10 years. 10 years

10 years. 10 years.

TEN YEARS.

LITERALLY TEN FREAKING YEARS WHAT HAPPENED

Other urls found in this thread:

adriancourreges.com/blog/2016/09/09/doom-2016-graphics-study/
youtube.com/watch?v=yrcEUO7TC28
guru3d.com/files-details/nvidia-inspector-download.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Modding was removed from games or now results in bans.

grapshit was a mistake

Huh?

>when newer games just have higher resolution textures.

That's modded to shit

Modern games look much better than vanilla Crysis

>cant even stand normally
ten years and they cant even get standing right

So this is the power of Nvidia® GeForce 8800GTX™...

>10 years and I finally have a PC strong enough to play Crysis on normal

Even modern console games look better than vanilla Crysis

Looks on par. Uncharted doesn't even run at 60 fps.

Photorealism is ruining game design.

consoles

Damn, Crysis looks like that?

>jaggies
>over-sharpened foliage
>not enough depth in the shadows and highlights, looks like colours have been crushed
you could have posted a better screenshot, jesus christ user

ARE YOU READY FOR THE NEW KING OF FOLIAGE?

KINGDOM COME: DELIVERANCE
KINGDOM COME: DELIVERANCE
KINGDOM COME: DELIVERANCE
KINGDOM COME: DELIVERANCE
KINGDOM COME: DELIVERANCE
I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO POST PICTURES BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO SEE IT FOR YOURSELF

IT IS THE
BEST
LOOKING GAME

IF YOU DENY THIS YOU ARE
WRONG
WRONG
WRONG

How can consoles even compete?

this is a rendered screenshot with like 32x anti alias which would run at like 0.5 fps in the day

Imagine being Crytek and have to look at this.

Why are tropical settings in games so underrated? Or full on winter settings. It's just boring temperate bullshit.

That's a fine looking cock

Yet you woulnt be able to do half the shit you could in Cyrsis.Tese "games" are glorified shooting galleries with more cutscenes than actual engaging gameplay.

Star Wars Battlefront came out and kicked Crysis off the top spot of MUH BEST GRAFIX.

Man, 10 years of graphical improvement led to cinematic shit and games with somehow less gameplay than Crysis while the improvements are so nominal that only autists will point it out
We need to go back.

That screenshot is heavily downsampled. You can set crazy resolutions using console commands. The game has a realistic art-style so the extra sharpness really benefits it.

>Kids will look at Undertale the same way 10 years from now

foliage so sharp you can cut your fingers.

yeah it's a bit of a joke especially considering the "epic grafix" circlejerk around the current gen consoles
it's a promo shot

so? You can also downsample using your GPU drivers.

Crysis hasn't been king for a good 4-5 years now. It's time to let go.

I know, but there's a limit on that.
The console commands allow you to render the game at insane resolutions.

What are you implying?

The screenshot in OP - you can't really play the game at that quality. It was taken at an insane resolution and the actual graphics are a lot uglier.

'actual graphics' don't magically change along with resolution.

Believe it or not - they do.
When you jam in so many pixels into a small screen, the clarity achieved is unreal. It looks like a CGI movie. I took many screenshots of crysis in 4k and downscaled them to 720p a few years ago. Unfortunately, I lost them, but they looked far better than anything released this gen.

Idk about 4-5.
Something like battlefront looks better, but that's due more to photogrammetry than it is the engine.
The vanishing of ethan carter used the same technique, but no one praises that game as a technical wonder.
It's just a case of better quality assets. The frostbite engine is really unremarkable, I never understood what people saw in battlefield3/4. There are some nice post processing effects, but all the smoke and haze and dust and blur and lens flare etc distract you from the fact that there really isn't all that much stuff on screen, and what's there isn't really impressive graphically.

Sup Forums might be a better place for this, but there are still some aspects of crysis that are technically more advanced as far as graphical presentation goes than most if not all extant games on the market.
Some aspects, not all.
And this is starting to rub up on the point of the matter. Crysis is praised (deservedly so) just as much for the interactions in the game as their presentation, and I don't just mean in some sterile half life physics sort of way.
The lighting changes dynamically with time of day in a way that actually resembles real life, you get shock waves from muzzle blast and explosions that move objects, break buildings, and deform vegetation in real time, all this and more come together to create a reasonably convincing simulacrum of real life.
I should note at this point that while people often talk of realism as if it's distinct from style, this isn't the case. There was a tremendous amount of effort invested in making crysis to make a game that wasn't just impressive in polygon count, but also fidelity to the literal real world.
You've probably seen screenshots of crysis compared with real life locations, and that's no accident. A lot of those were in-house targets for visual presentation.
Anyways, it's readily apparent that while the game has been surpassed in some smaller number of areas, the fact that it holds up, and takes home gold

Look at this downsampled screenshot, for example.

I think that having one overall setting helps though. Crysis very rarely went indoors for example and alien tech allows you to get creative with limitations.

I still think crysis's ice effects were excellent - can't be many games out there with frozen jungles

All aspects you just mentioned (except time of day) in your post was done better in Battlefield 3, then B4 and 1 do it even better.

You see that bushes ? You can hide inside it.

Realtime raytracing when?

adriancourreges.com/blog/2016/09/09/doom-2016-graphics-study/

Ah yes, the game of the glowing plants.

cont.

in ANY AREAS makes the game stand all that much taller, and is testament to the sad state of the video games industry.

People love to bemoan bloated AAA budgets as the downfall of modern gaming, ostensibly due to graphical devotion above all else, but that's really not true.
I don't think it's a secret that modern games are poorly optimized, and this is because while graphical capabilities are a major factor in consumer purchases, game making companies have been given a lot of slack in the jump from 7th-8th generation consoles, and so it is enough to hire shoddy coders on the cheap, and improve capabilities marginally.
Although sometimes this does backfire ie Andromeda.
Crysis cost less than 35 million TOTAL, for what was an immense graphical leap.

Modern warfare 2 had a marketing budget alone of 200 million dollars, and it isn't unusual in that price range.

And so I'm irked with all these autist spammers that take screenshot at low resolutions of the worst parts of the game, and love to crow that it isn't anything special as if the circlejerk diametrically opposed to the CAN IT RUN CRYSIS circlejerk is in any way superior, or possessed of satirical power 10 years later.

All of this isn't even mentioning simple config tweaks that push things like lod detail and scaling to extents not capable with processors in 2007.
The shitty screenshot spergs love to crow about how it only looks good with mods, but changing a number to effectively move the settings bar past ultra does in no way constitute an addition in visual complexity distinct from the strengths of the game engine any more than manually editing the resolution of a really old game to fit your new monitor does.

So really what I'm getting at is that it's disappointing that games have improved so little graphically in the past decade.

Stop devs from letting Carmack doing his engine magic and soon we'll see something.
I didn't like nuDOOM though because of fucked up pace due to spawning monsters, locked doors and glory kill staggering animations, but I love the gameplay.
Classic DOOM gameplay mode would do this game wonders.

youtube.com/watch?v=yrcEUO7TC28

7 years ago

No, what I mean is what I view as 'actual graphics', as in textures, view distance etc doesn't change. It's still the same fucking game and files, rendering at a higher resolution is not the same as overriding texture files for example.

High resolution images are a perfectly valid way of displaying a game's graphics quality.

all it takes is one webm to BTFO all those static games you think have good graphics

someone post the horizon pic

you know the one

Well yeah, the assets and other rendering techniques remain same. And yes, it's still the same game in the end.

But downsampled screenshots only show the engine's capabilities. To the end users, that's not as relevant as what they will be seeing on the screen while playing.
And if newer games allowed users to access the console, the screenshots produced would be better than what's in the OP. But since they don't, the graphics cannot be properly compared.

Console parity.

Have you perchance heard of editing .ini files or Ansel?

>that fucking slowdown
Whoa, really making me think here!

This.

>higher resolution textures.
LOL
that's the thing, they don't even have that.

> editing .ini files
It's not that simple. You can't set a resolution like 25000x16000 in an ini file and expect the game to render at that resolution. You can do it in Crysis.
> Ansel
Never used it.

Yeah it does drop from the unachieveable-for-consoles 80fps to a frame rate so low most people only experience it playing console games like Assassin's Creed Unity or Knack.

>You can't set a resolution like 25000x16000
Depends on the game, I suppose?

> Depends on the game, I suppose?
Games aren't very customizable/mod-able these days

>just have higher resolution textures
Most of the time they don't even have that.

Why do people praise Crysis so much again?
I never understood all the posts claiming it to be the best fucking thing ever while in reality it's a pretty boring shooter with some great graphics (at the time) and some decent physics simulation
But gameplay wise, story wise, level design wise it's pretty below medicore and the game feels soulless
I didn't like the game when it came out and i played it on a core 2 duo machine paired with 8800GTS, i didn't like it now when i revisited it with a PC that runs circles around the old one

Star Wars cheated with photogrammetry.

But not all of Crysis' effects were mentioned.

And no GAME does vegetation physics better than Crysis 1. Forget Battlefield.

Because they've played it, console kid.

>Use of other technologies is cheating

>Because they've played it, console kid.
the first PC i built for myself was a 486DX machine, i've used PCs for longer than you've been able to walk by yourself without parents holding you upright

Opinions of a pleb. Crysis is a great sandbox-shooter and one of the best fps games of all times.

The level design allows multiple approaches to each mission, the suit powers allow quick and skillful gameplay to defeat your enemies, the game is contantly varying its mission design to stay interesting.

I believe you, console kid.

...

>m-my game isn't shitty, you haven't played it, waaaah
fucking pathetic

What's up with that depth of field? You'd need like a f/0.1 lens to get an effect like that in real life. It looks so stupid.

Diminishing returns.
While what you posted is a comparison between 240p and a decent resolution, comparing 1080p with 4k doesn't give so much of a difference

I'm not saying this to try and convince you you're wrong, but I'd say that Crysis is a game that becomes more fun as you become more competent with the mechanics.

Not saying that it becomes some incredible 10/10 GOAT as you invest more time into it, but once you become better at combining the abilities, or even ignoring them, it becomes a game you can play as a predator sim, or even something more akin to a traditional tactical slowpaced shooter.

I understand that the reward from that isn't something everyone will appreciate, or even have any interest in experiencing, but if you're able to, there really isn't a game like crysis that has come out since. The early act of that game with the open environments is a playground that becomes more rewarding the more I revisit it.

Beyond that, the high level of physics integration is something that I find really compelling in games, even if it's just in the aesthetic quality of errant bullets felling trees, or vehicles exploding and bringing down the shanty-shacks with them. Things like that are something I find really enjoyable in vidya, and as mentioned above, there hasn't really been a game since that scratches the same itch.

The industrial hasn't moved forward

>crysis
>engaging gameplay

It does for me since I dislike tiny textures or particles to have a messy look instead of the actual shape of the things.
Even a game like BotW benefit from running at higher resolution than native.

>comparing 1080p with 4k doesn't give so much of a difference
Yes it does, 1080p games are blurry and aliased to shit, 4k looks a lot better. Maybe if you're comparing low detail games you wouldn't notice anything but in busy scenes there's a huge difference especially in motion.

Let me guess, you've only seen '4k' on the PS4 and have never seen a 4k TV.

Doesn't look that great without mods.

Because you haven't maxed the game out nigga. That screenshot is so blurry too what the fuck are you doing?

4K TVs have lower pixel density than 1080p 24" monitors, so that's hardly a compelling argument

>Because you haven't maxed the game out nigga.
But it is. Only weird shit is the MSAA doesn't seem to apply to foliage. Just geometry edges.

He's right, though.
The lighting and textures in Crysis are pretty bad. Warhead improved lighting a bit, but it still looks poor compared to modern games.

Why is using better technology cheating?
>best graphics in any video game to date
>high fps even on mediocre hardware
>all this achievable in a multiplayer game with players all over the place
Why do other games even bother trying?

>Let me guess, you've only seen '4k' on the PS4 and have never seen a 4k TV

They were talking about downsampling, not the real thing. Stop moving goalposts

Well BoTW uses 720p~900p, so it makes sense for such a difference and I agree with you on that

>Uses the wrong AA
>LOD set incorrectly

Out.

Anyone that thinks Frostbyte is better than CryEngine is fucking retarded

...

>wrong AA
The game literally has MSAA as its only anti-aliasing option, which I set to 8X.

And what LOD?

Force Alpha AA in gpu settings

It isn't. You aren't even half way there.

The lighting is good though and in no way is it poor compared to modern games. Only recently did games start using volumetric lighting, which Crysis still does a better job with than most.

why is it so blurry

Gaming became a for-profit medium entirely. When the industry first started out the only thing to draw in players were unique and novel game play mechanics.
Developers were exclusively enthusiasts whose primary goal was to make a fun game that they themselves would want to play.

Now that the games industry has become more profitable than Hollywood, and all you need to put together a shiny UE4 game is a couple of art grads, the industry has become infested with obnoxious, money-grubbing cunts and nu-male hipster faggots who care less about video games and their craft than they do about getting a fat pay cheque and virtue signaling to their cretinous peers.

Every AAA shooter is marketed like a christmas blockbuster, pushing gaming more and more towards the mainstream, ensuring that the focus of every dev team is on instant gratification of the player, and "streamlining" (removing any game play more complicated than a QTE.)

The media keeps telling you that nobody is coming to take your video games away. The truth is they've been subtly taking them away for years.
This is why the modern games industry is so shit.

>not disabling motion blur and gloom

JUST

>They were
So how am I moving goal posts? You're deflecting away from the point I brought up with you, don't be a faggot and reply to it.

Not him (I'm the one you reply later in your post) I'm comparing my 30' 1600p and my 32' 4K monitor.
I should've stated it was more about PPI but didn't know if it was necessary.
I don't have a 4K TV, or a TV to begin with so I don't know how that is compared to a high PPI 4K.
Though I downsample on my 1080p monitor when I game since I don't have enough to buy a second 4K for my other PC as it is now.

That's why you should look into Nvidia Inspector.
guru3d.com/files-details/nvidia-inspector-download.html
LOD is Level of Detail.

That looks like shit, not because graphics suck, but because there aren't enough variation in plantation.

Gosh I remember trying to beat this game only for it to crash near the end every single time. Tried a few times and got fed up with it.

The AI was so atrociously bad and all I wanted was to be able to sneak around and do cool shit like in MGS. Is there any AI mods or anything like that finally? I may give it a go again if there is.

One other thing, was that Jurassic park mod ever finished? Would play it again in a heartbeat if I could fuck around the park with dinosaurs running around.

You are the one moving away from the original argument
nice try user :^)

It gets the job done for the game, but it's not versatile at all. iirc cryengine 2 can't handle more than 3 dynamic light sources at once without shitting itself. Cryengine 3 is a huge upgrade.

The sentiment is regarding the quality of engine design, and not just asset quality.

I recognize that they are inseparable to some degree, and that even if one had some sort of extremely advanced video game engine from the future, you can't do away with textures if you wish to achieve a realistic presentation.

The point with photogrammetry is that it is what makes bf1/battlefront look good, and that's very much in spite of the engine.
They were able to do this because DICE got absolutely pumped with a fuckton of mousebux for their flagship game.
Photogrammetry is time consuming, and requires immense investment as you actually have to go out and scan the object you are looking to reproduce, which is why it's used very sparingly if you don't have the force of a multibillion dollar corporation behind you.

In terms of quality, is it really fair to compare the two on a technical merit?
How much better would crysis look it it had had those tens of millions pumped into sending some shmucks out all over the world for months to scan rocks and plants?

Not everything is an argument you dumb nigger. I don't give a fuck about what you and whoever had on the table, you said some dumb shit and I called you on it now you're crying like a bitch.

Real classy.

>It isn't. You aren't even half way there.
What option wasn't maxed out? Enthusiast is the highest there is for Warhead.