And I personally prefer the stylized visual look of Crysis 2 and 3 over the first game.
Yes, the first Crysis looks amazing. But, the strong devotion to looking like the real world just looked dull to me. Yes, it's impressive... but it doesn't look creative.
Crysis 2 and 3's (to some 'overly') stylized visual design lead to a more interesting look. It gave the series a sense of personality.
i agree, crysis 2 and 3 made the artistic style with the visual fidelity more appealing, infact, crysis 2 and 3 are superior in the weapon models and the shooting mechanics. one thing i hated in crysis was the dated weapon models,plus they look too small.
Fibers, fur and hair is the next hot topic and its exactly whats needed to WOW people, like lets say if you cam on the skin surface and see tiny hair is WOW.
Then maybe worning out surface effects, such as scratches, corrosion and dirt.
They can't be serious lol. It doesn't take a genius to realize that graphics is not the only thing helping in game sales - it's the design and story as well. All three combined makes for a great end-product (TES IV during launch anyone?).
They can't be serious lol. It doesn't take a genius to realize that graphics is not the only thing helping in game sales - it's the design and story as well. All three combined makes for a great end-product (TES IV during launch anyone?).
Downloaded myself blocky noses fix at the Skyrim launch day. :banana:
They can't be serious lol. It doesn't take a genius to realize that graphics is not the only thing helping in game sales - it's the design and story as well. All three combined makes for a great end-product (TES IV during launch anyone?).
Is it really what his declaration is about ? Im not so sure.
If some years ago, the evolution in graphism was follow each game release with new amazing technology, today the quality is at a level where it become hard to really show a progress and this will not become better with 4K screens, as all the gpu processing power is going to be eated by the 4K resolution need.
The level of today games is allready high on graphics quality ( on average ), and at a certain moment, the difference is less visible between a game released 1 year ago and one released todays.. ( its mostly some details who only change, some features added, but nothing radical ).
Then ofc, i think everyone can admit that graphic is not the most important thing.
I do enjoy good graphics, but that's not my sole reason for buying a game. However, I do get frustrated when games look poor and the requirements are inflated. I thoroughly enjoyed Crysis 3 though and even upgraded my PC a few times to crank it up.
World of Warcraft may not be to everybody's liking but that game and 14 million players proves that it has nothing to do with eye candy.
It's the gfx card manufacturers that love game companies to push newer blingy games.
When are game companies gonna realise that actual game play is the #1 factor when it comes to buying games. Gameplay>Game length>price> gfx. It would seem to some including myself that certain game companies have this backwards.
Gfx>price>replay value>game play = Amazing looking games that are far too short, cost a fortune and have no re-playability. I myself have spent 40 pound on a game, completed it in a few hours and never played it again.
Seriously?!! News flash!
I still play games 10-15 yr's old. Because they are still fun to play, that's what it is all about. 70% game play 30% graphics. Not the other way around. If the game is boring the most amazing graphics ever will not help much.
Well said. I find it amazing how oblivious the game industry is to its own legacy. When computer gaming was in its prime there were hundreds of amazing games released using the technology of the times. One would think the developers would revisit the library of titles and see what they could resurrect with modern technology.
There have been a few so far but no where near what's possible. Titles already given a make-over include Carrier Command, Elite and a new title by Chris Roberts of Wing Commander fame called, "Star Citizen". Currently under development are "Midwinter" and "Heavy Gear" (although Heavy Gear looks to be an online multi-player arena game only). I'm sure there are some more being looked at and worked on but I think there should be more effort applied.
There are dozens of games that people today never heard of because they had not been born yet. If they knew what gaming was comprised of in the past they would probably be in awe.
Graphics are wonderful. We all wanted better graphics, realistic play, physics and depth of play but pretty graphics alone are really a let down when the game turns out to be dorky (Far Cry 3 is an excellent example).
Graphics are wonderful. We all wanted better graphics, realistic play, physics and depth of play but pretty graphics alone are really a let down when the game turns out to be dorky (Far Cry 3 is an excellent example).
Far Cry 3?
no i think you meant ryse.
fc3 graphics are ok.
Crytek used to make great games, look at the first crysis or far cry. Even the last two crysis games were decent enough to be called great games, so it's just incredible how a bunch of great game developers can totally ruin themselves with a couple of bad games in a short time span, like warface or ryse...
the OP isn't about crytek, though Mato of course you can add anything, but it's more about
1 like Undying said Cevat is all about graphics in games
2 a few days before ryse is released he comes out sayin this
3 what does he mean?
Previous Page
Next Page