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:
[via ExtraLife]
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:
[via ExtraLife]
Reader Comments (43)
Posted: Jun 8th 2006 11:49AM (Unverified) said
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.
Reply
Posted: Jun 8th 2006 11:53AM (Unverified) said
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.... :)
Reply
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.... :)
Posted: Jun 8th 2006 11:53AM (Unverified) said
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?
Reply
but the true test of such an engine is ambient movement while in play.
and was the NLCV joke necessary?
Posted: Jun 8th 2006 11:57AM (Unverified) said
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!
Reply
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3880060080821549243&q=crysis
Here's to hoping the final game/engine delivers!
Posted: Jun 8th 2006 11:58AM (Unverified) said
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?
Reply
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?
Posted: Jun 8th 2006 12:08PM (Unverified) said
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.
Reply
All the same, very impressive.
Posted: Jun 8th 2006 12:11PM (Unverified) said
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.
Reply
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.
Posted: Jun 8th 2006 12:16PM (Unverified) said
"You can shoot every single tree and knock it down."
What kind of gun shoots trees down? Holy crap.
Reply
What kind of gun shoots trees down? Holy crap.
Posted: Jun 8th 2006 12:32PM (Unverified) said
So they used photos as textures on a pair of triangles. Pretty impressive… Duh!
Reply
Posted: Jun 8th 2006 12:35PM (Unverified) said
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.
Reply
Posted: Jun 8th 2006 12:37PM (Unverified) said
For some reason everything looks out of proportion in the Crysis image.
Reply
Posted: Jun 8th 2006 12:57PM (Unverified) said
"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.
Reply
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.
Posted: Jun 8th 2006 1:03PM (Unverified) said
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.
Reply
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.
Posted: Jun 8th 2006 1:17PM (Unverified) said
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.
Reply
Posted: Jun 8th 2006 1:22PM (Unverified) said
wow, Crysis offically has better graphics than real life.
Reply
Posted: Jun 8th 2006 1:25PM (Unverified) said
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.
Reply
Posted: Jun 8th 2006 1:26PM (Unverified) said
Anyone not impressed by this will never be impressed by anything.
Reply
Posted: Jun 8th 2006 1:39PM (Unverified) said
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.
Reply
Posted: Jun 8th 2006 1:48PM (Unverified) said
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...?
Reply
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...?
Posted: Jun 8th 2006 1:54PM Slvrgun said
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.
Reply
Posted: Jun 8th 2006 1:59PM (Unverified) said
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.
Reply
Posted: Jun 8th 2006 2:00PM (Unverified) said
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.
Reply
Posted: Jun 8th 2006 2:13PM (Unverified) said
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...
Reply
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...
Posted: Jun 8th 2006 2:37PM (Unverified) said
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
Reply
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
Posted: Jun 8th 2006 3:13PM (Unverified) said
that shit looks hot.
IS this a direct x 10 game??
Reply
IS this a direct x 10 game??
Posted: Jun 8th 2006 3:54PM (Unverified) said
Now THAT is astounding. (and some people say games aren't art)
Reply
Posted: Jun 8th 2006 4:55PM D3m0sthenes said
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
Reply
P.S. pretty pictures...*drool* but of course you can find something wrong with it.
The Raikage
Posted: Jun 8th 2006 5:35PM Yemble said
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.
Reply
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.
Posted: Jun 8th 2006 5:45PM (Unverified) said
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.
Reply
sure gameplay wins, but great gameplay *with great graphics is even better.
Posted: Jun 8th 2006 8:16PM (Unverified) said
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.
Reply
Posted: Jun 8th 2006 9:42PM (Unverified) said
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
Reply
Posted: Jun 8th 2006 10:44PM (Unverified) said
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.
Reply
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.
Posted: Jun 8th 2006 10:50PM (Unverified) said
It's easy. The game is the one with the copious screen bloom.
Reply
Posted: Jun 9th 2006 5:31PM (Unverified) said
In reference to number 12:
Yes, many many guns can shoot down a tree. As a matter of fact, several Christmas trees in my family have been shot down using .45's .223's and even .357's.
You could call it a hobby.
Reply
Yes, many many guns can shoot down a tree. As a matter of fact, several Christmas trees in my family have been shot down using .45's .223's and even .357's.
You could call it a hobby.
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.
Featured Stories
The most popular posts
in the last 7 days
- Vita 'UMD Passport' won't be offered in US 221 comments
- Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning review: A tempting fate 161 comments
- Blizzard taking Valve to court over 'DOTA' trademark 116 comments
- David Jaffe leaves Eat Sleep Play, layoffs hit developer [Update] 107 comments
- Don't call it a remake: Final Fantasy X is a 'remaster,' to be clear 95 comments
