Best looking game ever?

Post by **o'dium** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:05 pm

A contender thats for sure:

(More shots) http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/crysi ... id=6147893

[lvlshot]http://img.gamespot.com/gamespot/images ... een020.jpg[/lvlshot]

[lvlshot]http://img.gamespot.com/gamespot/images ... een019.jpg[/lvlshot]

[lvlshot]http://img.gamespot.com/gamespot/images ... een018.jpg[/lvlshot]

Post by **Scarface** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:08 pm

dx10 here i come

Post by **Transient** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:08 pm

More importantly, is it a good game?

Post by **o'dium** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:10 pm

Transient wrote:More importantly, is it a good game?

From what i've read it sounds like its gonna own. Its kinda like FarCry, only with Aliens. What do you expect when it comes from the new CryTech engine. Of course we are not gonna know for a while if its got good gameplay, but even if its just like FarCry its gotta be good.

Post by **Plan B** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:10 pm

But you don't want 'fuzzy depth' in a FPS, though.

I notice that in some shots there's 'fuzzy depth' and in others there isn't.

In-game vs cut-scene shots?

Post by **o'dium** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:11 pm

Plan B wrote:But you don't want 'fuzzy depth' in a FPS, though.

I notice that in some shots there's 'fuzzy depth' and in others there isn't.

In-game vs cut-scene shots?

I bet a lot of them are just promo shots, best poses in the best place with DOF. But yeah, cinematics will more than likely use it and gameplay will not, they know better.

However, motion blur is a different thing, that will be on all the time.

Post by **Transient** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:11 pm

PS: lvlshot, damnit.

Post by **o'dium** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:12 pm

Transient wrote:PS: lvlshot, damnit.

I dont have to scroll on my LOW res. Get a new monitor.

Post by **Plan B** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:19 pm

o'dium wrote:
Plan B wrote:But you don't want 'fuzzy depth' in a FPS, though.

I notice that in some shots there's 'fuzzy depth' and in others there isn't.

In-game vs cut-scene shots?
I bet a lot of them are just promo shots, best poses in the best place with DOF. But yeah, cinematics will more than likely use it and gameplay will not, they know better.

However, motion blur is a different thing, that will be on all the time.

Yeah, 'Depth Of Field' was the term I was looking for

Anyway, looks sex.

*checks for bodyparts to pawn for new system*

Post by **Transient** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:19 pm

I didn't have to scroll either, but I don't like pictures bloating up my screen. If I want to look at a big version of it, I'll click it.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:28 pm

Wow that looks amazing, can't wait to see the generation of games that come out when these graphics are old news.

Post by **o'dium** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:36 pm

Just so you know, Crysis is so high detail that the PS3 and 360 cant actually run it in its highest mode.

EDIT: Not that its coming to next gen consoles, or plans for it. Its never going to appear. But lets face it, 5x 1024x1024 minimum for a FACE alone...

Post by **Transient** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:40 pm

Nor can most computers.

Post by **Fjoggs** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:42 pm

Is there actually any games producers that are able to create a good _PLAYING_ game ? Getting fucking tired of these spec hogs which gameplay sucks ass.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:45 pm

I agree completely, I haven't found an FPS that was as fun as Quake 3.

Post by **o'dium** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:59 pm

It is true that most games seem to be sexy but shite to play

Its a shame really, but thats what sells consoles these days. Whats prettier.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 6:12 pm

Yeah for the most part... there are a few good ones out there though now that I think about it like Halo. Even though some of you think it's crap, which it obviously isn't and only a stubborn child would think so.

Post by **o'dium** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 6:26 pm

Kracus wrote:Yeah for the most part... there are a few good ones out there though now that I think about it like Halo. Even though some of you think it's crap, which it obviously isn't and only a stubborn child would think so.

First was great, second was so-so.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 6:28 pm

For once I agree.

Post by **Foo** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 6:32 pm

halo was alright in the same way that goldeneye was. A great first for consoles but PCs had been there, done that.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 6:34 pm

Yeah absolutely, I'm comparing them in terms of how much fun they were. Between the two I'd say Quake 3 is definitely the better of the two but I wouldn't say Halo wasn't fun either.

But overall sure, a computer rocks for FPS games but when you're sitting around the house with some buddy's a console and a couple tv's are a lot more fun then trying to setup a lan.

Post by **hax103** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 6:38 pm

This shot from the link u gave looks like previous-generation graphics tech (kinda crappy). What do you think?

Post by **dzjepp** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 6:41 pm

Apparently one of the lead devs. said that 'everything we've shown so far is running on directx9 tech'. So if you have a good directx9 card you should see the stuff the've shown so far. It will probably look a lot better when they show off dx10 footage, maybe during e3?

Post by **Don Carlos** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 6:43 pm

Very good!
I'm told that they will dominate E3 (crytek)

Post by **dzjepp** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 6:44 pm

hax103 wrote:This shot from the link u gave looks like previous-generation graphics tech (kinda crappy). What do you think?

Look how far away things are there... it's perfectly fine. The lod there looks like the best one yet, better than oblivion or the farcry (which was the champ before that).