[Solved] Discussion about Crysis

Ques. is related to both version of the game Crysis and Crysis 2.
A guy on Overclock.net(Link :http: //www.overclock.net/pc-games/954287-side-side-comparison-crysis-2-vs.html) was saying Crysis looks better than Crysis 2 so there are two Questions in my mind :
1. Among these two whose graphics is better &
after getting a suitable ans. I shall post 2nd one.

Reply to Divyanshu

Try it for yourself (go the "free" way if you have to, then buy it if you like it). Screenshots sometimes don't do a game justice.

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by Gulli on 06-24-2011 at 07:58:30 PM

Reply to Gulli

The question has no answer Graphics quality is a totally subjective thing. If your asking which has the more technically advanced graphics engine then the answer is the first one.

Mactronix

------------------------------ Barbah and Bottsie Boodles
Reply to mactronix

"If your asking which has the more technically advanced graphics engine then the answer is the first one."

Nah, the second is more optimized and having a city as background instead of a jungle with open skies helps keeping those framerates up.

Message quoted 2 times

Reply to Gulli

Gulli wrote :

"If your asking which has the more technically advanced graphics engine then the answer is the first one."

Nah, the second is more optimized and having a city as background instead of a jungle with open skies helps keeping those framerates up.

The first one uses a lot of DX10 stuff, the 2nd one is Dx9.

I don't have the newest one yet though, I'm waiting on a DX11 patch first, so I can't really compare image quality, but if the same engine was ported to DX10 or 11 it would have had higher FPS due to optimizations to the newer DX versions.

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to bystander

Gulli wrote :

"If your asking which has the more technically advanced graphics engine then the answer is the first one."

Nah, the second is more optimized and having a city as background instead of a jungle with open skies helps keeping those framerates up.

No your not reading what i posted.
If your asking which has the more technically advanced graphics engine then the answer is the first one.
For the reasons posted by Bystander.

Mactronix

------------------------------ Barbah and Bottsie Boodles
Reply to mactronix

Just because CryEngine 1 was an inefficiently coded engine and it killed GPUs doesn't make it superior. I've played both, love both, and subjectively say that DX9 Crysis 2 is way better looking than both Crysis 1 and Warhead, I don't care if they're DX10, it didn't bring much to the table.

As a side note, Crysis 2 is going DX11 in 3 days so....yea..it wins.

Get it, it's a great game I play it every day.

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to Scooter92

Scooter92 wrote :

Just because CryEngine 1 was an inefficiently coded engine and it killed GPUs doesn't make it superior. I've played both, love both, and subjectively say that DX9 Crysis 2 is way better looking than both Crysis 1 and Warhead, I don't care if they're DX10, it didn't bring much to the table.

As a side note, Crysis 2 is going DX11 in 3 days so....yea..it wins.

Get it, it's a great game I play it every day.

Advanced and superior are two different words.

And just because an engine uses advanced graphical features does not make it inefficiently coded.

Crysis took shadowing to a whole new level using DX10 features. I'd bet you that Crysis 2 went backwards in that department. But Crysis 2 is definitely in a much less graphically intensive environment (not in a jungle), so they may have been able to use more polygons per object and higher grade textures.

Message quoted 2 times

Reply to bystander

The first one is such a turkey of a game , Im just surprised they bothered making the second one at all

Reply to Outlander_04

bystander wrote :

Advanced and superior are two different words.

And just because an engine uses advanced graphical features does not make it inefficiently coded.

Crysis took shadowing to a whole new level using DX10 features. I'd bet you that Crysis 2 went backwards in that department. But Crysis 2 is definitely in a much less graphically intensive environment (not in a jungle), so they may have been able to use more polygons per object and higher grade textures.

I only have Crysis Warhead and found the performance hit going from DX9 to DX10 to be large (5-10fps out of 30-40fps) while the visual differences are barely visible. You need a microscope to see the difference between the shadows under DX9 and DX10, differences in lighting were observable with the naked eye but that's about it. The engine of Crysis 2 is more advanced and can take advantage of DX11, it just doesn't as of yet, but will soon. Not that I'm expecting shocking visuals: as with the DX9 --> DX10 leap the most striking difference will be the value of those yellow numbers in the corner of your screen when you run fraps.

I'm sure DX10 and DX11 have a lot of potential but developers don't seem to be using it, I guess that's because of the consoles, or maybe it's just a bitch to program in them without decimating framerates.

Reply to Gulli

^ ever since dx10 was released the visual improvements couldnt really be noticed, your better off having the extra fps.

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to iam2thecrowe

Crysis 1 obviously looks better then crysis 2.

crysis 2 is just a poor console port with dx1 added on months later, which will probably not do much

Reply to 0ozee

crysis 2 is crap, totally ruined the series for me

iam2thecrowe wrote :

^ ever since dx10 was released the visual improvements couldnt really be noticed, your better off having the extra fps.

When Dragon Age 2 was released, there were a lot of upset PC people, because it didn't look better than the console. However, I later found there was a DX11 .exe in the program folder. Once I ran that, it looked a lot better. Now the textures and objects didn't really look better, but what really was striking was the shadowing. When I first switched, I went from just a dirt path to seeing faint shadowing from overhead clouds and soft shadow edges. Later I noticed some huge differences on the quality of shadows on up close conversations where you could see shadows on the NPC faces.

It seems to me, when you first see DX11, you might expect more, but try and go back after playing DX11 and you really feel like you are missing something.

Reply to bystander

DX11 Patch coming for Crysis 2!

Reply to The Halo Don

@ divyanshu,

Please clarify the question as people are at cross purposes talking about subjective image quality and technical superiority Vs optimized.
On a side note Crysis 2 does not have DX 11 at the moment and has not been tested so lets leave that out of the discussion.
Mactronix

------------------------------ Barbah and Bottsie Boodles
Reply to mactronix

bystander wrote :

The first one uses a lot of DX10 stuff, the 2nd one is Dx9.

I don't have the newest one yet though, I'm waiting on a DX11 patch first, so I can't really compare image quality, but if the same engine was ported to DX10 or 11 it would have had higher FPS due to optimizations to the newer DX versions.

when you force crysis 1 to run in dx9 it looks EXACTLY the same as dx 10 and also a small amount of fps imrpovement.I can only run crysis maxed in dx 9.I have to run the game on high if I run on dx 10.In the end dx9 looks the same as dx 10

Reply to celpas

It also depends on what card you have of course. Newer cards are optimized to run DX10 + better than they do DX9 anyway and your OS matters as well.

Mactronix

------------------------------ Barbah and Bottsie Boodles
Reply to mactronix

bystander wrote :

Advanced and superior are two different words.

And just because an engine uses advanced graphical features does not make it inefficiently coded.

Crysis took shadowing to a whole new level using DX10 features. I'd bet you that Crysis 2 went backwards in that department. But Crysis 2 is definitely in a much less graphically intensive environment (not in a jungle), so they may have been able to use more polygons per object and higher grade textures.

crysis 1 may have a lot of advanced features but the one thing I hated most about it was aliasing on trees.Crysis 2 has NO JAGGY EDGES which is why it looks better than crysis 1

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by celpas on 06-25-2011 at 11:20:58 AM

Reply to celpas

^ i have no jaggies with my AMD 6850 in crysis 1.......maybe you should ditch your NVIDIA card...

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to iam2thecrowe

As requested by mactronix to clarify the Ques.

The meaning of this Question is whose graphics is better in terms of look
and whose graphics make to feel realistics

And those who believe that Dx11 patch will improve the graphics,so plaese pause this thread untill it released.

Q.2:If Crysis 1 looks better than Crysis 2 then why Crysis 2 demands more advance graphics card.

Q.3: As Geforce 7950 gx2/SLI can display Crysis 1 graphics on max setting and Crysis 2 needs at least geforce 9800 gt to max out it and if Crysis 2 graphics are worse than Crysis 1 then there is no need to have & develop such a powerful card.
I know many of you would say geforce 9800 GT or better will give more than 60 fps
but there is no need to have more than 30 fps because human eye can't look more than it and almost all monitor cannot display more than 60 fps

Message quoted 2 times
Message edited by Divyanshu on 06-25-2011 at 06:08:54 PM

Reply to Divyanshu

Well if its looks then the question is totally subjective and has no actual correct answer. maybe you should post a poll if your intention is to get a consensus of opinion on the matter.
Suggested title,
Do you think Crysis 1 or 2 looks better.

Mactronix

------------------------------ Barbah and Bottsie Boodles
Reply to mactronix

Divyanshu wrote :

As requested by mactronix to clarify the Ques.

Q.2:If Crysis 1 looks better than Crysis 2 then why Crysis 2 demands more advance graphics card.

Q.3: As Geforce 7950 gt can display Crysis 1 graphics on max setting and Crysis 2 needs at least geforce 9800 gt to max out it and if Crysis 2 graphics are worse than Crysis 1 then there is no need to have & develop such a powerful card.
I know many of you would say geforce 9800 GT or better will give more than 60 fps
but there is no need to have more than 30 fps because human eye can't look more than it and almost all monitor cannot display more than 60 fps

u mad or something?

"As Geforce 7950 gt can display Crysis 1 graphics on max setting" lol'd, that card cant even run it on lowest

my gtx 260 can play crysis 1 on medium 1920x1080 with 40-50 fps
i can play crysis 2 maxed out "extreme" 1920x1080 with 50-60 fps

u got it totally wrong

tell me crysis 2 looks better then
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmY [...] ideo_title

Reply to 0ozee

Divyanshu wrote :

As requested by mactronix to clarify the Ques.
but there is no need to have more than 30 fps because human eye can't look more than it and almost all monitor cannot display more than 60 fps

also just wanted to add, the human eye can see more then 30 fps, its called a 120 hz monitor

you can totally notice the difference between 30-60-120 fps, you just got everything completly wrong /facepalm

Reply to 0ozee

iam2thecrowe wrote :

^ i have no jaggies with my AMD 6850 in crysis 1.......maybe you should ditch your NVIDIA card...

Thats just not possible.I activated 16XAA in the game just to see the difference and went to high settings.Although the jaggies were smoothed out on the edges of buildings and crates and other objects in the game world I could STILL see jaggies on vegetation which was far away.It was already said by the devs that AA could not be implemented on vegetation
http://www.tweakguides.com/Crysis_6.html
"Crysis uses a special rendering method for its foliage (grass, leaves, bushes), which means that regardless of your level of Antialiasing applied, these will remain quite jagged-looking." .In a game filled with vegetation these jagged edges stick out like a sore thumb once you notice them.I don't deny that the game looks really good.I only noticed these jaggies when I started playing games like the witcher 2,metro 203,crysis 2.I still like crysis 2 graphics more even if its a console port.
Crysis 1 looks better than crysis 2 ONLY when mods like triple c pack,natural mod are applied.In a comparison of stock crysis to stock crysis 2 crysis 2 would win.

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by celpas on 06-25-2011 at 04:19:57 PM

Reply to celpas

celpas wrote :

Crysis 1 looks better than crysis 2 ONLY when mods like triple c pack,natural mod are applied.

and that's what makes the original crysis is fun to look at . applied some of the mod from the community and you can see a lot of graphic enhancement can be made on cry engine 2. and yes it also fun to see the performance hit you're going to take when applying those extreme setting into the game

Message quoted 1 times

------------------------------ Core i5 2500K @ stock / Stock Cooler / Asus P8Z77-V LX / 8GB Kingston HyperX Genesis DDR3 1600Mhz (9-9-9-27) / Samsung Spinpoint 750GB / Asus ENGTX460 1GB DirectCu TOP / Xigmatek NRP-MC702 (700W) / CM 690 II Advance (USB 3.0)
Reply to renz496

renz496 wrote :

and that's what makes the original crysis is fun to look at . applied some of the mod from the community and you can see a lot of graphic enhancement can be made on cry engine 2. and yes it also fun to see the performance hit you're going to take when applying those extreme setting into the game

Crysis was a pure pc oriented game.The fact that the game feels playable at 20-30 fps shows the amount of effort that was put into optimising it for pc.I still wish though that those jaggies on vegetation could be removed

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to celpas

celpas wrote :

crysis 1 may have a lot of advanced features but the one thing I hated most about it was aliasing on trees.Crysis 2 has NO JAGGY EDGES which is why it looks better than crysis 1

That is obviously a drawl back of having a jungle setting, but I wouldn't trade the jungle for an urban setting.

Reply to bystander

Many people say Crysis in not optimized, but I do not agree with that completely. It might not be optimized for more than 2 CPU cores, but I've seen it run on a variety of hardware, even though the settings might be low, but look around Youtube - Crysis runs on macs, on Linux with Wine and in even on integrated graphics( yes, it might not be playable, but it runs).

Crysis looks better than Crysis 2. Its more demanding than its successor because it has-

1. More draw distance.

2. More detailed vegetation, hence more polygon count and hence more demanding on hardware.

3.More advanced lighting and post-processing effects.

4.Much better physics and water quality, as well as better explosions.

5. Sharper textures.

6. and many more.......

So Crysis looks better than Crysis 2, and because of that its more demanding.
But I agree that DX 10 does nothing in Crysis, but even with DX 11, Crysis 2 will not look as good as Crysis.

I also agree that no matter what AA you have, the trees appear jaggy in Crysis, and its a sad thing that you cannot control AA through the drivers.

------------------------------ Get busy livin' or get busy dyin.
Reply to Tamz_msc

celpas wrote :

Crysis was a pure pc oriented game.The fact that the game feels playable at 20-30 fps shows the amount of effort that was put into optimising it for pc.I still wish though that those jaggies on vegetation could be removed

honestly i can let that pass by. just think about it, what games out there able to match crysis graphically when the game first come out in 2007?

Message quoted 1 times

------------------------------ Core i5 2500K @ stock / Stock Cooler / Asus P8Z77-V LX / 8GB Kingston HyperX Genesis DDR3 1600Mhz (9-9-9-27) / Samsung Spinpoint 750GB / Asus ENGTX460 1GB DirectCu TOP / Xigmatek NRP-MC702 (700W) / CM 690 II Advance (USB 3.0)
Reply to renz496

renz496 wrote :

honestly i can let that pass by. just think about it, what games out there able to match crysis graphically when the game first come out in 2007?

Thats what I meant.The game looks STUNNING for its age but with 2011 games catching,it loosk average by today's standards.Infact in some games there were scenes which even surpassed crysis.for example,in the witcher 2 jungles of flotsam,metro 2033 on high setting even when not maxed looks better.If you have the depth of field gameplay option toggled on the game looks PHOTO REALISTIC.

@tamz I agree with all your points but the one about the lighting.the lighting in crysis 2 easily beats crysis 1 hands on.

Crysis 1 only looks better than crysis 2 on powerful hardware which can max it out.On low end systems with 8800 GTs you had to run the game on medium settings to make it playable.ON THE SAME SYSTEM crysis 2 on high(which is low settings) looks better

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by celpas on 06-25-2011 at 06:40:54 PM

Reply to celpas

Sorry for spelling mistake but i mean Geforce 7950 GX2 or SLI
On youtube a guy has uploaded the video of Crysis gameplay on geforce 7950 gt with high setting(with 10-15 FPS) Link:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuyVgrm1HQ8

Geforce 7950 GX2/SLI means 2X Geforce 7950 gt so, Geforce 7950 GX2/SLI can handle Crysis on high setting with 20-30 FPS.

And for your kind information GTX 260 is faster than Geforce 8800 GTX which can play Crysis on Ultra High settings(on 1920x1080 resolution 25-55 FPS and with 16xaa 20-45 FPS) update your driver it will perform as it should.
Source:http://www.hwcompare.com/1814/geforce-8800-gtx-vs-geforce-gtx-260/

Reply to Divyanshu

Who says that adding a second 7950 GT in SLI will double the frame-rate?

------------------------------ Get busy livin' or get busy dyin.
Reply to Tamz_msc

celpas wrote :

Thats what I meant.The game looks STUNNING for its age but with 2011 games catching,it loosk average by today's standards.Infact in some games there were scenes which even surpassed crysis.for example,in the witcher 2 jungles of flotsam,metro 2033 on high setting even when not maxed looks better.If you have the depth of field gameplay option toggled on the game looks PHOTO REALISTIC.

@tamz I agree with all your points but the one about the lighting.the lighting in crysis 2 easily beats crysis 1 hands on.

Crysis 1 only looks better than crysis 2 on powerful hardware which can max it out.On low end systems with 8800 GTs you had to run the game on medium settings to make it playable.ON THE SAME SYSTEM crysis 2 on high(which is low settings) looks better

lol. i can't see the graphic difference between the three preset other than frame rates :lol: . regarding crysis vs crysis 2 graphic i think i like the first one better. the second one also nice but that's only the matter of taste i assume

------------------------------ Core i5 2500K @ stock / Stock Cooler / Asus P8Z77-V LX / 8GB Kingston HyperX Genesis DDR3 1600Mhz (9-9-9-27) / Samsung Spinpoint 750GB / Asus ENGTX460 1GB DirectCu TOP / Xigmatek NRP-MC702 (700W) / CM 690 II Advance (USB 3.0)
Reply to renz496

Crysis 2 uses over the top bloom effects for lighting. It makes stuff in the distance blurry. Look at the sun in Crysis through the scope and you'll see what I mean. The sunshafts look much more realistic in crysis. In Crysis, you'll see that things are temporarily brighter when you move into a lighted zone from the shadows. The same thing happened in Far Cry 2.

You cannot compare Metro with Crysis because the game's environments are totally different. The Witcher 2 also looks great.

But overall, Crysis is the best looking shooter available. A very close second will be Metro 2033.

------------------------------ Get busy livin' or get busy dyin.
Reply to Tamz_msc

lol.It looks as I underestimated crysis.I take back what I said.I just played the game and yeah it blows crysis 2 away.Been a long time since I played the game so I had forgotten how it looked

[img]http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/9994/screenshot0005h.jpg [\img]

Message edited by celpas on 06-26-2011 at 06:09:24 PM

Reply to celpas

^ outstanding isn't it? . those jungle scene if i look it a bit far away from my monitor it really look realistic .

------------------------------ Core i5 2500K @ stock / Stock Cooler / Asus P8Z77-V LX / 8GB Kingston HyperX Genesis DDR3 1600Mhz (9-9-9-27) / Samsung Spinpoint 750GB / Asus ENGTX460 1GB DirectCu TOP / Xigmatek NRP-MC702 (700W) / CM 690 II Advance (USB 3.0)
Reply to renz496

The first time I saw Farcry (their first jungle game), I was definitely blown away. Crysis upped the graphics, though the game play was not as impressive.

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to bystander

wow those screen shots of Crysis are beautiful, I might just have to play through the campaign again

Message quoted 1 times

bystander wrote :

The first time I saw Farcry (their first jungle game), I was definitely blown away. Crysis upped the graphics, though the game play was not as impressive.

lol.who cares about gameplay when the graphics are this good.I have played this game 25-30 times and I still haven't gotten tired of it.I just installed the real lifesis mod and GOT A PHOTO REALISTIC IMAGE Just look at my screenshots and thats just on high shaders and the rest maxed,2XAA .will try everything maxed No AA now

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to celpas

jjb8675309 wrote :

wow those screen shots of Crysis are beautiful, I might just have to play through the campaign again

Thats because of the reallifesis mod
All links to the mod are dead except for this one I managed to find

http://www.mediafire.com/?j5dzzzyrmem

Screenshots don't do this game justice though.The real gameplay IS EVEN MORE BEAUTIFUL

Message quoted 2 times
Message edited by celpas on 06-26-2011 at 07:11:33 PM

Reply to celpas

celpas wrote :

lol.who cares about gameplay when the graphics are this good.I have played this game 25-30 times and I still haven't gotten tired of it.I just installed the real lifesis mod and GOT A PHOTO REALISTIC IMAGE Just look at my screenshots and thats just on high shaders and the rest maxed,2XAA .will try everything maxed No AA now

A man can still dream of Crysis graphics and the Farcry game (not Farcry 2). Farcry was no slouch to begin with. I guess I just dislike the Cryosuit. I'd rather use cover and strategy than the game based on using invisibility.

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by bystander on 06-26-2011 at 07:14:44 PM

Reply to bystander

celpas wrote :

Thats because of the reallifesis mod
All links to the mod are dead except for this one I managed to find

http://www.mediafire.com/?j5dzzzyrmem

Screenshots don't do this game justice though.The real gameplay IS EVEN MORE BEAUTIFUL

yes I agree screenshots do not do it much justice, That is a nice mod

bystander wrote :

A man can still dream of Crysis graphics and the Farcry game (not Farcry 2). Farcry was no slouch to begin with. I guess I just dislike the Cryosuit. I'd rather use cover and strategy than the game based on using invisibility.

agreed, the cryosuit is a pain in tha ass, furthermore they pretty much ruined the suit in crysis 2. Im not trying to play a game where I have to scan for idiots cloaking in multipayer, back to BFBC2

The Nanosuit was a nice addition IMO. Far Cry looked damn good at its time.
@celpas, try Crysis Warhead - it looks even better, especially the lighting.

------------------------------ Get busy livin' or get busy dyin.
Reply to Tamz_msc

Gulli wrote :

Try it for yourself (go the "free" way if you have to, then buy it if you like it). Screenshots sometimes don't do a game justice.

Encouraging someone to go the "free" way is against forum policy.

celpas wrote :

Thats because of the reallifesis mod
All links to the mod are dead except for this one I managed to find

http://www.mediafire.com/?j5dzzzyrmem

Screenshots don't do this game justice though.The real gameplay IS EVEN MORE BEAUTIFUL

thanks for the link dude

------------------------------ Core i5 2500K @ stock / Stock Cooler / Asus P8Z77-V LX / 8GB Kingston HyperX Genesis DDR3 1600Mhz (9-9-9-27) / Samsung Spinpoint 750GB / Asus ENGTX460 1GB DirectCu TOP / Xigmatek NRP-MC702 (700W) / CM 690 II Advance (USB 3.0)
Reply to renz496

Ok so i have not played Crysis since i had a HD 3850. I'm on W7 64 bit as well now. I installed it but it seems obvious it needs patching as it was one of the first releases.
Can someone please link me to the Patches i need ?
I have looked but i am getting conflicting results.
Some are saying you need to change ini files others are saying just run in comparability mode for XP Sp2
And thats just for the 64 bit issue never mind any other patches it probably needs.

Thanks for any help.

Mactronix

------------------------------ Barbah and Bottsie Boodles
Reply to mactronix

Here's what I got from the EA forums:

Quote :

To get the 64-bit .exe file working please copy the “lang.ini”, “paul.dll” and “unicows.dll” from the Bin32 folder into the Bin64 folder. After that you will be able to launch Crysis from the 64-bit directory.

------------------------------ Get busy livin' or get busy dyin.
Reply to Tamz_msc