COD4 Graphics Better than Crysis?

So I played Crysis last night for about an hour or so (1370 x 768) on a 27" LCD. Last week I played COD4. I gotta say right now COD4's graphics to me are actually better. I mean I could feel my jaw dropping in some scenes for COD 4. So far in Crysis I'm not that impressed by just the graphics. I do like parts of the open game play though.

I'm bringing home a 24" WS monitor with a native res of 1680 x 1050 in hopes to see if playing the game at a better resolution will help but COD4 on my 27 with 1370 x 768 looked awesome!

Lol. Run around like a fairy with lethal weapons. :-)

What's your hardware smart guy?

I can max CoD4 at 800x600 with a 7600gt (med @ 1024), I'm sure a lowly x1950pro could max it at the rez you're playing it at. Crysis needs an 8800GT minimum to look / play great at your rez of 1320x768.

Once we have systems able to run Crysis @ full detail, res, AA, DX10 and 60 FPS I believe it will blow CoD 4 out of the water, but I suppose right now at lower detail and res on Crysis it wont look as good as CoD 4 at higher settings. Remember how much more you are rendering in Crysis over CoD 4...so the settings cant be set the same and get the same performance. I think that if you put them side by side on relative same settings that Crysis will easily take the take...none of this even takes in account the superior physics of the cryengine 2 of whatever CoD 4 is used on. Just my two cents!

Best,

3Ball

Crysis blows COD4's socks off.

Crysis Graphics are too clean... the jungles.. they look great.. but call of duty appeals to what I like more. COD4 is an amazing game. I play is on my 92" projection screen (1080p) and it is amazing.

I played the COD4 demo before Crysis and thought COD4 looked pretty good. Nothing mind blowing but very good and it ran smooth along with simply being a great game. Then I played Crysis. At first I tried everything maxed (like COD4) but it wasn't very playable. I lowered my res and AA and the was able to play and Crysis definetly blows COD4 away even when somewhat below max settings. Even though gameplay is not quite as smooth, visually Crysis completely dominates COD4 and every other game. Throw in the impressive physics and Crysis is by far the most stunning game ever as far as looks go. I haven't played much COD4 (only parts of the demo) so I can't compare gameplay, but on looks alone there is no comparison.

So I swapped monitors from the 27 to a 19 that supports a higher native res of 1280 x 1024. Really not much of a difference. Meaning the graphics IMO aren't mind blowing, they are nice though.

My settings for both games are all set on high. Crysis is set to "everything high". I've been playing Crysis more and I'm seeing some better graphics but still not as spectacular as I imagined. Also There are busy scenes that seem to cripple my machine's FPS in crysis (understandable) whereas in COD4 there seem to be even bigger and busier scenes that my machine eats right through without a drop in FPS (not understandable).

So far the best scene for me in both games was in COD4 as the sniper suited in leaves running through the desserted buildings of the dessolated city in an attempt to assisnate one of the evil leaders. The light shinning through the buildings creating shadows off the charecters and of the building was spectacular.

I gotta say I had two pretty great moments last night in Crysis where I used the speed function to zip next to a machine gun bunker, then the strength function to hop on the roof, then shot down through the roof which collapsed the building then shot the guard in the head all in one seemless motion. The next was that I simply blew apart a guard tower holding a sniper with the missle launcher. After exploding the structure the roof continued to flip off high into the sky and land into palm trees where it knocked them down. I thought that was pretty realistic.

My system specs are:

Core 2 E6600 2.4 / core (no overclock)
4 GB DDR2 RAM
Raid 0+1 (4 300 GB HDD) 680i chipset
8800GTS 640 MB graphics Card
Vista 64 Ultimate

Crysis pushes every graphics card. Only the graphics card.

I get ~100fps more in COD4 than I can in Crysis at max settings... so it definately plays better, adding to the experience and overall quality of the game.

The argument is both subjective and objective... so that being said, the graphics quality seems similiar in both games, but the detail of the environments in Crysis are head and shoulders above anything I've ever played.

No, it's really not a reason to buy it. The gameplay is pretty good (I never played FarCry so I can't compare the two) allowing you to do just about anything you want. I feel that COD4 and HL2 (& the Source Engine in general) do a fantastic job of delivering great looks and outstanding performance. I still do respect these guys somewhat for taking the leap, because someone had to do it, and usher in a new age of hardware and graphics. They are the pioneers of the gaming industry atm, and whether you know it or not, I think you will appreciate it some day.

Ah, therein lies the rub...

I think there's a very real debate going on right now about which is the better game, top to bottom: CoD4 or Crysis?

In terms of graphics, I'll submit that you can run CoD4 at full tilt across the board and not strain your current system, whereas Crysis will most likely require some upgrades before you can approach high settings at a decent resolution. And even then, it's next to impossible to push everything to Very High settings at max resolution and have a decent gaming experience. So yes, Crysis does have better graphics (but not by all that much IMO), but what's the point if you can't appreciate them during gameplay becaue you're stuck at 15-20 FPS?

Aside from graphics, not to hijack this thread or anything, I've played a fair amount of Crysis (Travis is reviewing it, I'm just playing for fun). So far I have to say that CoD4 has the better single player camapign, but that could change soon.

I'm very disappointed in Crysis. I played for about an hour last night, 55 mins of that time was spent playing with settings to try to get it to look DECENT and maintain at least ~30 fps... I couldn't. I looked at all the tweak guides. I think the settings I ended up with was 1280 x 800, no AA, shader quality on high and everything else on medium and water on low. I believe I'm up around 40 fps but it simply does not look impressive AT ALL.

Call of Duty 4 on the other hand I can run on ALL of the highest settings, looks amazing and multiplayer runs as smooth as can be.

The only good thing I can say about Crysis is that you can definitely see there is a lot of technology and potential and interactive qualities to the graphics and terrain... but, its just NOT worth it at this point.

AMD X2 6000+
eVGA 8800 GT
4 gigs Corsair DDR2
470 PC Power & Cooling PSU
22" Dell LCD

Well, I did research on other forums (as well as this one I think)... the consensus from what I read was that the improvements in AA 2-4x is negligable compared to the performance hit you take. Some even said that it is completely unnoticeable from off to 2x or 4x and posted screenshots. That being said, the shader setting was noted to be the most noticeable improvement from medium to high.

I did try MANY settings, AA included, and I noticed not much graphical improvement... especially none that warrented a 5-8 fps hit. If someone with a similar setup wants to post their best settings while getting 30 fps I'm all ears.

I agree a 110%. I have an 8800GT and played COD4 fully maxed on 1980 x1200 and Crysis pn 1980 x 1200 all high (with a few Very High settings) and trust me when I say COD4 has nothing on Crysis

You guys should look up some of the autoexec.cfg files that people have been posting on the Crysis websites. I have one from Crysis-Online by Belloni, that is basically all high setting with the Xp DX10 hack , and it looks 10x better than normal XP high. I get about 30FPS @ 1440x900. His tweak makes my game look very close to original E3 trailers. Shiny leaves and all.

Pretty much hit the nail on the head with this one. Although on my PC, the graphics of CoD 4 are on par if not better than Crysis. Crysis taxes my system to much to warrant the "better" graphics though.

I’ve only played the demo of Crysis but I have played the full version of COD4, as far as graphics go Crysis is a lot better even at high settings. For me the graphics in COD4 are solid buildings look good but he models lack detail and in a lot of scenes they sue the same textures over and over again which aren’t particularly high res.

Personally the best game I’ve played as far as graphics goes in Half Life 2 Episode 2. It’s just as good as Crysis (DX9 mode) if not better and doesn’t require a high end video cards just to get a smooth frame rate.

Half-Life 2: Episode 2 is extremely dated, and there are many better looking titles that have come out in recent years. Unlike Crysis, it does not use texture streaming, per pixel dynamic lighting with dynamic soft shadows, volumetric clouds, and subsurface scattering. The grass density and foliage density is MUCH lower in Half-Life 2, it's textures are considerably lower resolution, static lighting is used, and the shader effects are overall considerably more dated. The physics engine in the Half-Life 2 games is also not as advanced, but that isn't really in the realm of graphics. On a technical level, Crysis is superior to Half-Life 2: Episode 2 in every way. Art direction is another thing and is completely subjective, so I couldn't argue with you on that. Truthfully, art direction is just as important as graphical features, if not more so. An example would be the upcoming title, Mirror's Edge; I played the demo last night on the PS3 and while on a technical level it was not impressive thanks to the static lighting, sky, and average character models, the game still looks amazing in it's own way due to the art direction alone.

Being technically more advanced doesn't mean it is going to run as well. I never said anything about Crysis running as well as Call of Duty 4. Fact is, Crysis has per pixel dynamic soft shadows, subsurface scattering, and other graphical features that aren't used in Call of Duty 4. Until we have another game sporting the same sort of graphical features Crysis supports, we can't really say how poorly optimized it is.

Nice try, but Far Cry 2's lighting is not nearly as advanced, nor are the character models or shader effects. The first game that will probably really compete with Crysis on a technical level will be Alan Wake, and Rage will pass it whenever it is released. GTA IV has a pretty fancy lighting engine similar to the one in Crysis, and it might end up even close depending on how good the PC port is.

stand on a cliff, view the horizon from left to right on a Crysis sunset. tell me if it aint beautiful. because when i did that i wish i was holding a beautiful lady's hand and we're drinking wine together..

but cod4's atmosphere is entirely different. especially the one in the chernobyl mission, it made you feel what it wants to make you feel. that that city was once populated and had living people inside it

about gta4, i dont think a theres a console port that can put a q6/8800gt combo to its knees. but i saw a game (forgot the title) that has the same style like GTA4 (city sandbox style) but more applauding graphics.

speaking about rage, this feels like being college student all over. doom3 (bachelors degree) > crysis (masters) > rage (doctors). ive been missing the carmack magic for quite sometime now.

WHY DO IT!!!!!!!!

i think cod 4 looks more photorealistic though, theres just too many colors in crysis

No! But Call of Duty does have better gameplay. Crysis is just a shallow game with a pretty face.