File :-(, x, )
Crysis Doppelgänger !.97.to9elc
Other things aside, the graphics engine is impressive. They even simulated chromatic aberration.
>> Anonymous
proof of said aberration plz
>> Anonymous
>>233525

Protip: Your eyes don't get CA.
>> Anonymous
>>233541

The edges of the model where you can see blur and purple hue.
>> Anonymous
>They even simulated chromatic aberration.
But why?
>> Doppelgänger !.97.to9elc
>>233543
Nope, but I do see them through my glasses.

>>233554
There's this strange effect that triggers when you go near the aliens. The HUD starts flickering, the whole view takes on a blue tint and chromatic aberration appears.
>> Anonymous
Glorified tech demo.
>> Anonymous
>>233572
far cry was a tech demo to begin with
>> Anonymous
>>233572
>>233576

For the past generation of games. Crysis is a tech demo for the next generation.

Call of Duty 4 did it better imo. But I'll definitely buy Crysis when it comes out.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I'm pretty sure the consensus is that Crysis has one of the best, if not, THE best graphics engine available.
>> Anonymous
Too bad you can only run it on a fuckin cRay 3 quantum hypercomputer. Tom's games did a review, with their rig, full fx on was 10 fps ... maybe in three years I'll snag a copy.
>> Anonymous
>>233747
Butthurt 12 year old can't convince his mommy to upgrade his presario
>> Anonymous
OP posted the term "chromatic aberration" as he/she (no doubtedly he) assumed a lot of people would know what it is. It occurs on lenses (and of course not eyes, thats what that other twat said) as they curve, they bend the light differently, giving a distorted colour under certain contitions, or when magnified.

The whole point is to create the best looking game that simulates what you see through a camera, like in a film.

Ignore the cunts, but thank them for their stupid comments.
>> Anonymous
Sorry *wouldn't. Anon is even more retarded than OP.
>> Anonymous
Even on ugly settings it still looks better than most of the games currently out on the market.
>> Anonymous
>>233749

more likely a student who cant afford to shell out 1200 each year to update his sytem constantly, faggot. you mgiht find that the real world costs a lot when you move out of your mums basement.
>> Anonymous
Too bad the game character isn't a fucking video camera or this'd make sense.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Doppelgänger !.97.to9elc
>>233788
The character is looking at the world through an electronic visor with an integrated HUD that has binocular as well as night-vision. Does that count?
>> Doppelgänger !.97.to9elc
>>233919

See here:
>>233458
>> Anonymous
>>233919
Irrelevant during the day. Show me some abberation through the night vision goggles and you've got it down though.
>> Anonymous
>>233791
His throat texture needs work
>> Anonymous
>>233929
>through the night vision goggles

...It's all the same goggles.
>> Doppelgänger !.97.to9elc
>>233929
What goggles?
>> Anonymous
>>233936
Press "I" by default in the demo
>> Anonymous
>>233934
Some clearasil would help too.
>> Anonymous
im deffinetly planning on picking this up, i can only run the demo on medium with good fps but it was still alot of fun in a sandboxy replay it and try something completely different kinda way, deffinetly doesnt seem like just an overglorified tech demo to me, theres a good game underneath all the pretty graphics
>> Anonymous
>>233945
i'm just hoping it doesn't turn into a massive clusterfuck like farcry did when mutants started appearing
>> Anonymous
>>233936

I don't know, but I hear they do nothing.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I played the demo. It looked decent at acceptable fps. Too bad the developers lied about both graphic AND performance.
>> Doppelgänger !.97.to9elc
>>233940
Those aren't goggles. The NV is built into the suit's vision system.
>> Doppelgänger !.97.to9elc
>>233984
Details on the image. I'd like to know what specific settings they're running on, and the system they're using.
>> Anonymous
>>233986

I got it from http://www.crysis-online.com/forum/index.php?topic=12772.0
>> Anonymous
>>233984

If they had retained the original graphics quality, the engine would do less than 1 fps on a dual-quadcore@3GHz with 4 8800GTX in quad-SLI configuration...

I could only run the demo on my system (dualcore@2.2GHz, 7600GT) at about 20fps with a resolution of 800x600 and quality settings on medium. Higher res/quality resulted in a slideshow...
>> Anonymous
>>234003

Funny that... The video the top half of that image was snapped from was openly stated to be running on crossfire x1900xt's with a highend Core 2. If the final game can't match that scenes performance and visual quality on hardware practically twice as good, then Crytek can go and get fucked.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Core2 E6400
2Gb RAM
8800GTS 320mb

Running on XP with everything on high, plus a couple of tinkered settings like coronas, and light rays and whatnot, it's smooth as a velvet child for most of the time.
>> Anonymous
OH HI GUYS HOW DO I SHOT NON MULTITHREADED DEMO?
>> Anonymous
>>234009
Most demo videos are captured at less than real time then sped up. If they were running a more graphics intensive version than they released, it's because the technology hasn't caught up yet. Nobody wants to play at 8fps, no matter how real it looks.
>> MY E-PENIS IS BIGGER THAN YOURS! MY E-PENIS IS BIGGER THAN YOURS!
MY E-PENIS IS BIGGER THAN YOURS!

Yes. In every field. Because it is.
>> Doppelgänger !.97.to9elc
>>234026
Your settings are not intense enough. Bump up the AA and AF. Crysis isn't right unless its crawling.
>> Anonymous
>>234026
Why not "Very High"?

Vista is supposed to be the only way to get dx10, but if you change the line of code that says "high" to "very high" instant dx10 in xp.

I lol'd

http://www.crysis-online.com/forum/index.php?topic=11837.0
>> Anonymous
>>234069
it's because they don't use dx10 for very high. it's just for the marketing...
>> Anonymous
dx10 > dx9
end of story.
>> Anonymous
Here's a dx9 very high vs dx10 very high comparison:

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6182140/index.html
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>234078

LOL Vista
>> Anonymous
>>233984
original image has self casting shadows, as in branches are casting shadows on other branches and not just on the ground. the contrast between the shadows and light areas is better in the original, their seems to be even some transluceny on the leaves (light shining through them), also the atmospheric perspective on distant objects is better in original with more desaturation going in in bg
>> Anonymous
...also looks like some nice smoke pfcx in the original, and the gun itself is getting shadows cast on it which is really nice
>> Anonymous
i'm surprised nobody has talked about the water yet. by far the nicest i've ever seen. whether under or above, day or night, it looks incredible.

the wildlife is totaly cool albeit unresponsive. someone throw a turtle at the north koreans and take a picture kthx
>> Anonymous
I need a job. C2D 4300, 2gb 667 ram, and an x1950pro just aren't winning anymore
>> Anonymous
basically, if you want it to run at something above 30 FPS, you can't use hyper-high graphics settings.
>> Doppelgänger !.97.to9elc
>>234069
>>234072
>>234078
Actually, the majority of settings under Very High can work under DX9. If you do the manual-edit hack, you'll note that the game only notes some cvars under Shaders could not be applied.

Regardless and from what I read, DX10 is just going to plain look better because of improved coding over DX9, in areas such as filtering.
>> Anonymous
what part of fucking word "demo" arent people understanding?
>> Anonymous
233984 here.

Found the video the orignal pic was taken from.
http://stage6.divx.com/Game-Comparisons/video/1273568/Crysis:-DirectX-9-vs--DirectX-10-Jungle-Fight-
HD
>> Anonymous
Am I the only person who still digs Source, and thinks MGS4 looks miles better than Crysis?
>> Anonymous
The Crytek CEO said they will update the graphics in some years, so the game will always look like the best game for the next 5 years. I guess it will look like the e3 videos in 2-3 years then.
>> Anonymous
>>234239
I dig Source but I think MGS4 will look nothing like the trailers