Crysis – More Real Than Reality Itself?
Hair-on-the-back-of-your-neck-raising wondrousness as EA's Crysis looks hot
SPOnG’s told you before about how luscious and alarmingly real EA’s PC-hope, Crysis, looks.
Well, just to ram the point home, check out these new comparison shots between the real-world locations (shot on a remote Hawaiian island) and their in-game counterparts. If you claim to be able to immediately tell the difference between the two, then you are a liar and a cad.
And if you need more convincing about why PC gaming is clearly going to be alive, well and thriving well into the future, then check out our earlier news and trailer on Crysis, from when the game was first announced back in March of this year.
We get bombarded with new game trailers every day, yet this Crysis one really stands out as one of the hair-up-on-back-of-neck better events of 2006.
It also has to be said that Electronic Arts does have some cracking PC titles lined up for next year - what with this, Will Wright's Spore and the Hollywood-star-heavy Command and Conquer 3, amongst many others.
For more on Crysis, you can see all the up-to-date screens, art and other assets over at SPOnG’s dedicated Crysis page.
Well, just to ram the point home, check out these new comparison shots between the real-world locations (shot on a remote Hawaiian island) and their in-game counterparts. If you claim to be able to immediately tell the difference between the two, then you are a liar and a cad.
And if you need more convincing about why PC gaming is clearly going to be alive, well and thriving well into the future, then check out our earlier news and trailer on Crysis, from when the game was first announced back in March of this year.
We get bombarded with new game trailers every day, yet this Crysis one really stands out as one of the hair-up-on-back-of-neck better events of 2006.
It also has to be said that Electronic Arts does have some cracking PC titles lined up for next year - what with this, Will Wright's Spore and the Hollywood-star-heavy Command and Conquer 3, amongst many others.
For more on Crysis, you can see all the up-to-date screens, art and other assets over at SPOnG’s dedicated Crysis page.
Read More Like This
Comments
OptimusP 19 Oct 2006 12:15
1/15
It's easy to see the difference...
real-life has the tedency of plants and stuff not looking like it's been glued or pinned on surfaces. Also real stuff doesn't look like it's drawn or painted. It's a huge jump foreward nonetheless...but there's still difference
It will probably even look more unreal when seen in motion.
real-life has the tedency of plants and stuff not looking like it's been glued or pinned on surfaces. Also real stuff doesn't look like it's drawn or painted. It's a huge jump foreward nonetheless...but there's still difference
It will probably even look more unreal when seen in motion.
SCiARA 19 Oct 2006 12:45
2/15
i must admit i struggled with the 1st one
more comments below our sponsor's message
RiseFromYourGrave 19 Oct 2006 12:56
3/15
i thought the first batch of comparison shots were more impressive
http://www.gamersdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/06/crysisfull.jpg
http://www.gamersdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/06/crysisfull.jpg
ozfunghi 19 Oct 2006 13:37
4/15
The first one, and the one with the road could have fooled me. The one at the beach however...
I'm sure, in real time on high res, without compression and in motion, it'll be pretty obvious. Though i does raise the question: "what's next?"
I'm sure, in real time on high res, without compression and in motion, it'll be pretty obvious. Though i does raise the question: "what's next?"
PreciousRoi 19 Oct 2006 15:01
5/15
yep, we may be rapidly approaching the point where computer reality becomes indistinguishable from the real thing, where computer power and speed overwhelm our ability to percieve visual imformation...
Rustman 19 Oct 2006 15:36
6/15
I put money on my screen shots on my DX9 system looking easily distinguishable from the reference photos.
I'd be interested to know what setup achieved these admittedly impressive shots.
I'd be interested to know what setup achieved these admittedly impressive shots.
RiseFromYourGrave 19 Oct 2006 15:49
7/15
i heard on the grapes that in screenshots seen and stuff its still running on dx9, albeit a improved 9.d version
RiseFromYourGrave 19 Oct 2006 17:51
8/15
probably running on what will apparently end up being released as dx9.L
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35110
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35110
Rustman 20 Oct 2006 10:29
9/15
RiseFromYourGrave wrote:
probably running on what will apparently end up being released as dx9.L
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35110
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35110
That's pretty interesting news. Thanks for the heads up.
realvictory 20 Oct 2006 11:27
10/15
It doesn't look quite like reality, but it's good enough for me!
Basically, they used photos for textures! I would guess that the animation will be the thing that truly gives it away.
Even in films, where it's meant to be (almost) 100% realistic, it's still possible to tell what's computerised and what isn't.
In my experience, the better the graphics that people are used to, the better their eyes become at being able to spot the difference, so I don't think it will ever be completely indistinguishable from reality.
Humans are the most difficult thing to make virtual versions of, because even the best artist can't make a perfect model of a human, and no one's going to waste their time physcally simulating every muscle in the human body.
Still, if you just showed me those screenshots, I wouldn't say "they look real", I would say "they look bloody amazing", which is what matters, and I think that's good enough.
Actually, to be honest, it's a waste of time in some respects, modelling reality in that detail, because (a) you can still tell it's fake or (b) it's inefficent, and (c) you might as well just make a video.
Basically, they used photos for textures! I would guess that the animation will be the thing that truly gives it away.
Even in films, where it's meant to be (almost) 100% realistic, it's still possible to tell what's computerised and what isn't.
In my experience, the better the graphics that people are used to, the better their eyes become at being able to spot the difference, so I don't think it will ever be completely indistinguishable from reality.
Humans are the most difficult thing to make virtual versions of, because even the best artist can't make a perfect model of a human, and no one's going to waste their time physcally simulating every muscle in the human body.
Still, if you just showed me those screenshots, I wouldn't say "they look real", I would say "they look bloody amazing", which is what matters, and I think that's good enough.
Actually, to be honest, it's a waste of time in some respects, modelling reality in that detail, because (a) you can still tell it's fake or (b) it's inefficent, and (c) you might as well just make a video.
PreciousRoi 20 Oct 2006 11:58
11/15
admittedly you probably get to a point of diminishing returns, but given the phenomenal pace of computer graphics and power development, I can't help but think near perfect simulacra are in the future, and not so far off...first photorealisic graphics, then realistic physics and other refinements...
RiseFromYourGrave 20 Oct 2006 15:40
12/15
id say physics are catching up pretty damn fast
it must take insurmountable computing power to give everything in the world its own strength, method of deconstruction, reactive mobility etc in to the point of reality simulation. i cant wait for the day when if i shoot the wall of a building with a shotgun in some fps long enough, ill get through to the other side, each blast chipping away at the virtual bricks
id also say physics cards wont be around long, quad core cpus and beyond will be able to devote an entire core and in the future more to calculating physics.
multicore; the ticket to paradise
it must take insurmountable computing power to give everything in the world its own strength, method of deconstruction, reactive mobility etc in to the point of reality simulation. i cant wait for the day when if i shoot the wall of a building with a shotgun in some fps long enough, ill get through to the other side, each blast chipping away at the virtual bricks
id also say physics cards wont be around long, quad core cpus and beyond will be able to devote an entire core and in the future more to calculating physics.
multicore; the ticket to paradise
realvictory 20 Oct 2006 15:52
13/15
RiseFromYourGrave wrote:
id say physics are catching up pretty damn fast
it must take insurmountable computing power to give everything in the world its own strength, method of deconstruction, reactive mobility etc in to the point of reality simulation. i cant wait for the day when if i shoot the wall of a building with a shotgun in some fps long enough, ill get through to the other side, each blast chipping away at the virtual bricks
id also say physics cards wont be around long, quad core cpus and beyond will be able to devote an entire core and in the future more to calculating physics.
multicore; the ticket to paradise
it must take insurmountable computing power to give everything in the world its own strength, method of deconstruction, reactive mobility etc in to the point of reality simulation. i cant wait for the day when if i shoot the wall of a building with a shotgun in some fps long enough, ill get through to the other side, each blast chipping away at the virtual bricks
id also say physics cards wont be around long, quad core cpus and beyond will be able to devote an entire core and in the future more to calculating physics.
multicore; the ticket to paradise
Yeah, I agree. The problem is physics obeys specific laws, so, like story-based games, there is a danger that the player would lose freedom (the physical laws would be in "control"). The other danger is that all physics-oriented games would be very similar.
On the other hand, I don't think that real physics can be emulated (in real-time), because it is much, much more complex (as far as I know) than a little computer could be. Therefore we could approximate physics (e.g. Newtonian) but not emulate in real time.
But, on the other hand, why bother? Just get out of your seat, run around, punch people in the street, blow things up, etc - that's what I call a "physics-simulation-simulation", and probably the most accurate one you can get!
RiseFromYourGrave 20 Oct 2006 16:43
14/15
realvictory wrote:
But, on the other hand, why bother? Just get out of your seat, run around, punch people in the street, blow things up, etc - that's what I call a "physics-simulation-simulation", and probably the most accurate one you can get!
hehe, with all-too-accurate repercussions!
i agree that games where physics are the main focus for gameplay could quickly grow tiresome, but it should go beyond that, to the point where physics are as normal a part of modern gaming as AA or HDR. an enhancement that becomes standard. people whove never experienced these things wont need them, but once you have you can never go back!
PreciousRoi 21 Oct 2006 12:44
15/15
yeh, it'll be transparent and natural...it won't be gameplay based on physics, it'll be gameplay freed from physics-based restrictions