Crysis..superb photor. graphics already. Next GPU will be 0?

[SyPheR]

Well, where shall I start....how much more beautifull can it get after Crysis...will there be really a time that games will look like you can't see the difference between real life and game? I think not I think that this will be forbidden by goverments worldwide. I think you allready know why it will be forbidden as there are a lot of holy people out there that would like to forbid gaming with violence allready if they had the chance.

So here comes the question.....what dx10 card is able to run Crysis graphics running full settings and probable next gen games as well as I suspect only physix can make games better.....and well Alan Wake allready proofs physix can be done with multicore cpu's so we don't need a special gpu for that...Are we looking at the end of graphics surprises as many people can't see the difference between een photgraph of the island crysis is based on compared with photographs in real life of the same island. Now that's some heavy shit.

 

[The_Abyss]

Good though it looks, Crysis is still a long long way from photo-realism.

 

[Valtiel]

I think you allready know why it will be forbidden as there are a lot of holy people out there that would like to forbid gaming with violence allready if they had the chance.

They're the same people that want to edit everything out on TV. I think they'd have a hard time editting things out of video games because its the consumers choice to buy that game. In the U.S I don't think that would happen either because it would be them vs "freedom of speech" on that issue.

 

[chuckshissle]

Same people that don't go to war and protect the nation and as well as others. Bunch of hippies.

 

[prozac26]

Well, where shall I start....how much more beautifull can it get after Crysis...will there be really a time that games will look like you can't see the difference between real life and game?

There will be. Developers are kind of running out of ideas, so one way to sell games is to keep making them look better. I'm not saying that gameplay will be crap, but graphics are a bigger selling point.

I think not I think that this will be forbidden by goverments worldwide. I think you allready know why it will be forbidden as there are a lot of holy people out there that would like to forbid gaming with violence allready if they had the chance.

Why games? Why not movies and TV shows? Movies have been violent for a long time, and are not banned. Same will be with games.

So here comes the question.....what dx10 card is able to run Crysis graphics running full settings and probable next gen games as well as I suspect only physix can make games better.....and well Alan Wake allready proofs physix can be done with multicore cpu's so we don't need a special gpu for that...Are we looking at the end of graphics surprises as many people can't see the difference between een photgraph of the island crysis is based on compared with photographs in real life of the same island. Now that's some heavy ****.

What card will run Crysis fully maxed? We don't know yet. I assume a 8800GTX will, and so will a R600.

As for physics, you won't need a dedicated PPU, IMO. Physics will be done by CPUs and improved GPU physics. Making people buy a $300 stand along Ageia Physx card is a very weak selling point. Multi-core CPUs, like you said, will most likely be the "standalone" PPU.

 

[The_Abyss]

I think not I think that this will be forbidden by goverments worldwide. I think you allready know why it will be forbidden as there are a lot of holy people out there that would like to forbid gaming with violence allready if they had the chance.

Why games? Why not movies and TV shows? Movies have been violent for a long time, and are not banned. Same will be with games.

I certainly don't disagree with you. However the key difference is that games directly promote and encourage user interaction, whereas movies etc are more passive.

 

[SyPheR]

Well, where shall I start....how much more beautifull can it get after Crysis...will there be really a time that games will look like you can't see the difference between real life and game?

There will be. Developers are kind of running out of ideas, so one way to sell games is to keep making them look better. I'm not saying that gameplay will be crap, but graphics are a bigger selling point.

OK could you please explain how this can be made looking better for example?

http://incrysis.com/crysis/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291&Itemid=2

I wonder how much better it can get.....it would be like in real life. Sure people said this 4 years ago allready but let;s be honoust....check these pics....it's damn close now. How much more beautifull can it get....is real life beautifull?

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

OK could you please explain how this can be made looking better for example?

http://incrysis.com/crysis/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291&Itemid=2

I wonder how much better it can get.....it would be like in real life. Sure people said this 4 years ago allready but let;s be honoust....check these pics....it's damn close now. How much more beautifull can it get....is real life beautifull?

Despite my snow blindness I can see a difference.
Look at the images again, what you miss out on is detail.
They replace grass with clover, small plant coverage with broad leafy palm like plants, variable ground cover with a ground texture blend.

Sure I'm being hyper-critical, but you asked what could be made better. And then consider that these are static images, and most images of the moving game I've seen, even HD, do not have the same level of detail. Sure they are beautiful, far better than anything yet, but also not quite like playing even in the picutres above, let alone the real world. But considering that for most of us it's real enough, yeah I'm happy, but yeah I still want to see them push for more. The question becomes what is the way to approach that, current pixel shader rasterized techniques or ray-tracing? There are benefits and limitations to both.

 

[tamalero]

Good though it looks, Crysis is still a long long way from photo-realism.

I dont know dude, but the last videos of the water scenes and seas, were very realistic

 

[prozac26]

Graphics will be better as time goes one. Crysis isn't the end.

 

[Featherstone]

I didn't read all of the posts... but the government regulating how realistic games can look is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. This just plain will not happen. Look how real the special effects in movies are... the gov't hasn't done a thing nor will ever do a thing about that.

 

[geoffry]

Environments are one thing, but getting photo realistic characters who move like real people will take a bit longer.

But I agree, those screenies look very, very good.

One thing that could have caused the difference between these screenshots and the game footage we've seen so far is the footage has been run on DX 9 hardware, except for that 1 DX10 environment sweeping video. I might be wrong on the DX 9 part, but I'm pretty sure thats what the devs have been saying, that footage has so far always only been shot on DX 9 hardware.

 

[pauldh]

Graphics will be better as time goes one. Crysis isn't the end.

Agreed. Cry Engine 2 is pretty amazing though, but given current hardware limitations, Crysis probably won't take full advantage of the level of realism the engine is capable of. If actual gameplay was truely as pretty as in those photos as Grape was saying, I'd think dual 8800GTX's or R600's would cry for mercy. But someday, gamplay will be that good and even better.