pouët.net

Dude, if you can't endure any form of criticism, just don't make anything you make go public.

I basically said that the artwork was very good but that the assets were much better seen at a distance, as psonice said, period. That's an artistic and (probably tied technical choice). I don't criticize it, I point it out, nothing less, nothing more.

keops: what about battlefield2 textures ?

those are a blur soup of gray-green-yellow pixels but the game and its mods are unbeatable on the gameplay side :D

thx for pointing it out

did i already say i think crysis looks bland and boring? all nice features the engine has cant make me like it

shader cowboys! shader cowboys!

some materials are fancy, sure, but then you stumble across a truck or a box somewhere and it just looks like it's ripped out of return to castle wolfenstein (2001)

bad art. and maybe that, along with all the popping, tells us a story of inefficiency.

no svastika in crysis :p

the ".pak" data files in the crysis program files directory are rar archives, you can view all the shader source code and see exactly what special crap you get with dx10.
40kb water shader ^^

40kb water shader and yet they manage to make it look bland

congratulations to crytek

Niels : I found their water quite nice actually :)

perhaps in the way it interacts with the environment (i'm not dissing the interaction model/physics), but those tiling caustics (beach level) looked like total shit, and the underwater stuff was nothing new either

40kb of shader, come on.. in dutch we have a word for this: charlatans

The water in crytec with the waves on has to be the best looking water that i have ever seen in a game. To call that bland sounds like a case of sour grapes.

sorry, the next best looking water, bioshock takes the cake.

bioshock REALLY looks like shit in the effects department
their solution to everything seems to be more specular more ripples

i'm just picky when it comes to stylish graphics
team fortress ][ is much nicer than all this

uh how can you compare a naturalistic game and a cartoonish one ?

both are very different approaches and the cartoon one is quite the lazy one :p

you are talking from a coders perspective, where im looking at it as a kid being entertained. The water in bioshock creates a fantastic illusion, and then i dont really care what is under the hood. im not a great fan of team fortress design, but im told its a funny game so im sure i will be going at it at some point.

crysis is *far* from "natural" in the way it looks, sure it is a solid effort but 40kb of water shader hardly tells you anything about the structure of this company's codeline, toolchain, content management et cetera (pretty important factors when it comes to freeing up time for creativity, return of investment and last but not least porting)

just because their graphical style is different tells you nothing about how well crafted the product is or is not

and rightfully so you shouldnt give a shit about whats under the hood

but i feel the urge to downplay this crysis hype because it's not that great a product compared to the competition

yeah i will give you that much though, the whole dx10 thing seems to be pretty exagerated, to put it politely as i cannot tell the difference between the game running on xp with a few changes in the script, and all the videos(sans the artifacts) i have seen of it running on vista.

But this ties nicely in with me being sick and tired of sales hypes in general. At the end of the day, has there ever been a game that actually lived up to its hype?

i'll give you a few:
- metal gear solid 3
- street fighter 2 hyper fighting

and without much ado: castlevania - symphony of the night

guys, what the fuck is up with all the realism bull? i guess it's an old argument, but if i want realism i'll go outside. can't you gamedevvers make stuff that looks awesome? like, real awesome? don't ask me what exactly, you're the artists.

skrebbel : gamedevs make what will be the most likely to make huge sales. Gamers want uberrealistic shooters, gamedevs give them shooters that try to look real.

Some take risks but it often doesn't pay off at all (Rez being the best example)

Some of the comments about Crysis in this thread are hilarious. I've seen it on a coworker's PC running the incompatible and obsolete XP operating system and the engine is pretty impressive.

Of course there's room for improvement, but I'd hardly say that the water shader sucks, mostly the contrary. I haven't seen any Wintendo demo with a comparable water shader.

Of course MS has a vested interest in pushing Vista. The problem they have is, Vista is not really better in any aspect. People are used to the XP crap and it's good enough for them. People who want something better have already migrated to OS X or Linux/BSD.

im not sure if the crysis dissing is from people working on better things, from people working on worse things who want to make themselves feel better, or people who arent working on anything and dont really know what they're talking about but have to follow the internet trend (which migrated to pouet some time ago) of dissing _everything_ because it makes themselves feel clever (i'm soooo sick of that one btw). can't you just say "while it's not totally perfect (but then, what is), tech-wise it probably is the 3d fps to beat at the moment (and it has a rather nice level editor tool also)".
oh well. if you are working on better things i cant wait to see it. (and then diss it to make myself feel clever.)

Erm... why would you compare something running on an high-end PC with Nintendo stuff that run on a 6 years old hardware ?

If you want to compare engines/shaders, make it on an equal hardware basis to begin with. Moreover, the Wii is not about high-end technology (with its gamecube hardware), it's about gameplay.

Flynn: and there is no such thing as shaders on wii by the way, it has a fixed pipeline.

Really? I thought even the original xbox had programmable shaders.