figure out how to do it. Some of the PS3 games I have are lacking AA, but I think my entire 360 library has AA enabled by default on every game I own.

And while Crysis' single player campaign doesn't look like it's from a different generation, if you search youtube for physics demos, they sure as hell do.

Cell utterly obliterates anything a x86 can do for physics, it really isn't remotely close. Physics is one of the areas that the consoles are a good generation ahead of PCs at least(unless we start seeing some PhysX support, that won't change).

Xbox 360 is like 8600gts level of performance and PS3 is 7900gt level.

Not even close in the abstract, let alone the actual end result. The 360's GPU offers AA for 'free' due to the way it is designed and has significantly more shader power then the 8600GTS, the PS3's GPU is closer to the 7900GT then the 360's is to the 8600gts, but the PS3 can use Cell to offload vertex shader duty freeing up considerable resources on the GPU not to mention both platforms have an enormous advantage- coding directly to a fixed hardware platform.

Check out GT4 on the PS2 then look up the exacting hardware specs. The PS2 has in essence a hopped up Voodoo1 and a processor from a generation akin to that prior to the Pentium2 and that game utterly obliterates anything on the PC that will run on hardware from several generations later(and that game does run at 1080i). On the PC devs try and do something, then blame the hardware if it won't run right(see, Crysis), on consoles devs look at the hardware and figure out how they are going to extract the best visuals(see KZ2).

 

[sourthings]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Take a look at Gears of War 2. Running that at 1280x720 is the maximum any console this generation is going to go.

RE5 and KZ2 both look significantly better then GOW2, I honestly wasn't impressed by GOW2 at all from everything I have seen.

everytime i look at 360/ps3 graphics my eyes bleed. yes lets play at 1280x720 with NO AA and NO AF on a 60 inch display.

How do you shut AA off on the 360? I've had mine for a couple years now, never been able to figure out how to do it. Some of the PS3 games I have are lacking AA, but I think my entire 360 library has AA enabled by default on every game I own.

And while Crysis' single player campaign doesn't look like it's from a different generation, if you search youtube for physics demos, they sure as hell do.

Cell utterly obliterates anything a x86 can do for physics, it really isn't remotely close. Physics is one of the areas that the consoles are a good generation ahead of PCs at least(unless we start seeing some PhysX support, that won't change).

Xbox 360 is like 8600gts level of performance and PS3 is 7900gt level.

Not even close in the abstract, let alone the actual end result. The 360's GPU offers AA for 'free' due to the way it is designed and has significantly more shader power then the 8600GTS, the PS3's GPU is closer to the 7900GT then the 360's is to the 8600gts, but the PS3 can use Cell to offload vertex shader duty freeing up considerable resources on the GPU not to mention both platforms have an enormous advantage- coding directly to a fixed hardware platform.

Check out GT4 on the PS2 then look up the exacting hardware specs. The PS2 has in essence a hopped up Voodoo1 and a processor from a generation akin to that prior to the Pentium2 and that game utterly obliterates anything on the PC that will run on hardware from several generations later(and that game does run at 1080i). On the PC devs try and do something, then blame the hardware if it won't run right(see, Crysis), on consoles devs look at the hardware and figure out how they are going to extract the best visuals(see KZ2).

I have a 360 myself and a good 40-50 games for it, I use it on a 1080P display. 360 games are not anywhere near the league of modern pc games, at all. They look *horrible* in comparison. Feel free to fire up COD4 or Assassin's Creed on your 360 and then on your PC.

Granted I have a 4870x2 and a big monitor, which both alone are the price of four 360s. Nonetheless unless you are dealing with a straight up port of a 360 to PC game, which still look better on PC, you just can't compare the two. The 360 is ancient at this point. And it does not hold a candle to the PC.

Want another example, Bioshock or UT3 or God knows how many other games. The 360s only strongpoint to me is sports games, otherwise I barely use the thing.

And the whole AA thing ? News to me the 360 even has AA, I see jaggies everywhere.

 

[StevenNevets]

I don't even have a PS3 or 360 yet I think there is exageration between how much better Crysis really is compared to consoles.

Of course it would need to be lowered in a few areas: view distance, aa/af, resolution, ect but the final product would not be that much worst.




The whole point of this is that if Far Cry 2 were a PC exlusive and looked the same as it does now, people would be claiming that it's too advanced for consoles just like they say about Crysis. Yet Far Cry 2 on 360/PS3 vs. Far Cry 2 PC really arn't that far apart, just like Crysis if it were to be ported to consoles.


That's why it should be looked at more carefully and considered a contender for the PC graphics king, it really looks incredible.
Maybe it's behind Warhead but if so not by too much.

 

[BenSkywalker]

I have a 360 myself and a good 40-50 games for it, I use it on a 1080P display. 360 games are not anywhere near the league of modern pc games, at all. They look *horrible* in comparison. Feel free to fire up COD4 or Assassin's Creed on your 360 and then on your PC.

When did I say anything different then that? Odd that you would pick two of the poorer looking 360 games though.

Nonetheless unless you are dealing with a straight up port of a 360 to PC game, which still look better on PC, you just can't compare the two. The 360 is ancient at this point. And it does not hold a candle to the PC.

Crysis, and.... what else simply blows the 360 away? Not talking having an edge, making the 360 look ancient. Please point out specifics too, not just titles but exacting effects.

And the whole AA thing ? News to me the 360 even has AA, I see jaggies everywhere.

I can still see aliasing on my PC running 6x AA quite easily, what is your point exactly? As far as AA on the 360 goes- go ahead and look it up, it's alway on with the 360- the way the entire console was designed 4x AA is 'free'. It was the type of design choice you can only reasonably make with a console.

 

[sourthings]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

I have a 360 myself and a good 40-50 games for it, I use it on a 1080P display. 360 games are not anywhere near the league of modern pc games, at all. They look *horrible* in comparison. Feel free to fire up COD4 or Assassin's Creed on your 360 and then on your PC.

When did I say anything different then that? Odd that you would pick two of the poorer looking 360 games though.

Nonetheless unless you are dealing with a straight up port of a 360 to PC game, which still look better on PC, you just can't compare the two. The 360 is ancient at this point. And it does not hold a candle to the PC.

Crysis, and.... what else simply blows the 360 away? Not talking having an edge, making the 360 look ancient. Please point out specifics too, not just titles but exacting effects.

And the whole AA thing ? News to me the 360 even has AA, I see jaggies everywhere.

I can still see aliasing on my PC running 6x AA quite easily, what is your point exactly? As far as AA on the 360 goes- go ahead and look it up, it's alway on with the 360- the way the entire console was designed 4x AA is 'free'. It was the type of design choice you can only reasonably make with a console.

If I could take SS and post them from my 360 and titles I have on my pc I would. I cannot see that the 360 has 4xAA. Because even when I'd hooked it up to my pc monitor rather than my tv, on a 24" display it still showed jagged lines on all edges, noticeably jagged. 4xAA on my pc is for the most part really smooth, and 8xaa, which is possible with a new video card at high res in most titles looks smooth altogether.

To give you specifics, how about Bioshock, and for examples, as straight forward as texture quality, lighting, shadows, smoke, water.. everything really. I don't see how anyone can miss the difference between Bioshock on high settings on a pc vs what you see on a 360. Gears of War looks much better in all aspects on a PC as well, and I think this is referred to as a 'good' looking 360 game.

I'm just not getting it. The 360 is what, four years old now ?, and displays at low resolutions, it just upscales to fit your display. High resolution, AF, AA, gabs more of raw gpu horsepower in the pc just put the 360s visuals to shame. It's just not capable of what a PC is. And all the talk about Crysis, that game on a high res with max settings, which are only playable, and then barely, on a pc would make a 360 asplode

I can get into titles that aren't even available on 360 as well, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., The Witcher, nothing the 360 could do visually. TF2 is another shared title that just looks awful on the 360 in comparison to a pc.

The 360 is a nice machine I like it. It has some benefits in terms of interface, via the controller, and you can play games on the couch. And excels at sports games I find. But as far as visuals, it's a far cry from anything you see on a pc.

This has always been the case with consoles, when they first release they outdo pc, but six months later, the pc has caught up and then some, four years later, it's left it far behind. Things would be interesting if they came out with a console you could upgrade. I don't know how well that would go over with consumers and at that point, you might as well get a PC anyways.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: StevenNevets
I don't even have a PS3 or 360 yet I think there is exageration between how much better Crysis really is compared to consoles.

Of course it would need to be lowered in a few areas: view distance, aa/af, resolution, ect but the final product would not be that much worst.

They'd need elevators all over the island so that Xbox360's memory could handle it. And it would have massive pop in. Soldiers would appear 3 feet from you.

 

[Pocatello]

Originally posted by: Beev

Originally posted by: shortylickens
How about asking if Far Cry 2 is going to be the new gameplay king?

Why would we ask that? It very obviously won't be.

Hopefully, it will be a fun game. Couple of things about the game that might be annoying, like your weapons and your vehicles breaking down. As long as the game designers don't overdo it, it's all good. There is a fine line between being realistic and a pain in your behind.