Crysis' graphics don't impress me

I have heard Crysis hyped so many times, and every single time the only, one, single reason has been the graphics, and I'm not impressed by those graphics.

For starters...

• Graphics aren't fun. I'd like to see you look at a painting and honestly tell me it was fun. You might be intrigued by the craftsmanship, detail etc. but you cannot honestly call it fun.
• Graphics aren't worth $600. I might be a bit more impressed if Crysis would actually run on my Geforce 6200, that worthless piece of junk that I went out of my way to buy specifically for videogames...

But those are not the points I'm trying to make here. I've explained these two points many times before, and they've never worked.

This third point is what I'm really trying to get at...

BANJO-KAZOOIE has better graphics than Crysis. (And don't think the latter's going to get second place.)
For reference, here is a screenshot of Banjo-Kazooie:

And a screenshot of Crysis (along with a photo):

Speaking of real life, can't we just go there if we want amazing graphics?

Based on these you're probably now thinking "No, you're wrong! The Banjo-Kazooie screenshot clearly shows low resolution and gigantic polygons, but Crysis is realistic and smooth!"
You're forgetting the key part of graphics: The artistic part. I would much rather look at an 8-bit butterfly than an HD turd. Banjo-Kazooie manages to fit any mood while remaining colorful, exotic, and flamboyant; Crysis is exactly what it's supposed to be and nothing more.
To give an example of how artistic graphics are more important than technical graphics, I pose a question: Which of the following is more aesthetically pleasing?



Now come on and tell me what an idiot I am for having any of these stupid opinions.

 

You're an idiot for having all those stupid opinions.

 

Who cares, The graffix are fine and i really like them. Like you said they are to be enjoyed.

 

Painting is fun

The graphics are excellent, but if they're the only hype you've heard about, I suggest you either get around more or don't bother posting useless shit.

That circle would be more aesthetically pleasing if it was at least a deep green.

Banjo Kazooie was fun, but as you stated with Crysis, it was made as it was intended to be made. Banjo Kazooie is fantasy, so is Zelda. They aren't intended to have excellent graphics like Crysis, however Crysis intended to be as close to real life as possible in regards to this issue. You got two major things mixed here: Fantasy and graphics. The graphics in Crysis are MUCH better than Banjo, however Banjo is much more colorful due to its genre and the technology they used to make video games back then. Don't believe me? Look at FF7. Great game, shitty graphics. Fun all the way. Oblivion: Great game, great graphics. Fun all the way. Doesn't matter out of either which I play, I love both, so that isn't really an argument.

If you don't like the game, thats fine. But you're just picking at the graphics. You aren't focusing on any other point what so ever. Its an excellent game, with or without excellent graphics, so whats your problem?

 

Graphics definition from - http://www.answers.com/topic/graphics

graphics
(1) May refer to the computer's display system. For example, "what kind of graphics does this PC have?" means what speed and quality is the graphics rendering on screen. See display adapter and graphics pipeline.

(2) The creation and manipulation of picture images in the computer. In such cases, the subject is typically called "computer graphics," but it is defined here as "graphics" in order to group similar terms together.

A fast desktop computer is required for graphics work, and although a mouse can be used for drawing, graphics tablets are also widely used for CAD (computer-aided design) applications.


Where does the definition refer to being artistic?...

Your an idiot.

 

I'm just going to point out that under graphics options, there is a "Real Life" setting. I'm not kidding, its right after "High".

 

I like them, why do other people always dog on other ppl?!?

 

Have you even played the fucking demo? Its fun as shit. Punching cars over and choking chinese guerrilla people. Its ace! You also said that graphics arent worth 600 dollars, well if your computer savvy then you wont have to spend but 300 some dollars for ocing a graphics card. It would probably cost more to go their than buy a new graphics card. Btw are you running integrated?

 

dude

I can shoot my own dick in that game.

not really, but i wish i can

 

Your complaining about game graphics? If you don't like them, go buy pong or something.

 

go outside unlimited pixels good frame rate, and it has lots of lopsided anomalies for ya.
oh and you're dumb for having these opinions

 

Dude your the same person who said "I don't care about graphics, i care about gameplay" in my thread of Xbox360 Vs PS3. Also the graphics are insane, your computer probably can't run the game properly.

 

Lol? Your complaining about the graphics and your running a 6200?!??!?! LMAO, try getting a better graphics card noob, then you might change your mind after having an amazing gaming experience playing Crysis.

Btw, IDK what you were thinking, the 6200 is the lowest card of the 6 series and wasn't made for gaming....

 

LoL owned.

Also are you saying that you'd rather the heads on Crysis to be 10x bigger than normal so you can actually manage to get a headshot and then its also "artistic"?

 

Wow you totally missed the point about the point he was saying. Please try to limit your stupidity in the future.

Now though I don't totally agree with him, as I think the game has good gameplay too, and the graphics just add to it, but for the idiots that can't be bothered to actually read the first post, he isn't saying the graphics on the game are bad, nearly quite the opposite.

He's stating that firstly a game cannot be solely based on a good graphics system, but must integrate good gameplay amongst other things, to make a good playing experience.

He also states that though the graphics are not "bad", it's the fact that when a game goes so hand in hand with realism, and the graphics of the game are so realistic and like real life, they literally become dull, and at a level, I agree with him on this.

It's the fact that the whole reason that we play games is that they aren't like real life. Real life, at many times, is dull and boring. If anyone here has ever played the game The Getaway, I think that's a great example... The graphics on it really made the game a bore for me. Sure they were really realistic, much more realistic than Vice City (it's main opposition at the time) but being set in London, it was all so dull grey and black. Yes it was real, but it was no fun, and I'd much rather be seeing the bright fun graphics of Mario Kart. This is what he means when he says he's rather see 8-BIT oldschool graphics than new, boring stuff.

Now as I said, I don't totally agree, as this game seems to have some sweet gameplay, and not all the graphics seem to be a bore (though I can certainly sympathise with his thoughts)... But I was more posting because some idiots on this thread had absolutely no idea what he meant, and thought he was saying the graphics weren't that good as in they're level of rendering.

 

Well i guess thats your opinion which is also shared with him. But i find that the games that look more realistic, are the fun ones. Looking realistic doesn't mean they have to imitate the real world. Games can LOOK real, but ofcourse be set in a whole other dimension.

 

Atomic - "Real Life" graphics are boring eh? Why bother buying high-end PC parts then?

That grey circle wasn't a good example. He's comparing good graphics to 8-bit palletes. I never thought real life looked as grey as that.

And to your point about not being lifelike: The thing is, its called a story. Some games aren't made to be fantasy and have all the little doodads that are bright and shiny, some games are made to have excellent graphics, great physics, but follow a quest/storyline that you would NEVER be able to acchieve in real life. We all have our opinions, but making a post just to outline how a computer game sucks isn't really adding to a community. Its nowhere near as frequent as people discussing the rap/rock they hear on the radio, so should be left in the head of the person that thinks it.

 

Erm because there's a shitload more you can do on a computer other than play games. Duh. What a stupid thing to say.

Anyway, I didn't say real life graphics were boring, I said that often real life is a bore and if the graphics in a game emulate what we see at that time, then the game wont look much good.

Please tell me where he says the game sucks? I assumed most people here could read... Anyway, what he presses upon sparks conversation, and is therefore suited to the forum.

 

Wow, Atomic, thanks for putting these idiots in their places.


Among the stupid responses, I seem to be getting mostly "graphics aren't important", "graphics ARE important", "I LIKE dull, boring graphics", and "you're an idiot".

As for graphics not being important, I completely agree, but that's not the point. This is really a post about graphics in general, I just used Crysis as a starting point and let my thoughts flow.

If graphics ARE important, then I suggest you stare at a wall. The average white wall has an amazing resolution of over nine-hundred and ninety-nine quadrillion pixels per millimeter.

For those who like dull boring graphics, I suggest a white wall again.


I never called Crysis a bad game; this is a post about graphics.

 

Maybe if you got off your computer you'd realise that real life is not boring.

I thought the idea of graphics was for them to get better, not to get worse. How do you feel they could improve graphics to suit your liking?