http://www.3dmark.com/

Come on crytek, there's a challenge for you. Regain the title of the company to produce the best graphics rendered on PC once again You did it with far cry, you did it with crysis, you WONT do it with crysis 2, so bring your AAA game with crysis 3

Plus, if the xbox 360 still exists in 2-3 years, for the love of god don't waste your time on it, 5 years without a succesor already makes it a dinosaur

Just to clear things up, crytek managed to (in most peoples opinion) generally beat or come extremely close to the 3dmarks of the time with far cry and crysis (which was 3dmark05 and 3dmark vantage respectivey iirc).

Crysis 2 will be a billion light years behind this one, so i can't say i'm not at least a little dissappointed in crysis 2 now i've seen what dx11 really can do (unigine was nice and all, but hardly breathtaking).

I don't think we'll need to worry about anybody developing for 360 in 2-3 years... the system is already pushing the edges of has been. And frankly, from what I can tell, noone will push the thing further than Crytek is going to.

indeed, but microsoft seem willing to wrangle every last drop of life out of it. I cannot say how relieved i will be (as a PC gamer) to finally see the glorious headline of 'xbox 360 successor announced'

It's just that bad now as a pc gamer with multiplatform titles, crytek are doing very well and if we had more of them we'd not be suffering so much. But look at games like mw2 then look at the potential of real gaming PC's and you can see why we get annoyed with console ports. (As a nice fact, mw2 runs at 100fps for me, or there abouts, at 1080p, with 8xAA [forced] maximum settings and my gpu still only uses 40% of it's raw power)

[quote]indeed, but microsoft seem willing to wrangle every last drop of life out of it. I cannot say how relieved i will be (as a PC gamer) to finally see the glorious headline of 'xbox 360 successor announced'

It's just that bad now as a pc gamer with multiplatform titles, crytek are doing very well and if we had more of them we'd not be suffering so much. But look at games like mw2 then look at the potential of real gaming PC's and you can see why we get annoyed with console ports. (As a nice fact, mw2 runs at 100fps for me, or there abouts, at 1080p, with 8xAA [forced] maximum settings and my gpu still only uses 40% of it's raw power)[/quote]The reason MW2 isn't a monster is because of 6v6 on small maps = nothing to really process. The oned thing I like about Multiplatform games is the great performance we getbdue to optimization.

Also the rumour mill is saying that the xbox 720 would be out in 2015, and to be quite frank, if brilliant games designers such as crytek seriously still program for the 360 in 5 years they should be ashamed and ask themselves when did money mean more than achieving their vision and creating truly immersive worlds to the best of their ability.

I don't know about you, but if games still look like mw2 in 5 years, i'll stop playing games, not just because of the graphics, because of the corrupt money brabbing companies will have taken over, showing that there's no point making an awe inspiring game that'll inspire the next generation when there's money to be had by rehashing the same game/engine every year or two.

@reapling, multiplayer is nothing to do with it i meant single player, it's just not demanding in any way, shape or form, nor is it even that pretty. In fact my first reaction upon starting was 'IS THAT A FECKING LOW RESOLUTION PICTURE AS SCENERY? seriously? wait..really? maybe it's only the first level....nope'

The game looked like turd on chips to put it lightly, even at 1080p with all the shinies. All the time my gpu was going to sleep, due to the huge power it had just sitting there, in some sort of protest that it wanted crysis put on it, or metro 2033 or even just some unigine demo, just to stretch it's legs.

Admittedly, the level where the emp went off WAS nice, and was easily the best part of the game, both atmospherically and graphically. That was the one moment in mw2 where i thought 'this is good', thenm it returned back to horrible crappy graphics and 'bang bang bang, reload, bang bang! story? nahhh, bang bang! Boom! Killed by ally! Stabbed! Kill! Random stop!'

P.S. by 'the emp going off' was the immediate mission after. The atmosphere and tension was perfect, at that point i could actually relate to private. asshat and his bunch of generic flag waving american friends. The detail that went into it, the burning tress, the embers flickering across the blackened night, it was amazing and did show you don't need uber engines to make a pretty scene, but it was fleeting and the rest of the game was terrible.

If only the rest of the game was like those brief 10 minutes.

I checked out the video which uses the features of directX 11 and you're right in that it's stunningly detailed and beautiful.

Though i do know crysis 2 is going to use directX 11 and the included features will undoubtedly be used and look awesome in crysis 2, making it look more aesthetically pleasing and more efficient in processing the visuals.

None of us have actually seen any maxed out PC dirextX 11 gameplay of crysis 2 so we cant judge what it will look like, we can only hope for what it will look like and wait and see to really see for ourselves the amount of detail Crytek are delivering.

You never know, crysis 2 may look better than you think, so have hope in Crytek. They've delivered very well (detail and graphics wise, not to mention every other aspect of their games) with their previous games like you mentioned, and i believe they will once again.

And i definitely agree with you on the 360 side of things (aswell as the ps3). Dinosaur's lol.

The thing i dislike about game console companies is when they create a new console (that's a step up from the previous) we have to waste out money on that next console, and the next, if we want to follow the way of console gaming.

Wherea's PC gaming, if you get yourself a decent rig you'll be alright with playing all the new and upcoming games for quite a while, and all those games will be compatible with your PC.

Once again i say 'PC all the way'. Oh and us PC gamers dont have to pay for silly xbox live or PSN (i know PSN dosnt cost yet, but sooner or later i bet it will, greedy console company's :p)

If crysis 2 did manage to look like that tech demo in terms of the kind of details you can see (which'd require a fair bit of tessellation for example) then it would just be too amazing for words i'd imagine.

However i don't see it happening, we've seen high on the PC in dx9 and it looks 'meh' (i.e. good, but crysis 1 still curb stomps it) so hopefully they really have used dx11 properly, it'd be such a shame for crytek, a company reknowned for their graphical prowess to be so far behind futuremark in terms of graphics.

Benchmark applications != Video games.

Benchmark apps don't need to run at "playable" frame rates, therefore they can push the graphical limits harder... at 10fps.

That's not the point, the point was that thse kind of graphics are easily producable by the graphics cards sitting around today (plus, we'd have to see upon release, but apart from vantage, every 3dmark benchmark has ran very well on high end cards of the time). Crytek have always historically been hot on the heels, if not better.

If cards can produce this quality at decent framerates (which we'll find out exactly how well in a month or two), there's no excuse for what we see on the shelves today other that complete laziness and will finally show how stagnant this medium really is becoming.

Also, that video will have been recorded using a hd5870 or at most a hd5970 (it was made in march, before fermi arrived), and considering a new generation of cards is appearing before the end of the year from AMD those graphics are perfectly possible in high end pc gaming.

Its just a tessalation demo.
ohhh look how cool the object textures are..so detailed..he he
Try to imagine that on an open enviroment with nothing blocking the draw distance. Every machine that you could buy nowadays would be ****.
I think this is not the right way to go. Its way too difficult and costs much time to work with tessalation. Better solutions i think are megatextures or finally raytracing ( in ten years its possible).

tessellation can be scaled at a distance just like anything else can, just look at the unigine tech demo and fly around on it

Plus, as far as i've read/heard, the difficulty in tessellation is just setting up the textures bforehand.

Also, no matter what you do with textures, they can only ever give the illusion of depth, never real depth. So tessellation is the ONLY way forward, especially if you consider that we'll eventually transition to 3d (whether or not via the gimmicky method used currently or true holoscreens) where any lack of real depth will be spotted in an instant. You need the polygons in place

Also, it's not just about tessellation, just look at the lighting If current PC's can handle this, why are we seeing games that look like they're from 2006? 9you can't say 2007, because at this point the original crysis strolls in and roundhouse kicks every game available up until crysis 2).

Seriously arent you happy with the epic graphics of crysis 2 and now you alredy want crysis 3.

I've had crysis 1 for 3 years at very high, crysis 2's graphics don't look much different from what i've seen :/

I don't call a spit polish after 3 years 'epic graphics', but i'm willing for crytek to surprise me

I understand it's probably like what i speak is insanity, but console gamers are only just getting these graphics, pc gamers have had better ones for years, the impact is lessened a lot when you realise that it's been 3 years. It was 3 years between far cry and crysis...

[quote]That's not the point, the point was that thse kind of graphics are easily producable by the graphics cards sitting around today[/quote]
Producable, yes. Easily, no.

[quote] (plus, we'd have to see upon release, but apart from vantage, every 3dmark benchmark has ran very well on high end cards of the time).[/quote]
Dunno what results you're looking at but that statement couldn't be further from the truth. Every 3Dmark has brought hardware to it's knees... that is, after-all, the purpose of benchmarking.

3Dmark05 - 6800 Ultra = ~15-35fps (depending on sys cfg and test)
3Dmark06 - X1900 = ~20-30fps ''
3DmarkV - 9800GX2 = ~25fps

Go nuts, if you don't believe my word: http://service.futuremark.com/search/form.action

[quote]If cards can produce this quality at decent framerates (which we'll find out exactly how well in a month or two), there's no excuse for what we see on the shelves today other that complete laziness and will finally show how stagnant this medium really is becoming.[/quote]
And that, is where the problem lies. Getting that level of graphical fidelity at 30+ fps in a shooter which is compounded by underlying processes that define gameplay, you're asking too much. It's one thing to spin a camera around a nice scene at 20fps, it's a whole other story to develop actual gameplay on top of that.

Well , it wouldn't surprise me if the videos already are like that. But making a whole game with that kind of graphic is probably gonna take a while.

Indeed, i know it'll be hard, but developers can cut some small corners and optimisations to get a game this quality at 30fps we all know how praised crysis was at release (and by all means was a successful game). No-one cares about having to run at 30fps when a game can look this good.

But this wasn't a challenge for crytek to release the game tomorrow, this was a challenge for their next game (3 years) to look like this. In 3 years the power available will run that benchmark at 60fps with ease.

[quote]No-one cares about having to run at 30fps when a game can look this good.[/quote]
Actually, that was one of the major reasons for the MP games' lackluster success. Majority of MP FPS players need 60+ fps to play competitively and Crysis MP could not provide that to pretty much everyone.

[quote]this was a challenge for their next game (3 years) to look like this. In 3 years the power available will run that benchmark at 60fps with ease.[/quote]
Oh well that completely changes the argument 3DMark 2011 is due out before the end of the year and it will destroy current hardware on release Of course in 3 years current hardware will walk all over it.

I think this is the future of grfx.. and this was my imagination how crysis 2 would have looked if it wasnt for consoles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YjXCae4Gu0&feature=related

To make things clear. This video is an real time rendered scene with famous ruby from the ati demos. It shows what raytracing is capable of.
Raytracing tech is mostly used for CGI in Hollywood.