What game is on the horizon to be the next Graphics Champ?

[TechBoyJK]

I still think Crysis is the best looking game ever made. The capabilities of the engine are ridiculous, so in my opinion, it's just a matter of time for hardware to get better for Crytek to turn up the capabilities of their engine (longer draw distances, bigger textures, higher resolutions), and stay that much further ahead of the pack.

What is else is coming up? Diablo3 looks to be visually stunning, but that's more of an artistic thing, not truly photorealistic graphically groundbreaking.

I don't know of anything else.

 

[DannyLove]

ri not rediculous...

Crysis wins

 

[GaryJohnson]

Some of the Alan Wake shots that are floating around are pretty darn good looking.

 

[Pantlegz]

Originally posted by: GaryJohnson
Some of the Alan Wake shots that are floating around are pretty darn good looking.

Wasn't that supposed to be out last fall?? I hate the state of pc gaming, I guess it's good, I don't have to spend money on games because they all suck.

Maybe next year will be better...

 

[Maximilian]

Starcraft II looks good, dont think itll be the graphical king of games but maybe for RTS games, blizzard always puts polish on their engines, war III still looks good today

 

[9mak9]

I think when the start going into the 3d aspect that will be the new rein

 

[BladeVenom]

Originally posted by: GaryJohnson
Some of the Alan Wake shots that are floating around are pretty darn good looking.

I think Duke Nukem Forever looks better.

 

[jonks]

nothing i've seen coming up blows me away graphically the way the first crysis screens did

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom

Originally posted by: GaryJohnson
Some of the Alan Wake shots that are floating around are pretty darn good looking.

I think Duke Nukem Forever looks better.

I agree (not work safe)

 

[venkman]

Originally posted by: jonks
nothing i've seen coming up blows me away graphically the way the first crysis screens did

agreed. Even on max settings, Crysis the actual game doesn't hold a candle to the original screenshots.

 

[F1refly]

Sorry to be the turd in the punchbowl here, but Crytek went multiplatform like everyone else. Their titles will now be concentrated heavily for the consoles since those are expected to be their top $$$. Their new graphics engine has specs geared directly towards console, in fact, all Cryengine 3 is, is Cryengine 2.0 with refined code and seperate PS3 and 360 specific code added to the already pc development engine. basically 3 engines in one that all can be crossed over to each other.
Practically all the pc games these days are "ports".

Originally posted by: venkman

Originally posted by: jonks
nothing i've seen coming up blows me away graphically the way the first crysis screens did

agreed. Even on max settings, Crysis the actual game doesn't hold a candle to the original screenshots.

its what they call "photo editing and enhancement". Theres actually good money in it and quite a few companies pretty much thrive off of game companies who contract them to touch up their shots for ads,internet and some magazine ads, some of them are passed out to websites like gamespot to display. I know cause my g/f works for one of them, she just proof reads though, doesnt do the actual enhancements which i think is all digital nowadays anyway. They used to do it all by hand somehow but all this should be no news to anyone, i think their company used to do some of the comodore 64 screenshots for retail boxes, probably magazines too but its definitly used alot nowadays it seems. However i think some reviewers are allowed to use their own screenshots, but thats usually after the game is released afaik.

 

[OCGuy]

I like Far Cry 2 as well.

Right now ARMA2 is chewing up my 280s @ 4XAA and High other settings, but that is partly to do with needing some patching.

 

[EvilComputer92]

Originally posted by: F1refly
Sorry to be the turd in the punchbowl here, but Crytek went multiplatform like everyone else. Their titles will now be concentrated heavily for the consoles since those are expected to be their top $$$. Their new graphics engine has specs geared directly towards console, in fact, all Cryengine 3 is, is Cryengine 2.0 with refined code and seperate PS3 and 360 specific code added to the already pc development engine. basically 3 engines in one that all can be crossed over to each other.
Practically all the pc games these days are "ports".

Originally posted by: venkman

Originally posted by: jonks
nothing i've seen coming up blows me away graphically the way the first crysis screens did

agreed. Even on max settings, Crysis the actual game doesn't hold a candle to the original screenshots.

its what they call "photo editing and enhancement". Theres actually good money in it and quite a few companies pretty much thrive off of game companies who contract them to touch up their shots for ads,internet and some magazine ads, some of them are passed out to websites like gamespot to display. I know cause my g/f works for one of them, she just proof reads though, doesnt do the actual enhancements which i think is all digital nowadays anyway. They used to do it all by hand somehow but all this should be no news to anyone, i think their company used to do some of the comodore 64 screenshots for retail boxes, probably magazines too but its definitly used alot nowadays it seems. However i think some reviewers are allowed to use their own screenshots, but thats usually after the game is released afaik.

No, it's because you are all doing it wrong.

Crysis on stock looks great, but it's nothing exceptional except it a few levels.

With the HP Ultra High Config, Ultima TOD mod, and Rygel's Texture pack you get results like

this
this

and this

The engine is capable of producing the graphics that were in the E3 demo, but it of course requires a powerful machine to get acceptable framerates. GTX 280 is a minimum.

It's pretty funny that Cryengine 3 will end up looking worse than Cryengine 2 because it's also being developed for the 360 and PS3. Probably the first engine that looks worse than its predecessor.

 

[Sylvanas]

I think 'Shattered Horizon' is supposed to one of the most demanding games in the near future, it's the one thats being developed by Futuremark the people that make 3Dmark- the teasers that they've released don;t show much but it's supposed to 'take advantage of the latest technology'.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: EvilComputer92

Originally posted by: F1refly
Sorry to be the turd in the punchbowl here, but Crytek went multiplatform like everyone else. Their titles will now be concentrated heavily for the consoles since those are expected to be their top $$$. Their new graphics engine has specs geared directly towards console, in fact, all Cryengine 3 is, is Cryengine 2.0 with refined code and seperate PS3 and 360 specific code added to the already pc development engine. basically 3 engines in one that all can be crossed over to each other.
Practically all the pc games these days are "ports".

Originally posted by: venkman

Originally posted by: jonks
nothing i've seen coming up blows me away graphically the way the first crysis screens did

agreed. Even on max settings, Crysis the actual game doesn't hold a candle to the original screenshots.

its what they call "photo editing and enhancement". Theres actually good money in it and quite a few companies pretty much thrive off of game companies who contract them to touch up their shots for ads,internet and some magazine ads, some of them are passed out to websites like gamespot to display. I know cause my g/f works for one of them, she just proof reads though, doesnt do the actual enhancements which i think is all digital nowadays anyway. They used to do it all by hand somehow but all this should be no news to anyone, i think their company used to do some of the comodore 64 screenshots for retail boxes, probably magazines too but its definitly used alot nowadays it seems. However i think some reviewers are allowed to use their own screenshots, but thats usually after the game is released afaik.

No, it's because you are all doing it wrong.

Crysis on stock looks great, but it's nothing exceptional except it a few levels.

With the HP Ultra High Config, Ultima TOD mod, and Rygel's Texture pack you get results like

this
this

and this

The engine is capable of producing the graphics that were in the E3 demo, but it of course requires a powerful machine to get acceptable framerates. GTX 280 is a minimum.

It's pretty funny that Cryengine 3 will end up looking worse than Cryengine 2 because it's also being developed for the 360 and PS3. Probably the first engine that looks worse than its predecessor.

:Q:Q:Q:Q at the first pic!

 

[Sylvanas]

Those Crysis screens look pretty sick, but question is at what framerate do they play at? If it's reasonable I may like to try it out on my 4870X2.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Pantlegz1

Originally posted by: GaryJohnson
Some of the Alan Wake shots that are floating around are pretty darn good looking.

Wasn't that supposed to be out last fall?? I hate the state of pc gaming, I guess it's good, I don't have to spend money on games because they all suck.

Maybe next year will be better...

 

[Polish3d]

Looking forward to Crysis too quite a bit!

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: EvilComputer92

Originally posted by: F1refly
Sorry to be the turd in the punchbowl here, but Crytek went multiplatform like everyone else. Their titles will now be concentrated heavily for the consoles since those are expected to be their top $$$. Their new graphics engine has specs geared directly towards console, in fact, all Cryengine 3 is, is Cryengine 2.0 with refined code and seperate PS3 and 360 specific code added to the already pc development engine. basically 3 engines in one that all can be crossed over to each other.
Practically all the pc games these days are "ports".

Originally posted by: venkman

Originally posted by: jonks
nothing i've seen coming up blows me away graphically the way the first crysis screens did

agreed. Even on max settings, Crysis the actual game doesn't hold a candle to the original screenshots.

its what they call "photo editing and enhancement". Theres actually good money in it and quite a few companies pretty much thrive off of game companies who contract them to touch up their shots for ads,internet and some magazine ads, some of them are passed out to websites like gamespot to display. I know cause my g/f works for one of them, she just proof reads though, doesnt do the actual enhancements which i think is all digital nowadays anyway. They used to do it all by hand somehow but all this should be no news to anyone, i think their company used to do some of the comodore 64 screenshots for retail boxes, probably magazines too but its definitly used alot nowadays it seems. However i think some reviewers are allowed to use their own screenshots, but thats usually after the game is released afaik.

No, it's because you are all doing it wrong.

Crysis on stock looks great, but it's nothing exceptional except it a few levels.

With the HP Ultra High Config, Ultima TOD mod, and Rygel's Texture pack you get results like

this
this

and this

The engine is capable of producing the graphics that were in the E3 demo, but it of course requires a powerful machine to get acceptable framerates. GTX 280 is a minimum.

It's pretty funny that Cryengine 3 will end up looking worse than Cryengine 2 because it's also being developed for the 360 and PS3. Probably the first engine that looks worse than its predecessor.

:Q:Q:Q:Q at the first pic!

That first screenshot looks incredible.

 

[reallyscrued]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: EvilComputer92


No, it's because you are all doing it wrong.

Crysis on stock looks great, but it's nothing exceptional except it a few levels.

With the HP Ultra High Config, Ultima TOD mod, and Rygel's Texture pack you get results like

this
this

and this

The engine is capable of producing the graphics that were in the E3 demo, but it of course requires a powerful machine to get acceptable framerates. GTX 280 is a minimum.

It's pretty funny that Cryengine 3 will end up looking worse than Cryengine 2 because it's also being developed for the 360 and PS3. Probably the first engine that looks worse than its predecessor.

:Q:Q:Q:Q at the first pic!

Yeah right. :Q:Q:Q:Q at the the second pic.

I think the majority of people would think that is a real photograph.

Damn I really wish they released high def texture packs for other games besides Half Life 2 and Crysis.

Evil, do you know of any such mod for Doom III?

 

[minmaster]

huh are those for real? they can't possibly be. looks like photographs?

 

[Barfo]

I just upgraded to a 1080p monitor, for now I'm looking forward to running my current games with all the eye candy turned on, like I used to :laugh:

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: EvilComputer92

Originally posted by: F1refly
Sorry to be the turd in the punchbowl here, but Crytek went multiplatform like everyone else. Their titles will now be concentrated heavily for the consoles since those are expected to be their top $$$. Their new graphics engine has specs geared directly towards console, in fact, all Cryengine 3 is, is Cryengine 2.0 with refined code and seperate PS3 and 360 specific code added to the already pc development engine. basically 3 engines in one that all can be crossed over to each other.
Practically all the pc games these days are "ports".

Originally posted by: venkman

Originally posted by: jonks
nothing i've seen coming up blows me away graphically the way the first crysis screens did

agreed. Even on max settings, Crysis the actual game doesn't hold a candle to the original screenshots.

its what they call "photo editing and enhancement". Theres actually good money in it and quite a few companies pretty much thrive off of game companies who contract them to touch up their shots for ads,internet and some magazine ads, some of them are passed out to websites like gamespot to display. I know cause my g/f works for one of them, she just proof reads though, doesnt do the actual enhancements which i think is all digital nowadays anyway. They used to do it all by hand somehow but all this should be no news to anyone, i think their company used to do some of the comodore 64 screenshots for retail boxes, probably magazines too but its definitly used alot nowadays it seems. However i think some reviewers are allowed to use their own screenshots, but thats usually after the game is released afaik.

No, it's because you are all doing it wrong.

Crysis on stock looks great, but it's nothing exceptional except it a few levels.

With the HP Ultra High Config, Ultima TOD mod, and Rygel's Texture pack you get results like

this
this

and this

The engine is capable of producing the graphics that were in the E3 demo, but it of course requires a powerful machine to get acceptable framerates. GTX 280 is a minimum.

It's pretty funny that Cryengine 3 will end up looking worse than Cryengine 2 because it's also being developed for the 360 and PS3. Probably the first engine that looks worse than its predecessor.

:Q:Q:Q:Q at the first pic!

No joke. I almost tossed out the photoshopped bash..

 

[TechBoyJK]

holy double post batman

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: EvilComputer92

Originally posted by: F1refly
Sorry to be the turd in the punchbowl here, but Crytek went multiplatform like everyone else. Their titles will now be concentrated heavily for the consoles since those are expected to be their top $$$. Their new graphics engine has specs geared directly towards console, in fact, all Cryengine 3 is, is Cryengine 2.0 with refined code and seperate PS3 and 360 specific code added to the already pc development engine. basically 3 engines in one that all can be crossed over to each other.
Practically all the pc games these days are "ports".

Originally posted by: venkman

Originally posted by: jonks
nothing i've seen coming up blows me away graphically the way the first crysis screens did

agreed. Even on max settings, Crysis the actual game doesn't hold a candle to the original screenshots.

its what they call "photo editing and enhancement". Theres actually good money in it and quite a few companies pretty much thrive off of game companies who contract them to touch up their shots for ads,internet and some magazine ads, some of them are passed out to websites like gamespot to display. I know cause my g/f works for one of them, she just proof reads though, doesnt do the actual enhancements which i think is all digital nowadays anyway. They used to do it all by hand somehow but all this should be no news to anyone, i think their company used to do some of the comodore 64 screenshots for retail boxes, probably magazines too but its definitly used alot nowadays it seems. However i think some reviewers are allowed to use their own screenshots, but thats usually after the game is released afaik.

No, it's because you are all doing it wrong.

Crysis on stock looks great, but it's nothing exceptional except it a few levels.

With the HP Ultra High Config, Ultima TOD mod, and Rygel's Texture pack you get results like

this
this

and this

The engine is capable of producing the graphics that were in the E3 demo, but it of course requires a powerful machine to get acceptable framerates. GTX 280 is a minimum.

It's pretty funny that Cryengine 3 will end up looking worse than Cryengine 2 because it's also being developed for the 360 and PS3. Probably the first engine that looks worse than its predecessor.

CryEngine3 won't look worse. There's two different major developments on the CryEngine3.

1-Refinement of the engine
2-Ability to port work to XBOX360/PS3

It's a common misconception about the CryEngine3 that it is MADE for consoles. It is not. It's the next verion of CryEngine, better than 2, with functions that strip out graphics/functions to make the games playable on XBOX/PS "when" you render your work for that platform. For Instance, if PS3 can do some shading that the XBOX can't, that particular shading function won't be included when you mix down the levels to xbox, but it would be included in PS3 version.

The big deal about consoles and CE3 is that they apparently did alot of fine tuning on how the games are mixed down for the consoles, so that the consoles will get milked for everything they are worth.

BUT...... It's not going to look any worse on PC. PC will still get full rendering capabilities.

The E3 Demo was for CONSOLES. They haven't released a PC demo yet. Cevat Yerli just wanted the console demo done to show that they were going to be able to make games for those platforms. So if you are judging CE3 based on the console demo, you're not comparing apples to apples.