pcghx.com gathered screenshots of games that are scheduled for 2008 and could have better graphics than Crysis.
i hate pcgames mag its awefully written, awefull ratings for games (far overrated) and this whole crysis mania is getting on my nerve :D proof ? tomb raider tiberium borderlands cod world at war ghost busters ? these dont even come close to crysis engine, but yet they still make an obsolete article about the possiblity of 10 upcoming games beating crysis in terms of graphics.
It's already dead. Unless you have a really high end PC. Crysis is only fun when it has good graphics. Try playing it on low or medium or even medium-high; it fu*king sucks and is boring as hell.
Very true. Dumb dumb list. The only game that rivals or beats Crysis is Killzone 2.
It says Turok had better graphics than Crysis??? On what planet? Turoks graphics were mince, Crysis was in a different league!
This article is bullshit. Why? Because STALKER: Clear Sky was not mentioned once.
Even running on medium settings the game looks great. You obviously have not seen it running on a screen in front of you or else you would bot have made such a dumbass statement.
How is Crysis dead? You can play it on a $300 ATI 4870 video card. If you can afford a Xbox 360 then you can play Crysis. Quit living in the past, in the PC word what is highend 3 months ago is mid range today.
JsonHenry, Clear Sky has two pictures in the gallery, and I agree that it looks phenomenal. It will probably be the best looking game in 2008... or at least the most atmospheric.
LOLOL WTF that was the worst article I've ever read. Assassins Creed and Turok look better than Crysis? Really? Ghostbusters is going to be a game thats more powerful than Crysis? Really? Is this article a joke?
Pointless exercise, it will be 2009 before we see anything that stands up against Crysis. Far Cry is certainly the best comparison in there if you ignore Warhead as it's essentially the same engine.
2009 will have at least Killzone 2 and hopefully God of War 3 to rival it, but this year there's not much other than Far Cry 2.
Most of those other games don't even come close based on the screen shots. Warhead looks amazing and is supposedly playable on more "average" machines. I'll definitely be getting that one. Far Cry 2 looks good as well. It will really be interesting to see how Killzone 2 measures up to Crysis.
Nothing can be compared to Crysis Graphics IMO. And nothing SHOULD be compared. Reason being that crysis can theoretically be ran at true 1920x1080 resolution (or even greater). Console games should be compared to console games only.
Crysis is one of those games that will define the standard for graphics for years. In every generation there is one such game, but it's good to see a top tier graphic engine that isn't dominate by Id or Epic.
Maybe the Rage engine...
definatly the tech5 (rage) engine :D
what about the RET 1080 engine????
Ghostbusters better than Crysis? WTF? LOL!
Yeah, I was expecting to be Rick rolled at any second...
"It's halftime in 2008. Assassin's Creed and Turok are the only games, from a list of (possibly) high-end graphics titles that could beat Crysis..." Turok??? This is a joke, right?! 0_o EDIT: Hahaha...some moron actually disagreed with me. :D
You PC elitist can die in a fire. I wouldn't care.
They will probably beat crysis on medium setting on direct x9 but they will never beat crysis on high or very high on direct x10 or x9. Crysis is a graphics and cpu monster, the is RARELY any pc that can run crysis at its full very high potential(direct x10 very high and 16xAA).....and if it can, i guarentee it is less than 30fps with lots of lag. Only movie studios and game companies have the kind of graphics and cpu power to run crysis at its very high potential with no lag and i bet their pc cost at least $7,000 or more.
there are games already out that beat crysis, you pc fans are just defending your last exclusive that looks alright
Care to enlighten us? It must be some unknown game your referring to because nothing comes close to Crysis visually. Either you have a £200 PC or you just dont know what your talking about.
no need to flaim in any direction mate, you can think about crysis what ever you want. i myself dont like it that much is was a good game. but technically crysis is still unbeatable and killzone is the only game that "could" manage to beat crysis visually in the next 6 months. in terms of "looking better" you can say that i think killzone definatly looks alot better then crysis (personal taste) but only visually (design, style) not technically (effect depth, draw distances, shaders, etc.). funny now im a pcfan in denial last week i was an xbot and taht week before i got insulted as a sony fan
I love my PS3 and I'm looking forward to KZ2 but statements like this just show how completely how clueless most console gamers are. Its an embarrassment to the community because the guy clearly have zero idea WTF he's talking about.
Turok??????????? as a Crysis killer??????????????????
that just didn't make any sense.
I hate those graphics news/articles. Where are those times when we read about "most innovative" games, gameplay and story... It's second post today concerning visuals. Are visuals really that important right now? BTW I found Crysis really boring but I can't deny it's visually impressive. *goes playing Dungeon Keeper*
i second that, visually incredible, gameplay mediocre.
the gameplay wasn't stellar but it wasn't mediocre in my opinion. It's definitely better than Turok's!
I actually LOVED Crysis's gameplay. Now all other FPS look too linear to me. I think people exaggerate because it has good graphics and they can't admit that a game can have both good graphics and good gameplay.
If visuals weren't important, there would be no reason to upgrade to a new generation of consoles. :P You can talk about great story and gameplay all you want, but people do want good graphics from new hardware.
Turok ? wth are they smoking ?
why should i, of course all you pc fans will just jump on the bandwagon and defend crysis to the max, the reality is that crysis is an overhype which crytek hyped up for graphics, and opened the door for pc fans to jump on the bandwagon to hype also, its your last exclusive so you defend it to the max, just like now, every comment on this post other than mine defends crysis as looking the best, and thats definitive in being as crysis is being defended by pc fans like so, but if you think crysis looks that great, then please feel free, but several games out and coming beat it alot
you know what sickens me ? your talk about certain sides. your using words like "your" or "pcfans" wtf. im a gamer i have many many platforms and yet you think you can come in here and point fingers blaiming others for beeing a fanboy? maybe you enlighten us what platform your defending here, me for myself is talking about crysis and the pcghx obsolete articles lately.
Maybe we're not all here to defend Crysis. Maybe you're the only one here dumb enough to think Crysis has already been beaten in terms of graphics. Maybe... just maybe.
what the hell is this ? ghostbusters ? crisis killer ? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA omg lol
what are you talking about, crysis is nothing compared to the CG like graphics of GHOST BUSTERS. ----JK but seriously the only games that i have seen compete with crysis's graphics are Killzone 2 and MGS4. (Infact in some areas Killzone's graphics seem better.)
Remember Crysis has huge island maps with destructible environments, and I doubt Killzone 2 will managae that, and I hope the developers show off something new, other than that dark grey map.
killzone 2 is yet being mistaken as cgi, i havent ever seen an article yet on the internet where people are disputing whether the graphics are realtime or not, ps3 is the only place where games are still in dispute to which the graphics are realtime or not why when people actually prove that there are games that have better graphics than crysis do pc fans go to saying crysis has better textures and big huge streaming levels and destructible landscapes and whatever else that truly doesnt have anything to do with what eyes see? your proving to me when people all come to the page and 10 outta 12 post defend crysis that crysis isnt the best looking game, when a game is being recognized all over and has haters like some certain games, thats when you get your real visual winner
hueco you just proofed that your talking nonesense ignore.
crysis has huge, not island maps. and it does have destructible environments. i think you need to watch more killzone 2 videos.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Are you trying to say that...nevermind.
never in a million years will killzone 2 look better than crysis, you can't even see anything in that dark gray map they use all the time... thats not graphics..
Seriously, people need to get a grip and stop slating the colors in Killzone 2, it is a freakin alien planet in the middle of a war and with freaky weather of course it's not gonna look like f**kin Mario Kart!!!!
thats proving that crysis isnt the best looking of anything just from that
What does that even mean?
if English isn't your native language you really need to be careful what you say on an English speaking forum. "Disagrees" aren't generally a good thing when you are trying to make a point.
Whoever says Crysis is mediocre is retarded...that game had incredible gameplay and gave you many options on how to play it because of the nanosuit. It's not just some incredible looking run and gun shooter. Imagine cloaking, running up to someone, choking them, turning on super strength, and throwing him into another guy...or even throwing them into a tree and the tree collapsing. Using super speed to run behind another guy and shooting him in the head with a silenced pistol...incredible physics, and for an FPS the story was actually really good...it's just the ending leaves you hanging, that's the only negative. As far as graphics go, no game on consoles or PC has touched it yet, even the AI was good. Also if anyone has seen the new Master Config mod in action, the game looks even better...so many haters... http://i36.tinypic.com/vigs... http://www.metacritic.com/g... Picture is from my Gateway P6860-FX...
Nothing can own CryEngie2 yet. Nothing.
id Tech 5. Ciau CryEngine 2.
You misspelled "Ciao". But the message was clear.
idTech5 doesn't have any large improvements in graphics in the engine itself. Emphasis on graphics were made from idTech3 to 4. The only reason Rage looks so much better than previous idTech4 games (Doom 3) is because hardware has become so much faster since then. If ID was to rebuild Doom 3 today, it wouldn't look too far from Rage in terms of detail, even if it was still on idTech4. idTech5 still has nothing on Cryengine2 in terms of graphics technology.
"You misspelled "Ciao". But the message was clear." Ups, thanks! "idTech5 doesn't have any large improvements in graphics in the engine itself. Emphasis on graphics were made from idTech3 to 4. The only reason Rage looks so much better than previous idTech4 games (Doom 3) is because hardware has become so much faster since then. If ID was to rebuild Doom 3 today, it wouldn't look too far from Rage in terms of detail, even if it was still on idTech4. idTech5 still has nothing on Cryengine2 in terms of graphics technology." Wrong. It has a texture system (Megatexture) that will put (we hope) anything to shame by comparison and is not limited by the amount of mem on the GPU. Its quite a breakthrough, to say the least. You are probably talking about the level of geometry, in that sense, yes, I don't think it brings anything new comparing to Crysis. But then again, I'll take texture quality over geometric detail any day.
I hope that's not the only example you have. Megatexture is just there to avoid any need to use in-game loading or precached textures. The only way it effects the game visually is that we wont be witnessing any missing textures like we see in the beginning of games in GTA IV or Gears of War. The megatexture system doesn't offer any improvements in texture image quality.
???? Are you serious??? I guess you really haven't been doing much homework regarding the megatexture. The level that id showed last time was only a race track and it had around 20GB worth of textures. What do you think those 20GB were? Carmak said that the detail on the face of one of the characters was so high that it was a waste since you would never be abble to come close enough to the character's face to actually see all the texture detail. You are also wrong about the no in-game loading. In fact the megatexture is beying continuously loaded into video mem. It loads what is necessary for each frame from the texture pool that consists in one unique megatexture instead of a buch of separated textures. Thats why you can have extremely detailed textures with very limited amounts of mem. Theoretically, all you need to texturize a frame is a GPU with 64MB, no mater what you throw at it, although more memory obviously avoids bootlenecks like loading speeds. Really, you should do some homework. But we'll see when the game releases.
"The level that id showed last time was only a race track and it had around 20GB worth of textures. What do you think those 20GB were?" 20 gigs of textures that are just as possible without the Megatexture. Probably uncompressed too.
As a matter of fact, while "Ciao" is the correct spelling, that is italian for Hello :P "Ciao" is often misunderstood for "Chau" (spanish eord for goodbye) as it sounds very similar to "Ciao" when pronnounced in Italian, therefore the common mistake. So the correct thing would be: "Chau CryEngine2" in Spanish or.. "Arrivederci CryEngine2" in Italian Just a tiny bit of culture. XD As for the games... Those look like no Crysis killers to me... still waiting for a game that outdoes Crysis graphicwise.
"20 gigs of textures that are just as possible without the Megatexture. Probably uncompressed too." Sure it is... when you get 2-4GB GPUs that is. I would like to see you make use of 20GB worth of textures in a single "level" with todays GPUs. Guess the run to increase video memory exists for a reason. But then again, we aren't really going to get anywhere with this discussion. We'll wait for the game and then we'll see. Anyway, good gaming!
probably the only thing that comes even close. http://www.mechlivinglegend...
has paper graphics
Turok? Assassin's Creed (which does look good, though)? Far Cry 2? GHOSTBUSTERS?! What is wrong with the people that wrote this article?! This doesn't make any sense. A lot of people in these comments tend to lean one way or the other, but don't try to grasp everything. Crysis has ridiculous graphics. It looks amazing, crisp, destructible, and delicious. You were able to interact with your environment in numerous ways, and could approach combat from just about any angle. But, as awesome as Killzone 2 looks, it probably won't reach that level of interactivity. Killzone does look incredible though. It has this certain "realism" with its creative use of motion blur and depth of field. Honestly, while Crysis has some of the best detail and interactivity, Killzone looks more realistic, and is more accessible since anyone with a PS3 is capable of running it. But there are SO many games with outstanding graphics coming, and I have no idea why this article isn't mentioning them. If they're just sticking to PC releases though, I can see where their options are limited. But I'm sure Gears 2 will find it's way there. OH! But I forgot about id's Tech 5 engine. Which could revolutionize gaming. Hell yeah.
the only game that can even sort of compete is farcry 2. and that will only be on pc. console versions won't touch it. consoles, this generation, can not match those graphics. it's just not happening. and i cannot believe he mentioned turok...that game looked like pewp.
I don't think that we will even see anything on this generation of consoles that can match Crysis at its extremely highest settings (multiple AA, huge resolution, etc) Some PS3 games will probably come close...I'd assume GT5 or something along those lines would look pretty realistic.
...However unlikely. Crysis pretty much raised the bar for PC games to come for a looong time; and with Crysis, it's graphics capability is determined by the power of your PC; which, the last I've checked, haven't been maxed-out as of yet. I think other games/engines may be more impressive in terms of gameplay or the way they display graphics, but I don't think they can actually be better in terms of resolution.
this is a game that will raise the bar.it will look even better than KILLZONE 2.PS3 is gonna be amazing in the next couple of years.no console or pc game can beat it,period.PLAY B3YOND!!!!!
SUPER MARIO GALAXY HAS THE BEST GRAPHICS AND GAMEPLAY!!!
its not even an article....sigh i cant run crysis on my machine unless its on medium but i can run turok alright. looking forward to far cry 2 tho.