.... O_O

Ho

ly

Shit.

?

thats not gameplay graphics, thats cut scenes... right?

if thats gameplay...

?

Babu

If that is an actual screen shot indicative of real time play...then consider me dumbfounded. This may be the first time that I have really had trouble distinguishing between a photo and CG. Very, very nice.

If this real, then games have finally became TOO real looking for me.

Color me nonplussed. Since when did "pore-visibility" make a game play better?

Just remember, 9 years from now we'll be saying these graphics are "primitive" while we play our PS6 and our Nintendo Evolution (it will "evolve" gaming to something much more superior). Just remember, I was the first to say this. Now, just wait 9 years.

I'm guessing that's a cutscene graphic. Also, it's isn't totally photorealistic (it still has that CG shininess to it). Nevertheless, DAYYYYYYY-UM!

If you look at the pictures on IGN, you will see that the picture is of a head only and ends where the shoulders should be, therefore I would assume that this is just a render instead of ingame graphics, however some of the other screenshots seem more like ingame stills, and they are just almost as amazing as this, too bad they said this game isn't coming to the 360, I don't have a good enough pc for this game.

I don't really see how you can go beyond this level of graphics in terms of realism. It is very few steps away from photo-realism, and it is simply amazing.

I wonder how it looks in motion.

I've just come...

Meh. A few of those shots look really impressive, but there are still things I notice that aren't right even in the stills. Take the one with the burning truck; some jaggies on the tower poles, though the smoke looks really nice.

Or the one with the soldier head on. The gun is rather unimpressive.

Or the one with the flight-guider-guy. Poor looking helmet, missle in background.

The faces are looking better, but the eyes still give it away as CG. Look at the screenshots where the gun is in view (during gameplay), and there are many noticable areas in need of improvement.

Nice progress. I'm sure you need some heavy hardware to run this, but I'm not as blown away as the lead-up suggested.

push

TO # 8:
No one has a good enough PC for this yet untill windows vista and a DX10 card is released.

As I understood it, the 360 version is still in the works--or at least possible. I thought the team was just focusing on the PC version first.

The most important question is: What kind of $8000 beast do I need to play THIS?

-R.U.Sirius

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2005/09/12
Bullshot

I have read somewhere that it is using DirectX 10 – so this will only be released if Vista gets released anytime in the (far) fututre.

This means, you have to buy a new PC anyway. So buy a Mac!

Imagine later DX10 games. As people get more comfortable with the platform they will be able to better abuse it's limitations. Considering the DX10 lifecycle hasn't even begun yet, this is quite impressive.

An impressive feat of computer graphics, sure.

But is it fun to play?

"If these scenes don't impress you, you're just a cold, heartless gamer..."

Or, y'know, maybe I enjoy PLAYING my games. If I wanted mad visuals I'd watch a movie.

Actually, those are all DX9 shots and taken on hardware currently available in stores: http://selectivegamers.com/content/view/452/144/

I recommend you see the high-dev in game footage, it looks just as impressive. Find it at gametrailers.com

The game will be playable at E3, let's wait for reports and see what people who played the game have to say.

Why black people are the easiest to digitalize?

Those are in-game graphics.The graphics may look good,but I'm pretty sure the animation will still be "current gen" and rip the immersion factor considerably.

Doesn't look like anything the 360 can't do. Some of those island shots look like they are straight out of Tomb Raider Legends and the face shot looks like it's out of Rockstars' Table Tennis game. Don't mean to be picky...actually ya i do mean to be picky...these graphics are no where near 'photo-realistic'. It's still obvious these shots are from a video game and not the 6 o'clock news. The thing is though, do we want games to look this real? One of the big draws of gaming is playing in a world thats unlike our own. Engaging in an artistically stylized universe is much more gratifying than a spot on recreation of planet earth. Games like graw for example are great and everything, but i find more enjoyment playing katamari damacy or god of war for example where the graphics are more artistic rather than realistic. Photorealism = boring.

EnderMB your a gamer after my own heart. I don't get how people are banging on about graphics when photo-realistic graphics where on TV etc way back when ;)

Photo-realism means nothing to me. It's impressive. But I think I went beyond graphics as a kid. I mean I just realised "... hold up. I'd rather play Mario Bros 3 than Resident Evil 3.".
They still look a little fake too. So the graphics whores have a little longer to go before graphics are "there".

Looks to me like they finally got subsurface light scattering working, which is what makes the skin look so realistic.

First of all this is indeed an in-game screenshot. BUT, what it is showing is the skin SHADER, not how highly detailed each character's heads are. Remember the E3 PS3 demo that showed an equally impressive head of Alfred Molina being lit with HDR lighting? Same thing, it doesn't give you an idea of how each characters you fight in Crysis will look like this, but how realistic the shaders used for the skin and eyes will be. They CAN make such high quality heads on characters, but there is no point to do so, they'll just switch a lower resolution model to a higher resolution one during real-time cinematics.

Also, remember that this guy has no actual hair. The one thing that is still a major pain to do is realistic looking hair, so expect all the characters in Crysis to have short hair or helmets (like in Gears of War for example).

Nice mountain, so what?

If i want to see mountain's pictures or movies, there are tons avalaible in this world...

But really, the most incredible experience is to see such a mountain when i'm walking just in front of it...

Now, as this seem to be a game: is the game fun? is the storyline interesting?

Photorealistic isn't everything, sorry: i don't buy it, unless it's an excellent game...

My problem is that I have limitations on who i'm willing to shoot in the face, if it gets too realistic-like THAT realistic-I'd almost have a rumble in my conscience. That soldier's bottom lip looks a bit funky though... yeah i'll just anchor myself to that... yeah...

You can find in-game footage here:
http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?id=2509

Now that looks phenonomial!

as a previous story about oblivian earlier today mentioned.

Ill be more impressed when they make game worlds ACT more real instead of LOOK more real.



note: i have seen the in-game footage and the bullets tearing up the fooliage is wicked... now thats what im talking about!

Nah, niggas... this shit getting too realistic now. It looks good, and when it comes out for the X360, iWill get it, but any more realistic than this... Negative.

Every politicain and their moms r after video games to blame for something. Oil prices r $10 a gallon. Its video games. We're going to war w/ someone else now. Its video games. Taxes r too high. Its video games.

When they c this and learn what Far Cry is about, the murder that happens, they phina b up ons this...

"I'm finally a real boy!"

Nintendo fans who say graphics have hit a point where they dont matter will now say graphics that are photorealistic are boring......

Lol.

Rendering a still picture is one thing. But show me that face animated at 60fps and then we'll talk.

Photorealism = boring............are you kidding? when games look more real, it helps make you feel like your really driving the car, or being in the world they made.
"but i find more enjoyment playing katamari damacy or god of war for example"......... Umm yeah I think we know what you enjoy, being a SonyFanboy. Hey Bv, I know when the PS3 comes out with games that show off the graphics, you will be the first to shout how impressed you are. Ill be watching.

We can have photorealism in games, but they'll still be clunky first person shooters--with exploding barrells, no less. Seriously, what's with the exploding barrells? They were funny the first time I played DOOM, but it's 2006 now. Apparently, we don't mind playing the same games over and over again as long as they have bigger, better graphics and ominously labeled exploding barrells. Maybe the majority of gamers are trying to compensate for something, but this constant stream of better looking same-olds has left me less willing to fork over my cash.

meh. sure it looks nice, but those plants still have that rubber/plastic look.
I know im just complainign about nothing but as a plant enthusist(sp?) it reallly bothers me.
anywasy the rest looks good though one of the explosions looks... well not like an explsion on a next-gen system.
but yeah i point out crappy stuff.
as long as the physics are good im into it.

To be honest, some of the shadows look pretty crappy. jaggies everywhere.

(the rest of it is fucking sick)

Ohh boy! Zits and pock marks!! Be still my heart. Whats next, fat-rolls and ingrown hairs? I play video games to escape reality, not re-create it. Keep my heros and heroines flawlessly chiseled and buxom please.

Good post #21. We'll see what happens at E3, but I'm pretty confident this game will be just as great as Far Cry when it came out, if not more so. And it's a good thing they develop it primarily for the PC too (I really hate it when PC games get developped with consoles in mind, look what happened to Deux Ex, Thief, Sea Dogs, Rainbow Six, and recently Dreamfall).

This is like evaluating a blonde girl at first sight. Pretty on the outside, jackass on the inside - unless there's proof that this blondie has the brains.

Sorry if I've offended any blondes here *slaps herself in the face*.

It's so very very very sad to see these wonderful graphics are, generally, geared to one type of gamer. Notice the type of game and perspective.

Sigh... so typical.

If the game is as soulless as Far Cry was, I won't really give a shit about the game.

Erm, this has nothing to do with DirectX 10. 'Tis just shaders and hi-res maps. Like Pete said above, this appears to be running on DX9. And one could do the same thing using OpenGL in Linux. Is Joystiq getting paid to shill Vista or something? :/

The big question I have is why is this character wearing eyeliner?

Ummmm, I know this is a really bad analogy (considering its a black guy and all) but this just keeps reminding me of stupid blondes. It sure looks pretty and all, if not some of the best images to date, but what does it matter they dont have the proper AI, or the movement doesnt all fall into place, etc.?

There's no subsurface scattering on the bust. I can't speak for the rest of the photos, but definitely on the face. What you're seeing is a very hi-res normalmapped texture. Source and the Doom3 engine both support the exact same technology. They didn't really show off anything of that resolution, because they knew that it wouldn't perform in real-time, at all on a PC that matched their target audience on their projected release date.

Far Cry bored me. I'd rather be playing on a pretty railroad track with a great story, than in a game that pretended to give you all the freedom in the world, but still expected you to do things the 'right' way.

Anyway, there would be much more realism there if designers/programmers would start looking at the wonders of diffuse lighting, and treating it with a little respect, instead of saturating these pictures with specular gloss. Even the soldier's fatigues shine, and cast ridiculously dramatic shadows.