Never understood the hate; Crysis was like one of those dumb Hollywood blockbusters, filled with explosions and cheesy one-liners. As long as you didn't read too much into it, it was enjoyable.
...and unlike some other popular shooters (cough, cough, call of duty, cough) it didn't pretend to be anything more than that.
I couldn't care less about the bullshots either - it's a standard practice in this biz. As long as it makes their tech more popular I'm fine. I would really like to see some serious rivalry going on in the middleware department.
Ofcourse, the extent of the bullshotting matters. Is it a render, or is it creative use of a few extra lights and higher resolution textures?
Anyway, the explosions do (I think) clearly consists of a few flat planes, so outside of them seeming to be very detailed and having a shitload of particles, it could be realtime. The character? Even with tesselation, I doubt that's possible. A clean bake is one thing, but the entire silhouette is smooth as a baby's bottom, which stands in very, very stark contrast with the surrounding. I'm interested in being proven wrong, ofcourse!
They are promo shots! What did you actually want? Untextured assets and placeholder geometry!? Maybe a shot from the debug console?
Halo Reach is doing that... And sure, that got people here whining about Bungie artists not knowing their UV maps and junk, but it still got people plenty excited for the game...
[edit] Of course, the very first Reach promo material was an openly pre-rendered movie. That's fine too, as long as they downright say that, hey, this isn't in-game stuff, we're just trying to set the tone and get you hyped up while we're working. [/edit]
Seriously?
What are the point of promotional shots if they aren't promoting the 'actual' content?
I certainly hope they are actual content though.
to encourage the sales, acceptance, etc., of (a product), esp. through advertising or other publicity.
So, why is it a concern that the screenshot is doctored? Is the game going to look substantially different from these shots? Well, it's Crytek and if anybody can deliver on graphics then it would be these guys and, from the brief glimpse I've seen of the game running, it does look as good as this. If the game comes out and it looks awful then I stand corrected.
I'm fairly confident that's it's going to be awesome though.
I just think it would be a honest thing to do, to simply have a little watermark in the corner stating that it is a promotional target render and not an ingame shot, simply because its a game that is being advertised, not a movie or anything like that.
Playing on the fine line of doctored screenshots is a bit lame. Great tool when used as target renders (shader guys! make the armor reflections look THIS good, please!), but lame when passed as game screenshots. Just my opinion.
Of course, the very first Reach promo material was an openly pre-rendered movie.
Actually, it was in-engine stuff, rendered in-engine, an actual cinematic from the final game - just not in realtime to get more AA. But characters, vehicles, level geometry, sky etc. were all the assets you're going to see in the game.
These screenshots are a bit more doctored and the zsphere character seems like the highres model used for extracting the normal maps.
There's been some real, in-engine shots as well, by the way, technically it's still impressive but the contrast and the lighting are kinda lame. Highlights are washed out and midtones are far too dark, so you can't see much in the end.
Yeah, the shots seemed pretty generic as far as composition goes, I think that's why I wasn't that impressed.. also shopped, and also looks like it's more so linear than open world like GTA or Crysis for that matter.
Edit: After having a convo with a buddy, these shot may be real. If they are running DX11 with tessellation turned on for his body, then it could very well be realtime.... so I guess we will have to wait and see...
Lichy, I dont think that 'turning on' tessalation magically provides infinite texture resolution :P
Can't wait to play anyways! I love FPSes on consoles, for some reason I like their feel better despite the lesser aiming precision.
These days, unless someone directly from the dev team states that x picture is in-game and running in realtime..I automatically assume any pics released as "promo shots"..or what you guys call bullshot
Actually, it was in-engine stuff, rendered in-engine, an actual cinematic from the final game - just not in realtime to get more AA. But characters, vehicles, level geometry, sky etc. were all the assets you're going to see in the game.
Oh, hell, you're right! I was slotting it in the same category as Halo 3 and ODST, which used live action/CGI stuff. Well, okay, the Halo 3 teaser was in-engine, too... But the ODST one was CGI, so there!
I guess this is exactly why it's important to be clear about stuff like this, or people will just keep making mistakes like I just did. Except mine led to a positive realization, whereas finding out things you thought were real-time are actually pre-rendered is probably going to be a turnoff.
Not exactly jaw dropping here, but I do like some of the enhancements such as map blending. Again though, what's with the bad facial animations? gah :poly142:
I'm still shocked that they managed to pull this out on consoles.
LiveCreate is something I'm really pumped about; if this indeed works as advertised it would eliminate the "bad port" problem. All versions of the game (except for the PC, obvious reasons) would be virtually identical.
Seems like they've focused more on optimizing their engine and making the world seem real (destruction, hit reactions, lighting changes and such) than bumping the actual graphics quality (polies, textures and the like).
But I guess optimizing does mean more stuff on the screen.
Anyone else wondering how the multiplatform thing will work out? I mean. It seems like you do a normal pc version and get the console-versions for free... but hasn't pc gone past the consoles when it comes to raw graphical power by now?
I'd be thinking that the consoles would be a bottleneck (number of assets, level of detail, etc). Maybe it's automatically scaled down for consoles. I dunno. I'll wait for more info.
I don't know; it seems to me like they rotate at the same speed :P
Keep in mind that one of the monitors had overblown gamma; so the shadows are washed out and not as prominent. Might be the reason why they seem to move at different speeds.
From what I could see, the fan projection was moving slower on the PS3 compared to the fan projection on the 360... Which is odd but likely just a small bug.
From what I could see, the fan projection was moving slower on the PS3 compared to the fan projection on the 360... Which is odd but likely just a small bug.
Not that odd, most likely just a slight difference in framerate, one console might just be running slightly better than the other.
For the sync to be this accurate is astounding.
love how we all just look for flaws..."They can't be this good..can they?" :P
I was thinking more along the lines of. "If something so simple isn't accurate then I wonder what else is off."
Impressive none the less but it also proves the point of something being the bottleneck which means the PC-release would be affected aswell. I dunno. We'll see if it works in due time
Do people really think you can just bung a pc game on a console or vice versa and be done with it? There will be a lot of tinkering and balancing to make things work well for such a different control-scheme.
Replies
...and unlike some other popular shooters (cough, cough, call of duty, cough) it didn't pretend to be anything more than that.
I couldn't care less about the bullshots either - it's a standard practice in this biz. As long as it makes their tech more popular I'm fine. I would really like to see some serious rivalry going on in the middleware department.
Anyway, the explosions do (I think) clearly consists of a few flat planes, so outside of them seeming to be very detailed and having a shitload of particles, it could be realtime. The character? Even with tesselation, I doubt that's possible. A clean bake is one thing, but the entire silhouette is smooth as a baby's bottom, which stands in very, very stark contrast with the surrounding. I'm interested in being proven wrong, ofcourse!
Seriously?
What are the point of promotional shots if they aren't promoting the 'actual' content?
I certainly hope they are actual content though.
[edit] Of course, the very first Reach promo material was an openly pre-rendered movie. That's fine too, as long as they downright say that, hey, this isn't in-game stuff, we're just trying to set the tone and get you hyped up while we're working. [/edit]
to encourage the sales, acceptance, etc., of (a product), esp. through advertising or other publicity.
So, why is it a concern that the screenshot is doctored? Is the game going to look substantially different from these shots? Well, it's Crytek and if anybody can deliver on graphics then it would be these guys and, from the brief glimpse I've seen of the game running, it does look as good as this. If the game comes out and it looks awful then I stand corrected.
I'm fairly confident that's it's going to be awesome though.
Playing on the fine line of doctored screenshots is a bit lame. Great tool when used as target renders (shader guys! make the armor reflections look THIS good, please!), but lame when passed as game screenshots. Just my opinion.
Oh yeah, it also looks lame.
Actually, it was in-engine stuff, rendered in-engine, an actual cinematic from the final game - just not in realtime to get more AA. But characters, vehicles, level geometry, sky etc. were all the assets you're going to see in the game.
These screenshots are a bit more doctored and the zsphere character seems like the highres model used for extracting the normal maps.
There's been some real, in-engine shots as well, by the way, technically it's still impressive but the contrast and the lighting are kinda lame. Highlights are washed out and midtones are far too dark, so you can't see much in the end.
[ame]
Actually, that would be pretty sweet lol
They could try something a little different which I garantee would sell it better.
Like shots of him filing his paperwork at the end of the day, or having to squeeze one out whilst in the middle of a firefight.
Edit: After having a convo with a buddy, these shot may be real. If they are running DX11 with tessellation turned on for his body, then it could very well be realtime.... so I guess we will have to wait and see...
Can't wait to play anyways! I love FPSes on consoles, for some reason I like their feel better despite the lesser aiming precision.
I think there is only one version now-- the console version, and then a probably crappy port of the console version for PC.
That screenshot is just more marketing bullshit-- 1080P with massive super sampling? I don't think so.
Although I thought the new Tomb Raider game looked like crap, I have to give those guys credit for at least having real screenshots.
To think otherwise would be naive.
Actually yes! [ame="
I think the screenshots look believable to me.
I'm not sure why they would photoshop and post bullshots when they're trying to liscence out their engine.
I guess this is exactly why it's important to be clear about stuff like this, or people will just keep making mistakes like I just did. Except mine led to a positive realization, whereas finding out things you thought were real-time are actually pre-rendered is probably going to be a turnoff.
-
Not exactly jaw dropping here, but I do like some of the enhancements such as map blending. Again though, what's with the bad facial animations? gah :poly142:
LiveCreate is something I'm really pumped about; if this indeed works as advertised it would eliminate the "bad port" problem. All versions of the game (except for the PC, obvious reasons) would be virtually identical.
But I guess optimizing does mean more stuff on the screen.
Anyone else wondering how the multiplatform thing will work out? I mean. It seems like you do a normal pc version and get the console-versions for free... but hasn't pc gone past the consoles when it comes to raw graphical power by now?
I'd be thinking that the consoles would be a bottleneck (number of assets, level of detail, etc). Maybe it's automatically scaled down for consoles. I dunno. I'll wait for more info.
Also the livecreate thing. I know blitz has the same thing in their engine. http://www.blitzgamesstudios.com/blitztech/
In case you haven't seen those:
[ame]
[ame]
It's more than six months old, so a lot might have changed.
I remember I was reading somewhere that it would be scaled automatically. Don't count on me though, I can't remember the source.
PS: Notice that the fan shadow is rotating at different speeds?
Keep in mind that one of the monitors had overblown gamma; so the shadows are washed out and not as prominent. Might be the reason why they seem to move at different speeds.
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/gdc-10-crysis-2/63009
Not that odd, most likely just a slight difference in framerate, one console might just be running slightly better than the other.
For the sync to be this accurate is astounding.
love how we all just look for flaws..."They can't be this good..can they?" :P
Impressive none the less but it also proves the point of something being the bottleneck which means the PC-release would be affected aswell. I dunno. We'll see if it works in due time
http://gamersyde.com/news_crysis_2_trailer-9175_en.html
Also a better version of the GDC10 tech demo:
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/gdc-10-crysis-2/64317