Amazing Crysis (PC) comparison pics

by Blake Snow { Jun 8th 2006 at 11:45AM }

The graphics engine for Crysis, launching Q4 of this year, can render some amazing results. Follow the "read" link for the full image comparison. "Can't see the line, can you Russ?"

See also:

Crysis Impressions

[via ExtraLife]

Related From Joystiq

CBS bringing Diagnosis Murder, some other stuff to gaming platforms
6 days ago
EA, Crytek announce Crysis 2 for Xbox 360, PS3, PC
162 days ago
Crysis Warhead on the cheap: EA's 'Warhead PC' priced at $699
427 days ago

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

ncdign @ Jun 8th 2006 11:49AM

Those are pretty amazing! The grass in the bottom right pic looks a little strange though. Now if physics and animation can catch up to the graphics we'll really be cooking with gas.

Pixelbox @ Jun 8th 2006 11:53AM

I don't know about the rest of you guys, but these eye-candy shots grow less impressive every day. Lots of games have good graphics these days, but the real immersion takes place in how that pretty environment behaves. I'm sick of photo-real racetracks that don't allow me to take a wrong turn down a side street (or even knock over the fence to that sidestreet). I'm sick of beautiful jungle environments that don't allow exploded hand grenades to even dent the ground.

Give me today's graphics (or even yesterday's) and tomorrow's physics anyday over this constant rush to a photo-real environment that stops feeling real after a few seconds.

All that said, those are some freakin' beautiful stills.... :)

retromancer @ Jun 8th 2006 11:53AM

Damn, those are good shots.

but the true test of such an engine is ambient movement while in play.

and was the NLCV joke necessary?

fhornmikey @ Jun 8th 2006 11:57AM

I agree with you whole heartedly poster 3, I think the real difference we'll see in next generation gaming will be the addition of realistic physics engines, and this is exactly what it appears Crysis will be doing, take a look for yourself:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3880060080821549243&q=crysis

Here's to hoping the final game/engine delivers!

Eric @ Jun 8th 2006 11:58AM

Ha ha ha...Nice Christmas Vacation reference...God you guys are awesome with the subtle movie trivia, like large Marge sent you or something.

The Crysis engine is everything the PS3 wishes it could handle. Any word yet on how taxing this game will be on anything other than an Quad-SLI machine?

D @ Jun 8th 2006 11:58AM

Long live the Christmas Vacation reference!!

T-Man @ Jun 8th 2006 11:58AM

meh, lemme see those same pics at 2560 x 1600 and then we'll talk.

Player1 @ Jun 8th 2006 12:00PM

You guys need to check out the footage of the game then. You can shoot every single tree and knock it down.

Ryan @ Jun 8th 2006 12:08PM

Still not there. The foliage doesn't look right at all (there aren't individual blades of grass, just tufts) and for some reason, the clouds aren't doing it for me. The chain link fence doesn't look right, either.

All the same, very impressive.

Alex P @ Jun 8th 2006 12:11PM

Hmm, to be honest, nothing I saw of the game at E3 looked that good. Still, probably the best looking game at the show, but those shots are a tad suspect.

On that note, yes, I agree. Polygon count and per-pixel shading are so 2004. New titles really have to show something entirely new in the visuals dept. to get a rise out of me.

obo @ Jun 8th 2006 12:16PM

"You can shoot every single tree and knock it down."

What kind of gun shoots trees down? Holy crap.

elmimmo @ Jun 8th 2006 12:32PM

So they used photos as textures on a pair of triangles. Pretty impressive… Duh!

peter griffin @ Jun 8th 2006 12:33PM

"On that note, yes, I agree. Polygon count and per-pixel shading are so 2004. New titles really have to show something entirely new in the visuals dept. to get a rise out of me."
mmm...yes, shallow and and pedantic.

plagiarize @ Jun 8th 2006 12:35PM

it passes the squint test, which is all you can really ask for... and today's quad sli is next years high end graphics card. it might not look that good on the hardware available when it ships (if it ships this autumn as it's supposed to) but it's not exactly uncommon for a game to be shown off at E3 on a monstrously powerful rig, to release running just peachy on much cheaper machines.

Crazylink @ Jun 8th 2006 12:37PM

For some reason everything looks out of proportion in the Crysis image.

Scott @ Jun 8th 2006 12:40PM

#12 - Didn't you ever see the movie Predator? ;)

J.Goodwin @ Jun 8th 2006 12:57PM

"For some reason everything looks out of proportion in the Crysis image." - Crazylink

That's the depth of field problem. Same thing that was a problem in the arena sequences in Gladiator.

Everything is clear and sharp, even though it's half a mile or more away. Presumably that will be fixed in the final version with some sort of atmospheric effects. Would be really strange if they don't fix it, because it's getting to be the standard on the 360.

Woody @ Jun 8th 2006 1:03PM

Wake me when AI finally improves. Nothing pisses me off worse than dumb AI. How about teammates that don't get in the way.

The reason online play is so addicting is because both enemy and allied AI are humans. Even dumb rich kids are smarter than the best AI.

Still, nice renders.

T-Man @ Jun 8th 2006 1:07PM

yea, realistic physics alright, I oft shot down a foot thick palm tree with only 2-3 AK rounds.

sabre @ Jun 8th 2006 1:17PM

Man I swear...that area of Oahu is so damn popular. At Crysis to the list of pieces of entertainment using that area either as reference or directly using it. Nice shots too.

Adam @ Jun 8th 2006 1:22PM

wow, Crysis offically has better graphics than real life.

jps @ Jun 8th 2006 1:25PM

You notice how they still can't add little aesthetic touches, like the door hanging off it's hinge? The shack is still a box, with some halfassed wood strewn around it. Oh, and a crapload of light bloom. Great. I look forward to this giving me a headache when I get a gaming PC and play it in the year 20-never.

Eric @ Jun 8th 2006 1:26PM

Anyone not impressed by this will never be impressed by anything.

Ianc02 @ Jun 8th 2006 1:39PM

Stills have never impressed me. If i want a realistic still i can look out my window for ****s sake. Now show me real-time motion please, that impresses me, NEVER stills.

Geist @ Jun 8th 2006 1:42PM

Graphical elements lately just don't impress me. What I will be impressed to see is how well they optimize this, though I have high hopes since FarCry, with it's spectacular draw distance, ran well on my crappy old box back in the day.

Ko?n Untouchables @ Jun 8th 2006 1:44PM

That's how Halo 3 will look like check it out

http://bungie.net/News/TopStory.aspx?link=e3makingof

DBR @ Jun 8th 2006 1:48PM

Doesn't it seem like these "Hey everyone! Look how real my graphics are!" posts do more harm than good?

Though I love observing great visuals, whether stylized like Twilight Princess or realistic like these, the problem with this mindset is that it sets the graphical still up for failure – disappointment in the minds of many. You'll never satisy gamers let alone the graphically savvy, because based on reality, faux-reality will never suffice.

So what you get are some who will find the flaws no matter what. And many will be consciously (and gleefully) looking for those graphical glitches – like the grass. Instead of focusing on the beauty, the style, the historical influence or the meaning, it becomes some "Eureka!" exercise in technical knowhow.

What a buzzkill.

Reminds me of those "What's wrong with this picture?" challenges in Highlights Magazine. Sure they were fun to do. But you never remembered what was right with the picture now did you...?

LongshotX @ Jun 8th 2006 1:54PM

For some strange reason although the Crysis engine looks superb the lighting is too bright, almost inorganic, and it has that strange soft glow. I think in the next generation, creating organic, real life lightning will be key. Because for some reason in this generation the lightning just looks way too bright and glowy. Kind of wierd.

gozirah @ Jun 8th 2006 1:59PM

That sure is a realistic ugly shack. I'm impressed by the tech achievement but I'm not convinced that the goal of photo-realism will necessarily lead to enjoyable gaming. Once visual realsim hits its limits, maybe designers will focus on realistic physics. Once physics hit its limits, maybe they'll think back about artistic representation. The sense of immersion may be important, say for simuation training purposes, but I think clarity of visual language should not be ignored. Take comics. If artists could instantly render a photo realistic Spiderman or Calvin & Hobbes, they might not because visual clutter could confuse the storytelling. I suppose waht photo-realistic graphics need is cinematographers to make judgments about perspective and lighting. In summary, the shore is pretty I guess, but the shack is not ugly in an engaging way.

Nathan @ Jun 8th 2006 2:00PM

This was on Digg last week. While the shots are impressive. I doubt we'll be able to run around in this environment at 60fps with that draw distance. But who knows, I could be mistaken. When we have the game in our hands we'll know if it's fun or just a tech demo.

kyle @ Jun 8th 2006 2:13PM

just look at what driv3r had to offer but did anyone really care about those 'photo realistic' shots when the game came out? no it sucked.

half life 2 on the other hand had a very good physics engine aswell as good graphics. but personally i didnt think that was the only good thing about the game it was the general atmosphere. i played battlefield 2 md on the xbox 360 just the other day (demo verion) and i was stunned by the lifelike atmosphere. visually the game has a lot to offer in terms of atmohspere. long draw distances aswell as good particle effects give the game visualy an amazing touch. it feels as though you are in the game.

that is what i am worried about crysis. i think the game will be to over the top, it wont feel fun to play and it wont have that far cry touch to it. the video in post [5] is truly good. but what he sais about the story is uterly boring

sorry crytek but those trees could stand more than an AK-47!

disapointed...

FreQ @ Jun 8th 2006 2:37PM

Those are some truly incredible shots.

But I have to wonder how many 600 video cards I'm going to have to daisy chain together to get this thing to run @ 20 FPS @ 800x600 Rez . LMAO

dose1 @ Jun 8th 2006 3:13PM

that shit looks hot.

IS this a direct x 10 game??

Marc @ Jun 8th 2006 3:54PM

Now THAT is astounding. (and some people say games aren't art)

Player1 @ Jun 8th 2006 4:17PM

You guys are right, palm trees falling over from bullets is pretty stupid. Exploding red barrels on the other hand...

Raikage @ Jun 8th 2006 4:55PM

Obviously you guys have never shot a gun before. Sure 2-3 bullets wouldn't take down a tree but it would sure cause some damage. You must be to used to spraying bullets in to an enemy and them finally dieing after 7-15 shots. No bullets can cause huge ammounts of distruction and the best way to see that is Black, it had great bullet effects on the enviornment but these consoles can't handle the distruction of everything but when they can (hopefully in this game)each bullet will be something to cherish. You could shoot through a wall (not a really thick one)and tag an enemy, shoot their knee out so they drop down and possibly loose their gun in the process...that would be so much better than a pretty picture. Physics and gameplay is where the immersion is at now not just graphics anymore.
P.S. pretty pictures...*drool* but of course you can find something wrong with it.

The Raikage

Yem @ Jun 8th 2006 5:35PM

Shots like this just bring home the enormous task of creating "next-gen" content. That shack looks fantastic, but how many hours (days?) did it take? Now show me a village of unique buildings and props. Now a whole city. See where I'm going with this?

Either we get the same gorgeous model over and over, or we get a variety of low-fi content that is quicker to create albeit in less detail.

rst @ Jun 8th 2006 5:45PM

to all the repeat comments about gameplay being more important than gameart... have you even played a game from the farcry series? each game has been badass and only gotten better - i expect nothing less for their next release!

sure gameplay wins, but great gameplay *with great graphics is even better.

Jose C @ Jun 8th 2006 8:16PM

If it's anything like Far Cry then I'm sure it will kick ass, FC is one of my favorite FPS on the PC.

matjet @ Jun 8th 2006 9:42PM

lol i was looking at the picture of the shack on the left and rekoned it looked brillient. it was an actual photo isent it. dulp

Psaakyrn @ Jun 8th 2006 10:44PM

All this proves is that they can't properly render a dilapidated shack. I'm sure you all can notice that those tiny curves of metal slightly warped due to age and being out in the weather, clearly present in the left image, is not found in the right. Also, the foilage just look plastic/artificial.

Besides, random landscapes from afar are one of the easiest to render. There is nothing wrong with the render except for a few sharp edges, but the only problem is that it's probably already done.

This 2 screenshots does not show any distinctive graphical improvements. I'd even reckon that Wii could do similar, if someone researches and codes a specialized graphics engine.