the main selling point for farcry and now crysis is the gameplay environment; clear blue skies, nice water and green jungles. different from all typical fps with dark environments. apart from the other eye candies (which both farcry and crysis are superior in their respective time), the trees and the jungle are part of the package too. so it's still right to compare since both games are from the same developer. the problem is (please get my point here), how far different are the trees and jungle compared to FarCry; if not for the denser environment (due to better hardware capacity), slightly better texture (due to graphics card advancement) and the ability to chop down trees. of all the times i spent in the jungle, i felt like i was playing farcry instead of crysis. only the soldier and aliens reminded me otherwise.
reason i kept arguing on this is becasue:
1) some people just have no idea about technology and time advancement. farcry graphics are superior in its time. same goes for crysis now. but to say crysis is better than farcry without any hesistation or thinking, then it's plain dumb.
....thinking....Im done...Crysis is better than Farcry While i understand you feel disapointed the graphics werent like the pre alpha shots...exactly how did you think Crysis gameplay would differ from Farcry? And exactly what did you expect from it? They just took what they learnt from Farcry and improved it...most in the graphics department and some in the gameplay part...
the main selling point for farcry and now crysis is the gameplay environment; clear blue skies, nice water and green jungles. different from all typical fps with dark environments. apart from the other eye candies (which both farcry and crysis are superior in their respective time), the trees and the jungle are part of the package too. so it's still right to compare since both games are from the same developer. the problem is (please get my point here), how far different are the trees and jungle compared to FarCry; if not for the denser environment (due to better hardware capacity), slightly better texture (due to graphics card advancement) and the ability to chop down trees. of all the times i spent in the jungle, i felt like i was playing farcry instead of crysis. only the soldier and aliens reminded me otherwise.
reason i kept arguing on this is becasue:
1) some people just have no idea about technology and time advancement. farcry graphics are superior in its time. same goes for crysis now. but to say crysis is better than farcry without any hesistation or thinking, then it's plain dumb.
I believe you had quite high expectations of the game. Yeah, I know the final releases' graphics are not 100% similar to those E3 gameplay footage and all... but still, you have to admit, you absolutely have to admit that Crysis is far more superior than Far Cry. Take one aspect of Crysis, and compare it to Far Cry... Crysis is much better.
There are many reasons why sometimes at the last minute developers remove certain default content. The trees and leaves if it looked like the alpha version screenshot in the final game, would bring even the most powerful machine to single-figure frame-rates.
Like Cevat Yerli said, "Crysis is something I would like gamers to still play for 2 to 3 years to come."
But he himself said "The game could have looked much better."
the main selling point for farcry and now crysis is the gameplay environment; clear blue skies, nice water and green jungles. different from all typical fps with dark environments. apart from the other eye candies (which both farcry and crysis are superior in their respective time), the trees and the jungle are part of the package too. so it's still right to compare since both games are from the same developer. the problem is (please get my point here), how far different are the trees and jungle compared to FarCry; if not for the denser environment (due to better hardware capacity), slightly better texture (due to graphics card advancement) and the ability to chop down trees. of all the times i spent in the jungle, i felt like i was playing farcry instead of crysis. only the soldier and aliens reminded me otherwise.
reason i kept arguing on this is becasue:
1) some people just have no idea about technology and time advancement. farcry graphics are superior in its time. same goes for crysis now. but to say crysis is better than farcry without any hesistation or thinking, then it's plain dumb.
Nah.
Addendum:
- You didn't point out about the idea of technology and time advancement as you didn't say that earlier from your previous post of this. You simply made people understand or rather confusing from your post about Crysis graphical is not that far from Far Cry without the time frame. Just look back at your posts. Did you ever say about technology and time bla bla shits? No.
People like you tends to spice up things with something that looks intelligent. I don't care if you whine about the gameplay or graphics and whatnot. But your comparison is funny. It's like making a statement that 1 is equal to 2. When people argue about that matter, you suddenly add up into the argument that 1 is gradually increasing to 2 given by a time frame. That's just plain stupid as well.
I am lazy to debate with people like you. kthxbai.
1) some people just have no idea about technology and time advancement. farcry graphics are superior in its time. same goes for crysis now. but to say crysis is better than farcry without any hesistation or thinking, then it's plain dumb.
Crysis IS better/superior to farcry....... and yeah, I did think and hesitate about it....
....thinking....Im done...Crysis is better than Farcry While i understand you feel disapointed the graphics werent like the pre alpha shots...exactly how did you think Crysis gameplay would differ from Farcry? And exactly what did you expect from it? They just took what they learnt from Farcry and improved it...most in the graphics department and some in the gameplay part...
you have said that. isn't it playing an upgraded version of FarCry?
QUOTE(Xbox 360 @ Jan 6 2008, 10:28 PM)
I believe you had quite high expectations of the game. Yeah, I know the final releases' graphics are not 100% similar to those E3 gameplay footage and all... but still, you have to admit, you absolutely have to admit that Crysis is far more superior than Far Cry. Take one aspect of Crysis, and compare it to Far Cry... Crysis is much better.
There are many reasons why sometimes at the last minute developers remove certain default content. The trees and leaves if it looked like the alpha version screenshot in the final game, would bring even the most powerful machine to single-figure frame-rates.
Like Cevat Yerli said, "Crysis is something I would like gamers to still play for 2 to 3 years to come."
But he himself said "The game could have looked much better."
Don't believe me... here it is :
crysis ain't better than farcry. farcry can play double digit with all eye candies. crysis can only do that on a super high end but then the jungle still looks like farcry.
QUOTE(Dark Steno @ Jan 7 2008, 02:38 AM)
Nah.
Addendum:
- You didn't point out about the idea of technology and time advancement as you didn't say that earlier from your previous post of this. You simply made people understand or rather confusing from your post about Crysis graphical is not that far from Far Cry without the time frame. Just look back at your posts. Did you ever say about technology and time bla bla shits? No.
People like you tends to spice up things with something that looks intelligent. I don't care if you whine about the gameplay or graphics and whatnot. But your comparison is funny. It's like making a statement that 1 is equal to 2. When people argue about that matter, you suddenly add up into the argument that 1 is gradually increasing to 2 given by a time frame. That's just plain stupid as well.
I am lazy to debate with people like you. kthxbai.
no, you don't have to say lazy. just don't debate since you don't get my point and see the picture. that is because you only kept b****ing on my first post and wanna flame from there. i have made the picture very clear with my subsequent posts.
we don't simply say a game is superior just because now it has DX10 shader and better graphics rendition. gamers expect something different in crysis that is out from farcry. however, the developer did not manage to break out from that box. therefore, it's more like a rebadged farcry into DX10.
I'm having problems changing the suite power mode, when press 4 for default setting key it wont change the mode but i change it to another key also same is this some kind of bug.
i cant jump over ontop of the cliff at the 1 level where u need to change your suite to power mode.
Tried the Ultra High Quality Custom Config and can't believe Crysis can be that beautiful, this config definitely the best compare with other custom config in term of IQ, of course have to lose a bit of performace, I got around 20-25fps with 8800GT, but it's considering playable.
you have said that. isn't it playing an upgraded version of FarCry?
I disagree....If thats the case its the paradox of all FPS isnt it? COD4 is just an upgrade of COD2 and Quake 4 is just an Upgrade of Quake 2 etc...All of us should never be satisfied with FPS games then. I think it would be an understatement to say Crysis is just an upgrade of Farcry. You can do so much more in Crysis than in Farcry. The environment is so much more interactive. And the jungles in Crysis look more realistic...through to the sheer diversity of vegetation and textures. Not forgeting the Nanosuit which i feel is like the gravity gun in HL2. Its a small gameplay twist. There is no walls to keep you in a place just maximum strength and jump over the wall. There is less bariers in the design of a level(except the later levels).
Farcry was also a sand box game but the only thing you could do was pick a different route. You couldnt make your own entry by breaking roofs etc. Farcry was a great game in its time(it still is) but Crysis does stands on its own as a great game too. It may not have delivered 100% on all of its potential like 100% open world level design(alien levels) and graphics(photo realistic alpha shots) but it just shows that the engine can be pushed further when the hardware has caught up in terms of physics gameplay/open world and graphical realism.
Crysis is a different game compared to far cry..not onli graphic..storyline..n most important is the ....NANO SUIT...These game was not reali an upgrade version of the far cry..if everything explain by saying A=B...wat for they make this game?Crysis can use maximum str to one hit ko ppl..Crysis can invis...can speed up...all these things are new...The only things that makes them similar is the game is still based on the jungle and forest look...some ppl juz like to compared and argue that crysis actually is similar to far cry...lol...crysis graphic and design is better den far cry alot...!!i
This post has been edited by nonamekid: Jan 7 2008, 04:00 PM
Wrong info there, my x1550 can run 800x600 with all high setting except shadow set to low, texture medium, and shader to medium, overall performance around 25fps with some tweaks. 7300gt should be better than my x1550.