They're a bit gorgeous.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com ... alistic-screenshots/News/

Holy damn

This is some realistlic shiz.

I wonder how many computers in the world can run that

Quote from Tomba(FIN) :

I wonder how many computers in the world can run that

i think you´ll need something like an atomic powered comp lol..

When I was a kid, my wildest fantasy regarding the future evolution of computer graphics for games went no further than something that might have looked like 'The Last Starfighter'. I don't think anyone back then imagined that graphics like these (above) could ever be possible.

For probably that reason alone, I refuse to join the cynics who downplay the enormous leap in graphics technlogy over the last 2 decades or so.

Looking at how things have changed in the 20 or so years I've had a computer, it's just *massively* exciting so think how they'll look in another 20 years.

Are you kidding me? Is that even..possible to run on a computer alone?

Quote from Electrik Kar :

For probably that reason alone, I refuse to join the cynics who downplay the enormous leap in graphics technlogy over the last 2 decades or so.

I agree completely, and would like to extend that to say people claim the time spent these days on making games look good detracts from the story or ingenuity of the game.

The fact of the matter is, back in the day of Monkey Island 1 for example, the people who used computers and thus used them to play games were geeks. I'm not going to explain that point, or apologise for calling them geeks, I don't think there's a need. But who enjoys playing adventure games with engrossing story-lines that take 200 hours to complete? Geeks.

These days not only has gaming been largely brought to the living room, it also caters for the entire family. It becomes less profitable to spend time and money on the story, instead money is spent to 'wow' people into buying and playing games. Which leaves geeks in the dark - and the rest of the population with advances in graphics like this.

wow...i better start saving for a new CPU(s) Ram, and gfx card lol

Edit - I'd take average graphics and awesome physics anyday of the week and twice on sundays.

Depends entirely what you want out of a game. For me, a big part is the immersion and just pretending I'm the protagonist. Great graphics make the whole experience more 'real' and so for me go a big way towards making a game more fun on their own.

I can forgive a game a surprising amount of flaws if it has good immersion. Trespasser and the STALKER games are a great example.

Holy mother of ****....
I think i almost had an orgasm seeing that :P

Quote from Stefani24 :

Holy mother of ****....
I think i almost had an orgasm seeing that :P

Those pics look nice, but WTF man?

Crysis : "If you don't *** of the graphic sex, your official sexual disadvantaged" .

Rather than giving us examples of how pretty the next Crysis will look, given that we could logically conclude it would look prettier than the last one, perhaps they should've given us assurances that it would not turn into a completely different shit game half-way through?

Looks impressive no doubt. But, I thought Crytek where no longer going to make PC exclusive games anymore, eg Crysis2? because of "PC piracy".

Quote from DratsaB :

Looks impressive no doubt. But, I thought Crytek where no longer going to make PC exclusive games anymore, eg Crysis2? because of "PC piracy".

I had difficulty to read your post before my pirated Windows XP kept making the pirated anti-virus spam messages that my pirated downloader was trying to connect to a piracy website in order to downloaded a pirated game.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

Rather than giving us examples of how pretty the next Crysis will look, given that we could logically conclude it would look prettier than the last one, perhaps they should've given us assurances that it would not turn into a completely different shit game half-way through?

So just play warhead, same game, better story ( so most people say, I preferred the 2nd half of the first one, guess i'm on crack though )

Then again I thought the story in Far Cry I was great so ... judge away

Quote from BastianB :

i think you´ll need something like an atomic powered comp lol..

Far cry is actually not bad, not as bad as Crysis.
I can run it at medium settings @ 1680x1680 with my 8600GT and Q6600.
Whereas Crysis only really runs good with low graphic settings @ 1024 x 1024

I wouldn't be suprised if they are renders.


As for Crysis vs FC, FC2 runs much better on my PC than Crysis did.

Has anyone read anything instead of jumping directly into the pictures?

These are Crysis mods, that means people edited the Crysis time of day files (and maybe some other ones depending on the picture) to get a better and more realistic look. They are not renders, they are really in-game. And they can be run by any computer that can handle Crysis or Crysis Warhead graphics, because these pictures were taken from the exact same game, thus same engine. Most of them seem to be taken from Crysis (not Warhead) though.

Of course anyone can put the game on 2560x1600, AA64xQ (nVidia 4-way-SLI), AF16x and everything maxed out just for taking a single picture (no matter what FPS they get ), but it's still the same game.

This thread has gone amazingly quiet after Velociround's post.

I remember when we thought Gran Turismo 1 was approaching photo realism.

Quote from DTrott :

I remember when we thought Gran Turismo 1 was approaching photo realism.

I rememeber years ago when I saw the first screenshots of IndyCar Racing thinking 'wow, that looks just like a photo!'

Just for comparison, this is that game:

That's some pretty good graphics there, considering it's like DX2.

That's waaay before DirectX, even before Windows 95. That'll all be done in software through DOS.