Crysis 3 best looking game ever

And the artistic bend is definitely towards realism especially for the characters and environments , and not some cartoonish caricature of reality. Stardust View Profile View Posts. Nite69 View Profile View Posts. Yes and no, some parts look great, other parts not as good, for me the Desert was the worst map graphicly cause the textures looked washed out and not as much shadowing, but the other maps looked really good to me.

Last edited by Nite69 ; 10 Mar, am. I wouldn't say it's the best looking game of all time, some older games were a much bigger jump in visual quality for their time than Exodus is in current year, and artistry is more important than fidelity on the long run, but it's certainly impressive.

It's one of the very few games where I go "ah, so THAT's why we've been upgrading our gaming hardware since " because for a while now I was mostly seeing diminishing returns and lots of Vaseline.

Perhaps will continue to be the year of pretty games Resident Evil 2 Remake was also pretty impressive AND runs well, though that's definitely less "mind-blowing" since Resident Evil is mostly a bunch of small interconnected rooms, which means they can focus more resources on high res textures, nice animations and other fluff. And the best part is that I didn't even have to upgrade my PC to see the improvement. Which is perfect because I have no money anyway.

Last edited by One Stoned Bastard ; 10 Mar, am. To complete, Nite and One are right, RTX, at the moment, it's not really balanced, and there are other games that are looking "better". But besides from that, Metro: Exodus is a masterwork, that impressed me in many ways. TDurden , May 18, Impressive for it's time, and for quite some time after that, but wouldn't say it was very impressive by today's standards, I installed it again a while ago and wasn't really excited by how it looked any more Without mods.

Extraordinary , May 18, The lighting is a bit flat by default though it's impressive what people managed to create with the tools for Crysis 1 even without the later on shader replacements and more in-depth editing. Just a couple of adjustments to the lighting and you had some really good looking scenes for back in and the game was also one of the first with ambient occlusion and the texture and model detail was pretty impressive for it's time although some of the environment is a bit low-res without texture packs.

Pretty cool use of physics as well with much of the props in the games various levels being breakable and then there were the physically accurate water system too. Also one of those games that scaled both up and down where there were actually a significant difference in visual fidelity between the lowest settings and the highest instead of smaller changes to shader complexity or shadow resolution even if those can have pretty noticeable performance impacts in newer games.

Those time-of-day TOD art images and custom maps and mods were what really impressed me though although much of it disappeared when the original Crysis mods website was revamped some years back though much of it might still be available.

EDIT: A couple of engine updates later and Ryse really showcased some amazing visual fidelity even if the gameplay was pretty simplistic though well Crysis 2 and Crysis 3 weren't bad either. As for third party licenses I don't think the engine managed to compete very well against UE3 And now UE4 although it saw some popularity in for example a number of MMO games. I suppose Kingdom Come is a pretty good showcase of what the game engine can do with environments too, well if they ever get that released ha ha.

EDIT: Depends on the game more than the engine but the first Crysis does use more natural looking visuals instead of overdoing it with shader effects and the like though again it's more down to the game rather than the engine. Screen-space everything these days with a bit of chromatic aberration added in. JonasBeckman , May 18, It's starting to show it's age now.

TheDeeGee , May 18, Crysis looks better then ARMA Of course Arma has better textures and geometry more polygons , but those are like the easiest things to do.

Even Battlefield does not always surpass Crysis, but it compensates with many many post process effects.. Mind boggling. Oh look Seriously this seems to pop up every few years. And, really, it's a little sad that the one thing Crysis is remembered for But, yeah, visually it was and in some ways still is amazing looking. But, gameplay and story as I've said before and will anytime it's brought up were never the game's strong suit.

If only Crytek get of their asses and use Cryengine 5. Its good looking with NO hyphen. That sounds pretty good to me!

But it will make my graphics card cry. Well, I guess next year I will upgrade it. Checklist for a successfull Crysis 3 1. Bring back the open gameplay of Crysis 1. Bring back the very smart AI from Crysis 1. I dont understand why AI was so dumb in crysis Develope a better more gripping narrative. Be in a wooded area or jungle!

Crysis of Duty: Nano Warfare 3 I'll pass on this. I don't care how good the graphics look. I don't play games to walk around and look at bricks and leaves up close. I play to have fun and if the game ain't fun, the graphics aren't going to make it fun. Crysis 2 was a heap of shit at launch. Multiplayer would not work. The upgrade system wouldn't save, meaning you'd come back to the game the next day probobly being about half way through the game then all your special abilities would be gone.

So you'd have to collect all the friggin nano xp again. Not to mention the DX 11 patch. I can't have that AT launch? Oh yeah. Oh what's that? You'll release it as a 'gift' when it should've been there to begin with?

By the time it released I'd finished with the game. I can't have any graphics options which crysis 1 had? Isn't this game supposed to be a better game? Mate, i'm playing a fuckin dx9 game which is a sequel to THE dx10 benchmarker. Just cause it's pretty don't mean it doesn't have the possibility of being a turd. I hope with all the attention they are putting on visuals they put the same towards game play PS if you're so great Crytek make it run 60fps on consoles while you're at it.

As long as they don't BS the PC version, it can do fine. So long that I gave up on even trying to DL the patch. It was as if the game was rushed or they put more emphasis on the consoles than where they originated: PC. How many months of agony did they make me wait to before I can play it in its full DX11 glory. Ran beautifully well on xbox so i'm assuming running crap on console comments aren't for this machine?

Personally i think Crytek do something altogether different with their light and it's strikingly better than other efforts i'v seen. Even though a multi engine, Crysis2 does look exceptionally good and this doesn't sound like an empty promise from them at all The game does have some rather sloppy ai and obvious gameplay flaws that need to be addressed however but i expect big from this if these issues are sorted.

If 'beautifully well on XBox' means texture pop-in, physics-less corpses, grain glitch and dumb AI, then sure. The new trailer with gameplay footage looks just like Crysis 2 but with more gray-blue tint.

Expansion pack trailer at best. The editing didn't help. Lousy 1st impression considering the gameplay they showed doesn't back up the 'best looking evah' quotes they cut to from magazines sucking up for swag bags. Crysis 1 was better imho. Indeed regards to a couple visual drawbacks but the framerate on xbox was consistent.

I very much like the first game too and feel it's better in the obvious ways but there are also aspects i like too with the sequel- despite some really obvious failings concerning bloody stupid ai running against walls etc and it being way too easy. Hope so anyway. If they want it to be the best looking game ever They can work for both consoles and PC. They just better not give PC gamers the short end of the stick.

Careful Crytek. Yes, it's nice to see them striving for pushing things. However, the last time I checked, their MP on C2 suffered. It fell apart from the get-go. If they don't support the product fully, what's the point in just pushing it, then leaving it dangling?

And I think we can all agree that EA are going to try keep the budget as low as possible. And the 'consoles' argument, unless EA have largely increased the team working on crysis, they aren't going to have the man power or time to get the high poly counts, textures, ai, programmers, and all the other stuff that is required to get this game to push top end PCs to the max. Again, this also includes a high budget which I extremely doubt EA will provide. Crysis 2 looked the same as 1.

EA have published some of the best looking PC games on the market right now. Crysis 2 was Crytek's first foray into console development, and I'd say they did alright considering the fact that were developing the engine alongside the game. Even though Crysis 2 was a bit disappointing compared to Crysis 1, it was still a pretty damn good game, and it looked gorgeous even before the DX11 upgrade.

Too bad The Witcher 2 will still look better than this. Anyways, i'm going to win a few millions in the lottery. Crytek better make the PC the lead development platform this go-around.

Crysis 2 runs like ass on my rig, while Battlefield 3 runs at fps p resolution with all settings on Ultra. Maybe they should give DICE a call And there is the problem. They claimed this with crysis2 and it was neither the best looking or even close to being the best game. I fear Crytek put way too much emphasis on graphics and way too little on gameplay. Hey Crytek, how about trying to make a good game first? Crytek never learn a multiplat game never beat the exclusives in terms of visuals You mean the company that couldn't make a properly functioning multiplayer and just ignored its customers on the forum, worst communication with gamers I have ever seen!

I will be waiting to make sure everything works on this game. Last one was so promising but fell short and they handled it in the worst way ever.