Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Far Cry 2 vs Crysis(Visualy)

Last response: in Video Games
Share
October 25, 2008 1:33:39 AM

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 ^.^

More about : cry crysis visualy

October 25, 2008 3:20:12 AM

You can't be serious. Far Cry 2 just looks faded and bland. It's nothing like Crysis. Even with everything at max, it's not close to Crysis at High. :p 
October 25, 2008 6:47:02 AM

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
Related resources
October 25, 2008 10:06:58 AM

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,
October 25, 2008 1:27:54 PM

My PC wasn't able to run Crysis on very High, but even on High settings Crysis completely blows away Far cry 2. Admittedly, Ubisoft haven't done a bad Job on Far Cry 2 considering it's designed for console hardware, but I must agree the bland palette of colours doesn't do it much justice.
October 25, 2008 3:40:50 PM

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.
October 25, 2008 3:48:58 PM

gillagad said:
And FC2 could use more destructible objects like Crysis.


That part is wrong. It's less, a lot less. :p 
October 25, 2008 4:07:25 PM

dagger said:
That part is wrong. It's less, a lot less. :p 


So... your saying FC2 has too many destructible objects? Or did you misread what I wrote?
October 25, 2008 4:14:05 PM

It's obvious that Crysis is a better looking game. However i do believe that Far Cry 2 is optimized much better.
October 25, 2008 6:07:53 PM

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


Lol, I misread. :na: 
October 25, 2008 9:39:18 PM

Far Cry2 has better shadows/foiliage, but every single post-processing effect is done better in Crysis, and the sun shafts are much better.
October 25, 2008 9:51:29 PM

ovaltineplease said:
Far Cry2 has better shadows/foiliage, but every single post-processing effect is done better in Crysis, and the sun shafts are much better.


You can call it "better," but in the end, it just doesn't look as good. :p 
October 25, 2008 10:28:33 PM

Crysis sun shafts weren't as noticeable as in FC2. Running around a town or vegetative area in FC2 as the sun sets is amazing. I guess I could agree that they looked better quality in Crysis but at the end of the day overall they look better in FC2 imo.
October 25, 2008 10:32:44 PM

gillagad said:
Crysis sun shafts weren't as noticeable as in FC2. Running around a town or vegetative area in FC2 as the sun sets is amazing. I guess I could agree that they looked better quality in Crysis but at the end of the day overall they look better in FC2 imo.


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.
October 25, 2008 10:36:26 PM

I haven't played Crysis in several months (although I did play through Warhead) but I don't remember it looking that much better than Far Cry 2 does. Also Far Cry 2 runs much better at higher resolutions on my hardware.

I think I'd have to see screenshots side-by-side to see a difference in the technology.

I'm working on the review right now.
October 25, 2008 11:59:19 PM

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



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 :/ 
October 26, 2008 12:31:19 AM

make sure to click the image so its at the right resolution
Crysis
http://www.nhancer.com/downloads/Crysis_HighNoSLI.jpg
Crysis Warhead
http://i38.tinypic.com/1jx3k8.jpg
Far Cry 2
http://talkplaystation.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/far-cry2-screenshots-05.jpg

Yeah Stalker SC was awsome looking but sadly i couldnt allow God Rays or game would go from 40fps to 20fps (maybe dx9??)

Guess FC2 vs Crysis Warhead is more suitable battle but i cant really judge Warhead due to it being a glitchy mess on my system....(like 20fps on medium??? i can get 40fps in original on high...)

Edit: Made img to links so it didnt hog the whole screen up >.>
October 26, 2008 12:39:53 AM

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.
October 26, 2008 1:27:51 AM

swat565 said:
make sure to click the image so its at the right resolution
Crysis
http://www.nhancer.com/downloads/Crysis_HighNoSLI.jpg
Crysis Warhead
http://i38.tinypic.com/1jx3k8.jpg
Far Cry 2
http://talkplaystation.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/far-cry2-screenshots-05.jpg

Yeah Stalker SC was awsome looking but sadly i couldnt allow God Rays or game would go from 40fps to 20fps (maybe dx9??)

Guess FC2 vs Crysis Warhead is more suitable battle but i cant really judge Warhead due to it being a glitchy mess on my system....(like 20fps on medium??? i can get 40fps in original on high...)

Edit: Made img to links so it didnt hog the whole screen up >.>


Lol, that explosion effect on Far Cry 2 is every bit as good as Crysis. The modeling and fire effect fails hard though.

Model:
http://pc.ign.com/dor/objects/951257/far-cry-2/images/f...
http://pc.ign.com/dor/objects/14258182/crysis-warhead/i...

Fire:
http://pc.ign.com/dor/objects/951257/far-cry-2-/images/...
http://pc.ign.com/dor/objects/14258182/crysis-warhead/i...

Explosion:
http://pc.ign.com/dor/objects/951257/far-cry-2/images/f...
http://pc.ign.com/dor/objects/14258182/crysis-warhead/i...
October 26, 2008 6:48:40 AM

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
October 26, 2008 12:44:27 PM

Is there a demo of farcry2? I'd like to try before I buy.
October 26, 2008 1:34:00 PM

mihirkula said:
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.

October 26, 2008 2:28:11 PM

Who cares if those boobs don't look as good as Psycho's eyelashes.... Ubisoft never mentioned that FC2 would make Crysis nervous and sweaty.

The environments and the guns and everything else including the gameplay were very satisfying for FC2... and yeah, i stick by the fact that FC2 did not look like cr@p
October 26, 2008 4:31:52 PM

I wouldn't say Far Cry 2 looks bad at all, it's just that Crysis looks noticeably better.
October 26, 2008 4:43:36 PM

Heyyou27 said:
I wouldn't say Far Cry 2 looks bad at all, it's just that Crysis looks noticeably better.


Your standards are too low. :kaola: 
October 26, 2008 7:28:04 PM

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.

October 26, 2008 7:42:15 PM

If Crysis were a 10. i'd give FC2 a 9.5+. It looks great, I just don't like the look of the water, and everything feels too brown (not enought colors).
October 26, 2008 8:17:26 PM

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.
October 26, 2008 9:14:04 PM

speedbird said:
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.


That's because of the intensive effects (ice, particles, etc). Far Cry 2 is a console port, with far inferior graphics, so it's natural for mediocre systems to run it better. By that logic, you can say the original Half Life is better because it runs the best. :p 


October 26, 2008 9:31:37 PM

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.
October 26, 2008 9:39:02 PM

deadone08 said:
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.


Far Cry 2 would be better named as Far Drive. :na: 
Not to mention you can't see where people are shooting from. It's just tedious and frustrating, compared to the fast paced action of Crysis Warhead.
October 26, 2008 9:54:29 PM

dagger said:
That's because of the intensive effects (ice, particles, etc). Far Cry 2 is a console port, with far inferior 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.
October 26, 2008 10:24:12 PM

Personally I've liked FC2 a lot more than Crysis, it may have less color, but it's the African Jungle vs. a lush tropical island, there's a difference you know. Far Cry 2 should be compared to Crysis, not Warhead, because Warhead was when they realized you can't run Crysis at res. higher than 1280X1024 on high w/o a card above an 8800GT, or dual cards. Far Cry 2 is Ubisoft's first try, and Crysis was the first try for Crytek.

I like FC2 a lot more for the open world, and all the environment and it's realism obviously blows away nano suit land. :)  Also when you look at characters keep in mind that Crysis was Window's crown achievement to flaunt with DX10 so they probably had an influence on the making of it, people being something everyone can relate to would make them a prime example of DX10 graphics.
Anonymous
October 26, 2008 10:25:05 PM

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.
October 27, 2008 12:06:14 AM

Quote:
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.


Not true. I will frequently take out entire camps with the silenced pistol and machete. What draws attention and alerts are engine noise (i.e. getting too close to the camp with your car), gun noise, being seen or heard, and your victims yelling out. It's challenging but that's what makes it fun.

Or you can strap explosives to your car and send it careening into the center of camp before blowing it up. Either way... :) 
October 27, 2008 1:18:32 AM

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. :p 

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.


October 27, 2008 1:22:05 AM

u shouldn't compare far cry 2 to crysis since its a sandbox game. If crysis was 50km square large u wouldn't even be able to run it at medium settings and far cry 2 is the best looking sand box game anyway compared to gta 4/ assassins creed etc
October 27, 2008 4:04:23 AM

"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.
October 27, 2008 7:20:07 AM

dagger said:
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. :p 

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.


Don't you think doing something different was the whole point of FC2 ... what's the point of having the same bright colors on a tropical island ... if they'd done that, people would moan 'oh its just more of the same'.


October 28, 2008 7:27:33 PM

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.
October 28, 2008 9:34:19 PM

I wasn't sure what to make of Far Cry 2 when I first started playing, I did feel disappointed. The Game begins very slow, but having played Far Cry 2 for many hours now, the action has increased and initial feelings of disappointment have now disappeared. I think Comparisons with Crysis were inevitable, But Farcry 2 offers a completely different experience to Crysis. Far Cry 2 is a sandbox game and I really like the idea of doing missions when I want to. Crysis was awesome IMO, but it was a linear game covered up with open environments. Far Cry 2 is a true open environment game, so I applaud Ubisoft.

Like I have already said Far Cry 2 doesn't compete with Crysis visually, but Ubisoft have done a good Job visually. The Shadows look realistic and the lighting effects look pretty decent. The characters do seem to lack detail however and the blood effects look a bit crap.

Far Cry 2 is good game, just not outstanding

November 21, 2008 11:31:11 AM

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
November 21, 2008 5:43:34 PM

I prefer the environments of Far Cry 2 more, and overall I think the game is more graphically consistent. I've run into a lot of PS2 quality textures in Crysis and Warhead, albeit only on DirectX 9's high settings, but from what I've read DX 10 only improves noticeably with regards to lighting and shaders. Crysis still blows everything else away at its best, especially particle effects/explosions, but I'd rather take Fary Cry 2 only requiring about half the system to actually play it at its best.
November 21, 2008 10:38:57 PM

badaxe2 said:
I prefer the environments of Far Cry 2 more, and overall I think the game is more graphically consistent. I've run into a lot of PS2 quality textures in Crysis and Warhead, albeit only on DirectX 9's high settings, but from what I've read DX 10 only improves noticeably with regards to lighting and shaders. Crysis still blows everything else away at its best, especially particle effects/explosions, but I'd rather take Fary Cry 2 only requiring about half the system to actually play it at its best.


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.
November 22, 2008 3:07:09 AM

agreeing with every word 3ball said
November 22, 2008 3:19:04 PM

dagger said:
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.
November 23, 2008 6:00:49 PM

@badaxe2

Try r_TexturesStreaming 0
November 24, 2008 7:40:03 PM

djcoolmasterx said:
@badaxe2

Try r_TexturesStreaming 0


I'm playing Crysis with the CCC mod now so will apply that after a fresh install. Thanks.
November 26, 2008 12:51:44 PM

Far Cry 2 does not compare to crysis visually... But I think it comes second. I play both Very high settings and they both look amazing IMO. Nothing will compare to crysis for a few years though... No way.
August 2, 2013 11:05:39 AM



I agree Crysis and warhead may look beater but FarCry is defiantly up their with them.

mihirkula said:
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

!