So why does Crysis still not look like Crysis?

Hamidxa · Dec 9, 2007

Big D. said:
Are you blind? They showed that there's almost no difference between DX9 VERY HIGH and DX10 VERY HIGH.

There's a HUGE difference betweeen "high" and "very high" simply because one uses parallax occlusion mapping and one doesn't. That alone makes all rocks, sticks, leaves, waves, etc. stick out more realistically therefore adding a TON of detail to everything. (also bringing frame rates way down in the process) If you use those settings in DX9 you'll get better performance than in DX10, but you're a little confused it seems, since you didn't realize what they were comparing...despite the huge writing under the images...

Try looking at screenshots of the game at more than 320x240 and compare one image on "high" with the same image on "very high" with god rays, parallax occlusion mapping, improved post-effects and object motion blur. You'll see the difference.

Exactly.

Hamidxa · Dec 9, 2007

Dethred said:
Mega-FAIL.

You just proved mine and the original poster's point. That is a mod, and it STILL doesn't look as good as the Jungle fight video and screen shots. When you can show an actual screenshot in the game crysis (Do you know what that means? The retail version starting from the halo jump to the destruction of the alien ship) you will have the first step in proving your point.

Here's a reference

Fail, what fail?

And yes those pics I posted do look every bit as good as anything that was pre-released, if not better.

Your failure to notice that is the only proof manifesting itself here, either that or the early warning signs of the onset of macular degeneration.

Also, not all of the pre-release footage shown was taken from Crysis, rather a great deal of it was a showcase of the CryEngine 2 and its capabilities in as much as it was a showcase of Crysis.

Besides, those screenshots I posted are from a map being made using the built-in assets that come with the game. They are not borrowing elements/assets from other sources. This is representative of what the game can look like. Not so much a "mod". Your definition of mod is different from the actual one. Those are called user-made maps. NOT A MOD!
At least get the terminology correct

But, if you want to be that technical and insist on screenshots from the maps that came with the game, vs the user-created maps, then sure thing, here are screenshots taken from the editor of Crysis of actual levels that shipped with the game.

Note, everything is cranked up in these shots, they are snapped at 3k x 2k and downsampled to the sizes you see them.

Hamidxa · Dec 9, 2007

Hamidxa · Dec 9, 2007

Those look every bit as good as anything that has ever been released.

Also, the pics I originally posted do too.
Once again for reference:

And hell, I'll throw in one of mine taken from within the game as well:

You are about the only person I have ever come across who has said otherwise.

One more for good measure:

Hamidxa · Dec 9, 2007

Seriously, show me just one pre-release pic that looks better than this:

Just one.

That's taken from the first level of the game.

CptFalcon · Dec 9, 2007

Hamidxa said:
Seriously, show me just one pre-release pic that looks better than this:

Just one.

That's taken from the first level of the game.

Some people also don't realize that devs can take pictures at a specific area in order to emphasize a specific feature or item. They can also tweak the engine themselves as they see fit also.

Hamidxa · Dec 10, 2007

CptFalcon said:
Some people also don't realize that devs can take pictures at a specific area in order to emphasize a specific feature or item. They can also tweak the engine themselves as they see fit also.

That was not taken by a dev.

BoxDude · Dec 10, 2007

This thread has enough content in it to satisfy anyone I think, and has become rediculous and should be locked.

Spare-Flair · Dec 10, 2007

If anything, this has become a great Crysis screenshot thread.

Dachink · Dec 10, 2007

^Yes indeed. :O

Silus · Dec 10, 2007

I too have a hard time understanding those that say Crysis in its current form, doesn't offer what was shown in the E3 videos or promotional shots.

But definitely, this has become an awesome screenshot thread

Baker · Dec 10, 2007

To bad I don't have a computer that runs this.... back to CS 1.6.

CptFalcon · Dec 10, 2007

Hamidxa said:
That was not taken by a dev.

I was referring to the original screen shots.

eggrock · Dec 10, 2007

CodeX · Dec 10, 2007

It looks just as good as anything that was ever shown pre-release, quit your bitching.

I can't believe the crap people will complain about, it is the greatest looking game of all time. If you think it doesn't look as good as it should it is likely your computer, not the game.

eggrock · Dec 10, 2007

CodeX said:
It looks just as good as anything that was ever shown pre-release, quit your bitching.

I can't believe the crap people will complain about, it is the greatest looking game of all time. If you think it doesn't look as good as it should it is likely your computer, not the game.

People have a point about getting lied to in the form of screenshots/movies that don't deliver. IMO that's the industry lying to the gamer and it sucks. However, after viewing the pregame and ingame screenshots I don't see a huge difference between the two. And as people have noted, still shots don't necessarily do the game justice.

I think what people are really mad about is that the game was overhyped. You can only fap to so many screenshots and movies before you run out of juice, and Crysis had a long run of movie/screenshot releases.

Blackstone · Dec 10, 2007

The demonstration videos were designed to push not only the game, but also Crytek's engine licensing business. Those videos were probably targeted at potential licensees as much as gamers/enthusiasts. It is likely that there are features in the engine that were shown in the videos but not implemented or enabled in the actual game.

If you look at the way performance scales with the settings that are available, I think it is clear that even if the game could be made to look like the videos we don't have the hardware to run it like that yet. Not even close. It is really sort of a mute point. There may be higher settings but that is a check we won't be able to cash for probably another year.

I think, Epic Games, for example, committed a far more egregious offense to enthusiasts with Unreal Tournament 3 and Unreal Engine, which even at the highest settings available runs perfectly smooth on a GTX at reasonably high resolutions. When the next generation graphics cards are released Unreal Tournament 3 will offer no improvement except for resolution. It doesn't even properly support anti-aliasing. In contrast, with Crysis when we get new cards we will be able to bump shaders up to very high and at least some of the other settings up to very high for a whole new level of detail. Further Crytek has suggested even higher settings may be unlocked later, although this may or may not be realized.

It seems almost every aspect of the visual presentation of the game can be improved with subsequent generations of hardware, whereas the competing Source and Unreal engines can be totally maxed out on today's hardware.

As an enthusiast I like Crytek's approach simply because it takes advantage of the constantly evolving nature of PC hardware, whereas Unreal and Source are now somewhat limited by the capabilities of the XBOX and PS3 consoles. In fact Cryengine games might be the only justification for new GPU hardware in 2008.

So you can look at the glass as half-empty or half-full. Is Crysis not "optimized" properly or is it forward looking? I think it is simply forward looking. Rendering a jungle setting is about as demanding as it gets with respect to the GPU and that is nothing new.

When we get a significant upgrade in GPU power I think the game will have a lot more appeal. If anything has failed to deliver it is the higher end 8800 series graphics cards which simply don't handle the game as well as we would like, even in SLI configurations. The performance hit with anti-aliasing is disappointing but not at all surprising.

I do think however, that the game industry and the hardware industry hype for games in general is sort of out of control but it probably has a lot to do with the high development costs of today's games, the exploding market and the intense competition, especially this season.

In the end I don't care what developers say or do as long as they keep making bona fide games for PC and not lame multi-platform ports. Kudos to Supreme Commander and Crysis for pushing the envelope on PC.

Silus · Dec 11, 2007

Blackstone said:
The demonstration videos were designed to push not only the game, but also Crytek's engine licensing business. Those videos were probably targeted at potential licensees as much as gamers/enthusiasts. It is likely that there are features in the engine that were shown in the videos but not implemented or enabled in the actual game.

If you look at the way performance scales with the settings that are available, I think it is clear that even if the game could be made to look like the videos we don't have the hardware to run it like that yet. Not even close. It is really sort of a mute point. There may be higher settings but that is a check we won't be able to cash for probably another year.

I think, Epic Games, for example, committed a far more egregious offense to enthusiasts with Unreal Tournament 3 and Unreal Engine, which even at the highest settings available runs perfectly smooth on a GTX at reasonably high resolutions. When the next generation graphics cards are released Unreal Tournament 3 will offer no improvement except for resolution. It doesn't even properly support anti-aliasing. In contrast, with Crysis when we get new cards we will be able to bump shaders up to very high and at least some of the other settings up to very high for a whole new level of detail. Further Crytek has suggested even higher settings may be unlocked later, although this may or may not be realized.

It seems almost every aspect of the visual presentation of the game can be improved with subsequent generations of hardware, whereas the competing Source and Unreal engines can be totally maxed out on today's hardware.

As an enthusiast I like Crytek's approach simply because it takes advantage of the constantly evolving nature of PC hardware, whereas Unreal and Source are now somewhat limited by the capabilities of the XBOX and PS3 consoles. In fact Cryengine games might be the only justification for new GPU hardware in 2008.

So you can look at the glass as half-empty or half-full. Is Crysis not "optimized" properly or is it forward looking? I think it is simply forward looking. Rendering a jungle setting is about as demanding as it gets with respect to the GPU and that is nothing new.

When we get a significant upgrade in GPU power I think the game will have a lot more appeal. If anything has failed to deliver it is the higher end 8800 series graphics cards which simply don't handle the game as well as we would like, even in SLI configurations. The performance hit with anti-aliasing is disappointing but not at all surprising.

I do think however, that the game industry and the hardware industry hype for games in general is sort of out of control but it probably has a lot to do with the high development costs of today's games, the exploding market and the intense competition, especially this season.

In the end I don't care what developers say or do as long as they keep making bona fide games for PC and not lame multi-platform ports. Kudos to Supreme Commander and Crysis for pushing the envelope on PC.

I can't agree more.

As I've said many times, I'm not against concoles, but I am against the constant quality decrease of PC Games, due to their console versions. I can't comment on Supreme Commander, because I never played it, but Crysis is a breath of fresh air in that department. It's the quintessential PC Game and it delivers. Crytek certainly deserves to be praised for it, especially their technical achievements, which should now be a standard, for any future FPS games.

Hamidxa · Dec 11, 2007

Spare-Flair said:
Spare-Flair said:

If anything, this has become a great Crysis screenshot thread.

Click to expand...

Dachink said:

^Yes indeed. :O

Click to expand...

Silus said:

I too have a hard time understanding those that say Crysis in its current form, doesn't offer what was shown in the E3 videos or promotional shots.

But definitely, this has become an awesome screenshot thread

Click to expand...

eggrock said:

Here are some older screenshots for comparison:

Looking at these shots, I don't see a ton of difference. The 2006 screens show some things that have been changed--the nanosuit for example. And there are the editor shots from above that the OP linked to. Overall I'm not seeing a ton of difference--but YMMV, and in any case they're there for the sake of comparison.

Click to expand...

CodeX said:

It looks just as good as anything that was ever shown pre-release, quit your bitching.

I can't believe the crap people will complain about, it is the greatest looking game of all time. If you think it doesn't look as good as it should it is likely your computer, not the game.

Click to expand...

Silus said:

I can't agree more.

As I've said many times, I'm not against concoles, but I am against the constant quality decrease of PC Games, due to their console versions. I can't comment on Supreme Commander, because I never played it, but Crysis is a breath of fresh air in that department. It's the quintessential PC Game and it delivers. Crytek certainly deserves to be praised for it, especially their technical achievements, which should now be a standard, for any future FPS games.

Click to expand...

Multi-QFT's.

TwentyFour · Dec 12, 2007

Blackstone said:
The demonstration videos were designed to push not only the game, but also Crytek's engine licensing business. Those videos were probably targeted at potential licensees as much as gamers/enthusiasts. It is likely that there are features in the engine that were shown in the videos but not implemented or enabled in the actual game.

If you look at the way performance scales with the settings that are available, I think it is clear that even if the game could be made to look like the videos we don't have the hardware to run it like that yet. Not even close. It is really sort of a mute point. There may be higher settings but that is a check we won't be able to cash for probably another year.

I think, Epic Games, for example, committed a far more egregious offense to enthusiasts with Unreal Tournament 3 and Unreal Engine, which even at the highest settings available runs perfectly smooth on a GTX at reasonably high resolutions. When the next generation graphics cards are released Unreal Tournament 3 will offer no improvement except for resolution. It doesn't even properly support anti-aliasing. In contrast, with Crysis when we get new cards we will be able to bump shaders up to very high and at least some of the other settings up to very high for a whole new level of detail. Further Crytek has suggested even higher settings may be unlocked later, although this may or may not be realized.

It seems almost every aspect of the visual presentation of the game can be improved with subsequent generations of hardware, whereas the competing Source and Unreal engines can be totally maxed out on today's hardware.

As an enthusiast I like Crytek's approach simply because it takes advantage of the constantly evolving nature of PC hardware, whereas Unreal and Source are now somewhat limited by the capabilities of the XBOX and PS3 consoles. In fact Cryengine games might be the only justification for new GPU hardware in 2008.

So you can look at the glass as half-empty or half-full. Is Crysis not "optimized" properly or is it forward looking? I think it is simply forward looking. Rendering a jungle setting is about as demanding as it gets with respect to the GPU and that is nothing new.

When we get a significant upgrade in GPU power I think the game will have a lot more appeal. If anything has failed to deliver it is the higher end 8800 series graphics cards which simply don't handle the game as well as we would like, even in SLI configurations. The performance hit with anti-aliasing is disappointing but not at all surprising.

I do think however, that the game industry and the hardware industry hype for games in general is sort of out of control but it probably has a lot to do with the high development costs of today's games, the exploding market and the intense competition, especially this season.

In the end I don't care what developers say or do as long as they keep making bona fide games for PC and not lame multi-platform ports. Kudos to Supreme Commander and Crysis for pushing the envelope on PC.

QFT. well said

the X · Dec 12, 2007

i cant even take screen shots....

i bet it would run good on I-RAM:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PiYgBhAkAM
haha, it takes longer for the power to reset than it does for the OS to shut down and start up

Hamidxa · Dec 12, 2007

Blackstone said:
The demonstration videos were designed to push not only the game, but also Crytek's engine licensing business. Those videos were probably targeted at potential licensees as much as gamers/enthusiasts. It is likely that there are features in the engine that were shown in the videos but not implemented or enabled in the actual game.

If you look at the way performance scales with the settings that are available, I think it is clear that even if the game could be made to look like the videos we don't have the hardware to run it like that yet. Not even close. It is really sort of a mute point. There may be higher settings but that is a check we won't be able to cash for probably another year.

I think, Epic Games, for example, committed a far more egregious offense to enthusiasts with Unreal Tournament 3 and Unreal Engine, which even at the highest settings available runs perfectly smooth on a GTX at reasonably high resolutions. When the next generation graphics cards are released Unreal Tournament 3 will offer no improvement except for resolution. It doesn't even properly support anti-aliasing. In contrast, with Crysis when we get new cards we will be able to bump shaders up to very high and at least some of the other settings up to very high for a whole new level of detail. Further Crytek has suggested even higher settings may be unlocked later, although this may or may not be realized.

It seems almost every aspect of the visual presentation of the game can be improved with subsequent generations of hardware, whereas the competing Source and Unreal engines can be totally maxed out on today's hardware.

As an enthusiast I like Crytek's approach simply because it takes advantage of the constantly evolving nature of PC hardware, whereas Unreal and Source are now somewhat limited by the capabilities of the XBOX and PS3 consoles. In fact Cryengine games might be the only justification for new GPU hardware in 2008.

So you can look at the glass as half-empty or half-full. Is Crysis not "optimized" properly or is it forward looking? I think it is simply forward looking. Rendering a jungle setting is about as demanding as it gets with respect to the GPU and that is nothing new.

When we get a significant upgrade in GPU power I think the game will have a lot more appeal. If anything has failed to deliver it is the higher end 8800 series graphics cards which simply don't handle the game as well as we would like, even in SLI configurations. The performance hit with anti-aliasing is disappointing but not at all surprising.

I do think however, that the game industry and the hardware industry hype for games in general is sort of out of control but it probably has a lot to do with the high development costs of today's games, the exploding market and the intense competition, especially this season.

In the end I don't care what developers say or do as long as they keep making bona fide games for PC and not lame multi-platform ports. Kudos to Supreme Commander and Crysis for pushing the envelope on PC.

Well said.

jonneymendoza · Dec 12, 2007

i agree also and came to realise its nto crysis fault, its nvidia thats to blame. they STILL have not released a new high end card. they are still milking the bloody 8800's

silent-circuit · Dec 12, 2007

jonneymendoza said:
i agree also and came to realise its nto crysis fault, its nvidia thats to blame. they STILL have not released a new high end card. they are still milking the bloody 8800's

Yeah, cause the 8800s suck so bad and ATI has definitely stepped up to the plate and proven they can make something faster, huh?

</sarcasm>

Sate · Dec 12, 2007

silent-circuit said:
Yeah, cause the 8800s suck so bad and ATI has definitely stepped up to the plate and proven they can make something faster, huh?

</sarcasm>

I think what he meant was Nvidia is sitting on and not releasing new hardware to squeeze out more money even though they could drop a new high end any day. ATI could, in theory, force them to do it but the fact remains we don't have superior hardware only because Nvidia doesn't feel like giving it to us.. not because it does not exist or isn't ready.
hence, enthusiast gamers = sad pandas

Big D. · Dec 14, 2007

The following screenshots were taken in XP 32bit (DX9) at 1600x1200 with everything set to High + sun shafts and parallax occlusion mapping enabled then resized to 800x600 to get that anti-aliased look. (There's a lot of aliasing on vegetation if I play at lower resolutions, though it doubles my fps) I was getting 25-40fps most of the time so it was perfectly playable. (I could even record with FRAPS at 16x12 at 15-30fps)

By adding lines in the cfg file, you can get it to look even better though by improving the LOD range on the trees, environment, using even higher resolution textures and so on but I wanted it to be playable.

Best graphics around - and these are just from the first level. Once I turn on object motion blur, everything should look exactly like in the screenshots released before the game came out.

Sabrewulf165 · Dec 14, 2007

IMO any game with tons of aliased vegetation/alpha textures in your face looks like shit, I don't care what else it does. I'm also amused by how many "god ray" screenshots people are posting, as if that alone makes Crysis the best looking game ever. Crysis looks very good, but relative to how it performs, I do not think it's even close to being the best looking game out there.

To me it's a moot point anyway. There are a good number of people who say Crysis is fun, replayable, blah blah etc... but there are also a lot of people like me who feel that it's just like FarCry - one play through and I'll probably never touch it again other than to see how fast it runs on the next 2 or 3 high-end video cards that come out.

Krenum · Dec 14, 2007

Before I say anything , I have beaten the game, I found the second half of the game alot more fun than the first half. That being said, about the graphics, the facial textures are very very good, but for the rest of the game, rocks trees and so on, the textures arent really that great, I think its mostly the lighting effects that make the graphics in this game, IMO the textures on the rocks and other objects are alot better in Oblivion, especially using the "ultra Texture pack" you can download.

Space_Coyote · Dec 14, 2007

Krenum said:
I found the second half of the game alot more fun than the first half.

Wow, that's a first! Most people I have seen (including myself) thought the aliens ruined that game.

Neuffy · Dec 14, 2007

I fully anticipate loving the aliens. But then, I actually _liked_ the Trigens, even if they scared the hell out of me. The aliens look more interesting than the Trigens, so I'll probably like them more.

Of course, I anticipate playing through with somewhat modified settings, depending on what is possible with tweaks. I damn well better be able to play on Delta without any decreased weapon accuracy, I'll say that much.

Overall, I think Crysis is just another victim of excessive hype. It really does look great. We just, ah, expected it to look that great while running on current hardware, so we feel a bit betrayed.

tickle_me_emo · Dec 14, 2007

Krenum said:
IMO the textures on the rocks and other objects are alot better in Oblivion, especially using the "ultra Texture pack" you can download.

Could you post comparison pics? I'm not saying you're wrong, but it would be nice to see comparison shots.

Big D. · Dec 14, 2007

He's talking about this: http://planetelderscrolls.gamespy.com/View.php?view=OblivionMods.Detail&id=2363

Any way you slice it though, Crysis is leaps ahead of Oblivion, since it uses more advanced technology and came out later. Also, wtf are you people complaining about? Crysis runs fine and looks good on Medium on older PCs and it even runs decently on High with new PCs (50fps average in benchmark) - just not at fucking 1920x1200.

Honestly, the majority of people play games at 1024x768 and 1280x960 and you people complain that the best-looking game ever made doesn't run at your insanely huge native resolution with everything on high. Well, blame LCD technology for not allowing you to lower your res. like normal people.

Personally, I'm playing the start of the game on High settings with some Very High options too at 1600x1200 and have no problems enjoying it. If the fps go down later on, I'll lower the resolution. Sure, it'll have aliased leaves, but it'll still look great.

eggrock · Dec 14, 2007

Krenum said:
Before I say anything , I have beaten the game, I found the second half of the game alot more fun than the first half. That being said, about the graphics, the facial textures are very very good, but for the rest of the game, rocks trees and so on, the textures arent really that great, I think its mostly the lighting effects that make the graphics in this game, IMO the textures on the rocks and other objects are alot better in Oblivion, especially using the "ultra Texture pack" you can download.

The Oblivion texture pack is a community texture pack. I agree that Crysis' textures aren't outstanding (the comparison I would have used is HL2--Valve's textures make me happy). I wouldn't call them horrible though, and using occlusion mapping makes some of them look way better (same as Qarl's texture pack IIRC.)

I didn't have a card that supported HDR at the time but the screenies I saw from Oblivion that used HDR *sucked*. I'll have to fire it up and check it out sometime. Unfortunately I don't like the game anymore.

(I upgraded my rig just to play Oblivion, too.)

And I agree that the lighting effects are what make the game look so fantastic. Nothing else to say really except reiterate that they nailed the lighting in Crysis.

Big D. · Dec 14, 2007

Well if you take a look at HL2's textures, you'll be very disappointed, lol.

Anything that's closer than about 10 feet looks very ugly, so complaining about Crysis' textures looking blurry from miles away (and btw you can change the LOD to make them sharp even from that distance) is just not right. Everything from the characters to every leaf, branch, tree trunk, etc. looks really great, even up-close. Not only that but the parallax occlusion mapping is much better than in Oblivion because it even casts shadows.

Rocks, sticks, etc. especially in the forest look like actual objects, not just bumps in a texture. Everything just fits in really nicely and I think everyone should play this game on Very High at some point just to see what they missed.

Alias2 · Dec 14, 2007

I'll agree game play is lacking. I go to my brotehr inlaws to play it, my PC can't handle it on low.

I'll agree that even on low it looks similar to FarCry.

I care about ONE thing, the engine. Think of the games that could be built on this engine in two years when everyones hardware can handle it! In two years mid-end cards should be able to play this at medium levels no problem.

Bleedblue12345 · Dec 14, 2007

Do you people just care about graphics?

Since when can I take a humvee and crash it into an enemy base at 60mph and take out the entire base (buildings, walls, trees, people, fences, and all). Or jump on an enemy roof, tear it to peices, and fall in, pick up MANY MANY items i the game. Pick up and throw people..... Shoot out tiers, window glass.

All of those little effects MADE the game for me. There was just SO many ways to approach stuff, you can make your own doors. Also chopping trees in half is quite fun

The graphics are good, but do seem a bit "bland". although i am running 1024x768 no AA/no AF at high settings on an x1950pro.

Krenum · Dec 14, 2007

coolxboxgamer said:
Do you people just care about graphics?

Since when can I take a humvee and crash it into an enemy base at 60mph and take out the entire base (buildings, walls, trees, people, fences, and all). Or jump on an enemy roof, tear it to peices, and fall in, pick up MANY MANY items i the game. Pick up and throw people..... Shoot out tiers, window glass.

All of those little effects MADE the game for me. There was just SO many ways to approach stuff, you can make your own doors. Also chopping trees in half is quite fun

The graphics are good, but do seem a bit "bland". although i am running 1024x768 no AA/no AF at high settings on an x1950pro.

No , were just having a discussion on graphics, I came from a time when Graphics weren't all that there were to behold in a game, and I firmly believe that. I thought that the game mechanics were neat, then I started noticeing glitches, my humvee at one point got stuck on a rock and exploded after taking a damage from all the glitching, also every now and then I noticed pieces of debris and weaponry getting halfway stuck into the ground and by doing so sounded horendous noises. Also Looking through a sniper scope while firing I started seeing the bullets come out of my gun as red triangle looking tracers, Minor little things like that , that should of been worked out of the game before release left a imprint on me and my opinion of the game, although I did have fun with it, I couldnt find a reason to hail it as one of the greats.

Capfarland · Dec 14, 2007

yeah the bugs really kill the experience. I encountered way too many bugs in this game, like when I grabbed a guy and all of his limbs and head disappeared and only his torso remained stuck in mid air, this happened to me 3 TIMES.

The above mentioned truck getting stuck in a rock then exploding, as well as the weapons getting stuck in walls or the ground happened to me as well.

Big D. · Dec 15, 2007

Well when you have so many physics, it's only normal for that to happen. You have to keep in mind CPUs can't do proper physics in real-time yet. They're simplified so generally fast-moving objects will go through other objects...most objects don't have physics per polygons, but have some kind of hitbox to speed things up (while making them less acurate) and so on. Technology's not quite there yet.

My main bug so far was seeing my own character model while in first person mode...so I'd have 2 weapons, 4 arms, 4 legs, etc. and it was distracting. I think it happened when I alt-tabbed a few times, but it was gone when I restarted the game. Nothing's perfect.

Hamidxa · Dec 15, 2007

Sabrewulf165 said:
IMO any game with tons of aliased vegetation/alpha textures in your face looks like shit, I don't care what else it does. I'm also amused by how many "god ray" screenshots people are posting, as if that alone makes Crysis the best looking game ever. Crysis looks very good, but relative to how it performs, I do not think it's even close to being the best looking game out there.

To me it's a moot point anyway. There are a good number of people who say Crysis is fun, replayable, blah blah etc... but there are also a lot of people like me who feel that it's just like FarCry - one play through and I'll probably never touch it again other than to see how fast it runs on the next 2 or 3 high-end video cards that come out.

I love it when clueless trolls manifest their ignorance.

It's a settings called edgeAA, use it.
No more "aliased vegetation".

Your ignorance of the feature does not excuse you, because you were so impetuous to spew your vitriol without even so much as knowing that a simple command:
r_useedgeaa = 2 remedies the problem that you were lambasting this game for.

So why does Crysis still not *look* like Crysis?

Gawd

Gawd

Gawd

Gawd

Gawd

[H]ard|Gawd

Gawd

Limp Gawd

Supreme [H]ardness

Limp Gawd

Supreme [H]ardness

2[H]4U

[H]ard|Gawd

Supreme [H]ardness

2[H]4U

Supreme [H]ardness

2[H]4U

Supreme [H]ardness

Gawd

Weaksauce

[H]ard|Gawd

Gawd

Supreme [H]ardness

[H]F Junkie

Weaksauce

Gawd

2[H]4U

Fully [H]

Gawd

Limp Gawd

[H]ard|Gawd

Gawd

Supreme [H]ardness

Gawd

Limp Gawd

[H]ard|Gawd

Fully [H]

Limp Gawd

Gawd

Gawd

So why does Crysis still not look like Crysis?