New Crysis Screenshots = Amazing. [Archive]

MacRumorUser

Jan 10, 2007, 12:07 PM

Haoshiro

Jan 10, 2007, 12:10 PM

Do you think this will be Vista only ?

I have a mac pro with 4gb ram and X1900 XT so I'm hoping it plays well on it, even though I know its not a DX10 card, Crysis developers have already stated that it will run perfectly in DX9, albeit with a few of the new shaders sacrificed, or requiring CPU instead of GPU.

It does seem to be Vista/DX10 showcase, but I can't imagine they'd not support XP/DX9 when that is *the* PC gaming platform. They'd just be killing their sales, almost as bad as a company making an exclusive PS3 launch title. ;)

MacRumorUser

Jan 10, 2007, 12:12 PM

They'd just be killing their sales, almost as bad as a company making an exclusive PS3 launch title. ;)

LOL. V.True :D

Coded-Dude

Jan 10, 2007, 12:14 PM

They've already stated its definately "doable" on 360 and PS3, and they have talked with both companies, but that there are many "roadblocks."

Pretty much the same story as WOW.....

I will be playing this on PC. :cool:

MacRumorUser

Jan 10, 2007, 12:26 PM

I will be playing this on PC. :cool:

Me too. I remember the tripe they turned my beloved FarCry into on console. :o

Besides were talking 12-18 months after PC launch before console, and there's no way in hell I'd wait that long :D

zero2dash

Jan 10, 2007, 12:35 PM

What's funny is that looking at some of these jungle shots remind me of when I first played Turok: Dinosaur Hunter on the N64 and thought that game was impressive (in every facet, but especially graphics).

Looking at the jungle/foliage shots of Crysis makes Turok look like poo. :D

It's amazing how far games have come thus far and I can only imagine what's next. :eek:

barr08

Jan 10, 2007, 12:38 PM

Yeah the crysis shots make me stiff in the pants, but the majority of us won't get past the install screen from what I heard. It may be the first game my trusty iMac can't play :(

Haoshiro

Jan 10, 2007, 12:58 PM

Me too. I remember the tripe they turned my beloved FarCry into on console. :o

Besides were talking 12-18 months after PC launch before console, and there's no way in hell I'd wait that long :D

Well hopefully games like PREY have made people realize they can put a full blown PC FPS on a console with pretty good success, rather then the retro-fitted versions like Far Cry Instincts :P

whooleytoo

Jan 10, 2007, 01:24 PM

It's amazing how far games have come thus far and I can only imagine what's next. :eek:

We're not too far from the point where games are photo-realistic, difficult to tell from a screenshot if it's rendered or a photograph. Once we reach that point (bad news for graphics card manufacturers), what direction will they go in? Ever more realistic physics modelling? Better sound support? Heat/cold?

Or smell generation for that true "up to your knees in it" immersive feeling? :p

barr08

Jan 10, 2007, 01:31 PM

We're not too far from the point where games are photo-realistic, difficult to tell from a screenshot if it's rendered or a photograph. Once we reach that point (bad news for graphics card manufacturers), what direction will they go in? Ever more realistic physics modelling? Better sound support? Heat/cold?

Or smell generation for that true "up to your knees in it" immersive feeling? :p

I think after we reach that point of graphical perfection, developers will be foreced to focus on fun and originality. This will be a great time for gamers.

I think to a certain point, Nintendo realizes this, and has designed the Wii with that idea in mind. The thought that gameplay is more important than graphics. The perfect system will have that mentality but with super-realistic graphics.

Edit: This is also why Gears of War is so successful. Relatively original gameplay, very fun, and amazing graphics.

whooleytoo

Jan 10, 2007, 01:42 PM

I think after we reach that point of graphical perfection, developers will be foreced to focus on fun and originality. This will be a great time for gamers.

I think to a certain point, Nintendo realizes this, and has designed the Wii with that idea in mind. The thought that gameplay is more important than graphics. The perfect system will have that mentality but with super-realistic graphics.

Edit: This is also why Gears of War is so successful. Relatively original gameplay, very fun, and amazing graphics.

Good point. I just got my hands on a 360 & Gear of War on Friday and am really enjoying it - much more than I expected to from the reviews. But I do think the "curse of good graphics" strikes here too.

Even though the gameplay encourages you to just charge through from battle scene to battle scene, if you stop and look around you see the detail of the buildings and surroundings; and most of it is wasted as a lot of players won't even stop and look.

Which makes me wonder if part of the reason that so many games these days are so linear is because no game studio wants to be devoting precious man-hours to creating artwork for areas of the game that no gamer might ever explore! Especially these days with the amount of modelling and artwork that goes into a HD-resolution game.

darkwing

Jan 10, 2007, 01:51 PM

Those screenshots do look good. Until today I thought it was for the 360 and the PC, so I guess you'll have to come into my little world to get it on a console. :P

zero2dash

Jan 10, 2007, 01:52 PM

We're not too far from the point where games are photo-realistic, difficult to tell from a screenshot if it's rendered or a photograph. Once we reach that point (bad news for graphics card manufacturers), what direction will they go in? Ever more realistic physics modelling? Better sound support? Heat/cold?

Or smell generation for that true "up to your knees in it" immersive feeling? :p

I think (technically) graphics will never plateau because once they pull off polygon numbers, they have to deal with framerates. Once they get framerates down, then resolutions are bumped up and they have to start back over again to get those same poly counts and framerates at a higher resolution (which takes even more power). Rinse, lather, repeat.

I think in most other areas - they've plateaud. /shrug

2nyRiggz

Jan 10, 2007, 01:55 PM

I don't know whats left for next gen/pc stuff...All of this visual is great but whats after that. I agree the developers now need to focus on gameplay...soon we'll be heading down that path where we can't tell the difference between games.

The game looks cool even though I don't do much PC gaming but i'm looking foward to it when I purchase a vista box.

Bless

MacRumorUser

Jan 10, 2007, 02:00 PM

Those screenshots do look good. Until today I thought it was for the 360 and the PC, so I guess you'll have to come into my little world to get it on a console. :P

? Its PC only for the time being isnt it ? :confused:

So no PS3 or 360 confirmation at this point so what little world are you refering to ?

Dagless

Jan 10, 2007, 02:28 PM

I've been following this game for a while.
It still looks fake, but it's the best looking fake I've ever seen.

jdechko

Jan 10, 2007, 02:54 PM

I think this game looks really good, too. But then it's done by the same people who made Far Cry, which makes me think that this is just a name change away from being Far Cry 2. I mean, the environments look very similar (which they ought to) and the story is also similar. I think Cryteam is a very talented bunch and I hope that they really get their stuff together for the consoles as I won't ever be buying a dedicated gaming computer ever again.

Dagless

Jan 10, 2007, 05:47 PM

The story has my attention too. I dunno how true it is (heard from a friend). but apparently that huge rock jetting out of the ground fell from the sky and froze the world. i like that a lot for some reason, but that's typical Cryteam (or whatever they're called)... excellent story, graphics, audio, gameplay. But only for PC :o

darkwing

Jan 10, 2007, 06:20 PM

? Its PC only for the time being isnt it ? :confused:

So no PS3 or 360 confirmation at this point so what little world are you refering to ?

I'm referring to my little world where we believe it's coming to the 360 and the PC. Until today I thought this was the case. I was mistaken.

Dont Hurt Me

Jan 10, 2007, 06:25 PM

JackAxe

Jan 10, 2007, 06:48 PM

I second that Dont Hurt Me, but only for games like Crisis, RTSs, Simullations, etc... :)

But if this requires Vista, I won't be playing it. :(

This game looks freaking awesome all around, but then again, check out this guy's N64 Farcry hands; :D
http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/735/735833/crysis-20060927032538539.jpg

<]=)

MacRumorUser

Jan 10, 2007, 06:55 PM

PC is the gamers platform and Crysis just proves it again. Like HalfLife2.:)

http://www.janbrett.com/images/mobile_troll.jpg

DHM runs in - puts down consoles yet again - runs back out again

need to find a

http://www.gigharbor.com/narrows-bridge-jan2-2001q2.jpg

to get over it.

:p

Dont Hurt Me

Jan 10, 2007, 07:00 PM

Im pretty happy with Halflife2 Graphics. Anyone play Lost Coast? Its like a demo level and looks beautiful. Pc's rule for some some stuff. Im also loking forward to the next IL2/Flight sim game from Maddox games. DX9 can make some very great looking scenes so Im not even concerned about DX10 yet. A modern Cpu & MidRange card and presto.........GAMING RIG!

zap2

Jan 10, 2007, 07:02 PM

Dont Hurt Me

Jan 10, 2007, 07:07 PM

Because clearly graphics=game play!!!:rolleyes:You said that not me, Game Play in Halflife 2 is established as are its graphics that scale backwards by the way allowing older equipment to run it well without the candy on. But with all the the eye candy on and its play = Great game. DX9 with everything running is still very good looking. Anyone who likes FPS and has bootcamp should try out some HL2 Demo's at the steam site. When you see some of this your like who cares about DX10 coming.

MacRumorUser

Jan 10, 2007, 07:08 PM

Im pretty happy with Halflife2 Graphics. Anyone play Lost Coast? Its like a demo level and looks beautiful. Pc's rule for some some stuff.!

Wont episode 2 be released the same time on ps3, 360 and PC ? ;)

Every format console / handheld / pc has it's place. Just because you prefer the games on PC I dont understand why you have to have a dig at consoles in nearly all your posts.

A game like crazy taxi was a disaster on pc, so it depends on the game and what it was originally designed for.

I have a grand mac pro with v.good GPU but will probably buy HL Episode 2 on console so I dont have to put up with STEAM which I personally find an intrusive - horrid piece of kit. At least the 360 / PS3 version will do away with it.

So there are ups and downs to everything.

Also whilst DX10 look cool, remember the 360's GPU does have a lot of the same hardware features supported in DX10, but doesnt use the same API as DX. But I'm sure as it's microsoft they will update their dev kits to allow some DX10 hardware effects to be translated to the 360's API - so there will be just as good looking games in the future on the 360 as well as pc.

Coded-Dude

Jan 10, 2007, 07:10 PM

GTA was also a much better game once it went to console. - IMHO

dllavaneras

Jan 10, 2007, 07:17 PM

Wow, that game looks amazing! To think I played Wolfenstein 3D not long ago ;) This is just awesome!

Dagless

Jan 10, 2007, 07:25 PM

GTA was also a much better game once it went to console. - IMHO

ooooh yes. I couldn't play the PS2 version (silly lack of triggers, no HDD for my own music, bad distances etc) but the Xbox was nice to just sit back and have a play on.

JackAxe

Jan 10, 2007, 10:36 PM

This is the 360's only salvation, if it ever wants to compete with PC; :p
http://site.xcmlive.com/cgi-bin/xfps/engine.pl

This, Mass Effect, BioShock, and a good year in business, might get me to buy a 360. System Shock is one of my all time favorite games. :cool: But if Mass Effect doesn't support that thing, and I can buy ME for a PC with XP instead, then the 360 purchase can wait.

<]=)

Chone

Jan 10, 2007, 10:59 PM

Now I know I won't get a 360 anytime soon, most good games are PC ports or also come out on PC... and since they are all shooters and strategy games they work better on the PC to begin with...

Not that there is anything wrong with it because if you don't have a PC or an expensive fast PC the games on Xbox360 look darn pretty and are good games...

But name me one killer app game on the 360 that isn't on the PC? Before you say GoW do keep in mind its heavily rumored to come out for the PC.

I'll buy a 360 when there are at least 5 games not available on the PC that are AAA (or maybe AAAA :p ) titles.

Haoshiro

Jan 11, 2007, 10:50 AM

PC is the gamers platform and Crysis just proves it again. Like HalfLife2.:)

All they really prove is that they are the ideal platform for FPS and RTS.

For people that like more then two genre of games (like myself) it's hardly "the gamers platform"; although it is an expensive and restrictive platform.

darkwing

Jan 11, 2007, 11:13 AM

All they really prove is that they are the ideal platform for FPS and RTS.

For people that like more then two genre of games (like myself) it's hardly "the gamers platform"; although it is an expensive and restrictive platform.

I think that it's cheaper to develop games for consoles. One of the neat things about PCs is that you can make them a hodgepodge of different parts, but this also requires massive effort into drivers and compatibility across subtle nuances of hardware design. When you have a console, for the most part, you have 1 spec you need to write you. There might be some revision checking as time goes on, but it's all well documented.

Plus, since JRPGs are my favorite types of games I have to stick with consoles. :) My friend in Japan is playing Blue Dragon on his 360 and absolutely loves it. He loves his ps3 way more though. :P

Haoshiro

Jan 11, 2007, 11:21 AM

I think that it's cheaper to develop games for consoles. One of the neat things about PCs is that you can make them a hodgepodge of different parts, but this also requires massive effort into drivers and compatibility across subtle nuances of hardware design. When you have a console, for the most part, you have 1 spec you need to write you. There might be some revision checking as time goes on, but it's all well documented.

Plus, since JRPGs are my favorite types of games I have to stick with consoles. :) My friend in Japan is playing Blue Dragon on his 360 and absolutely loves it. He loves his ps3 way more though. :P

Well, it's not that difficult these days, at least if you want to be Windows-Only. Just target a DX version, like 8, and a specific minimum GPU. Generally the game will run on any PC fitting those requirements. Plus, you can do that in your garage and actually release a game for online sale.

With a console, you are going to be talking a very large minimum investment. When I was looking into developing a GBA game it was going to require a minimum of 40K just to buy they GBA carts and get Nintendo to test (and hopefully approve) the game for release. That's still without a publisher, I would have either had to get one or try to sell it online myself.

The other system are even more expensive. Of course, once you get past some of the startup costs, it would definitely be easier to create a game without worrying about the hardware. You could develop with all the bells and whistles and not worry about it. With PCs you have to either make a "current gen" game where you know what average hardware is out there, or try to guess what will be standard when your game is done.

metalray@mac.co

Jan 11, 2007, 06:39 PM

Chone

Jan 11, 2007, 07:31 PM

::Did not read the entire thread:::
There is a major issue converting crisis to either x360 or ps3.
The reason is 'Ram'. It requires at least 1Gig because it is a huge world and there is a lot of sniping in it requiring it to pre-load a lot of the world.

Which reminds me my friggin Mac Pro memory hasn't come yet :mad:

Well there can be some optimization done, if the minimum is 1GB for computers, they can definitely get it running on the 360's 512MB shared I think, in any case, the game is meant for DX10, the 360 can't do DX10 and graphics will probably be hindered.

So much for the "finally consoles are surpassing PCs" deal.

Dagless

Jan 11, 2007, 07:44 PM

Which reminds me my friggin Mac Pro memory hasn't come yet :mad:

Well there can be some optimization done, if the minimum is 1GB for computers, they can definitely get it running on the 360's 512MB shared I think, in any case, the game is meant for DX10, the 360 can't do DX10 and graphics will probably be hindered.

So much for the "finally consoles are surpassing PCs" deal.

The PS3 can't handle DirectX10 either. But both systems can emulate or display similar effects to compensate. But really, as an FPS and it's required specs - it really is a PC game and looks to be one that really needs to be experienced in the best way possible for itself. I doubt I'll be playing it for a few years personally. I know for sure I wont play a watered down version on my DX9 graphics card, or 360/DS/Wii.

Chone

Jan 11, 2007, 07:54 PM

The PS3 can't handle DirectX10 either. But both systems can emulate or display similar effects to compensate. But really, as an FPS and it's required specs - it really is a PC game and looks to be one that really needs to be experienced in the best way possible for itself. I doubt I'll be playing it for a few years personally. I know for sure I wont play a watered down version on my DX9 graphics card, or 360/DS/Wii.

Yeah I know they can probably get it running on OpenGL or DX9 but adding the additional effects would probably cause a performance hit as opposed to having native DX10 and there is probably a few stuff they simply can not pull off or would need some workarounds (requiring more effort than whats worth)

And Haoshiro, those two genres are pretty big genres (along with RPG) and extremely fun, out of the best games I've played, I'd say a big chunk if not the majority are PC games...

PC may not be the best gaming platform (thats debatable of course) but hell its the most advanced (technologically) and the one with the biggest userbase, if you want to experience truly cutting edge games, look no further than the PC and prepare to shell out big.

Dagless

Jan 11, 2007, 07:59 PM

PC may not be the best gaming platform (thats debatable of course) but hell its the most advanced (technologically) and the one with the biggest userbase, if you want to experience truly cutting edge games, look no further than the PC and prepare to shell out big.

Indeed. Theres a lack of convienience with PC gaming. Boot up times, possibility of viruses and other problems (in my case BT keyboards not connecting). With consoles (new ones especially) you just sit back, turn on the TV and press a button on the controller and it's all up and running. Games cost more but the price to get to play them is much less, albeit giving you less extra features... if you're after them. good and bad points to both of them! Can't live without PC HL2, can't live without console Zelda.

Haoshiro

Jan 11, 2007, 08:02 PM

Yeah I know they can probably get it running on OpenGL or DX9 but adding the additional effects would probably cause a performance hit as opposed to having native DX10 and there is probably a few stuff they simply can not pull off or would need some workarounds (requiring more effort than whats worth)

And Haoshiro, those two genres are pretty big genres (along with RPG) and extremely fun, out of the best games I've played, I'd say a big chunk if not the majority are PC games...

PC may not be the best gaming platform (thats debatable of course) but hell its the most advanced (technologically) and the one with the biggest userbase, if you want to experience truly cutting edge games, look no further than the PC and prepare to shell out big.

Well if you are playing games on a PC then those genres will definitely seem even bigger, that's almost all they sell. It's pretty sad, really. I look at my PC games collection and wow, it's entirely one or two genres. My console collection is FAR more diverse, probably why I spend more time gaming on consoles.

As for Crysis on 360/PS3, people should understand that they have to include the OS requirements when they list these. For example if the game needed 512MB and your OS needed 1GB, the game would list needing 1.5GB. 360 has a lot of DX10 features, the "DX version" used on the hardware is better then DX9. It's very plausible the game would run great on the next gen systems.... but I doubt it'll EVER happen.

QuarterSwede

Jan 11, 2007, 08:07 PM

It's amazing how far games have come thus far and I can only imagine what's next. :eek:

We're not too far from the point where games are photo-realistic, difficult to tell from a screenshot if it's rendered or a photograph.

I've been following this game for a while.
It still looks fake, but it's the best looking fake I've ever seen.
It still looks fake because it's too clean. The lines are too straight on the grass for instance and the character models look like squeaky plastic not soft and slightly dirty like real life.

MacRumorUser

Jan 11, 2007, 08:32 PM

Well there can be some optimization done, if the minimum is 1GB for computers, they can definitely get it running on the 360's 512MB shared I think, in any case, the game is meant for DX10, the 360 can't do DX10 and graphics will probably be hindered.

read my earlier post.

The 360 cant do DX10, but the GPU does support the hardware features DX10 has, so all it takes is microsoft to update its dev kits to translate the DX10 API to the 360's API and it will be able to produce the same effect on the graphics card - albeit not DX10, but same end result with little extra effort from devs. It will not be emulationg DX10, it will have had DX converted to its own language.

PS3 GPU does not. And it also does not have Microsofts Dev Tools to easily translate, so its fecked in that regard, meaning for pc ports the 360 will remain the developers choice.

As Haoshiro already points out. A console runs the game, a pc runs, the game, the operating system, the virus checker etc..... 512mb on a console is far more efficient than you give credit for.