Crysis Wars vs Left 4 Dead

[Puddle Jumper]

Now then...the question that stirred such hot water back in the day, do you believe Crysis has 2x better graphics then Farcry 2, because it roughly demands 2x more resources ( I know the numbers are all subjective here and doesn't really matter but just bare with me here ). Its a statement I made, that when observing Farcry 2s graphics and its resource consumption, I didn't believe Crysis graphics were worth its system usage in direct comparison..

That's a interesting question. In my experience Crysis doesn't have that much higher of hardware requirements than Far Cry 2 but there is a difference. I think the higher requirements may be justified but I haven't played them back to back so it's hard to say for sure.

 

[stb1swat]

There are none on TV thats for sure. IGN and Gamespot reviews, although catered more toward casual gamers, still have some good points that the hardcore crowd would like pointed out. Yahtzee makes good points too ( he considers Portal the best game ever made ).

I don't support X-play by any means. I don't even watch them. I simply saw their take on the crysis wiki page.

I do not listen to or watch reviews of any kind with any consistancy (with the possible exception of yahtzee, but let's face it...it ain't for the info)

Now then...the question that stirred such hot water back in the day, do you believe Crysis has 2x better graphics then Farcry 2, because it roughly demands 2x more resources ( I know the numbers are all subjective here and doesn't really matter but just bare with me here ). Its a statement I made, that when observing Farcry 2s graphics and its resource consumption, I didn't believe Crysis graphics were worth its system usage in direct comparison.

Crysis is wasteful. Hasn't this been stated? It eats up all cards GTX 260 and down and will use almost an entire GB of ram sometimes.

 

[Gabb]

That's a interesting question. In my experience Crysis doesn't have that much higher of hardware requirements than Far Cry 2 but there is a difference. I think the higher requirements may be justified but I haven't played them back to back so it's hard to say for sure.

I mean requirements to run Crysis at max, which is significantly higher then the requirements to run Farcry 2 at max. For example, my 9800 GTX can pretty much run Farcry 2 at max settings with full AA and stuff, while not even a GTX 280 ( significantly more powerful ) can run Crysis at max settings with full AA and stuff.

Crysis is wasteful. Hasn't this been stated? It eats up all cards GTX 260 and down and will use almost an entire GB of ram sometimes.

I was address Zmatt specifically, we had a large "debate" concerning this, where him and ricanflow stated that Crysis looked twice as better, just justified the 2x more resource use.

 

[zmatt]

Crysis doesn't look 2x better and at least on my system it doesn't take 2x the resources. I can run Far cry 2 maxed at 1680x1050 and I can run Crysis warhead at gamer settings with 2x AA.

In completely subjective terms, I think at these settings the games have comparable graphics. Can crysis be optimized more? Sure it can! Everything can be optimized more. One of my favorite examples of code optimization is the Atari demo scene of the late 80's early 90's. By the end of the demo scene performance had increased 50% on hardware that was mostly static. That means in that time a calculation that once took 1 minute took closer to one second, on the same hardware. Of course they had about 10 years to hone their skills and get to know the platform. There is a point when it becomes financially impractical to optimize code more and it is cheaper to throw hardware at the problem. Also i think you we need to look at Crytek's past. When Far Cry came out its graphics were a major step too. It had a huge draw distance, 3d vegetation, and great water (for the time). Crytek's thing is to always push the graphics envelope. Crysis was just another more extreme application of those ideals. It could be optimized more, but when you think of the 15 million dollars they already sunk in it I really don't think you can ask more from them.

As for Xplay, everyone on G4 is a tool. They try to cater to the Spike TV crowd and in doing so they alienate their gamer viewer base. I preferred it when it was tech TV, at least they had some decent shows then. I have direcTV and some time ago they dropped G4 from their default channel listing, so I don't have it anymore. Aside form Ninja Warrior I don't miss it.

And I think Crysis does deserve a 3/5. It is a solid fps, for that it should get a 3/5 which is an average score, they could get a 4/5 for the graphics innovation. They did something most games don't do, innovate. Call of Duty doesn't do that and it gets great reviews. We can't bash Crysis now because it was over hyped. It accomplished its goals and for that we should consider ti a success.

 

[Gabb]

Crysis doesn't look 2x better and at least on my system it doesn't take 2x the resources. I can run Far cry 2 maxed at 1680x1050 and I can run Crysis warhead at gamer settings with 2x AA.

In completely subjective terms, I think at these settings the games have comparable graphics. Can crysis be optimized more? Sure it can! Everything can be optimized more. One of my favorite examples of code optimization is the Atari demo scene of the late 80's early 90's. By the end of the demo scene performance had increased 50% on hardware that was mostly static. That means in that time a calculation that once took 1 minute took closer to one second, on the same hardware. Of course they had about 10 years to hone their skills and get to know the platform. There is a point when it becomes financially impractical to optimize code more and it is cheaper to throw hardware at the problem. Also i think you we need to look at Crytek's past. When Far Cry came out its graphics were a major step too. It had a huge draw distance, 3d vegetation, and great water (for the time). Crytek's thing is to always push the graphics envelope. Crysis was just another more extreme application of those ideals. It could be optimized more, but when you think of the 15 million dollars they already sunk in it I really don't think you can ask more from them.

As for Xplay, everyone on G4 is a tool. They try to cater to the Spike TV crowd and in doing so they alienate their gamer viewer base. I preferred it when it was tech TV, at least they had some decent shows then. I have direcTV and some time ago they dropped G4 from their default channel listing, so I don't have it anymore. Aside form Ninja Warrior I don't miss it.

And I think Crysis does deserve a 3/5. It is a solid fps, for that it should get a 3/5 which is an average score, they could get a 4/5 for the graphics innovation. They did something most games don't do, innovate. Call of Duty doesn't do that and it gets great reviews. We can't bash Crysis now because it was over hyped. It accomplished its goals and for that we should consider ti a success.

well originally in the thread we had you said that Crysis did look 2x better, so I'm under the assumption you are now withdrawing that statement.

Lastly concerning Crysis score of 3/5, I think thats far too low, if you compare it to other games 5/5 score like you did. If you think COD4 didn't do anything amazing, then it should get a score of 3 or lower right in your opinion?

My opinion is, both Crysis and COD4 deserve a 5/5. Crysis deserves the 5/5 because it has above average gameplay with a revolutionary advances in graphics. COD4 deserves a 5/5 because it involves an enjoyable but short campaign, an efficient properitiary engine, and an amazingly solid multiplayer experience, heavy emphasis on the solid multiplayer experience.

 

[zmatt]

I'm not saying COD4 is bad, now you reading to much into my statements. I'm only saying I think its unfair that Crysis gets bashed when COD4 is praised. They are both good games. however I wouldn't give either of them 5/5, simply because if you give every good game 5/5 then you cheapen the system. They should get 4/5.

As for the 2x thing I don't remember saying that so you will have to jog my memory.

 

[stb1swat]

Cod4 had the more solid multi player, at least the people on the PC and 360 grabbed onto it. I don't have too much experience with it, but I have played it on both systems. The shooting mechanics were superior to crysis as far as I could tell.

 

[zmatt]

What do you mean by shooting mechanics? Ballistic physics? How the guns handle? do you rate it better if its more fun or more realistic? neither of the games have jams or anything, but they both have bullets arcs and drop. I haven't made a shot far enough in Crysis to test the Coriolis effect, but there is a mission in COD4 where it is pretty important.

 

[zedman3d]

This entire thread hurts my brain, 5 pages of utter crap. Let these stupid arguments be done on YouTube where they belong.

 

[stb1swat]

Zmatt, I'll have you know I wrote out my reasons for liking the cod4 MP over Crysis MP, but in the end it didn't matter lol. I don't want to make you believe anything, and the only thing that slightly bothers me is your hatred for valve games, but that is totally your opinion.