-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Far Cry = KILLED
- Thread starter Rhindle
- Start date
T-1000_Model3
Banned
Whew... For a minute you had me going there. My pc can't possibly run this game decently,I thought you were going to say that the Xbox version was cancelled.
Mike Works
Member
aww man, i enjoyed playing far cry too
i guess i'll have to throw my copy away now that screenshots from an unreleased game which exemplify a slightly superior foliage engine have been revealed
i guess i'll have to throw my copy away now that screenshots from an unreleased game which exemplify a slightly superior foliage engine have been revealed
Error Macro
Member
There's no way that's running on actual Xbox hardware.
eso76
Member
Going by these pics it could easily run on xbox hardware: Argentina's forest in RSC2 is definately not worse than this.
Looks good, but all we see here is relatively narrow rock corridors with limited draw distance; it's a far cry from Far Cry's incredible draw distance and huge open areas.
Which is what makes Crytek's game impressive : it's not the amount of trees and blades of grass surrounding you, it's the way the engine handles and draws everything in a several miles range.
Looks good, but all we see here is relatively narrow rock corridors with limited draw distance; it's a far cry from Far Cry's incredible draw distance and huge open areas.
Which is what makes Crytek's game impressive : it's not the amount of trees and blades of grass surrounding you, it's the way the engine handles and draws everything in a several miles range.
The Bookerman
Member
Does it have a 1km draw distance?
No?
I rest my case.
Farcry still owns.
No?
I rest my case.
Farcry still owns.
ToyMachine228
Member
Yeah I think Far Cry looks better too...Maybe it's just the graphical style, but Far Cry does look better if you ask me.
cybercrash
Member
I don't get why it's even being discussed wether these screens are doctored (except for the obvious removal of aliasing through downscaling hi-res framegrabs), this doesn't look special to me... It doesn't touch MGS3 so why couldn't it be running on the XBox?
TekunoRobby
Tag of Excellence
Nice shots but Far Cry is still graphically superior from these meager screens that were released.
I'd definitely would be impressed if this were Xbox and so far there doesn't seem to be anything graphically that would imply that it can't be done.
I'd definitely would be impressed if this were Xbox and so far there doesn't seem to be anything graphically that would imply that it can't be done.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
God no... Far Cry is slightly less generic/fugly than this, but still, hell no...
If you want to see how a Far Cry -like engine looks on PS2 play first level of Transformers. Would you trade that kind of graphics for that of MGS3? I know I wouldn't.
Marconelly said:
Far Cry's environments are generic? or even slightly fugly? I'm sorry but I just don't see it...before Far Cry, I'm at a loss when it comes to giant island sized levels filled with white sands, clear water, blue skies, and metric tons of grass and greens being anything near the norm in FPS games...as for it being fugly, only if you ignore it's levels and just concentrate on it's robotic inhabitants
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
I might have misunderstood the post. The engine tiself in Far Cry is actually very good, it's just that I don't think it's used particulary well beyond showcasing the engine. That goes even more for this game, where everything looks very complex but also flat at the same time.
TekunoRobby
Tag of Excellence
It's whoever that uses the engine that matters not the engine itself. It's just an enabler to allow you to create the imagry within it's technical confines.Marconelly said:
TekunoRobby said:
I wouldn't say that...
A lot of games used the Quake engine, for example, and all of them fell within the constraints OF that engine. There are limitations present in all engines, and some of those limitations aren't exactly easy to work around. MGS3 is doing a LOT of the things that CryTek was likely NEVER designed to do. At the VERY least (ignoring the gameplay difficulties), do you REALLY think CryTek could handle a convincing cinematic display as we see with MGS2 and 3? I really don't...
The engine isn't designed for an MGS style game and any attempt at making one work would reveal the roots of the engine. KCEJ writes their graphics/game engines SPECIFICALLY for the type of game they are making...and that is, IMO, the best way to go about it.
eso76
Member
lordmrw said:
Actually there's something really good about the second batch of screens.
The lightning, both in and outdoors has to be the most realistic i've ever seen, especially in those first 3 pictures.
I don't buy it though, these must be renders of ingame scenes with some kind of simple radiosity turned on; it's obvious from the way those walls are lit that this is not a simple 1, 3...7 points lightning setup.
Btw, the 'green' that they (and almost all western developers) are using is terrible.
solarplexus
Member
Never heard of this game before but this looks absolutely amazing.
Eh... aside from some bump mapped water it just seems to push a lot of polys. MGS3 has fancier post-rendering filters and projective texturing to simulate light passing through the trees. It may very well be more advanced but I don't think you can declare a winner between those two games just looking at screenshots.dark10x said: