Far Cry 2 vs Crysis(Visualy)

Am i the only one who thinks that Far Cry 2 looks 1.5x better than crysis?? (not to mention optimized alot better...). im not even running Far Cry 2 maxed (high setting x2 AA) and it beats Crysis on High x2 AA to me? Tel me your thought and reason why ^.^

I am a firm believer that everyone is entitled the their own opinion, but this instantly made me angry when I read it. (not saying the OP is stupid), but to me this is blatant stupidity and is absolutely absurd. They are not even in the same realm visually what so ever. I am over reacting and I am sorry, but I am in complete utter disbelief at what I just read. Tbh...shocked would be the best way to describe it. I just wasnt ready! lol

Best,

3Ball

Seriously,

What the ef?

I look at preview screen shots and they are beautiful, the water, the way light goes through the jungle, the color is rich and there is a lot of orange to break up that bland green/brown crap. Then you get the game, max it out, play and you don't experience that at all. You get.... what feels like Quake1 color options.

And a bunch of color coded road map signs that are apparently in ENGLISH even in Africa's jungles. You simply WILL NOT miss Mike's or the SAFE HOUSE (lol?). >.>

Cheers,

Crysis is definitely superior graphically, but for some reason I find FC2's look to be more appealing. Its the little things like the weather and changing time of day. I think the fire propagation is neat though the fire itself doesn't look that realistic. And FC2 could use more destructible objects like Crysis.

So... your saying FC2 has too many destructible objects? Or did you misread what I wrote?

Lol, I misread.

You can call it "better," but in the end, it just doesn't look as good.

In term of sun shaft, Stalker Clear Sky blows them both away. Rays shinning through patchy cloud cover. Looks like a painting. But then again, one aspect does not make good game graphics.

It really just varies, because of the shadow model that is used in FC2 - daytime scenes in FC2 look much better than daytime scenes in Crysis.

However Crysis Warhead I would say is superior to FC2 generally, because they did so much tweaking to make it look more authentic than the original as far as time of day cycle goes.

I'd say if anything, comparisons should be done between Warhead and FC2 - I really don't think the level design of the first Crysis really did the original engine much justice at all - because the original Crysis had incredible nightime visuals, but there was all of like 2 night maps in the whole game?

Anyways, i'd say both engines excel in different areas - but i'm not that big on the sunshafts in FC2 because they can tend to look overdone, less natural and almost more "LOOK AT ME" for what is supposed to be just an "effect"

My sentiment goes with you in regards to the lighting in Stalker: Clear Sky - the lighting in Stalker: CS is better than both games by far in my opinion, its a shame its such a buggy game for most people

Overall, it's not even close. Crysis looks a lot better. I like the grass and the general look of the sky in FC 2, but the textures, trees, cars, and pretty much everything else don't look very good at all.

I'm a poor guy .. i played both FC2 and Crysis Warhead on 1280 res recently (both maxed out) ... and I can tell ya i didn't find Crysis THAT much more visually stunning than FC2 ...agreed that Crysis looked better, but not THAT much better.

Saying that Warhead 'completely blows FC2 out of the water and that Warhead is MILES AHEAD of FC2 is absurd. Yes Warhead looks better, but FC2 isn't exactly a piece of cr@p to look at

It depends on what you look at, some aspects, such as character modeling, is exactly a piece of cr@p.

I wouldn't say Far Cry 2 looks bad at all, it's just that Crysis looks noticeably better.

Most of this is subjective. Since one game is jungle and one is desert, it makes it more difficult. What I looked at were the things that are in both games. Facial expressions, mouth movement with talking etc. Another thing I like to look at is grip. How characters pick up and handle objects (are they actually holding it or does it look like it would fall right out of their hands). Grass detail and movement.

As far as these things go, I think Crysis has better character animation in the face and the detail level is much better. As far as grip, I think Far Cry 2 looks better. Characters seem to have a much better handle on their guns and papers (although there is still some to be desired). Grass and foilage looked better in crysis. I think there was better independent movement there however, I was impressed with the way trees in Far Cry 2 swayed with the wind. I thought that movement was excellent if you looked at the tree on the whole.

I do like the fact that in Far Cry 2 the frame rate is more steady than in Crysis. I found that in Crysis FPS would be really good, then turn into a slide show especially on the ship at the end.

Farcry 2 looks excelent but visualy it is just a little behind crysis.

Having that said farcry 2 runs much better even tho it's a huge world compared to crysis with it's smaller levels.

Aside of that fc2 beats the crap out of crysis. Shows you once again that gameplay>graphics.

I wasn't disputing the fact of Crysis having better visuals, but it was a badly optimized game.I thought Crysis and Crysis Warhead were awesome games BTW. Far Cry 2 cannot compete with Crysis Visually, but I must say it still looks very good considering it was primarily designed with Console hardware in mind.

I just finished playing FC2 and Warhead. Yes, we're talking about two very different games. But Crysis/Crysis Warhead were a far more enjoyable experience. Far more; full stop.

Visually, Crysis and Warhead generally outperforms Far Cry 2, but Far Cry 2 is very very very beautiful game anyway; and some bit downright beat Crysis. Both were run on ultra high/very high on my PC.

What spoilt FC2 for me was the wasted time fighting your way to objectives, only to find on the way back, all the men you'd killed were replaced in under 10 minutes with new ones. Then there was the time wasted getting those damn diamonds. The other thing I hated about Far Cry 2 is you couldn't kill anything without raising some form of alarm. Employing your brain didn't help in Far Cry 2, but in Crysis 1 and a little in 2 you were rewarded. Plus, after Crysis, nothing beats the nano suit.

Crysis isn't Crytek's first, that would be the original Far Cry. Far Cry 2 was sold out to Ubisoft to be developed later on. That's the reason a lot of people are disappointed by Far Cry 2. They were led to believe that the sequel would live up to the reputation of the original.

Even though the original Far Cry's graphics are clearly outdated, colors are especially bright. Original Far Cry's fans would find the monotone drabness of its sequel unacceptable.

"far cry 2 is the best looking sand box game anyway compared to gta 4/ assassins creed etc "


Share PC game video links for GTA4 please.

I'm a little annoyed I bought the hype or that it got high ratings a lot of places. I am playing Farcry 2 on a fast machine at 1920 maxed out and no AA (tried 8x but to slow). All I can say is the game SUCKS and what a waste of $50. The graphics detail is horrible (washed out, bland and void of detail, especially in vegetation) and the gameplay is just as bad. Once you have played past the intro phase you have pretty much played the whole game. Kinda lame just running around the same sandbox map, collecting diamonds to buy weapons, and running up against the same in jeep enemies and guard posts over and over. My first thought was WTF is this... the original Farcry and Crysis are FAR better in graphics and gameplay.

It's got a few nice effects like the grassfires and yeah it's optimized... for the lowest possible denominator. The answer to the typical "will my machine play it" question is yes. Even if you still have the same lame computer from when the original Farcry came out you will be good to go.

Don't waste your money!... Its such a sham that you cannot return software or this game would be back to the store for a crap refund. Ubisoft pulled a fast one here and FC2 was not written by Crytek and does not use the Crytek engine but played on the reputation of the first. I didn't know this was a console port and maybe that explains why the graphics quality is so bad at 1920x1200 on a 26" Samsung. Can't imagine how bad it must look at higher res on a larger monitor.

Crysis's graphics for me beat FC2's hands-down!
Somehow when I play Crysis, I feel bewildered and amazed at the great shadows and colours, not to mention the extreme 3D models.

I don't get the same feeling in FC2...sure it looks good but somehow its lacking, and that put me off at first. Then came the respawning checkpoints and I didn't get past 11% of Act 1 without feeling utterly dissapointed and bored.

Crysis rulz, FC2 drools *wow that was bad* :S

With some drivers, if you changed graphics settings in-game for Crysis Warhead, you have to save and reload. Otherwise texture don't repopulate correctly, aside from shader problems. If you see bad textures until moving in close, that's what happened. The "PS2 quality textures" is due to driver glitch.

It's the same for both games. No matter how many times I've reloaded the game completely. I've also used both an Nvidia card and later an ATI, even reformatted my system before changing over. Man made structures in particular like railings, and general indoor environments/objects are an obvious mix of hi and low res textures in Crysis and Warhead. For its time Far Cry 1 had better overall textures than Crysis. Pretty much everything on screen was hi res.

I'm playing Crysis with the CCC mod now so will apply that after a fresh install. Thanks.