Badassgamer writes "As the title suggests, Crysis has been knocked out from the top spot in terms of graphics superiority, but by who you ask, none other than EA's brand spanking new physics based boxing simulation, Fight Night Round 4."
damn i didnt know that game looked like that. look at the muscles and the gloves.
that does look great how ever Crysis is doing alot more rendering than just basicly 2 guys on screen. Still it looks amazing. JOY
The aliasing and textures look suspiciously perfect. A PC could probably handle it, but I doubt EA will get the console versions looking that sharp.
Those are console screenshots...
but not better than crysis. you can't compare 2 character models to the hundreds of things going on in a shooter.
Ok, I'm seeing something strange in the second Fight Night screenshot. The guy getting punched, look at the left edge of his body. It's like they were trying to trace out the background and darken it, but were sloppy. It's looking more and more like a bullshot.
@ bmatthews Uhhh... I disagree, and I doubt you're in a position to say something like that so matter-of-fact-like. But we'll see when the game's released.
Console graphics ? Nope ! they are touched up, EA is good at editng The graphics are awesome but they wont look like that when u play the game, there will be jaggies
If this guy is going to make such ridiculous statements he should at least proof read his article. The game looks good but its a stupid comparison.. Someone could render a tea pot that looked completely real...would that mean it 'knocked' Crysis out? No, because its still just a tea pot.
Can't believe he's actually comparing character models from a FPS to a Boxing game, where all the console has to render is 2 guys.
Look at this from gametrailers and tell me this game doesn't outrageously pwn! hell, the in-game vids in motion even look better than these still pics. http://www.gametrailers.com... The article columnist was just trying to get his topic looked at with that title cause no moron actually believes it's normal to compare two games in two very distinctly different genres that utilize resources very differently.
Come on people Fight Night is only 2 avatars in a ring punching one another. There's no multiple enemies on screen, no huge explosions, no destructible environments, only 2 player online, limited stages (you're in a small ring not running through a jungle), and so much more. All that in mind of course Fight Night should look better. It's not pumping nearly as much stuff as Crysis or Killzone 2. Now if they made a game that did all the things Killzone and Crysis do and still maintain those same character models and a steady framerate then we'll give that the crown, but until then NO. The thing that bothers me is why aren't all fighting games this detailed?
@ Chubear Come on. I have no doubt the game will look good and might even live up to the screens for the most part... but using the blocky, soft, compressed, desaturated Gametrailers videos as proof that it looks identical in-game is poor evidence to base your opinion on.
Crysis beat by a target render? This is sad.
Crysis, an open-world sandbox shooter. VS A fighting game with two people on screen. There's a huge difference
(console games often push more polygons than PC games) but this is an incredibly stupid comparison. I hope the quality of animation has improved. The character animations in Fight Night Round 3 was horrendous.
crysis already got knocked out by killzone 2
@1.19 (MNicholas) What? Crysis has amazing character models, and it pushes as high as 10 million triangles in its most complex scenes. A console isn't going to outdo a high-end graphics card.
Crysis recommended specs for modding. Weapons 1st person: about 6000 triangles 3rd person: about 1500 triangles Character Models Heads: 3k triangles Body: 5k triangles Attachments: 1k triangles Vehicles Max: 20000 polygons Trees Max: 2500 each (use simpler models in dense forests) Texture resolution Weapons: 1024x1024 Character head: 512 x 512 to 1024 x 1024 Character body: 1024 x 1024 Attachments: 1024 x 1024 They also warn that simpler buildings should be used in city areas. The reality is that Crysis (like most open world games) uses heavy LOD to reduce the actual number of polygons rendered.
8.5 million tris right here. http://img133.imageshack.us...
If only Crysis was a good game...
Fight Night Round 3 Had Amazing Graphics & Its 3 Years Old Remember They Were Talking About Character Models & There Is None Better I Wish Other Sports Games Can Copy Probably Wont Be Getting This Game, I Don't Think There Much Difference From Last Game (Which Was Good)
Crysis IS a good game
In Crysis, your actual rendered polygons only add up to about 1-1.5 Million tris per frame. Here's a quote from Crytek Quality Assurance Manager Sebastian Spatzek about CryEngine 2's much higher polygon limit relative to CryEngine 1. "The polycount limit in CryEngine 2 is a lot, lot higher than in CryEngine 1. However of course there are limits that will melt even current highest end hardware. I have seen scenes with well over 2 million polygons and the fps didn't take a dive so it all depends on how well optimized the rest you see is." http://www.incrysis.com/ind... There's also a video floating around somewhere of another Crytek employee showing scenes from Crysis and explaining that theyre drawing about a million polygons per frame. I'd suggest Beyond3d as an excellent resource for actual developer opinions on this and other graphics related matters.
I never said polygons. I said triangles.
Triangles are polygons. One can have more polygons than triangles but not more triangles than polygons.
oh jesus, thanks MNicholas, I smacked my forehead when I read Bob's " i said triangles not polygons". Just goes to show the terrible ignorance we encounter out there.
That fight night is just 2 avitars or to 2 character models. That is false. It does have to render the audience and the ring and the characters do have a lot of physics calculations going on. Each hit is registered real time, so it can be a solid shot or a graze, this is all done on the fly. Now, does this come up to more than what crysis is doing? No, not even close. This is not a fair comparison at all, but to make it seem like Fight Night is just 2 characters and nothing else not helping the case at all.
until you see it animated. The graphics are good, but the animation of this game is total non-sense.
"Of course, I realise that FNR4 has less to compute on a second by second basis, as Crysis is a huge open world game with great visuals, however FNR4 has to be praised for it's incredible visuals." Well..at least he understands what a ridiculous claim he made... Still, the game does look good tho !
@Canadian Its a claim made only to get hits and it worked wonderfully :D
This game and UFC 2009 are day one's for me.
stupid article. lol but FNR4 looks great
That's the beauty of a fighting game like such, you have to render so little you can focus your resources. Those player models and textures really are superb.
and thats also not the best Cyrsis screenshot either, I mean I'm not taking anything away from those FN Round 4 screenshots but I've seen Crysis running on a nice PC rig and that game looks nothing short of stunning, lets not even get into all environmental effects going in that game....but the first FN was also one of the first next gen games that wowed me on a console and looking at these screens I guess EA is going to pull it off again, too bad I'm not a huge boxing game fan, the only time I really enjoy them is when I play against a human opponent. damm, just look a Roy Jones fade, game looks spectacular, its not EA's fault its a boxing game and therefore doesn't have to worry about all the things that go into a shooter....give 'em credit for at least pushing the charachter models to the next level, they could of just put out the next Fight Night with slightly upgraded graphics like they do with Madden every year. JOY
hm :- "While this is true of the character models, the environmental detail in FNR4 is lacking, everything outside the ring looks rather bland and unimpressive" So basically the boxers look great but everything else looks crap. I guess that wouldn't have been much of an attention grabbing headline.
The outside of the ring has always bothered me in all fighting games. Ones that have done a pretty good job are like Tekken, DOA, basically games that don't have a ring. Boxing and wrestling games are notorious for this.
In other news, apples > oranges.
Absolutely. Somehow this got 0 agrees and 3 disagrees. I guess people here don't know anything about graphics.
They could a done a better job on the faces imo. Plus the images for this game look to sharp and chrisp, obviously touched up,
But what the hell is up with the skin tone? It just does not look right. The images are definitely real because it looked almost as good as this in FNR3. These seem like in-game screens to me. I do think the skin tone was done better in FNR3 though. Another thing that has always bothered me about fighting games is, the fighters in the ring always look different than the people in the crowd. When I play a game like this, I get detached from it pretty fast because of this. It is great to have the fighters look as good as you can, but I think it would be better if they made the crowd look as good as the fighters. So, if they had to scale the fighters polygons down a little bit to make them match, it would not matter to me. Then they could concentrate on the fun of the game, and the fighting mechanics, and that would be the best fighting game.
its about time wwe games start to look a bit like that.
of my favorite wrestling game of all time, WCW VS. NWO for the N64. Of course they could not use WCW or NWO, but they could borrow the game play, update the graphics, entrances, and balls to the wall action. Not this stupid crap we get from THQ. They publish great games but wrestling is not one of them. I have always hated the THQ series.
With crysis's huge and great Editor , to verify that better , someone needs to mod a scene with those two boxers , and see how it renders in both .
Great idea. Bubble for you. Sure we can get someone in the mod scene to take up the challenge.
Yeah for sure. The amount of tech that's built in to the CE2 engine would easily out-do the Fightnight engine. Poly bumps, screen-space ambient occlusion, parallax occlusion mapping, etc. No contest.
Please tell me disagree phantom.
Crysis = a world that look great Fight Night Round 4 = two guys in a ring that looks good get it?
battling HHG for most ridiculous headlines?
Only possible on PS3. Wait a minute...
i have to say a game like dis is definately gonna look better on 360 u can disagree all u want people ITS FACT!!
It's being made for the PS3 and ported to the 360. What about that sentence makes you think it will look better on 360? It doesn't look as good as Crysis. The character models are good, but that's the entirety of the game. A game "like this" will look better on the 360? What does that even mean? "Like this"? Are you suggesting that boxing games look better on the 360...or even games based on physics? That would be a flat-out lie, if that's the case. I've reported you both for spam. I don't think you honestly believe what you are saying. I think you're just trolling because it's funny. Nobody is that ignorant in real life.
Exclusives with sub HD resolution & frame rates problems are only possible on the 360... Here is a fact : you have no worthy exclusives this year beside multiplatforms games & sales.
framerate problems. erm but wasnt it ur version of resident evil 5 that had terrible framerate issues compared to the 360 version. sub high definition resolution. erm but wasnt it ur version of street fighter 4 that had to drop the 720p resolution to sub HD resolution just to keep up with the performance of the 360 version. next time u speak omarja come with something more compelling
Uh OK... Too Human Fable 2 Ninja Gaiden 2 Halo 3 Star Ocean 4 ..... Go check them.
You mean like GTA IV that had a lower resolution on the PS3? Or Bioshock perhaps, with both lower resolution and lower framerate as well? You should be happy if the PS3 version is on par with the 360 version.
@ Soda Popinsky... Again using multiplatforms as excuse, beside according to IGN GTA IV was better on the PS3 : Sure, there are framerate hitches here and there and (particularly on 360)... For those wanting to know which version looks better, the edge goes to the PS3. The textures and framerate are comparable, but the PS3 has far less pop-in. The 360 has richer colors, but the PS3 has better anti-aliasing making it look a little cleaner. Because GTA IV can preload onto the PS3 hard drive, the in-game loads are faster. Don't worry Xbox owners, the load times are rarely more than 30 seconds and don't occur very often. The slight visual edge goes to PS3, but the 360 is no slouch. Either version will do you proud. http://xbox360.ign.com/arti... & the xbots were b!tching about anti-aliasing in multiplatform games LOL!... Stop drinking too much soda.
wait aint it the same ninja gaiden 2 that even a year later is still gonna run at sub HD resolution. oh man ninja gaiden 2 sigma is a blurry mess, with f'ed up colours
http://www.n4g.com/NewsCom-... http://img172.imageshack.us... Try harder next time 3fixme man...
The 360 will shine.
@ omarj Dude. You are making a fool of yourself. It stands to reason that for every ONE multiplat that is deemed to run better on the ps3, I can find TWENTY that run better on the 360. Please, oh please. Don't embarrass yourself any further. I just shake my head at posts like yours.
You have all been reported for spam, except for OmarJA. It's not funny anymore, guys. If you're going to joke around, do it with a bit more tact. RE5 has a better frame-rate on the PS3...despite the fact that it was built on the 360. Multi-plats look better on the system they are built on. Also, Bioshock looks better on the PS3. Prove that it doesn't.
Leon... oh dear oh dear! Here's your proof: http://www.gameplayer.com.a... http://www.ripten.com/2008/... http://au.gamespot.com/page... http://www.eurogamer.net/ar... Honestly, buddy... Why not try reporting your own post as spam? It just isn't funny how you lie to yourself, yet report other people for speaking the truth! That's a heck of a lot of self-delusion you have going on there, Leon.
You're still at it? So, you've got links to a forum post, a link to a demo comparison and then you're other two links. We've been through this before and I've provided many more links than you to professional reviewers that said the PS3 version of Bioshock was better, or at the worst, identical to the 360 version. The shear number of those reviews far outweigh your two articles, demo comparison and forum postings. Just check out a sampling of reviews on Metacritic. You're grasping at straws and for the life of me I can't figure out why. Why on earth are you so hell bent on trying to make Sony look bad? You're obsession can't be healthy. Does it really bother you that much that some gamers prefer to game on a system that isn't your system of choice? Just game on what makes you happy. The gaming community has no place for gamers who spread lies and misinformation in an attempt to simply piss off other gamers.
Darkie... get a grip! I am not trying to make sony look bad. I think Sony's a great company that is fighting very well to dig itself out of nearly $4bn in ps3 debt and clawing back from third place with the heart of a lion. Gotta respect that. Sony went from arrogant and ignorant top-dog straight to humiliated underdog, yet they have shown some character and backbone recently. I was asked for evidence that bioshock looks worse and I provided it. Two official links and two forum links that show in detail what official ps3 sites don't like to talk about. Oh and no. You didn't provide many more links at all. All you provide is your OPINION! Didn't I explain that to you a few times before? Wow. You ARE a bit slow on the uptake, huh? Please make sure you read the forum posts btw! You might learn something that previously you would have disregarded out of sheer ignorance. But yeah. Bioshock ps3. Overall, One year late and didn't quite cut the mustard. Fact. Let it go darkie. Your denial is making you look silly indeed. All Gamers have a right to know the facts, darkie. Even if you, as a hardcore ps3fan in 'gamer' disguise, don't like it. Is it ok to call you dorkrider from now on? (that's a friendly joke, darkie...) :)
You're posting history says otherwise. You have a serious issue with Sony for some reasons and you'll say anything to try to trash them. It's all in your past postings. Let gamers talk. Nobody needs or wants an anti-Microsoft/Anti-Sony/Anti- Nintendo nutter whose sole purpose is to just thumb the other guys in the eye for no reason other than they picked a certain platform to game on. Grow up. Edit: As a matter of fact, I am watching your comments.
woah dude! That was a shotgun reply from you. are you stalking my comments? Go play some games, man, if you are a gamer. Stop bothering me with your lies, opinions and halfbaked truths. Stop bothering me with you defence of sony under the 'true-gamer-guise' Stop bothering the n4g community with your double-standards. Have you tried applying your advice to the the reflection you see in the mirror? Once again: GET A GRIP, darkie!
Also, Sony lost 4 billion on the PS3, Nintendo Wii made 4 billion. Remember that? That's the type of lie you've been posting to try to make your point. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Google can check Nintendo's financials and see how much they make of the Wii. Except you, of course. Also, Konami makes no revenue off the PS3? That was another quality comment from you. Then you backed off saying you were joking when I called you on it. Open Zone is that way. --> This forum is for gamers.
Darkie.... this *IS* the open zone... lol How can i take anything you say seriously when you don't even know where you are posting? ...Can you say 'self-pwnage'? GET A GRIP, darkie. And....Please stay on topic. Bringing up out-of-context quotes from other discussions is just scraping the bottom of the barrel. Instead, why not intelligently address the issues which the FOUR links I provided bring up in favour of my arguments? My guess is, you prefer to disregard them entirely. That certainly works when you don't want to hear the truth, huh? Well, it has worked for you so far, I guess. Try to accept it, darkie. In time, you will, anyway. The sooner you do, though, the less you will look like a diehard Sony defender. Oh, and don't forget to play those games, gamer! For a gamer who purports to own a ps3 and 360 with all the great games on each system, you sure spend a lot of time on N4G NOT playing games. ... yeah, something for you to reflect on. :)