Far Cry 3 vs Crysis graphics comparison

Someone made this at FC3 official forum:

http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/7123/fc3crysis1graphicscompa.png

FC3 looks nice actually...but my goodness will anything ever top Crysis? Maybe BF3?

That Crysis pic looks amazing

Far Cry 2 was really impressive graphocally, so I think ubi montreal might come close to crysis, maybe even surpass it.

I should had known there was going to be a modded Crysis pic.>_>

Crysis is still king.

Only Battlefield 3 might surpass crysis

Only Battlefield 3 might surpass crysis

Obiwan317

[QUOTE="Obiwan317"]

Only Battlefield 3 might surpass crysis

sethman410

[QUOTE="Obiwan317"]

Only Battlefield 3 might surpass crysis

sethman410

Only Battlefield 3 might surpass crysis

[QUOTE="sethman410"][QUOTE="Obiwan317"]

Only Battlefield 3 might surpass crysis

mitu123

Far Cry 3 dosn't even look that good to be honest.

whats the point of showing a modded pic as if thats the way it looks out the box.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="sethman410"] and i doubt it. very unlikely imo. crysis was too far ahead in terms of graphics when it came out.sethman410

Not a very good comparison to be quite frank.

While people can pull out their magnifying glass and pick out little details they can declare superior in a more modern game, overall, Crysis was designed with technologies far surpassing anything available at the time. The problem with cross platform games, is even if they scale upward for PC; they still have to be designed with consoles in mind. Crysis didn't have that restriction. It's only limitation is what was available, and what they could forecast, back in 2006/7.

There is a difference between scaling up console effects for PC, and designing for PC. It's the difference between adding more/higher resolution sprites to smoke in a game, and using physics reactive volumetric particles. One works on consoles and can scale for PC, the other completely disregarded console level performance.

whats the point of showing a modded pic as if thats the way it looks out the box.

Golden_Boy187

People use graphical comparisons in SW to argue the capabilities of their system. How Crysis looks on vanilla is simply how Crysis looks, not what a gaming PC is capable of.

lol such a stupid and biased comparison

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="sethman410"] and i doubt it. very unlikely imo. crysis was too far ahead in terms of graphics when it came out.sethman410

[QUOTE="sethman410"][QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] Why is it very unlucky? Yeah Crysis was advanced when it came out, but BF3 matches or surpasses it on basically everythingferret-gamer

Actual video footage was really bad. Crysis destroys it.

whats the point of showing a modded pic as if thats the way it looks out the box.

Golden_Boy187

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="sethman410"] not to my eyes in those bf3 videos shown so far. seems to surpass it only in smoke and animations.SamiRDuran

It's not scripted in BF3, you can blow out chunks that are physics based.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="sethman410"] not to my eyes in those bf3 videos shown so far. seems to surpass it only in smoke and animations.SamiRDuran

We are comparing Crysis to BF3 not BC2. And if you watch the frostbite 2 engine trailer and the thunder run trailer you will see that BF3 character models are well within the realm of Crysis character models, especially since BF3 uses sub surface scattering as well, which is what makes the characters in crysis look so good.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="sethman410"] not to my eyes in those bf3 videos shown so far. seems to surpass it only in smoke and animations.SamiRDuran

[QUOTE="Golden_Boy187"]

whats the point of showing a modded pic as if thats the way it looks out the box.

CwlHeddwyn

Point being, why compare pictures of one game modded with another game unmodded?

[QUOTE="SamiRDuran"][QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] Far, far better lighting system, better destruction and physics, MLAA, DX11 SSAO and other DX11 effects, character models look on par or better. Both have huge scale, both have sub surface scattering, POM, both have great post processing. Crysis might win on vegitation and water.mitu123

Red Faction Guerrilla stomps all over crysis's destructibility anyways, don't know why people always tout it.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="SamiRDuran"] Bf3 destruction is scripited but the destruction in crysis is physics based so Crysis wins on that regard. I doubt character models will even come close to crysis, they are out of this world especially the faces.topgunmv

Red Faction Guerrilla stomps all over crysis's destructibility anyways, don't know why people always tout it.

I should had known there was going to be a modded Crysis pic.>_>

mitu123

Aren't they always. When I finally got to crack open crysis to play it I maxed it out and sure it looked good but vanilla Crysis really has some issues. Only when you mod it does it actually shine (quite literally :P)

[QUOTE="SamiRDuran"][QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] Far, far better lighting system, better destruction and physics, MLAA, DX11 SSAO and other DX11 effects, character models look on par or better. Both have huge scale, both have sub surface scattering, POM, both have great post processing. Crysis might win on vegitation and water.mitu123

I ran into a building once and it fell on top of me. But the concrete buildings don't crumle at all so BF3 wins hands down. That micro destrucion is awesome. Blowing holes in walls to make little peeking holes sounds like fun

fc3 will still have 2d effects on xbox most likely.

It's difficult to match Crytek's artistic prowess when it comes to recreating natural looking vegetation. FC2 just didn't look right at all in comparison, especially with all the instanced and cloned assets all over the place.

Crysis also had one other VERY powerful technique up it's sleeve: parallax occlusion mapping. It really made the ground surfaces look amazingly realistic and "correct" as opposed to really flat looking like in just about every other game. I also very much appreciate the use of material lighting penetration like on leaves and other pieces of foliage so you get the realistic affect of them being not just completely opaque but partially transparent, like in real life. Crytek also did a wonderful job animating the natural world of their game, with bushes, grass, leaves and branches fluttering in the wind extremely realistically. It looks absolutely incredible in motion.

If these people really want me to judge from the two pictures. I spy better shadows, better lighting and more anti-aliasing in the second screenshot.

That said, it's best to wait till the game comes out if comparisons are going to happen.

Woah! Two whole TINY pictures, and a really good one for fc3 compared to a completely different and not so good Crysis one! And made on the FC3 official forum? That bias is just as easy to smell as bacon in the morning.

Am I the only one to notice the drawn background during the FC3 demo? Yeah, it doesn't really look that impressive.

Am I the only one to notice the drawn background during the FC3 demo? Yeah, it doesn't really look that impressive.

DraugenCP

[QUOTE="Obiwan317"]

Only Battlefield 3 might surpass crysis

sethman410

FC3 looks nice actually...but my goodness will anything ever top Crysis? Maybe BF3?

That Crysis pic looks amazing

chikenfriedrice

Thats a modded pic. There are other modded games that look amazing as well. I think Crysis is obviously amazing and the winner for now, but for me, it is just too darn hard to run for it to be regarded so highly like it is, and on top of it, there are some noticeable flaws. SO while it is technically graphics king, it is not my favorite game for visuals.

Obviously not a fair comparison, but Far Cry 3 does look beautiful, and I prefer the art s.tyle to Crysis

Vs.

Far Cry 3 looks good but not all the textures are very detailed, particularly the weapons and vehicles.

Both games however get owned by Killzone 3.

Far Cry 3 looks good but not all the textures are very detailed, particularly the weapons and vehicles.

Both games however get owned by Killzone 3.

ShadowMoses900

You are such a broken record.