Did sony first party studios even had any games that better graphically than crytek games that was released same year?

For example, it was something like this

2013 - The last of us | Ryse Crysis 3

2011 - Uncharted 3 Killzone 3 Re3 | Crysis 2

2009 - Uncharted 2 Resistance 2 | Crysis warhead

2007 - Uncharted drake's fortune | Crysis

According to Digital foundry experts Crytek games has the more advanced Tech/Graphics especially on pc with more open levels/environment than ND/guerrilla games in that time.

Richard Leadbetter، "Crysis 2 on console is an exceptional release. phenomenally attractive game, producing effects quite different and in many ways more advanced than anything we've seen elsewhere on console. We all wanted Crysis on console to be an event, a showcase release: by and large, Crytek has delivered, and those cutting edge visuals are backed by a truly impressive game design".

John dark1x 2021" before we go into all of the details again i just have to stress how good crysis 3 still looks today i mean this was released before the last generation of consoles i think it still holds up, looks like a Ps4 and xbox one generation title in a way that kind of shocking".

"When it comes to advancing the state of real-time rendering technology, Crytek has long stood at the forefront of the industry.

"The fact that Crysis 3 runs on console at all is a remarkable achievement, with Crytek deploying a wide range of advanced rendering techniques"

"Crysis 3 is one of the most technically accomplished games of this generation, a visually spectacular piece of software that pushes graphical boundaries on all platforms. And with all its graphical settings pushed to the max."

"Crysis 3 on PC effectively offers a "next-gen now" experience - a preview of the level of technical prowess we should expect in the years to come from the new wave of consoles".

Alex - 2018 "Crysis first released on PC. In 2007, it pushed real time rendering to new heights and spawned the memetic phrase, "but can it run Crysis?". Never had a game released that pushed hardware and engine technology so much, and never has one since."

can't wait for Crysis 4!

Sony deserves an award for putting out amazing graphics on turd hardware. Well, they still can't touch the power of the Xbox though.

Crytek was impressive back then. Now we have way better engines, and i don't think they can compete with infinite resources that EPIC has for their UE5.

Does it even matter? All the games you mention were great looking games at the time of release. What does matter is that they were only 30fps... that is the real crime.

I mean the PC version of their games were clearly better but, I wouldn't say their console versions were. Ryse may be the only exception but, that has more to do with the fact that it was a next gen game vs TLOU being a PS3.

Playing Ryse: Son of Rome on Xbox One was a true crime. But when it finally came to PC, it really blows the One version out of the park, I really enjoy the game way more so. Now that I think about it, I need to replay that game at some point.

Sadly, Crytek were really fools for making Ryse an Xbox One exclusive at the time when the One was facing backlash on launch. Ryse deserves a sequel IMO.

Sony has impressive studios when it comes to how they use them and I don't think it really matters how they look but how their games plays and are they fun is all that matters...is how I see it.

Crytek was monoply in graphical powerhouse. nowadays no longer.

nowadays theres 4A engine and Metro games who always become graphic king. plenty of games use UE5 which are graphic king. STALKER 2 coming another graphic king.

Crysis 4 is dead on arrival.

Lessons need to be learned: stop releasing 30fps games.

Give us lower resolutions, lower graphics, or delayed games. But for the love of God stop thinking 30fps is acceptable on consoles.

It's not.

Now that i think of it, if Ryse was more like GoW2018, and was well written, it could've had some sweat potential.

Stalker 2 ,Crysis 4, Squadron 42 ,Hellblade 2

those games will look absolutely stunning on PC!.

Definitely. However, if they did target 60fps with those games, it would require twice the processing power. So, those games would not have been as impressive looking at the time. This is the reality of weak ass console hardware and this is why we need all games on PC... so we can scale the games for better quality without compromises. I do not want to be forced to play a game at 30fps just because the developer chose to target graphics instead of performance. At least now there are more choices on the newer consoles, but they are still relatively weak by PC standards and there are plenty of compromises. Just bring it all to PC.... and day one.

I am not so sure on the exclusivity being the downfall of the game. If I recall correctly, it received a lot flack when the gameplay was demoed and the combat was very QTE-ish. They later tweaked the combat to appear less QTE-ish with color tinting instead of pure button prompts.

On topic. I lean on the side of Sony games having more visual complexity and strong environmental storytelling allowing it to have a greater impression on gamers than just displaying newer tech.

So what you're saying is pc has better looking games than console?

@Pedro: I only play Ryse on Xbox One once. I don't know what kinds of updates it got over the years...unless it got a framerate boost on Xbox One X? I really like Crytek back in the old days, they just have bad experience with console hardware. Regarding Sony games, I do agree they have impressive their vision on visuals are well done. I remember being impressed with Killzone: Shadowfall despite it was a tech demo what to expect what the future of PS4 games can do. Good game but really forgettable. (Never got around touching the MP)

Went head to head against KZ:SF on a 50% weaker hardware and still managed to wipe the floor with it and so did Crysis 2 and 3 on 360 against TLOU/UC3 etc.

@fantasygamer:

Blaz is right. It's a miracle that ND games came out as pretty as they were on ps3. Even with the tech being more advanced in Crytek, Uncharted and Last of Us WERE better looking games. Mainly thanks to their talented artists and the fact that they were specifically optimized for the ps3. The only good versions of Crysis were on pc. The console ports were decent at best.

I disagree.

I thought awards matter to you cows, what changed? Didn't Ryse won some prestigious graphics award? Oh and also remember DF calling Ryse the best or better of all the next-gen games of that year.

But of course it's your right to disagree so go ahead. Just know that no Sony game managed to do on PS3 what Crysis 2 and 3 did on consoles and not a single Sony game managed to do during the entire generation on PS4 what Crysis 3 did on PC.

EDIT: Overlook that the TC already mentioned SIGGRAPH in the OP.

Metro 2033 looks better than Crysis 2 let alone TLOU and UC3.

No, it doesn't.

Remember Gametrailers specifically saying Uncharted and Call Of Duty looked better. Even denied Crysis best graphics award with Call Of Duty winning (along with every other catagory they could fill)

Ghostlad will remember better, my memory is completely fucked.

That site was basically ran by console fanbioz mixed with extreme corporate shilliery. Dorito Popes former home.

lol yeah, the console fanboyism among journos was at an all time high back then.

Remember GS snubbing Warhead for MGS4 in technical graphics.

Yes they did

Seems like OP is salty with all the bad exclusive games that had released for the almighty xbsex

Did weaker console hardware running games made for weaker hardware produce better graphics than high end PCs running games made for high end PCs?

No dude.

Amazing how you left off one of the most amazing graphically impressive games Sony studios released in the same time line in 2009.

Killzone 2, which I think still looks a lot better than a most of these boring and generic looking FPS games released today

It actually looks better than Halo Infinite now. If Sony did an 4k update for PS5 the comparisons would be hilarious

Crytek's games are simply tech demos showing off what their engine can do on PC and on console with Ryse and Crysis 2. The graphics were amazing but the actual game wasn't all there.

Do they have to?

I also think the difference is art style. Uncharted and The Last of Us were not going for all out realism like Crysis games.

The Last of Us has a kind of art style that while has some realism, it also serves the story, feel and the environment.

An all out realistic tone would have distracted from the story to an even more grim and depressing place. There has to be a balance.

Ryse was awful. But I really enjoyed Crysis 2 and 3. Played through Crysis 2 many times. I really like the story with the nano suit and assimilating the alien tissue and the Tunguska Iteration.

I had fun with the gameplay.

I feel like the "tech demo" thing is an unfounded stereotype.

Does Ryse actually play better on the PC too? Not in terms of higher frames, but the gameplay in general?

@fantasygamer: Ryse at times was painful to play (the QTEs ruined it). But, it sure was pretty to look at.

Sony first party is a low bar to set.

I don't see how uncharted 3 or killzone 3 even last of us is better looking than this keep in mind that this is all in game and you can move the cam on the characters in real time, i mean if you can find in the games i mentioned something in-game that looks better i would love to see and Crysis has way more open levels

@fantasygamer:

After playing the last 2 Crysis games on 360 and Switch, I noticed that facial animations are a lot more stiff compared to Uncharted and Last of Us. Those are impressive but they're stiff compared what you see in ND and even God of War 3 and Ascension. Very few 360 games even looked around that level of UC and LoU but they definitely weren't Crysis, they were Halo 4 and Gears of War 3. Crysis only looked phenomenal on pc hardware and that's pretty much where it stays. Those pictures don't really say much.

Also, if I remember right, those guys were in Crysis 3, especially from those pics. I don't know why you're using Crysis 3 as an example since it was later in the gen. Psycho didn't lose his suit until after part 1 and I think that was the guy who designed the Nanosuits on the bottom.

Crytek PS360 era was impressive but tech have surpassed the engine that powered crysis.

Facial animations, may be. Don't actually remember much but UC and GoW were prerendered cutscenes not realtime like Crysis. So none of that matters. Besides the skin shading, lighting are all better on Crysis even on 360/PS3.

Nobody cares how they look, in technical graphics both C2 and C3 wiped the floor with all the SOny games you mentioned, on PC and consoles.

@pc_rocks:

I care how they look and as a console gamer, Uncharted 3 and Last of Us were more visually appealing. I didn't even know about Crytek from a technical standpoint and despite how much it has those beat, they still managed to make very beautiful games. The graphics shined when it needed to with lush animation and vibrant levels. And that's all they needed to do. Because those games were meant to be cinematic experiences. That's why I give the edge to Naughty Dog here. They did THE best with what they had and delivered the goods. Especially with Uncharted 3 and Last of Us. (which were out by the time of Crysis 3 in those pics) Uncharted 3 and Last of Us are genuinely prettier than Crysis 2 and 3 on consoles.

Why compare with Sony instead of a better developer?

@thatforumuser:

Because pc hermits can't wrap their heads around cows worshipping ND games for being king of graphics for consoles. Art wins every time.

That's because all ND games uses pre rendered cutscenes fmv video files unlike Crysis

"No more pre-rendered cutscenes from Naughty Dog starting with Uncharted 4".

I mean i can't even imagine someone can say this uncharted cutscenes looks better than crysis in graphics etc even the facial animations looked better than U3 if you see this side by side

@fantasygamer:

Those are bad examples but yes, they do look better than Crysis 3. I'm a console gamer, I don't really care about a game being impressive from a technical standpoint. I care about it looking as good as it can. And Uncharted 3 and Last of Us did that. The pre-rendered cut scenes worked for them and I have no problem with it being pre-rendered.

Even in that comparison, Charlie Cutter has a fully detailed outfit that looks great from top to bottom. While Psycho on Crysis 3 has paper flat camouflage leaves around his neck. The only thing that looks great on Psycho is his face and the same goes for the director. Maybe they would've looked better if they were pre-rendered with more detailed bodies. lol That just proves my point.

Uncharted 3 and Last of Us ARE cinematic experiences. They were also really well animated with terrific A.I. and game play with vibrant and diverse levels. That made those games prettier than Crysis 3. Despite the ps3's limited specs, they still managed to deliver visually stunning experiences that shined when they needed to. I'd rather have pre-rendered cut-scenes with perfect models than real-time scenes with decent visuals. For the ps3, it was the best way to go and led to more visually appealing games.

@nepu7supastar7:

Dude it's not even close lol

The games we have today certainly look better, and they can render a more impressive jungle.

But I dunno, whenever I replay Crysis I'm still impressed by how it looks and the simulation it has going on in its world. I always push the graphics to 11 with ini edits, and always walk away impressed.

Ryse not only own the SIGGRAPH award for best graphics over killzone shadow fall

Also from the DF analysis

" if you really want a taste of what we can expect from the next generation of consoles, Ryse towers over the rest.")

@fantasygamer:

It's not, Uncharted 3 clearly looks better than Crysis 3 on ps3. I also love how you completely avoided the Last of Us comparisons since it showcases Cry Engine's worst enemy: hair follicles! lol Psycho is probably one of the uglier models in Crysis 3. 😂 Photos don't do either justice but even then, you choose a pre-render of Crysis 3 that you see before you start the game that manages to look worse than the one of Cutter from UC3.

I still hold to what I said. The only great looking version of Crysis 3 is the PC version. The console ports were very underwhelming.

Personally for me that time passed. I used to marvel at crysis and used shader mods to increase graphical showcase but there are more visually pleasing games now. Heck I argue once uncharted 4 released PC and Console graphical settings just doesnt matter anymore it looks incredible.

I also believe that PS4 era games have my favourite graphics:

Horizon Zero Dawn, Uncharted 4, AC Unity, etc..

Irrelevant to the topic. The thread title is graphics, not looks or art direction. Graphics are objective while looks are subjective. Funny how against Crysis or other third party games, cows tend to hide behind looks while completely in the same breadth goes and praise garbage like KZ which is neither cinematic, artistic or technically good.

Crysis didn't have good facial animations for cutscenes because a) they weren't meant to be cinematic. They were FPS games and hence concentrated their efforts where it mattered, and their cutscenes were realtime. You're right that ND were going for cinematic look and hence had to hide their flas using pre-rendered cutscenes focusing on character close ups.

Funny actually before that people generally didn't tend to care that much about facial features or animation. It was just that Sony realized they can fool people by doing that and it makes good marketing material even if practically useless as you don't play the game 99% of the time seeing the character close ups. Other devs realized quite late what's happening and how the online discourse especially by cows are hijacked too. This entire sh*t is why you have bloated budgets with celebrity actors etc. In real terms outside of those closeup cutscenes, Sony games are extremely static and downright laughable technically with everything pre-baked.

Oh and ND or other Sony devs didn't do the best with what they got. Heard this argument before that they make such good games just think what happens if they have the power of the PC. News flash, nothing happened when they started porting their games to PC. It's the same sh*t and static world and in none of the instances managed to outdo other third party devs on PC when it comes to graphics.

Also saw you saying, Crysis 2 and 3 were somwehow needs to be discounted because they came after UC and TLOU. News flash: Crysis released the same year as UC, C2 the same year as UC3, C3 and Ryse the same year as TLOU and KZ:SF. Not that it matters because ND were bragging about the limitless potential and power of teh CELL until after the release of UC3.

@pc_rocks:

I don't need the newsflash to crap I already know. lol This whole topic is irrelevant. A stupid argument about old games from a bygone era. Ontop of the the fact that they were completely different genres aiming at completely different audiences, the comparison is literally pointless. Pre-rendered scenes worked for ND at the time and it didn't take away from the fact they were ultimately beautiful games. They weren't "fooling" people. It was how they got by for the time.

Uncharted 3 and Last of Us are visually more appealing than Crysis 3. Console gamers don't care about a game being "technically advanced", we just want it to run well and *look* great while doing so. Guess what? Naughty Dog always delivered! They shined when it mattered and were fun, cinematic experiences. That's all they needed to be.