Crysis 1 looks dated? Killzone 3 looks better?

So I finally got my new pc and can max crysis out with no problem. I showed the game to a friend of mine and he said "The game looks dated". Then he put a video of killzone 3 and he said "Dude just look at the water". What do you guys think?

Note: I do not have any mods on the game, I want to finish it vanilla style.

TailBlood

I don't think any of this actually happened.

kz 3 = garbage.

crysis = graphics king.

[QUOTE="GTSaiyanjin2"]

Guess I'll post a pic of Crysis just because I can :P And yeah it does look better than killzone.

*Snip* image removed for fear of being modded.

TailBlood

That also at least partially a matter of taste.

From just glancing at your two images, I think the latter is probably what provides the best campaign craphics.

Look a little similar to what I ended up with after trying various mods. In the case of Crysis, mods meant, for me, texture replacements and a custom autoexec.cfg. I'm not aware of anything else that has any impact on the campaign graphically. I do use the AF/POM mod though.

That image of yours looks great in r_screenshot=1 but it's not necessarily something that you'd want to play the campaign with.

Edit: I forgot to mention ToDs. I use Reli2 but merged the cfg with a "maxed" one and adjusted it.

Editedit: And I'll bet you his view is angled upwards to obscure sight of the ground ;)

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

LOL Crysis is dated. It only looks good in downsampled pics. It was great for 2007 but now its being extremely overrated.Basically the people that praise Crysis have a fetish for grass and foliage and the people that get off seeing high-end hardware choke. Never knew what was the big deal with this game and everybody brings it up as the end-all arguement to superior graphics, when it just doesn't actually look that good while playing it.

Jebus213

I doubt you've ever played it. It looks stunning when you have the settings turned up. With a few tweaks to the configs you can make the game look even better...

That's how it looks for me with some ToD and config tweaks. Runs better too.

Yeah, it looks good in a downsampled pic. All you need to do is put in a couple of commands so screenshots are twice that of your resolution and downsize it in gimp.

.

Done it plenty of times.

Here's a crappy jpg from the built in Steam function.

Quality sucks but at least you can't accuse it of being downsampled.

Crysis is overrated graphically. It looks better then KZ3, but both Crysis 2 and Witcher 2 look better.

To the poster above. I got the pic from google lol. Here's what my game looks like:

Edit: I had to resize because steam tends to overdue the game, and like I posted this screenshot is how the game looks on my pc.

I see your friend is use to that bloom n blur fest that is Killzone

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

LOL Crysis is dated. It only looks good in downsampled pics. It was great for 2007 but now its being extremely overrated.Basically the people that praise Crysis have a fetish for grass and foliage and the people that get off seeing high-end hardware choke. Never knew what was the big deal with this game and everybody brings it up as the end-all arguement to superior graphics, when it just doesn't actually look that good while playing it.

Jebus213

I doubt you've ever played it. It looks stunning when you have the settings turned up. With a few tweaks to the configs you can make the game look even better...

That's how it looks for me with some ToD and config tweaks. Runs better too.

Yeah, it looks good in a downsampled pic. All you need to do is put in a couple of commands so screenshots are twice that of your resolution and downsize it in gimp.

.

Done it plenty of times.

That screenshot was taken on my machine, with fraps. I play Crysis with those configs and 4x AA at 1680x1050. I get around 30-45 FPS which is fine for me.

You can chose not to believe me if you want, but I'm tellin gyou the truth.

I used the maximum immersion mod. Some guy tweaked the RealLifesis mod a bit. I also went in and tweaked some minor settings for dynamic shadows and corps removal as well as some AA things around the trees.

I see your friend is use to that bloom n blur fest that is Killzone

NoodleFighter

It's called depth of field and motion blur. Both of which occur in our eyes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_blur#Biology

It confuses me as to why people don't like it.

I wouldn't put too much weight on your friend's opinion of graphics. My brother is convinced that Half Life 2: Lost Coast looks better than Crysis Warhead and my other friend says that Fifa looks better than any PC game because when you play Fifa is looks like an actual soccer game

And some Crysis pics because I feel like it

It's hard to make proper judgment due to jpeg compression. The only people who actually have a say in these debates are the people who played both games using the same display, although I usually believe that due to the difference in recommended viewing distance compared to a PC monitor and an HDTV usually allows console devs to get away with lower resolution textures.

In my opinion Killzone 3 looks better then vanilla Crysis maxed out and its not even close.

Not sure why - maybe because KZ3 has way better animation, way better particle effects, way better lighting and i think it has even more polygons in environments.

Crysis has way better textures and can run at higher res, but thats just not enough.

BlbecekBobecek

Like this water?

I think your buddy needs to get his eyes checked.

Crysis is overrated graphically. It looks better then KZ3, but both Crysis 2 and Witcher 2 look better.

magnax1

Please, the corridors and staircases of K3 cant compare to the open environement of Crysis. Hell even the Crysis mp looked better than K3 mp, which is clutererd although that is the least of its problems. God damn are K3 mp maps crap.

Both look great to me.

No. No game looks as good as Crysis.

Add some configs/ mods that take about 10 minutes to do in all and it looks like this.

[QUOTE="BlbecekBobecek"]

[QUOTE="TailBlood"]

Your wrong... Which is why games aren't considered art... yet. It's subjective. Honestly about a year ago I went to a museum and was looking at an award winning painting (an apple with a banana). I didn't get it. Looked like crap to me. Am I wrong? No. Are they right? No. We are just different in our tastes, different views of the world and what art means.

TailBlood

The fact that you didnt get it doesnt mean that its subjective. Art has objective quality in it and it has nothing at all to do with whether you like it or not. Mozart or Smetana music is genius whether you (or anybody) like it or not. Its all about going through the artistic perseverance, to be humble enough to accept what the given piece of art is trying to offer you...... uh, I guess my English isnt good enough to really point out what Im trying to say, but I a huge art lover and I feel offended when somebody thinks art is subjective. Its not and people with taste know it.

Not "once again" - that was my first post in this discussion :) But since I think its nice to share our opinions on this matter I will get into it once more (sorry if OT).

Everything has its critics, I personally am not a great fan of Mozart too (Queens of the Stone Age, Dire Straits and P.J. Harvey are my cup of tea - and from classical music I like Bach and Dvorak, but I really didnt hear enough classical music to think my oppinion matters). But the point Im trying to make is that whether something is quality or not has nothing to do with whether I like it or not. One friend of mine is huge fan of industrial music - he has deep knowledge about it and although I dont like any of the music he acclaims, I cant argue with him about the fact that its excellent. I just didnt get into industrial music and I cannot appreciate it. It really has nothing to do with its quality. Like people that dont appreciate wine - they probably cant tell the difference between average wine and excellent wine. That doesnt meen that quality of wine is completely subjective.

As F.X.Salda, famous poetry critic from my country said: "Only whores need to be liked, arts does not."

If you played excellent jazz to your average radio listener, he would be like "What the... I dont like that!" That has nothing to do whether its actually good.

No current console has the power to play a game that would look better than Crysis. This includes KZ3.

Crysis looks better!

KZ3 = linear and scripted FPS or yore, with pretty bad graphics compared to a PC game

Crysis 1 = non-linear non-scripted FPS of tomorrow with epic graphics even 4 years later

Your friend has no knowledge of tech, and poor eyesight. Get a new friend IMO ;)

Just no. Killzone3 looks good for a console game altho the art style makes me want to puke, I hated it. It has nothing on crysis not even close, console gamers need to stick to fighting with eachother and leave the pc out of it for there own good.

KZ3 = linear and scripted FPS or yore, with pretty bad graphics compared to a PC game

Crysis 1 = non-linear non-scripted FPS of tomorrow with epic graphics even 4 years later

Your friend has no knowledge of tech, and poor eyesight. Get a new friend IMO ;)

ehussein1379

KZ3 doesnt have bad graphics compared to "a PC game". In fact there are very few PC games that look better than Killzone 3.

[QUOTE="ehussein1379"]

KZ3 = linear and scripted FPS or yore, with pretty bad graphics compared to a PC game

Crysis 1 = non-linear non-scripted FPS of tomorrow with epic graphics even 4 years later

Your friend has no knowledge of tech, and poor eyesight. Get a new friend IMO ;)

BlbecekBobecek

KZ3 doesnt have bad graphics compared to "a PC game". In fact there are very few PC games that look better than Killzone 3.

KZ3 doesnt have bad graphics compared to "a PC game". In fact there are very few PC games that look better than Killzone 3.

BlbecekBobecek

yeah there are. There are plenty of games on PC that look way better. KZ3 is really ugly when it doesn't have it's blur processes running, and it's really jagged.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

Yeah, it looks good in a downsampled pic.

Jebus213

Right-click -> View Image. You'll see the picture at the resolution I took it in.

Now it looks like trash...

Crysis on my PC.

In my opinion Killzone 3 looks better then vanilla Crysis maxed out and its not even close.

BlbecekBobecek

[QUOTE="ehussein1379"]

KZ3 = linear and scripted FPS or yore, with pretty bad graphics compared to a PC game

Crysis 1 = non-linear non-scripted FPS of tomorrow with epic graphics even 4 years later

Your friend has no knowledge of tech, and poor eyesight. Get a new friend IMO ;)

KZ3 doesnt have bad graphics compared to "a PC game". In fact there are very few PC games that look better than Killzone 3.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

I'll keep it succinct, coz this isn't art history cIass: art is not subjective :P.

But yeah, Gears also has fantastic art direction.

Art is subjective..

Nope. Well, not in the way you think it is. If you would like me to present you with a tertiary level paper on the philosophy of subjectivity/objectivity (and its relation to art and opinion), I will be happy to provide it for you.

There is objective value in art, it is what has caused art to evolve (not simply change, but evolve) over the ages. The subjective reception of art differentiates each individual's relations to a particular work (causing a person to like/dislike things), but it does not affect the objective value of the art itself.

[QUOTE="NoodleFighter"]

I see your friend is use to that bloom n blur fest that is Killzone

BigBoss154

It's called depth of field and motion blur. Both of which occur in our eyes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_blur#Biology

It confuses me as to why people don't like it.

Because we see a blurry picture, I don't know how else to explain it. When I move my eyes, I don't notice anything because i'm not looking at the same thing I was before. When playing a game, it makes no sense to me for a part of the screen I'm looking at to just "be blurry" for no reason. (it wasn't until a few years ago that I actually figured out that those were graphical options, which I disable in every game) I can't speak for everyone, but I would like to view a clear picture when playing at 1080p.

Some people have intresting tastes in graphics. The water in Killzone 3 is much more animated and in-your-face than Crysis so it's far more noticable.

Wasdie

the wave's caused by the explosion are 3D unlike crysis 1/2 which is just a 2d wave. hohomerryFU

Crysis 2 DX11 on PC has 3D water reactions as well.

Well to be honest both look pretty good but I like the color pallet better in Crisis than KZ3. The thing is that any game starts to look dated after a few years, but Cirsis 2 running on a high end PC definately looks better than KZ3. But I like the KZ3 gameplay and multiplayer better.

While Crysis is still the king, its stupidly hard to run for what it is, and it does have some noticeable flaws in areas. So personally I prefer Uncharted 2 to Crysis, but yes Crysis the tech winner.

Killzone 3 doesn't even come close to comparing it Crysis 1. How do explain the fact that you need a beefy PC to run Crysis maxed?

Ahh-HAHA...

...Oh wait you were serious. :|

I like how there are no killzone pics in this thread, and the one video is bad quality off-screen. Clearly people are afraid to post killzone because it'll show how far behind Crysis it is. Killzone is a blurry low res mess that uses excessive blur to try and cover up poor textures and aliasing.