Today's most comparative game videos: Crysis DirectX
Will Crysis be the best-looking game ever, and will it require a DX10 system -- and, of course, Vista -- to earn that title? We've seen "best-looking game ever" mugs at a mall kiosk and will set one aside for the game's release later this year. (Don't let us down, Crysis. We could end up taunting you by giving it to the Wii.)
See the videos after the break.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Elad @ May 26th 2007 12:13AM
holy hell that looks amazing
harbl @ May 26th 2007 12:14AM
Too bad, I'm still not getting VistAIDS.
Mike Jenkins @ May 26th 2007 12:22AM
Woah. 8800 GTX here I come!
thunderleg @ May 26th 2007 12:56AM
Vista?
No, thx.
Maybe in a few years.
Lofi @ May 26th 2007 12:58AM
this is all lies. check the jungle fight. more bushes in dx9 than in dx10 at the beginning. wtf? as if that wouldn't be possible in dx9. and in the dx10 video they fake more effects in a way that dx10 contains a nade throwing scene. again: wtf!?! as if that wouldn't be possible in dx9 ...
ridestowe @ May 26th 2007 1:21AM
bs, simply put. vista propaganda.
:( @ May 26th 2007 1:25AM
It's not a comparison if they're changing anything but the DX level. There's clearly more than just that.
RageOverdose @ May 26th 2007 1:28AM
Its pretty obvious the lighting and shadows are far better in the DX10 versions, but the small vids made it hard to see how other things, such as the textures, differ.
Gotta watch the HD versions...
DWells55 @ May 26th 2007 1:34AM
I love how they use completely different clips for the comparisons and make the DX10 ones more dramatic to make it seem so much better. Particularly the Jungle one.
Willt @ May 26th 2007 1:38AM
They just tweaked the level of detail for the DX10 video. It's retarded. ridestowe was right, it is vista propaganda, I didn't see anything that wasn't possible on DX 9. I'm XP right now, but my next OS is going to be LINUX. Vista? Screw that!
paralipsis @ May 26th 2007 1:50AM
Yes the detail level is different. That's the thing about DX10, the more efficient processing paths allow you to get "more for less", hence more detail. From a features standpoint, there is basically nothing that DX10 can do that DX9 can't, but DX10 does it more efficiently.
I'm not beating the Vista drum or anything. I am still firmly entrenched in XP and my current hardware, and that's not changing anytime soon, but from what I have read elsewhere, I have no evidence to say these videos are fake. Granted I do still have a tiny bit of skepticism, those DX10 videos are just so damn amazing...
Easy_G @ May 26th 2007 1:54AM
The only real obvious difference was in the fire for the DX10 Hunter clip. Not sure if it's new shaders or what, but the fire was much smoother and more believable whereas the Dx9 fire reminded be a lot of HL2's fire effects (which I think was the one weak point graphically of that game).
Otherwise, yeah, they made the action in the DX10 shots more dramatic with explosions and all, so not a true comparison.
Keith L. Dick @ May 26th 2007 2:05AM
"4. Vista?
No, thx.
Maybe in a few years."
"6. bs, simply put. vista propaganda."
I tend to agree with these statements, just more crap to suck the Gamers into spending money.
Poisoned Al @ May 26th 2007 3:51AM
All the Wii owning f**k-tards screeching "propaganda" clearly have no idea what a jump DX9 to XD10 is. But hay, don't let being an idiot stop you posting! It never has before.
DX10 cards are fundamentally different to the DX9 cards. Without doing into the technical gubbins of programmable pipes instead of hardware ones, I'll just say the DX10 card gets a huge ammout of extra power by removing bottlenecks and using dead processing power.
However it being Vista only is bullshit. I can't see any real reason why it can't run on XP. I'll install Vista when a load of good DX10 games are out, (ei: not Halo 2) and not before.
halobreaker @ May 26th 2007 5:26AM
Unless you're a complete newb to computers getting games to run on Vista isn't that complicated. It's just a pain in the ass. I'm on XP still though.
Nathan Thompson @ May 26th 2007 5:41AM
Well isn't this typical, everyone take your sides and see what you want to see, then sling the bs accordingly. I am running win2k and I like it dangit! I like it, you kids these days and your games for nickel and diming you live and your DX10, back in my day we did the three finger salute every 5 damn minutes in win95 and we liked it, dangit! We liked it. But even a crusty ass codger like me can see that theres substance to DX10's improvements, the first video is much better to compare with because it shows the difference, the ability of DX10 cards to change the fundamental geometry of the scene is impressive, with DX9 when you have something graphically represented its much harder to tear it down geometrically and shift it around like that, i.e. the smoke effect being blown around. That said the DX9 footage suits me fine, I can do with the more static elements for awhile to avoid the massive expense of not just a new vid card but the new os that makes that possible. And I think some of what vista is required for e.g. a freakin XBOX1 port is patently ludicrous and an obvious money grab. The thing is that us PC gamers were given things like the latest DX version for an old OS free of any charge before, and now MS is no longer willing to do that unprofitable work, even though some would argue theres the implied commitment that if you spend such quantities of cash on something like XP, which adds up to billions for MS, that you will get longer lasting support and compatibility even after the new thing comes out. Game boxes are just now phasing out win2k as an option among most of the pc gaming companies, yet with games for windows and vista it seems like they have tasted the console attitude of 'you haven't bought into our system within the last 4 years? well f-off then!' with xbox, and now adopted it for their pc platform. Nothing new for you you win2k user! Its been ages since you added to our pockets. Whether thats right or wrong is debatable though, really, we PC gamers enjoy a boatload of freebies and unbelievable values if we buy smart. I personally am not all that angry, with the PC look at what you get with just the purchase of HL and CS, and those guys are not in the GFW or vista live camp, and still the whining! (boo hoo I have to buy the orange box and game for another 2 years on 50 bucks instead of 40.) God, you people are cheapskates, but I guess so am I. Maybe if there was a decent living wage in this country, but thats a whole 'nother rant.
Otter @ May 26th 2007 5:42AM
I think I'll wait for a hacked version of DX10 that runs on XP thanks, there are already people working on it.
t_m @ May 26th 2007 6:39AM
mm.. slight improvements.. but nothing worth paying extra for. (kinda like vista.. oops!).
Be nice to have had IDENTICAL videos though, and with a split screen effect. SUrely they could load a demo movie and play it in both renderes, so we'd get an exact comparisson?
Aren't the DX9 clips from, like, a year or so ago.. and an older version?
kevinski @ May 26th 2007 6:56AM
There's some odd draw-in the jungle fight video during the DX9 portion. I didn't notice it in the DX10 portion. It looks as though the draw distance is better in the DX10 portion, as the jungle just looks more dense. I'd say that DX9 mode is likely to be preferred for people wanting maximum visibility during deathmatches, though. You can just see everything more clearly, in my opinion. DX10 looks better, hands down, though.
playclever @ May 26th 2007 7:09AM
Hmm... I find the Vista hate faintly bewildering. It's been 6 years since XP was released, people! I have Vista on my game machine, and I've not had a single problem playing a game yet. A couple of installs where you have to select "run as administrator" but no showstoppers. I know some drivers aren't available yet, but my box upgraded smoothly enough.
Of course, this doesn't excuse having "Vista-only" games at this stage - bad move.
The game looks good, but I still can't get over how the guys just stand around waiting to get shot in Crytek games...
Hikiki @ May 26th 2007 7:36AM
DirectX 9 looks completly exeptable to me. The difference isn't that much. I could see some feild of distance bluring going on and a few extra effects but otherwise DirectX 9 looks decent enough.
Insome @ May 26th 2007 7:49AM
that is what a next gen game looks like, if only the PS3 could deliver such preformance! (yet it is clear that you better spend sub 600 on a videocard then 600 on a big black box)
Geo @ May 26th 2007 8:18AM
OH yeah this will be the best looking game ever.....
Geo @ May 26th 2007 8:47AM
!Oh man we are getting closer and closer to Hollywood movies graphics rendering, this game will look amazing in a high definition tv a la movie experince, console gamers will wish to have Crysis on their collection but i dont think this will happen
Jonathan @ May 26th 2007 8:52AM
It's a lot easier to tell the difference in the Hunter video. Whether or not it's because of dx10 or something else; the dx10 version actually has rain and rain drops falling on the ground, the fire's more realistic as when the alien roars it flies forward, there's nice smoke in the dx10, and the lightning has a bigger presence in the dx10 version.
DeltaOps101 @ May 26th 2007 9:27AM
Is Crysis Vista only? I thought that it would work on XP, but with DX9 instead of 10.
Adam @ May 26th 2007 9:57AM
Wow, this game looks amazing.
mocax @ May 26th 2007 10:20AM
Vista Ultimate is cool.
Get OEM.
Triforceowner @ May 26th 2007 11:20AM
I agree with Lofi, but with less swears. And was it just me or was that gameplay way to robotic. I felt like I was watching someone play as a Star Wars Battle Droid, not an elite soldier.
jaysins @ May 26th 2007 11:30AM
Some of you are whiny as hell. Vista is a decent upgrade to XP. If they put all the Vista features into, or all the good ones, than there wouldn't be much of a point to Vista now would there? MS has to have reasons for you to upgrade. Xp is still supported as I still get those updates every week or so, but they have to differentiate between the two, they want to sell Vista after all. I can tell you with a decently spec'd rig that vista runs quicker and a lot smoother than XP as well as I like the way it organizes folders and seems to access them faster. I like vista and paying the upgrade price isn't bad at all. You don't have to buy it out right.
Also, DX10 can do lots of things DX9 can't. It's not just more efficient so to those of you saying that really have no idea of what your talking about.
From Wikipedia because apparently some people are to lazy to use the web.
# Fixed pipelines[12] are being done away with in favor of fully programmable pipelines (often referred to as unified pipeline architecture), which can be programmed to emulate the same.
# Paging of graphics memory, to allow data to be loaded to video memory when needed and move it out when not needed. This enables usage of the system memory to hold graphics data, such as textures, thereby allowing use of more and higher resolution textures in games (this was possible with older DirectX APIs by using the GART).
# There is no limit on the number of objects which can be rendered, provided enough resources are available.[13]
# Virtualization of the graphics hardware, to allow multiple threads/processes to use it, in turns.
# New state object to enable the GPU to change states efficiently.
# Shader model 4.0, enhances the programmability of the graphics pipeline. It adds instructions for integer and bitwise calculations.
# Geometry shaders, which work on individual triangles which form a mesh.
# Texture arrays enable swapping of textures in GPU without CPU intervention.
# Resource View enables pre-caching of resources, thereby reducing latency.
# Predicated Rendering allows drawing calls to be ignored based on some other conditions. This enables rapid occlusion culling, which prevents objects from being rendered if it is not visible or too far to be visible.
# Instancing 2.0 support, allowing multiple instances of similar meshes, such as armies, or grass or trees, to be rendered in a single draw call, reducing the processing time needed for multiple similar objects to that of a single one.
Vista is not perfect neither is neither is DX10. But both are decent upgrades, especially DX10 over their predecessors. The main problem with Vista right now is driver support for the GPU's. I blame Nvidia and ATI for this as they have been claiming all along that there newest hardware was perfectly Vista complaint and that is not the fact. Vista will get better with as time passes, it's a shame it wasn't as good as it was suppose to be and many features had to be left out, but it's still better than XP in my opinion.
Geo @ May 26th 2007 11:45AM
@31 jaysins ohhh in want to cry.........
Geo @ May 26th 2007 11:48AM
jaysins is the new ATI HD 2900XT direxct 10 having problems with W.vista..? i have`nt hear about that but i know Nvidia is having some issues........
Mike @ May 26th 2007 12:14PM
I will never own Vista period. They can take that DRM crap and and shove it.
jaysins @ May 26th 2007 12:26PM
2900xt is having problems with Open GL support which is something they have always lagged in compared to nvidia but it's really bad for the 2900. Also, the last revision of ATI drivers saw a very dramatic increase in speeds for DX9 games, around 5% or more in many games which does suggest the drivers are immature and there is a lot of room for improvements.
@GEO
That doesn't even make sense.
@Mike
DRM sucks and I hate it as much as anyone but it's being forced upon MS as well as others. MS wouldn't be able to offer cable card support w/o DRM because no company would give them a license for it otherwise. It's an extremely complicated problem that MS has definitely played their part in but I would think DRM free would be in their best interest as playforsure isn't doing all that hot and they could save a lot of money by not having to code for DRM, less compatibility issues wish is less tech support and would be able to get many ideas and products out the door faster for less money. It's an evil that is forced upon many companies and it is getting worse.
Trio @ May 26th 2007 1:39PM
Blah blah blah, what is the difference look Xbox 360
does`nt need Direcxt 10 but the games look a lot better that any game on PC and PS3, i dont think you need direct 10 to make dramatical graphics changes unless you are a PC gamer enthusiat that way microsoft and game developers can make you expend $500 on a video card just to see the same graphics quality the Xbox360 has Shame on you Direcxt 10 if you show me Hollywood graphics renderinmg then i will trust you, they know how to ripe your wallet off because when they said this is direcxt 10 and the other direcxt 9 the only difference is that they ad more stuffs like textures,particles,effects in one game than the other, shame on you microsoft and game developers shame on you.............
mike @ May 26th 2007 1:45PM
I didnt notice a single difference between directx 9 or 10. Perhaps I need to see a split screen?
Trio @ May 26th 2007 1:54PM
If you call that Direcxt 10 for vista then Gears of War is Direcxt 12........
Mike @ May 26th 2007 2:01PM
I'm not paying $500-$900 for video cards and $200 for power supplies every 6 months.. I'm DONE with PC gaming because of Vista and all the money grabbing that's getting forced on us. Screw it.. 360 for me.
Roflgoat @ May 26th 2007 2:14PM
@paralipsis
No, DX10 can proccess and filter differently, allowing games to have better lighting, effects, textures, and the lot of it. Yes, it helps speed, but also makes your games look better. For example, it could make the lighting better in a 3 year old game. The three year old game running on DX 7-9 with maxed settings would look as they thought it would, but with 10 it would improve the existing visual effects.
Roflgoat @ May 26th 2007 2:17PM
Sorry for the double post, but people, PLEASE stop saying Vista sucks on a post about the graphics of a nice game and DirectX10. I don't think the post title said "Let's talk about whether Vista is a monney-grubbing whore."
Brian Sexton @ May 26th 2007 2:55PM
Those shadows in the jungle are gorgeous in both versions. I wonder what kind of graphics card is going to be necessary to get that level of detail with that kind of frame rate at a resolution such as the 1680 x 1050 my Apple Cinema Display uses.
Poo Jangles @ May 26th 2007 2:57PM
What's all the Vista hate about? Have any of you actually used it? I got a new laptop this year and I wasn't going to use the pre-installed Vista until the first couple big patches came out, but it's so pretty I can't imagine ever going back to XP. XP looks like Windows 95 to me now. It runs great, no crashes so far...aside from some things not working exactly like I'm used to (but better) I haven't had any problems with it. If you've really been using computers since before XP, then you had to expect that software would eventually be incompatible with Vista. Seriously, would you rather spend the next decade using XP and complaining about MS, or using a clearly superior OS and complaining about MS? Think about THAT!
Dustin @ May 26th 2007 3:08PM
I want someone to argue that the difference between DX9 and DX10 is still more noticeable than Halo 2 to Halo 3 comparisons.
Sir Unimaginative @ May 26th 2007 4:36PM
@43: The clearly superior OS, but Vista doesn't really help with that.
wackyban @ May 26th 2007 4:37PM
Am I the only one who notices that you can easily compare vista and xp gaming to ps3 and ps2. Im not saying i want vista now, but maybe ill be forced to buy it when it becomes more than reasonable.
Diskoboy @ May 26th 2007 5:18PM
Hey Trio, you do know Microsoft makes the 360 AND Windows Vista, right...
So why are you praising the 360, but badmouthing Vista? And everyone and their mother knows, PC's are almost always superior to home console hardware, in every regard.
I have a 360. The DX10 version wishes it could run on the 360. We'll be seeing the DX9c version, on the console versions.
Poisoned Al @ May 26th 2007 7:46PM
Trio: "Blah blah blah, what is the difference look Xbox 360
does`nt need Direcxt 10 but the games look a lot better that any game on PC and PS3"
You know, typing "I'm an idiot" is a lot quicker. PC games will always look better then consoles, simply because games rigs cost so much and are updated on an almost weekly basis, unlike the 5 years or so of a console genaration. But as you're probably a 14-year-old using the internets on your mum's 486, I guess you wouldn't know anything about PC gaming.
@jaysins: Yes I'm aware that DX10 has a lot more tricks then just having greater efficacy, but I pointed out that I wasn't going to be an arse and copy and paste a huge lump of text off Wikipedia. Shit you might as well make up features in a long list nobody will read.
Did you know that DX10 cards can toast muffins and make cups of tea? It's true because I put it on wiki-fucking-pedia! PFFT!
RoboJoel @ May 26th 2007 10:36PM
Wonder how the game will look with OpenGL on my Mac Pro and Fedora boxes...
Game looks just like any other FPS anyways. Firefights look pretty stale, Perfect Dark had more WOW moments than any of the videos I've seen. And what the hell is up with Crytek and their Cry games? Far Cry... Crysis... Pretty soon they'll run out of names and go out of business)
btw... Vista blows dogs for quarters.
Menzlo @ May 27th 2007 1:17AM
Honestly, I don't see why people are complaining that DX10 is a push for Vista. Of course it's pushing Vista...that's how Microsoft is gonna sell the damned product.
The Jungle videos were mainly about lighting. If you didn't notice the difference in lighting in the two versions, then you're missing out.
If you couldn't see a difference, stick with XP, but if any more DX10 games come out looking as nice as Crysis does, I think I'll be upgrading pretty soon.
Mystic @ May 27th 2007 10:57AM
Wow, obviously there are a lot of young fanboys here.
There is a HUGE difference between the two. In the Hunter video alone, the lighting on the smoke is better. The smoke actually moves to the air movements caused by the Hunter, including it's breath.
Let me guess, you also think Doom 3 had the best graphics at the time? You know, since it took place in 30' rooms, compared to something like Battlefield which took place on gigantic maps. So does that mean Doom 3 had better graphics? Not IMO.