After a brief search it still looks like Crisis is still the best game out there graphically? Is this true? I have not really done any PC gaming in the last 2-3 years, is everything the same? Usually graphics would make pretty big leaps in 3yr spans.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Out of PC gaming for a few years...Best Graphics in Game?
- Thread starter Headbust
- Start date
m3ta1head
777
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2006
- Messages
- 6,365
Crysis is still the king for outdoor environments. Metro 2033 has gorgeous visuals, but they're mostly indoor.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
I was never really impressed with crysis in the first place, some things were nice but i never had that
feeling with it. Ill try crysis warhead or whatever its called out with that graphics mod for photorealistic stuff and see what happens, im sure it will bring my 8800GTS down to its knees I think after the new year i will build another PC and get back into it somewhat..
*EDIT* also i've always loved indoor stuff better, it just looks a lot more realistic
DeathPrincess
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 18,205
The enviroments of Metro 2033 looks better (the models are about on par) and is better optimized, and uses directx 11. Also they remembered to include a game.
PrincessFrosty
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,905
Crysis is still one of the best, however the leaders in technology and visuals at the moment probably go to Metro 2033, the game is honestly very good, it uses some really nice lighting effects, and makes good use of DX11 effects like tessellation.
There's a lot of other games that dont rely on newer tech but have very nice visual themes, I thought Trine was particuarly beautiful, and I've also been playing Mafia 2 today which has a very good 1940/1950 feel, looks fantastic.
There's a lot of other games that dont rely on newer tech but have very nice visual themes, I thought Trine was particuarly beautiful, and I've also been playing Mafia 2 today which has a very good 1940/1950 feel, looks fantastic.
WabeWalker
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,508
I second this. Pripyat was a letdown.
I was never really impressed with crysis in the first place, some things were nice but i never had that
I think after the new year i will build another PC and get back into it somewhat..
*EDIT* also i've always loved indoor stuff better, it just looks a lot more realistic
I played Crysis Warhead right after having finished the original Crysis, and I thought the graphics were worse, still not bad though, but not quite as good as the original. I don't know if this is a fact or not. But there seemed to be a quality reduction...
Crysis, and Metro2033.
Consoles have caused stagnation in graphical improvement, it's that simple. Consoles are now the base development platform for many devs, and then they port to PC.
Porter_
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2007
- Messages
- 8,467
i believe most people consider the original Crysis to look better than Warhead
Colonel Sanders
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2001
- Messages
- 5,592
Mafia 2 is freaking amazing as well.
BababooeyHTJ
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2009
- Messages
- 6,951
I agree with you. I always felt that the original looked better.
Better optimized.
Those little scripted environments don't look as good as Crysis and the game doesn't really even run any better. Then you can factor in the awful and I mean awful hit detection that ruined the game for me.
4saken
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2004
- Messages
- 13,176
surprised this wasnt mentioned yet. I honestly thought in Playable settings BFBC2 looks better than crysis.
Crysis was like, hey cool, awesome graphics, alt-f4.
At least BFBC2 has play value.
Metro 2033 is def up on that list as well.
Spare-Flair
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2003
- Messages
- 7,471
I was never really impressed with crysis in the first place, some things were nice but i never had that
I think after the new year i will build another PC and get back into it somewhat..
*EDIT* also i've always loved indoor stuff better, it just looks a lot more realistic
Sadly, the best Cryengine stuff is all fanmade. With Warhead they dumbed down the graphics a bit so it was more accessible to people I guess.
Check out these fan made screenshots with custom maps and mods, they are truly breathtaking.
http://www.incrysis.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=826&Itemid=1
http://www.incrysis.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=791&Itemid=2
http://www.incrysis.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=768&Itemid=2
There are too many amazing screenshots for me to even choose a favorite to post here. These are the most amazing maps and screenshots ever made for a commercial PC game. Too bad the real game doesn't look anywhere near as good as these fanmade maps and mods.
Spare-Flair
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2003
- Messages
- 7,471
Mafia 2 is a bit crappy with their fake AA that you can't really control and is plagued with some low-res textures designed for consoles but the great lighting system indoors has made me pause quite a few times and just admire the game.
Ryoohki360
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2010
- Messages
- 605
Imho, Mafia II is the best graphics in it's 'GENRE' witch is Pseudo GTA kind. In fact it look miles better than GTA witch have no AA or with a Hack that put the game down to 10fps. GTA have a bigger world, but it's just a question of streaming.
The advantage PC have at the moment is to be able to run most Console port with better graphics (usually textures and SFX like SSAO) at 1080p with AA unlike console version witch now are at 1054x640 or some weird ass resolution like that without any kind of AA. Unless it's a Arcade Game or some rare occasion (even GT for the PS3 use some weird resolution like 1440x640 without AA or 1280x720 with 2xAA depending on how you set the game).
Play Dirt 2 on a big screen and console for 1 hour, then play the same game on the same screen, it's like you've been watching it with mud in you're eyes..
The advantage PC have at the moment is to be able to run most Console port with better graphics (usually textures and SFX like SSAO) at 1080p with AA unlike console version witch now are at 1054x640 or some weird ass resolution like that without any kind of AA. Unless it's a Arcade Game or some rare occasion (even GT for the PS3 use some weird resolution like 1440x640 without AA or 1280x720 with 2xAA depending on how you set the game).
Play Dirt 2 on a big screen and console for 1 hour, then play the same game on the same screen, it's like you've been watching it with mud in you're eyes..
Just based on looks - currently in my opinion TF2 has the best graphics. Not because they're great polygon count/lighting wise, but because they're pleasant to look at - just like Final Fantasy 6 is still pleasant to look at.
But Pure graphics admiration died in 2003 with Half-Life 2 e3 video it showed us what's possible to do with the world through game physics, and now I'm more impressed by the detail of interaction with environment than the environment itself.
For example:
Hitman: codename 47 was a great looking game when it came out, but what made me really forget about the mission and marvel at the technology was when i ran through a hanging banner, it and moved and folded (crudely compared to modern games) but nonetheless, reacted to my presence!
Crysis looks great, but it feels greater when I toss a nade in a shack and watch it crumble.
Penumbra looks descent - but when I open a trash can lid with my mouse like a real hand, take out the trashbag, flip it over and examine it, I'm much more impressed by that than by the poly count on the trashcan itself.
Mirror's edge looks gorgeous - but when I turned physX on and was chased by the helicopter, I must have spent at least 40 minutes consequently dying because i couldn't stop admiring how the bullets rip through the cloth.
So while some graphics are impressive, it's the interactivity and how dynamic the environment is, is what impresses me most.
Currently that's best demonstrated by PhysX, but it's just an infantile compared to what the greater future holds.
But Pure graphics admiration died in 2003 with Half-Life 2 e3 video it showed us what's possible to do with the world through game physics, and now I'm more impressed by the detail of interaction with environment than the environment itself.
For example:
Hitman: codename 47 was a great looking game when it came out, but what made me really forget about the mission and marvel at the technology was when i ran through a hanging banner, it and moved and folded (crudely compared to modern games) but nonetheless, reacted to my presence!
Crysis looks great, but it feels greater when I toss a nade in a shack and watch it crumble.
Penumbra looks descent - but when I open a trash can lid with my mouse like a real hand, take out the trashbag, flip it over and examine it, I'm much more impressed by that than by the poly count on the trashcan itself.
Mirror's edge looks gorgeous - but when I turned physX on and was chased by the helicopter, I must have spent at least 40 minutes consequently dying because i couldn't stop admiring how the bullets rip through the cloth.
So while some graphics are impressive, it's the interactivity and how dynamic the environment is, is what impresses me most.
Currently that's best demonstrated by PhysX, but it's just an infantile compared to what the greater future holds.
I for one think Crysis is starting to show its age. While a good bit of it is very gorgeous to look at, there are a lot of parts that look just plain ugly to me. The aliased vegetation is one of them. Another thing being the complete lack of anisotropic filtering when POM (parralax occlusion mapping) is used.
Just Cause 2 is one of the best looking games to come out since Crysis in my opinion. The view distance combined with breathtaking visuals really give you a sense of scale that make it look every bit as good as Crysis and even better in some aspects.
Just Cause 2 is one of the best looking games to come out since Crysis in my opinion. The view distance combined with breathtaking visuals really give you a sense of scale that make it look every bit as good as Crysis and even better in some aspects.
kohan69, couldn't agree more with you on the point about there's more to graphics or realism in graphics than a high resolution texture or realistic shader, or even a hi-poly character model. What has really dead stopped me in a game, just admiring, is when I've seen a realistic animation. Suddenly the game has felt very real just because of very natural animation. Most games actually have really, really, bad, animation. We're just used to it, but stop and analyze and one will be able to spot so many faults with a character's animation and how he interacts with the environment. How the physics of it are completely wrong.
I think we've gotten to a point with detailed enough shaders and resolutions to be able to portray something very realistic looking as long as enough work is put into animation and interaction.
I don't know if anyone else will remember this, but for me it was one of the best moments gaming the last year or more. In one of the last Call of Duty games, probably the last, for PC, see, I don't even remember which game, just the moment, anyway, you're running down a hallway or something, a squad mate runs ahead of you, and he's surprised by a enemy soldier suddenly coming in to the hallway, and they're really close so he grabs him and throws him into a locker sitting on a wall, the soldier flys into the locker and the locker bounces back against the wall, etc. I don't know if the locker doors opened up or whatever, but that would've made it even better, and maybe something should have falellen out as well.
It just looked very real, the animation were great, and the physics, if there were any physics involved, if not, it was really well scripted, anyway, great moment for me.
I think we've gotten to a point with detailed enough shaders and resolutions to be able to portray something very realistic looking as long as enough work is put into animation and interaction.
I don't know if anyone else will remember this, but for me it was one of the best moments gaming the last year or more. In one of the last Call of Duty games, probably the last, for PC, see, I don't even remember which game, just the moment, anyway, you're running down a hallway or something, a squad mate runs ahead of you, and he's surprised by a enemy soldier suddenly coming in to the hallway, and they're really close so he grabs him and throws him into a locker sitting on a wall, the soldier flys into the locker and the locker bounces back against the wall, etc. I don't know if the locker doors opened up or whatever, but that would've made it even better, and maybe something should have falellen out as well.
It just looked very real, the animation were great, and the physics, if there were any physics involved, if not, it was really well scripted, anyway, great moment for me.
Angry
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 482
I would have to vote for Just Cause 2, on max settings its pretty freaking nice. Esp from extreme sky dives.
krameriffic
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2006
- Messages
- 3,214
Stalker... is the most hit and miss game I've ever seen. Of the few friends I've tried to get to play it, most of them were so completely turned off by the gameplay after the first 10 minutes that they never touched it again. For this reason, I can't recommend it to anyone except out of a bargain bin.
+1 Just Cause 2
Flying at high altitudes or standing on the peaks of mountains is just amazing, espcially when the sun is beginning to set.
Spare-Flair
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2003
- Messages
- 7,471
That's a strange attitude as Stalker is pretty universally popular on many enthusiast forums such as this one.
And Stalker has already been in the bargain bin for ages. I mean it sells for $2-$5 on Steam every few months already.
I would say this, don't play Stalker without installing
Stalker Complete or Oblivion Lost first. They make it so much better
Then thank god for consoles. Having to buy new expensive hardware just to play new games sucks.
Spare-Flair
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2003
- Messages
- 7,471
The only thing we should be thanking consoles for is for plateauing development cycles so that you don't have to upgrade your computer every 6 months anymore.
Thank god for PCs. Having to play on ugly upscaled 720p with low res textures on bottome-end DX9 era technology and with a crappy gamepad and having to pay a monthly subscription for multiplayer and being chained to a system and software you cannot control or modify sucks!
BababooeyHTJ
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2009
- Messages
- 6,951
I agree, some people just seem to love Stalker. I've tried it several times and while OL helped it still wasn't my cup of tea.
Really the games that tend to tax my system the most while looking like shit are normally console ports, BFBC2 comes to mind.
Last edited:
No... I bet you have not gamed much on PC.
PC gaming is dying BECAUSE OF CONSOLES. Upgrading parts has nothing to do with it, as you can always buy used (used full warrantied parts, to add) for low prices.
Consoles are exactly the same with that logic anyways......you spend $400-500 for an Xbox (video game machine) that lasts 3 years, then you gotta spend $400-500 more for Xbox 720. Meanwhile the graphics NEVER improve since you can never upgrade them.
A computer (with thousands of different uses besides just gaming) only requires a couple hundred dollars for a new video card every 3-4 years. If you have the ram and quad core you really don't need to upgrade your entire machine. You can buy a $300 video card, use it for years, then sell it for $100 and upgrade to the 2011 version of a $300 video card. It's truly not that bad compared to consoles if you break it down.
CONSOLES ARE A DISGRACE TO GAMING, MOST ESPECIALLY PC GAMING... look at the FPS games we have on PC now. We have major amounts of people still playing 2004 Counter-Strike for online FPS gaming. SAD! Reason is because the new battlefield games are complete trash compared to the old, PC-first BF series (bf1942, bf2 are some of the best PC games I've ever played... many here agree)
Gaming just SUCKS right now... and I blame it on consoles. Its all kiddy teenager games that take not much thought or skilll... rather point and click shooters and lame, repetitive RPG clones..... over and over and over and over!
SixtyWattMan
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 4,466
Yeah I'm so glad game graphics only marginally improve year to year now if at all with only a few studios actually trying to push the envelope on graphics. I hated when all those new impressive graphics engines kept coming out pushing hardware to it's limits. I'll be happy if we are still playing on the Unreal 3 engine 10 years from now so I never have to upgrade my hardware.
DeathPrincess
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 18,205
Damn those consoles. I once saw one beat it's dog and smack an old lady in the mouth before burning down an ophanage. To make it worse it has motion controls which destroy driving sims.
PC games are "dying" because noone buys them. EA said that 15% of it's income comes from PC games. Thats EA who sells the sims (one of the biggest selling PC game series evar) along with crysis and mass effect. Guess what sells the other 85%. Since I first played games PC games have been a secondary market after consoles. Which has been since the first doom. Youd have to be 40 something to remember differently. But anyway people who blame everything on consoles are the same as people blaming pirates for ruining games. It's all an excuse. People are just making shitty games, because they sell, it's a big buisness and has lost much of the independance from the opinions of the masses, is nothing to do with consoles, it's all to do with generalization to appeal to mass market. It's not like consoles have built in auto aim/no quicksaves whatever you can't turn off. These are all features people chose to put in because they appeal to most people. This is chosen by the developer, they still retain the choice not to include things, or whatever, they just choose to do that for whatever reason. Blaming it on something they can't control is just giving them a hall pass to make more and more crap. It is possible to make a good game for both...it just takes some effort, which noone seems to want to do anymore. They just cater for mass markets. Which enthusiast level equipment isn't part of. That is why games arn't made for higher end hardware and graphics "suck" blame the people with dual cores and windows XP more than anyone else.
I personally think the mass of generic millitary shooters is more of a disgrace to FPS. They are all so bland and generic it's hard to hold peoples intrest in the genre. Before FPS games were like quake, doom and half life. Games with personality. It's all cover shooting, teamwork with headsets crap with "realism" that gets dull quickly. Woah i've got a m152 machine gun! with iron sights! woah! Not really exciting... I don't want to play real life, I want fun. Games should first firsly fun, and secondly an experiance. Developers need to get that part right, it doesn't matter what their on. Quake is still fun, and has worse textures and graphics than a wii game.
Plague_Injected
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 6,621
The "only played it for 10 minutes" is the problem. It takes at least an hour to start getting half-decent gear and to start making any real progress.
First off, PC gaming is not dying, no matter how often we're told that. I've been hearing about how PC gaming has been dying since the early 1980's. And chances are people were saying such things even before then.
No one buys them? Alright, let's say your number of 15% is correct. EA is a $4 billion company, which puts 15% at around $600 million. I don't know about you, but to me at least, $600 million is by no means a small number.
Now, I'd agree with you had you stated it made more business sense to stick to the console market, because that's where the big money comes in. EA is a business, and it's goal is to maximize profit. But to say PC games don't sell is naive.
I've been playing PC games longer than that, and PC's have always been a secondary market to consoles. It's probably always going to be that way. As to piracy, it may be an excuse, but there is some validity to the arguement, but that's for another flamefest.
You're right. Games are pretty bad because they cater towards the masses. For the most part, the general masses are idiots. It's why Glee and American Idol are popular on TV. It's why Toy Story 3 and Avatar are popular. It's why Mario and Zelda are popular. It's why the Sims and Call of Duty are popular. They're all pretty awful. Well, unless you're part of the mass audience for one of the above, which at one point or another, we all are.
Fun games, just like everything else, are subjective. We all have our guilty pleasure games, and we all find at least one very popular game to be trite. For you, you hate military shooters, and love quake. For me, I like realistic military shooters, and have never found Half Life, Quake, Doom, etc., to have any personality. To me, Half Life is a poor upgrade to System Shock. And I've never found a game enjoyable that John Carmack has made. This goes back to the Commander Keen days. It's all opinion.
Games come in cycles for the most part. In the 1990's, RPG's were a dead genre. In the 2000's? They came back. In the 2000's, adventure games were a dead genre. Now they're starting to come back. People tend to enjoy games similar to those which they were introduced with. For me personally, I loved the games of the mid 1980's through the mid 1990's. From 1995 until only the last 2 years or so, I found almost all those games to be horrible. The pendulum is shifting now though, so others who enjoyed the games during the years I despised the games are now starting to fall into the category I was in, while I'm starting to enjoy playing games again.
michael.pa2
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 2,998
It also takes more than a "run and gun" approach. As much as I love FPS's,I was getting tired of restricted corridor shooters,the STALKER series is a breath of fresh air.
DeathPrincess
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 18,205
My sarcasm is badly stated! I know it's not dying, I just worded that weirdly. I meant why consoles were more prevalent than PC's! The 15% comes from an interview with EA. they also said it had improved since the years before. If you were going to pick a game to develop for 85% or 15% of a market, and were a money orientated buisness, it's obvious who youd go for. It's probably not so big a percentage because theres haldhelds, mobiles and 3 different consoles in there. But that is probably why companies go for a one hit fits all method.
For me it was the mid 90's to early 00's when PC games were getting big enough to have budgets, but not so big that they were all big buisness seriousness. Games like sacrifice and messiah (shiny games) and that type. Ones that felt very "personal project" like you could tell someone spent time on them and planned it. You know it was someones dream to make it, and so showed their personality. This might not be a reality, but I like it when it seems someones cared over something and put themselves into it. It's been crafted from what they wanted, not market researched. I think a big part of the problem is reviewers. They sell games off as crap for not having jump, or for being "linear" or some other buzz word, so games end up being formed on the opinions of these bigotted fools. Who it would seem don't like one game to be different from popular concepts/ways of doing things. If developers just bend over and do what everyone wants it just becomes slush. If you dont piss off someone with your game your not trying hard enough.
I know what you mean about the pendulum I too have kind of returned to PC gaming after missing out on a large section of the 2000s, due to being uninspired. To be honest i'd been playing PS2 games, because they were the games that I could get a load of them for extremely cheap (10$ pre owned games after 25% staff discount). Also I spent so much time on PCs for music activities that it was good to get away from a PC. I found games to be fun and engaging again, because they were fun. It didn't matter there were shiity graphics and I was using a controller I was having fun, i'd got game fatigue. Then I got an XFX GPU for a video editing machine, and it came with a game for the PC. And I played that and got into that. Then played a few more demos, and one made me install steam etc. I'm on an upswing. Theres still the personality games around, Left4dead is a fun game, even though its got a console port, I also liked FEAR 2, bioshock, because their fun. People get too anal about pointless things and forget why they play the games in the first place.
That's one of my biggest criticisms of Oblivion and Fallout 3 - bethesda, while great at portrarying swaying trees, snowfall, and water, can't make proper character animations to save their skin. It's one of the worst things in Fallout3, how the characters "skate" across the terrain and their movements are quite jerky and irritable to look at.
At the same time, Call of Duty 2 had alright animations, but the little touch that made me appreciate it was the ability to shoot soldiers' helmets off.
Similarly in Metal Gear Solid 2 - the player can shoot a patrol soldier in the radio, knocking out all communication, in the arm that holds the gun, making him unable to reach for a his weapon, and in the leg making them unable to run away, and the enemy soldier proceeds to hop away for mercy on one leg, quite sadistic of the player, yet so hilarious and fun.
ps: pc vs console discussion does not belong to this thread.
After looking at those links there is absolutely no way someone cant say CryEngine2 is the most amazing game engine to date.
This is not defending Crysis the game, as you can clearly see the game did not use the engine to its fullest potential.
Some of those screens are the closest thing to photo realistic I've ever seen from a game! The fact that you can do this with a somewhat mainstream (i use the word mainstream very loosely) piece of technology is incredible.
Yeah those screens are incredible. I'll have to download some of those mods to check them out, but my current system only just plays Crysis maxed at 1920x1080 at 25fps, so it probably wont like those mods!
I've always felt Crysis looked great maxed, but scaled down poorly. Very High at high res looks sexy, anything below that and the shaders just dont quite work properly and the game looks washed out and flaws become very obvious. Problem is very high is only just becoming playable on mainstream cards now (my GTX460 is still just out of reach of smooth gameplay at very high 1920x1080). I always felt the performance configs looked, well, crap. The performance ones disabled some of the features that made LOD scaling more bearable, and the ones that played with the lighting and shaders, urgh, the best ones looked like there was some ugly blurry filter over the screen and the worser ones had guns and characters straight up GLOWING because of over implementing SSAO. Likewise I thought Warhead looked average.
I like Metro 2033. I actually felt BFBC2 looked alright for a multiplayer game, some of the jungle environments were really good (again, putting it in the context of an online multiplayer game
). Can't think of any real stand out games though... for the most part mainstream games these days look like console ports but with better textures and better resolutions.I don't think Crysis looks as good as people give it credit for. The foliage is too visually offensive to look at. While if you ignore that, it looks good, it is everywhere and impossible to ignore (in the parts I played).
I would take pretty much any AAA title since 2004 visually over Crysis.
I would take pretty much any AAA title since 2004 visually over Crysis.