Support NeoGAF

[Tess3ract]

What. Are you serious?

It looks like they just took the filter off of far cry 2.

 

[GrizzNKev]

Yup. The tone of the series is pretty much on par with the evolution of the soundtrack.

From:

this or this

to this

and finally to this complete turn-around from the ambience of ME1

I can just imagine Bioware telling Jack Wall in ME2 and Sam Hulick in ME2/3: "The music needs to be more EPIC!!"

Why...

Why am I crying?

Ok, sorry for getting off topic. Far Cry 3 is looking meh.

 

[x3sphere]

Well, is that with everything maxed out? If so, not really impressive considering the benchmarks posted earlier.

 

[twobear]

Mass Effect 1 is amazing, it's not some rosetinted glasses - I'm well aware that from a gameplay perspective they definitely improved on it in ME2 ( haven't played 3, can't pay me to play that ) but shockingly I never played ME for the gameplay.

It's just as well you didn't play for the gameplay because the gameplay in ME1 is actively detrimental to any kind of enjoyment. There are sections of the game where the crap AI and terrible mechanics conspire to make 'playing' the game about as fun as hammering rusty nails into your dick (basically any of the sidemissions set in small confined spaces + tons of enemies). People who claim to like ME1 generally seem to claim that they loved the Mako planet exploration sections but...why? A big, empty, poorly textured heightmap with somewhat pretty use of colours for the sky? Okay if that's what floats your boat.

 

[Lulubop]

Well, is that with everything maxed out? If so, not really impressive considering the benchmarks posted earlier.

No Dx11 features I'm pretty sure.

 

[Tess3ract]

This is what FC2 looks like without the filter (I think)

 

[Tony Redgrave]

It's just as well you didn't play for the gameplay because the gameplay in ME1 is actively detrimental to any kind of enjoyment. There are sections of the game where the crap AI and terrible mechanics conspire to make 'playing' the game about as fun as hammering rusty nails into your dick (basically any of the sidemissions set in small confined spaces + tons of enemies). People who claim to like ME1 generally seem to claim that they loved the Mako planet exploration sections but...why? A big, empty, poorly textured heightmap with somewhat pretty use of colours for the sky? Okay if that's what floats your boat.

I love ME1 and I don't claim for it to be perfect, in fact you're spot on on your criticism combat was abysmal and exploration often a chore, but it added to the experience and atmosphere. What I'm bitter about (and most people that liked ME1 as far as I can tell) is about BioWare ditching everything for the sake of corridor shooting, they were supposed to expand upon the established concept and make them better not replace them with actioney cutscenes.

 

[KyleN]

FarCry3.

 

[legacyzero]

The HUD doesn't look too terribly bad.

Also MOAR!

 

[twobear]

I love ME1 and I don't claim for it to be perfect, in fact you're spot on on your criticism combat was abysmal and exploration often a chore, but it added to the experience and atmosphere. What I'm bitter about (and most people that liked ME1 as far as I can tell) is about BioWare ditching everything for the sake of corridor shooting, they were supposed to expand upon the established concept and make them better not replace them with actioney cutscenes.

Sure, yeah, I agree that there was a balance to find there in the sequel and they probably did tilt it too far towards more generic cover shooterdom. I think that losing many aspects of the unique music, for one, was a big blow. But the Mako exploration planets, I'm really not sure how you could improve them. Making all the planets highly detailed and unique is just a completely unrealistic expectation. I guess there could have been fewer?

 

[Lime]

Sure, yeah, I agree that there was a balance to find there in the sequel and they probably did tilt it too far towards more generic cover shooterdom. I think that losing many aspects of the unique music, for one, was a big blow. But the Mako exploration planets, I'm really not sure how you could improve them. Making all the planets highly detailed and unique is just a completely unrealistic expectation. I guess there could have been fewer?

Either Bioware could have:

1: Taken a note from Bethesda or Ubisoft Montreal if they wanted to produce procedurally created locations, but improve the significance and diversity of the created content. What they did in ME1 wasn't very professional and could have easily been created during the course of a couple of weeks by some students (assuming the programming framework and triggers are in place).

Or 2: Minimized the scope and refined specific the side quest planets akin to the main quest planets. This would of course mean a smaller amount of locations, but you'd still get some diversity and depth rather than the lazy procedurally created side quest planets we actually got in ME1.

 

[Zyrusticae]

FarCry3.

OMG COLORS!

I am already convinced I must buy this game.

I MUST SUPPORT THE USE OF MORE COLOR!

Edit: Regarding the Mass Effect discussion, I just felt like noting that the linked track isn't really representative of ME2's soundtrack...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN4sXqnHZoI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rGQqBNZSAs

 

[neoism]

agreeing with everyone here that despite it's gameplay flaws, the first mass effect was the most engaging. i loved exploring the planets with the mako just to see the different environments like the binary star system above.

the me1 ost is a masterpiece... still wish I could play it... is there a good controller mod for the pc version I got it a few years ago for 5 bones, but couldn't play it with the M&K

 

[Tess3ract]

What was wrong with it? The inventory was bad on the console too.

They gave it to another dev to port the first game for pc.

 

[Dewoh]

I'm...underwhelmed by the FC3 shots. At least so far. Not much of an improvement over FC2.

Prove me wrong. Please.

 

[Peterthumpa]

I'm...underwhelmed by the FC3 shots. At least so far. Not much of an improvement over FC2.

Prove me wrong. Please.

Ditto. Besides the good looking grass of the second shot, nothing mind-blowing so far to justify the (supposedly) crappy performance.

 

[Sinatar]

 

[KyleN]

FarCry3.

 

[sp3000]

Far Cry 3 looks underwhelming. Maybe it's the low poly

 

[Sinatar]

Looks thoroughly whelming to me. It's an open world game after all.

 

[iNvid02]

Looks thoroughly whelming to me. It's an open world game after all.

this is what some people just dont get, open world games arent gonna look like smaller, linear games. there might be an exception here and there but its generally the case

 

[KyleN]

The hell you guys smokin? To me it feels like im playing a bullshot!
The game looks nice, in fact the best looking game of 2012. And the DX11 options arent even available yet.

 

[Peterthumpa]

this is what some people just dont get, open world games arent gonna look like smaller, linear games. there might be an exception here and there but its generally the case

The problem are the comparisons. Take any game 5 years older than the original Crysis and everything was really, really far away. This game is 5 years newer than Crysis and it seems to look a little worse, at best. 5 years is a freaking huge gap to basically achieve worse.

Though this could be plagued by the console versions holding the development back so who knows.

 

[TouchMyBox]

Mass Effect 1 is amazing, it's not some rosetinted glasses - I'm well aware that from a gameplay perspective they definitely improved on it in ME2 ( haven't played 3, can't pay me to play that ) but shockingly I never played ME for the gameplay.

They definitely improved the actual gun-play, the gun handling in ME1 was crap because it was only turned into a shooter at the last minute it development it would seem. I remember watching gameplay videos 8 months before launch where the player had a tactical view which they could play from, it looked like a really awesome evolution of KOTOR. I'll never understand why they tried to make it a shooter.

On another note, Far Cry 3 looks nice if it is easy to achieve 60 fps... Is it?

 

[Zyrusticae]

Man, I don't even know what you guys are on about. Far Cry 3 looks nice.

Without seeing the character models, I can't judge whether or not it looks better than Crysis (seriously, Crysis has the best character models of any game I've ever played to date), but the environments are certainly on-par. I wonder how far the DX11 features push it...

 

[IcyBlueStrawberry]

The problem are the comparisons. Take any game 5 years older than the original Crysis and everything was really, really far away. This game is 5 years newer than Crysis and it seems to look a little worse, at best. 5 years is a freaking huge gap to basically achieve worse.

Though this could be plagued by the console versions holding the development back so who knows.

I feel I should point out that, to this day, Crysis won't hold a solid 60 fps regardless of your hardware setup.

Also, for all of the graphical elements that it does well there is one that it did poorly. The lighting may be great but textures are pretty low res, there can be a very large number of trees on screen at one time but the attention to detail is minimal, and there's a fairly large difference between the vanilla version of the game and modded ones.

Don't get me wrong, I fully understand what you mean, but it's only because Crysis was so far ahead of its time both in its visual fidelity and its hardware requirements.

 

[sp3000]

this is what some people just dont get, open world games arent gonna look like smaller, linear games. there might be an exception here and there but its generally the case

I understand that, but it's art style is so similar to Crysis, other than the saturation, that it's hard not to compare the two.

When you already experienced a game set in a similar environment that looks better 5 years ago, it is sort of ridiculous even if one game is open world.

I feel I should point out that, to this day, Crysis won't hold a solid 60 fps regardless of your hardware setup.

I'm pretty sure this is false. At the worst you might get dips into the 55 range on a GTX 590 if you explode the gas stations, but 99 percent of the time it will be locked at 60.

And Far Cry 3 runs like garbage considering how it looks.

 

[I NEED SCISSORS]

I feel I should point out that, to this day, Crysis won't hold a solid 60 fps regardless of your hardware setup.

Also, for all of the graphical elements that it does well there is one that it did poorly. The lighting may be great but textures are pretty low res, there can be a very large number of trees on screen at one time but the attention to detail is minimal, and there's a fairly large difference between the vanilla version of the game and modded ones.

Don't get me wrong, I fully understand what you mean, but it's only because Crysis was so far ahead of its time both in its visual fidelity and its hardware requirements.

Well it will at least get above 30fps on a brand new card. FC3 performance is putrid, AND it looks worse than Crysis to boot.

 

[scitek]

Holy shit at the placement of the HUD in Far Cry 3. Is it always so far in on the screen? That shit gets in the way big time.

 

[IcyBlueStrawberry]

I understand that, but it's art style is so similar to Crysis, other than the saturation, that it's hard not to compare the two.

When you already experienced a game set in a similar environment that looks better 5 years ago, it is sort of ridiculous even if one game is open world.




I'm pretty sure this is false. At the worst you might get dips into the 55 range on a GTX 590 if you explode the gas stations, but 99 percent of the time it will be locked at 60.

And Far Cry 3 runs like garbage considering how it looks.

Check out benchmarks for Crysis, you'd be surprised. I've got a pair of 7970s and my fps drops into the 30s in some areas. Not just for a second when I blow something up either. The game was pretty much made for hardware that won't ever exist.

And FC3 runs at 60 fps on a 680 while looking like the screens posted here. DX11 runs much worse, apparently, but I haven't yet seen what it looks like maxed out.

 

[KyleN]

Far Cry 3.

 

[xJavonta]

These two shots totally encapsulate why Mass Effect 1 is better than either of the sequels.

I agree that ME1 was phenomenal, but I'm not gonna lie and say that it's better than 2. The Mako was fucking unbearable and gunplay felt better in 2.

Holy shit at the placement of the HUD in Far Cry 3. Is it always so far in on the screen? That shit gets in the way big time.

Not sure, but part of me wants to say it's a console port reason. Maybe over-scan on TVs or something? I don't know.

 

[Dewoh]

These last couple shots look better, but it's still not the jump from FC2 that I expected/hoped for.

Agree on the hud placement. That's nutso.

 

[EatChildren]

- Enters High-Res PC screenshot thread.
- Argument about Mass Effect "shoot bang" and corridors.

Like I said in the other thread, it's a running joke.

 

[Stallion Free]

- Enters High-Res PC screenshot thread.
- Argument about Mass Effect "shoot bang" and corridors.

Like I said in the other thread, it's a running joke.

In all fairness, it is relevant to the vistas for screenshotting (the corridors part).

 

[IMACOMPUTA]

Not impressed by the FC3 shots posted so far. Looks like they spent all their graphix on the grass.

 

[Dictator93]

Far Cry 3.

Does the PC version have per object motion blur? PLease tell me it does. PLEASE

Also, what image quality settings are you using. It is hard to find a jaggy in these screens

 

[dreamfall]

Bald heads in arms!

 

[Loginius]

Check out benchmarks for Crysis, you'd be surprised. I've got a pair of 7970s and my fps drops into the 30s in some areas. Not just for a second when I blow something up either. The game was pretty much made for hardware that won't ever exist.

And FC3 runs at 60 fps on a 680 while looking like the screens posted here. DX11 runs much worse, apparently, but I haven't yet seen what it looks like maxed out.

So your point is that Crysis (@max) looks better (/equal) than Far Cry 3 (@max meaning dx11) while it has about the same performance problems.
You do realize that this is 5 years after crysis has come out and we still have not surpased it in a open world setting?

This is why people are "underwhelmed".

Why do people compare Crysis to Far Cry 3 when one is open world and the other is not?

Because Locations in Crysis (1) are so big that there is not much difference in how those graphics have to be streamed id say.

 

[EatChildren]

Why do people compare Crysis to Far Cry 3 when one is open world and the other is not?

 

[NBtoaster]

Why do people compare Crysis to Far Cry 3 when one is open world and the other is not?

Crysis might as well be. Don't think the streaming demands are the cause of the performance problems in Far Cry 3 though.

 

[MrOogieBoogie]

I agree that ME1 was phenomenal, but I'm not gonna lie and say that it's better than 2. The Mako was fucking unbearable and gunplay felt better in 2.



Not sure, but part of me wants to say it's a console port reason. Maybe over-scan on TVs or something? I don't know.

I have never understood people who have trouble with the Mako. I really haven't. Makes zero sense to me.

 

[sp3000]

Why do people compare Crysis to Far Cry 3 when one is open world and the other is not?

I don't know if I buy the open world excuse. A game like Just Cause 2 manages to look very good despite that. The open world is much more stressing on the CPU than the GPU anyway, in terms of actual work that needs to be done on each one. Skyrim does not start stressing the GPU until you load up a ton of mods, but even the stock game benefits a great amount from an i7. Let's not forget Crysis is not a corridor shooter either. It's the most open linear game ever made. So in terms of the actual worldspace in memory it is probably similar.

It's sort of lame that half a decade later a game set in a similar environment looks worse. I'm sure it's still a good game

 

[JAY the BIRD]

A quick go at downsampling AC3.

 

[LabouredSubterfuge]

The more I see of it the more AC3 is rising to the top of my 'most disappointing graphics 2012' list.

 

[paperspace]

⁣

 

[Angelus Errare]

The more I see of it the more AC3 is rising to the top of my 'most disappointing graphics 2012' list.

Why would you have your expectations that high? It's a 360/PS3 game.

 

[JAY the BIRD]

The more I see of it the more AC3 is rising to the top of my 'most disappointing graphics 2012' list.

Really? I love the atmosphere.
Most surprising by far though...

 

[JAY the BIRD]

Also, I forgot how amazing JC2 looks.

 

[Shaneus]

Never forget. It holds up so fucking well it's not funny.

Considering when it came out, it's amazing that it's still competing with far newer games, even without texture mods etc.

Having said that, I reckon it could look pretty nifty with a bit of SweetFX tweaking to mute some of the colours a little...