Best of CryEngine 2: 400 impressive Screenshots

Best of CryEngine 2-Gallery includes photo-realistic Screens.

The story is too old to be commented.
Halo_FaN3248d ago (Edited 3248d ago )

For Graphics like those on Consoles...Nothign has matched this yet...


zoneofenders3248d ago

well i played them on my pc in highest graphic setting and was very impressed.
however i have never saw those so called "photo-realistic" bull shots in game, not even once.

slinkey1233248d ago

^^ to above, you need to get mods to make it look like alot of these screens. Get Natural Mod, you wont lose any FPS but it looks amazing.

Ninjamonkey3248d ago


The town scens arnt near photorealistic but then crysis seems to focus more on plants and stuff... which is odd as its probably harder to make them realistic.

swinesucker3248d ago

Yeah, people who think this engine is the be all are kidding themselves. Give naughty dog 4gb of Ram and and everything else and I guarantee you they will outdo this stuff, especially in the animation department.

Anyway, Cry have already said their console engine is for medium settings so the first poster you will be waiting a while since their engine will never be PC Top quality. NG's engine is already outdoing Crytek's console engine so IDK what you want or if you are just trolling but foliage it does well, other things not quite as well, especially buildings and such. I would say that as far as AA is concerned we will never see more than 2x MSAA on the consoles with heavy hitting games, at least not for a while.

Bigbangbing3248d ago (Edited 3248d ago )


I'm sure U2 will looks better than crysis 2 consoles ver, but did you play crysis? do you actually know that you're comparing a very linear game with a much more open game and much much much more detail? with crysis of cours it will be like a medium setting for PC but if Crytek wanted to make a linear game for consoles I'm pretty sure it will blow anything on consoles so far

swinesucker3247d ago

When crytek starts doing animation and voice acting like NG I will bow down. You could argue right back that all they HAD to concentrate on was graphics. NG had to concentrate on building an engine from scratch for a console that has many limitations.

Halo_FaN3248d ago

They will never touch this quality but if they make a game for Pc i have no doubt they will raise the bar!

swinesucker3248d ago (Edited 3248d ago )

NG's water is close to this and if they had better AA the foliage would also be close if you are comparing 720p versions. Of course the resolution will never change but....

Ng definitely has the edge with animation even on the PS3 and the characters are also way more expressive. Cry 2 does not do humans very well imo and hair is very mediocre considering all the RAM and CPU power. But as far as grass and swamps yes it is tops.

Kurylo3d3248d ago

your wrong... the foliage from naughty dog isnt anything near this... For one light shines through the plants in cry engine 2 just like real life... u can see from the other side of the plant shadows and stuff... makes for some great realistic effects... not to mention the ambient occlusion... Not really sure why i respond to posts like these. Your probably just some kid in high school trying to represent that your a fan of naughty dog. Which is cool and all, but I just like backn technology cause i know what really went into doing the cryengine stuff

Marquis_de_Sade3248d ago

Factor in the incredible range and scope to Crysis and it's clear who the winner is. No other game looks so good and at the same time allows you to fire a rocket miles and have it actually impact.

Pandamobile3248d ago

Swinesucker has obviously never played Crysis to make comments like this...

TheIneffableBob3248d ago

Can somebody tell me why Naughty Dog = NG and not ND?

swinesucker3247d ago (Edited 3247d ago )

No, not in high school guys, srry about ND yeah we'll say ND I am typing fast.

Anyway, I understand that Crysis looks better but as far as animation no it's not that advanced. For what ND is using, limited RAM and the modded 7800 yes they are on par at 720p. Remember, during the PS2 days they used an MIT engine and had to rebuild theirs completely from scratch in a limited amount of time. Don't even start with the animation in Crysis because with the power they have it should be dwarfing ND's stuff and it clearly is not.

Of course foliage looks better and so does the water but we are comparing something that a computer with 4GB of Ram runs fine to something that has 512MB. That is not exactly fair.

Crysis on medium settings for all intents does not really blow me away at all. Of, course you guys are comparing 1080p crysis on high and I am not because that is not fair. Naughty Dog have showed they know a lot more about gaming than Crytek does because their games are simply more fun. Yes, I did play Crysis but I didn't really get into it and never will.

I understand that some of you will always be PC oriented and that is fine. But if you are going to compare things you need resolutions that are the same in the least. Crysis at 720p with medium effects does not equal Uncharted 2 by any stretch of the imagination. Heck, the buildings in Crysis really don't look any better than those in uncharted! at any resolution. I will admit Uncharted is linear but come on WTF do you really expect when you are using 512MB or less.

Apples and oranges.

swinesucker3247d ago (Edited 3247d ago )

Depending on the plant, light does not always shine through it. I don't really know what you are getting at but Crytek's engine does foliage very well I admit this. But to say it is even near photorealistic is to do a disservice to nature.

The jetski level in uncharted was showing some impressive water for a first gen engine on the PS3. If the game had better AA it would go a long way to improving the total wow factor. No one is debating what engine does foliage better IDK why you guys are arguing. When I said close I was saying all things being equal.

We are debating what engine does what better. As far I'm concerned Crytek does not do hair very well at all nor does it do things like buildings as well as it does stuff like foliage. The tibet areas of Uncharted 2 are looking waaay more artistically palatable than the somewhat bland crytek areas where buildings and trash were thrown about.

I'll be the first to admit that it does nature better than anybody else.

Again, if ND had the assets and tech they would outdo crytek. That is my opinion.

What is not opinion is the fact that Crytek has zero storytelling chops and their humans are redundant with zero personality.

Edit @below text. I was going to post the urban pic of Uncharted but never did. I like the crytek brazil shot but that is what it is. A render based on the film not a game. Until Cry does a lot better as far as Urban settings go IDK. But their foliage is tops Like I said all along.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3247d ago
pppppeach3248d ago

I always giggle when I hear ps3 fanboys talk about graphics in games.

The ps3 is based on 7800GTX from nvidia yes that is a DX9 card lmao.

Pandamobile3247d ago

Too bad it's not even running DX9.


swinesucker3247d ago (Edited 3247d ago )

Name me 10 games that use DX10 and look vastly different than their DX9 counterparts.


how about this shot from the engine. WTF is so special about these shots?,6...,6...

Compared to these shots of Uncharted 2 I would at least give ND the benefit of the doubt so many of you have. They are clearly more artistically talented when it comes to urban settings and so is Killzone 2.
And yes I am aware there are many many better shots of crytek's engine and such that look beautiful. I'm just saying.

So we'll leave one very pretty crytek for you haters:,6...,6...