digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Crysis Graphic Comparison - Low, Medium, High, Very High (DX9/DX10)

ve3d.ign.com — Crytek has released the four following screenshots of a Crysis island, running at various detail levels. Low looks... very bad.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Sifter, on 10/19/2007, -3/+192First thought: "Wow! Very High looks awesome. Look at those rocks!"
    Second thought: "Man, I'm impressed by the graphics of rocks. Something tells me I'm getting too geeky......."
    • flibz, on 10/15/2007, -14/+5My first thought was that something didn't look right. Then I realised. It's the shadow of the barrel. Shadows from the sun don't get wider, they get narrower.

      Makes things look odd.
      • voidvector, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Let's calculate how far away the "sun" is from the barrel.
      • grumbel, on 10/13/2007, -1/+10Reality disagrees: http://flickr.com/photos/abb/1261303487/

        Sunrays are (near) parallel, so shadows stay the same wide, unless of course when the sun his behind the object, then they fall into your direction and due to perspective they look widened them, terrain shape can do some more to deform them in unexpected ways.
    • noseeme, on 10/27/2007, -1/+35Look at that boulder! That is a NICE boulder!
    • Zephir62, on 10/13/2007, -1/+3Those rocks are using parallax mapping, which is a shader that can most definitely be rendered in dx9. In fact, every effect shown in the dx10 screen shot could be used with dx9. Efficiency and therefor FPS from rendering those effects however could be a different story, but I'm pretty certain that there isn't much of a difference, if any at all.
      • jonesy827, on 10/17/2007, -2/+1don't you love when people try to sound like they know whats up, but they have no idea what they are saying?
    • greatpaimei, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This just isn't very usable for comparing. It's taken from the same angle, but notice the total absence of sun in the last picture as compared to the first. How much can we infer from this picture? Maybe the graphics look better (as the tend to do) as the photo gets darker.
    • RST1123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Nice!
    • EtherGnat, on 10/20/2007, -1/+2There is something wrong about the shadow of the barrel--it was the first thing I noticed when I looked at the graphic--but I can't put my finger on it. I suspect we're beginning to approach something akin to the uncanny valley in video games. The closer an image gets to looking "real" the more trouble our brains have processing any inaccuracies. It will be interesting to see how the phenomenon affects gaming. I suspect we'll see games go in more stylistic directions until we cross the valley.

      Uncanny valley: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley (applies to robots, but I think the general theory is valid)
  • tuzziel, on 10/21/2007, -5/+91Yet, the lowest ugliest setting shows mosts clearly the important stuff, like items, enemies etc.

    • capiCrimm, on 10/14/2007, -2/+45agreed, gaming would be so much easier if health pack and guns were bright florescent colors. Everything else can be light grey.
    • capiCrimm, on 10/13/2007, -28/+2agreed, gaming would be so much easier if health pack and guns were bright strobing florescent colors, and Enemies should be solid florescent colors. Everything else can be grey.
      • BradMW, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I agree with your first comment, but not this one.
    • toekneebullard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I wonder if Multiplayer will be that way. I remember RTCW had an exploit where super low graphics made the players almost glow. Sucked for people who wanted a fair, pretty game
      • sexybobo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2thats what punkbuster was for took a little work but you could set the minimum and maximum for each of the cvar so people couldn't remove the leaves from trees or the other cheats people use to do.
        • turpenine, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I hated one time I was trying to play on an old pc i had and i couldn't get on anything cause the settings had to run so low.
    • NyteStarNyne, on 10/16/2007, -1/+82Your crappy graphics card will blot out the sun, and you will fight in the shade!
    • kds71, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2Well, that is how pro players play Quake. There is mod which makes all wall textures made of solid, dark colors and all items and enemies very bright and clear.
      • dbr_onix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27Isn't that how, err, cheaters play?
        • Xyleene, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2No, it was standard practice for Quake 3. Now it would be considered cheating and you would busted punk.
          • sexybobo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7no it was still considered cheating in quake 3 that is why they had to add punkbuster in to stop all the cheaters ruining the game for every one else.
    • STKD, on 10/14/2007, -1/+13"I wonder if Multiplayer will be that way."
      It is. You may think you're hidden in deep vegetation but to players on low settings, you're crawling in the dirt and there is no vegetation. TBH multiplayer at the minute is ***** beyond belief.
      • lacronicus, on 10/13/2007, -0/+2What are you talking about? The MP has bee just fine, and all the brush on high is there on low. I've tested the beta myself, its just fine in that respect. Certainly the brush doesn't look nearly as detailed, but it is there and it does react to the player, just like on high. Thats why the min specs are so high, there is very little room to sacrifice quality.
    • RIAAagent, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1lowest setting=looks like COD2
  • seanthebond, on 10/19/2007, -22/+96I honestly wasn't too impressed by those shots...
    • Akaji, on 10/16/2007, -2/+77Stills are rarely as impressive as videos. Go look up some Crysis videos if you want to be impressed.
      • Urusai, on 10/15/2007, -20/+12Sorry, I'm not impressed by videos run on dual SLI top-line experimental video cards. I don't spend $1000 for my video card, and I don't give a ***** how sweet their game looks on an absurd, unobtainable system.
        • Megatog615, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5As much as I adore customizing my systems and running the latest games on them, you're right. I don't think I'd spend that much on a game like this, especially when the multiplayer looks as lacking as it does.
        • Smills, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Umm, unattainable? I know several people with systems more than capable of running this... Assuming an 8800GTX is capable of running this...
        • cerealman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Unattainable? Shh... don't tell my computer that!
    • sishgupta, on 10/13/2007, -25/+6dx9 High qualty looks terrible compared to the dx10 "very high" quality
      Makes me wonder if they gimped the dx9 graphics purposely to make dx10 look better?
      • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/13/2007, -4/+24Or...and I'm stretching on this one...technology improved.
    • raeanin, on 10/13/2007, -2/+2Women aren't to impressed with your face, either.

      Honestly, the DX10 shot still looks as bad ass as always, I have been waiting a long time to upgrade for this game.
  • limezor2, on 10/19/2007, -3/+119The worst looks like FarCry.
  • 3rnesto, on 10/19/2007, -3/+44Could have showed some better angles the only thing you can notice different is the rocks.
    • Racerx52, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Yea, Showing water and more foliage would really get the emphasis out.
      Well, demo in 15 days >:)
    • ozroy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7The colour of the sky and the rays of light coming off the tree as the sun shines through it. Extra trees in the background
      • MagicCake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yeah, the sunlight and the tree really impressed me. Definitely a big difference between quality settings.
  • Satanael, on 10/31/2007, -49/+43For the same price of a new graphics card to run this, I just bought an xbox 360 instead...
    • Racerx52, on 10/19/2007, -33/+17Enjoy your red rings of love!
      • sirbeta, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5It's sad how he's right, so horribly right... Friend sent in his 360 for the third time now after owning it for a little under 8 months. It's the sole reason why I haven't gotten a 360 yet.
        • Christbait, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The RROD is to be phased out completely soon, there will be a new chip coming into effect, so the next time anyone's XBOX breaks in 2008, MS will be replacing the CPU for one which prevents it from overheating so much, which I believe was the main contributor to the RROD.
      • loltron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Enjoy your 3 year warranty!
    • swanny89, on 10/19/2007, -20/+16And it won't look as good. And you'll be stuck with using a gamepad vs. mouse and keyboard. Besides, I hardly think you'll need a $350 graphics card to turn on low settings.
      • cvrefugee, on 10/19/2007, -5/+20I would basically have to buy a whole new system in order to play Crysis (stuck on AGP). The Xbox 360 version is a great deal for me.
        • iofthestorm, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3Nah, there are AGP versions of some pretty high end cards.
        • jgtg32a, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Yeah but there isn't a point to those they are usually faster than the bus speed.
          • mallardtheduck, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Except that bus speed only really matters when sending data to the card from main memory. If the card has enough RAM then it has very little impact.
            I have a GF7600GT AGP. Benchmarks show the PCIe version gets around 20-30 points higher 3dMark scores and max 5fps better in games. Overclocking my (AGP) card gets around 200-300 better 3dMark scores and about 10-20fps better in games.

            In other words, AGP 8x is perfectly adequate for mid-range cards.
          • Smills, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Hate to break it to you but you aren't gunna be running Crysis well on last generation mid-range cards.
        • bagboyrebel, on 10/15/2007, -0/+9except it's a PC only game.
      • xNIBx, on 10/19/2007, -3/+7Get an x1950pro agp for 130$ and you should be able to play it on mid/high settings on dx9. And if your cpu is weak, you can still get a nice dual core amd cpu for 70$. If you want dx10, get a 2900pro for 200$. If you need more memory, you can get 1gB ram for like 40$. Pc gaming isnt more expensive than console gaming is. This is just a myth. Consoles have many hidden costs, like higher priced games, online cost, extra content cost, etc. And pc games CAN SCALE, which means that you will be able to play future pc games as well with this machine, if you just lower the detail/resolution.
        • Lorddias, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2Not to mention emulation and easy pirating!
    • Firehed, on 10/28/2007, -4/+17Too bad that Crysis isn't coming to the 360. Yes, it makes me sad too.
      • Christbait, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Yes, it actually is, but it would probably barely look two thirds as good.
    • frsrblch, on 10/19/2007, -10/+15For the price of an HDTV I bought a whole ***** computer (aforementioned graphics card included).
    • carl25, on 10/19/2007, -4/+6well then you sure got ripped off
    • Kerath, on 10/28/2007, -2/+9If it was being developed for the 360 too, it wouldn't look as good.
    • Stevethegreat, on 10/19/2007, -9/+6You could buy a 8600GTS for one th third of the prize and play the game to the high settings, this shows how little you know of hardware. Now you payed thrice the price and you will pay twice for each and every game just to see the same graphics that a $115 8600GTS can do, congratulation (with your stupidity, if you think that XBOX360 is next-gen anymore).
    • warriorscot, on 10/19/2007, -7/+1Pretty stupid considering the price of a 360 will get you a really great graphics card or just a good dx10 one and some cash to get some new memory or a bigger PSU.
    • YojimboJango, on 10/19/2007, -4/+5And I can build a whole new computer that plays Crysis on recommended specs for the price of a 360. Or better yet, I can take the $600 dollar computer that I built 2 years ago and play Crysis on that instead. Last year the 360 was more bang for your buck than a good computer. This year the same isn't true. Sorry, PC prices drop faster than console prices, enjoy your already out dated hardware.
  • RuthlessPirate, on 10/19/2007, -1/+12Very low plus some shadows really wouldn't look that bad.
  • ItchyRichy, on 10/19/2007, -1/+69Also note that the beta includes an Extreme option that is greyed out as no commercially available hardware can produce the settings at a satisfactory frame rate.
    oh shi-
    • dn11, on 10/19/2007, -0/+34 they should still let you turn it on, so you can experience awesome slo mo graphics at 2 FPS
      • Naqaj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10also known as "marketing *****" ...
      • Christbait, on 11/14/2007, -0/+30Back in the day, my system could barely run Max Payne, it was bullet time ALL the time, baby!
    • Megatog615, on 10/19/2007, -0/+11I guess it's their job to intimidate me with the Extreme option then.
      Thing is, most games have had an option like this for a while, ever since Doom3 had the "Ultra" option, when nobody could run it. It was used as a benchmark instead.
      • logandurand, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1I could run doom 3 on ultra with my admittedly dated machine...not that ridiculous
    • Moriya, on 10/19/2007, -1/+4It's a joke, people - you have to agree to a Non Disclosure Agreement to play the Beta. I'm in the beta, and there is clearly no Extreme option....oh *****.
    • KungFuJesus, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2No, extreme isn't available in the beta because they don't want the beta to be 16 gigs like the install is going to be
  • whodatis, on 10/19/2007, -8/+2diggmirror?
  • PunkHop, on 10/19/2007, -19/+5"Low looks... very bad."

    Dude, shutup. It's LOW quality. Low = bad... for crap-puters How about... "Wow, high looks insanely good!" You're reeeeally reaching for FUD when it comes to effing CRYSIS GRAPHICS.
  • Sil369, on 10/19/2007, -5/+4Them's pretty rocks.
  • h4mx0r, on 10/19/2007, -5/+39GOOD GOD. This cannot be true! The lowest settings look like a 404!
    • raeanin, on 10/13/2007, -1/+1Why are you complaining? You don't buy a massively graphic intense game to play it on low. Who ***** cares what low looks like?
      • h4mx0r, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1You missed the joke = /. When I was trying to access it earlier, the site was down.
  • itseffinkasey, on 10/19/2007, -3/+23For some reason I like the clouds in the lowest setting the best.
    • doublej42, on 10/19/2007, -0/+8they are a simple skybox effect, instead of being volumetric.
      • hockey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That explains why there is no sun in that screen shot either by the way.
    • benitojuarez, on 10/19/2007, -1/+4The clouds and the grass in the dx10 shot look like real life to me, i don't think the dx10 shot is in "very high" though since there are no shadows.
    • sagat, on 10/19/2007, -0/+6Got to agree as I look from my office window at the sky above Manhattan, that's what the clouds currently look like - well defined fluffy white cotton balls of various different colors. Not little whispy mists of DX10 blandness.
    • jhaks, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2The thing is all these shots are of different scenes. If you look at videos of Crysis in DX10 you can see volumetric clouds which look freaking awesome.
  • darthbob, on 10/19/2007, -0/+10Mirror: http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/6396/crysisvert ...

    Site's going slow right now.

  • keikun17, on 10/13/2007, -7/+0@ h4mx0r

    : i'd rather have a 404 than that lol
  • Kerath, on 10/19/2007, -3/+7Medium looks the best. More contrast.
    • Brenner14, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1because the sun is brightest in that picture. the images seem to be taken at different "in-game" times
  • rkiga, on 10/19/2007, -1/+9http://duggmirror.com/gaming_news/Crysis_Graphic_C ...

    I was about to say something about not caring if game graphics don't improve past farcry and that it's all about gameplay, but damn the lack of tracks in the sand on low setting just look like crap. I'm a sucker too now :(
  • Sabin76, on 10/19/2007, -2/+7I'm interested to know why they needed DX10 settings to get the parallaxing that high. There's an Oblivion mod that has been out for quite a while that looks just as good. Granted there are other things that are better, but I think they could have easily bumped up the parallaxing in the "High" setting.
    • swrostmore, on 10/19/2007, -0/+8That's the difference between parallax mapping and normal mapping - the former can occlude itself (increasing the illusion of depth), while 'bumping up' a normal map would only result in blown-out shadows/highlights
    • jhaks, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2But even with parallax mapping you can't get such protrusion especially at very large angles. I'm wondering if they are using geometry shaders in DX10.
  • FireandFlame, on 10/19/2007, -10/+1the high DX9 looks 10x better than the DX10 shot... or maybe thats just me.
    • SoulGrub, on 10/19/2007, -0/+9Hmm better check your eyes!
    • jgtg32a, on 10/19/2007, -0/+3open both is 2 tabs and switch back and forth
  • Ghoztt, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Looks like I'll be playing on Direct X9, Medium... The beach and the sky just look so much more colourfull!
    • Dracusis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Probably because there is no HDR lighting in Medium so everything looks over-expsosed. Once you see it all in motion you'll quickly change your mind.
  • agent42, on 10/30/2007, -13/+73Is anyone else looking at the DX10 screenshot and thinking "looks awesome... still not installing vista though."
    • MagicCake, on 10/19/2007, -6/+21Already have Vista, and after seeing that I'm particularly glad I do. :)
    • Dracusis, on 10/19/2007, -3/+9Yeah, I'm still hesitant to install it again.

      I hope Vista SP1 comes along before Crysis or I may just not buy the game. Sadly, this is something you really need to run in DX-10 or, well, it wouldn't be crysis.
      • tdous, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Seriously, It looks truly amazing in DX9 at high detail once you're actually moving about in it. Fun too, just to controversially mention gameplay in a Crysis story ;)
  • specialK16, on 10/19/2007, -2/+15That's low? My computer would implode with that.
  • Dhalgren, on 10/19/2007, -3/+12I think the low looks fine...
    • gplpark92, on 10/28/2007, -0/+0yes, low indeed looks very good. Similar to Battlefield 2. But its not really the graphisc that are super amazing, but the physics. Everything is breakable and throwable, and u can see that nothing is 2-dimensional. In a lotta games, lazy devs made 2-d trees and placed'em to look 3-d, but that was crap.
      in this game, i can break the branch of a tree, pick it up, throw it onto the right-rear side of the car, and u'll see the windows on that section break. If i throw the entire tree, on the left-front side of the car, u'll see the front left tire pop.
  • rville, on 10/19/2007, -0/+15From what I have experienced with World in conflict and with Bioshock the difference between dx10 and dx9 doesn't show up really well in still shots.

    The biggest difference I have noticed is the smoke, fog and explosion effects which look very realistic with dx10.
    • tdous, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2They've said that on higher settings they've tried to simulate a lot of the DX10 effects in DX9 so while they won't look better than the DX10 equivalents, they wanted as good an XP experience as possible until DX10 has to come out for that due to slow Vista uptake (maybe).

      As an aside, they've also said the rendering engine is modular and that they can easily drop in new ones as developments in tech and software occur so it could constantly look up to date for years, which I like, as long as it plays well of course.
  • chesscat, on 10/28/2007, -17/+0what's all the hoopla? The graphics look fake. not very impressive at all.
    • Kerath, on 10/28/2007, -1/+15Fake?
      • cmpshotty, on 10/28/2007, -1/+24Yeah, like they were rendered on a computer or something!
        • anonymous666, on 10/28/2007, -0/+9Play Outside v1.0 Final if you want better graphics
          • trib4lmaniac, on 10/28/2007, -0/+4I can't find it on Google. Do you have a link?
  • FoxOrian, on 10/19/2007, -3/+7Some strange thoughts: as a still image, the clouds in the low res look way better, but I know its just a sky texture. Also, whats with the ***** HUGE sun???
    • tdous, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2In a moving game the clouds look way better than a sky box. To be fair I think they're bad shots for judging the clouds. As for the Sun, jungles are closer to the Sun. That's why their hot.
  • pbostley, on 10/19/2007, -11/+0Too bad it's EA. It's gonna be a buggy POS, that they will 1/2 patch and then desert...
    • h4mx0r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well there is a difference between EA developers and outside developers using the EA publisher...
    • Protoss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Crysis is being made by Crytek, the original team behind FarCry.
  • Hoxie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4its all in the lighting
  • Majorkerina, on 10/19/2007, -4/+9I have seen the future and it is a strange and dingy brown.

    Personally...I don't care for what DX10 adds here, I'd rather see it in play in a brightly colored, Pixar-type world.
  • tikited, on 10/19/2007, -2/+5You do know xbox 360 does not perform direct x 10 only 9. I rather go for the pc version because more its reliable. keyboard and mouse is the best way to play.
  • Frostman3D, on 10/19/2007, -0/+10I only have a 7900gtx, so I'll miss out on the DirectX10 stuff, but that's ok, I just don't feel like I should have to buy a new $400-$600 video card every 2 years.
    • Kallius, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3At least I can *run* this in the low (maybe medium) setting. Unlike those lazy programmers at Bioshock who couldn't be bothered to have it work with less than Pixelshader 3.0. I'm in agreement with you wrt the price. If I wanted to spend that much every year or so on hardware, I'd just go console. (Now I wonder how many people will digg me down and start posting comments like, "Maybe they should make it run on EGA" haha so freaking funny or "If you can't afford to upgrade every year, you shouldn't be playing PC games")
    • MagicCake, on 10/28/2007, -0/+7Second time I've said this in as many days, but my 8800GTS was $280. Supports DX10, and (hopefully) will run this game nicely.
      • Stevethegreat, on 10/28/2007, -0/+6In fact you can find a 8800GTS for (as low as) $220 with mail-in rebate and stuff for 6 months now. Choose your hardware wisely and you will be always on the cutting edge without paying much. 8800GTS was reported to play the game to very high settings (DX10)
  • Entertayner, on 10/19/2007, -0/+7When playing, low really isn't that bad. On a par with the med/high graphics of Battlefield 2.
  • philhatesyou, on 10/19/2007, -1/+3The details in the DX10 shot are better, but the color looks very meh.
  • benroy, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2the high quality dx9 looks better than the dx10. newer isn't always better.
    • Dracusis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Put your glasses on, if you don't have any, get some.
  • ApacheVE3D, on 10/19/2007, -0/+8site should be okay now, had to give it a kick in the bottom. wasnt expecting to be dug at 10:30 pm :)
  • mooninite, on 10/19/2007, -4/+8Unreal Tournament 3 looks more impressive and it will only require DX9 and it will have an OpenGL engine that runs on Linux. Superior programming doesn't always require the latest "thing" from Redmond.
  • Dracusis, on 10/19/2007, -0/+5I love the volumetric haze from the sun interacting with the trees in the background of the DX10 shot. You have to look closely to see it, but it's there!

    DX-10 will look stunning as the sun sets.

    With the overall brightness of those screenshots I'd assume HDR has a role to play here. As the sun is on screen the eye's pupil should have contracted quite a lot and reducing the overall exposure of the image, which seems to be reflected in the DX10/9-High screenshots. I'm not sure if this correctly models the human visual system, but I guess we'll have to see it all in motion before we can tell if this feels realistic or not.
  • xNaquada, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2shadows and ray tracing on the trees in dx10 are amazing. but for some reason i like the low quality clouds. oh well.
    • FLarsen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Low quality has a skybox, high has volumetric clouds. I think you'll change your mind if you see it in motion.
  • thesandbender, on 10/19/2007, -1/+8The images on the site are jpegs. You don't use jpegs for graphics comparison because you don't know which artifacts are from bad rendering and which are from poor rendering and which are from jpeg compression. A lossless format like tiff or png should be used.
    Regardless, the DX10 high shots are purty.
  • nullcodes, on 10/19/2007, -3/+1The barrel and that crate thing looks too slanted. what's up with that? And no, a photo wouldn't look like that even with lens distortion.
    • YojimboJango, on 10/28/2007, -0/+4The photo would look like that if the crate and barrel were on a sandy or rocky ground that was slanted.
  • HouseofEl, on 10/20/2007, -1/+9These shots look good, but I'm sort of underwhelmed. This certainly isn't a knock on the game or the developers, but can we please do something other than the super soldier that has to fight aliens? Graphics: Great. Concept: Bad. Looks good, but that's only going to last so long before you realize you are playing the same game you played last year. Unless there is also a drastic change in game play, it's just like the thousands of remakes Hollywood puts out. It's time to think of something new folks. Game developers need to understand that graphics do make part of the game, but story and game play complete it.
  • Beerduck, on 10/19/2007, -1/+2Based of those shots I'd rather play it on high than very high. The very high colors just look way too gray/brownish. Realistic? Hell no.
    The only thing that looks better on DX10 are the ground details.
    • Stevethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Then take a look of how it looks ingame when you put ether a DX9 card to play it or a DX10 card

      http://www.gametrailers.com/player/19965.html
      • Beerduck, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1OK, that video does look much better on DX10 but the DX9 picture in this article still looks much better than the DX10 one, and that's what I based my comment on.
    • tdous, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Just ground detail? And the light rays, visible where the palm branches break them casting "shadows" in the air, and the subtle depth of field that doesn't make it look like you're wearing your grandma's reading glasses, and the haloing of objects nearer the Sun in the image..?
  • Grimdotdotdot, on 10/19/2007, -0/+4Is it just me, or do those shadows look like their being cast by a sun about 50 feet away?
    • Megatog615, on 10/19/2007, -1/+2This is why I dislike shadowmaps. I'd prefer stencil shadows as long as they figure out how to make them look real if I look at it long enough. A stencil shadow really does look real if you don't look closely. Lightmaps for static objects in maps are the most realistic non-interactive shadow technology though.
  • Megatog615, on 10/19/2007, -1/+6And the pros on multiplayer will play with everything on low, just as they have for years.
  • MerryMortician, on 10/19/2007, -0/+11I foresee a lot of deaths while standing on rocks looking around at the pretty world.
  • SomaSynth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3http://farcry.us.ubi.com/screenshots.php

    FarCry 2, this is where it's going to be at.
    • slinky317, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2The original FarCry sucked once you got past the pretty scenery. I don't anticipate anything better for FarCry 2, nor for Crysis for that matter.

      UT3, all the way!
      • tdous, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Nah, it was fun. I have invalidated your opinion completely. ;)
    • tdous, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Looks like Splinter Creed. Is it the same engine?
  • SimonSociopath, on 10/31/2007, -13/+5it's screenshots like this that make me glad i bought a 360 instead of a new desktop.
    • tdous, on 10/28/2007, -0/+3It's comments like this that make it easier for me to filter out people I don't want to read. Thanks! :)
    • Tishiablo, on 10/28/2007, -0/+1You like looking at distorted textures? ;)
  • wiedo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1can't find the difference..
  • alexkorova, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why is the medium setting the brightest? I mean, compared to the lowest setting which is like the others (in overall brightness) except for the medium...

    Still, rocks looks very good on high setting :P
  • Christbait, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Looks hot.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 69 of 69 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.