This is allegedly an in-game screenshot taken of the PC version of Crysis 2. I find it impossible to believe that this is real, and not some CG image with the Crysis HUD photoshopped into it.
Trust your instincts.
The easiest way to tell is grass, games still struggle to make the most simple thing ever look realistic. Odd that
The easiest way to tell is grass, games still struggle to make the most simple thing ever look realistic. Odd that
Looks far too good to be true.
So I say fake.
So I say fake.
Last edited by henno13 (2009-09-06 14:24:09)
It's gotta be fake. I'll be shocked if it's not.
Plus, I'd think they'd change the HUD even a little bit for the sequel.
Plus, I'd think they'd change the HUD even a little bit for the sequel.
I could see that being real tbh.
I'm surprised people actually take "leaked" screenshots and game info seriously anymore.
fake, there is already footage and images of the actual game out.
PS3 and 360 might not quite have the same capabilities as the PC but its still using the same engine. The difference will be minimal.
PS3 and 360 might not quite have the same capabilities as the PC but its still using the same engine. The difference will be minimal.
This would be more believable:
since you've got the ammo counter on the right NOW WITH A GUN TO GO WITH IT.
(forget the bad photo edit, sif I'd waste my time on this one lol)
since you've got the ammo counter on the right NOW WITH A GUN TO GO WITH IT.
(forget the bad photo edit, sif I'd waste my time on this one lol)
It looks like someone took a very good painting and shopped a HUD onto it
no it's not.Vilham wrote:
fake, there is already footage and images of the actual game out.
PS3 and 360 might not quite have the same capabilities as the PC but its still using the same engine. The difference will be minimal.
Indeed, Crysis used Crytek2, while Crysis2 is using Crytek3.Miggle wrote:
no it's not.Vilham wrote:
fake, there is already footage and images of the actual game out.
PS3 and 360 might not quite have the same capabilities as the PC but its still using the same engine. The difference will be minimal.
Only difference between the two engines is that Crytek3 is better optimized.
Which brings me to something else, how come after 2 years there still hasn't been a single game with better graphics than Crysis?
Yeah, for the sake of graphical quality they may as well be running on the same engine.
Because we'd rather see a game with good gameplay than good gfx.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
Indeed, Crysis used Crytek2, while Crysis2 is using Crytek3.Miggle wrote:
no it's not.Vilham wrote:
fake, there is already footage and images of the actual game out.
PS3 and 360 might not quite have the same capabilities as the PC but its still using the same engine. The difference will be minimal.
Only difference between the two engines is that Crytek3 is better optimized.
Which brings me to something else, how come after 2 years there still hasn't been a single game with better graphics than Crysis?
Because no one was stupid enough to do it again. It was a one-shot thing, the next time people will say 'well, yes, Crysis already did that, but you still haven't improved the gameplay'Doctor Strangelove wrote:
Indeed, Crysis used Crytek2, while Crysis2 is using Crytek3.Miggle wrote:
no it's not.Vilham wrote:
fake, there is already footage and images of the actual game out.
PS3 and 360 might not quite have the same capabilities as the PC but its still using the same engine. The difference will be minimal.
Only difference between the two engines is that Crytek3 is better optimized.
Which brings me to something else, how come after 2 years there still hasn't been a single game with better graphics than Crysis?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
really? so even though they are both called Crysis 2 they are using totally different engines. Sounds a bit of a con from them then.Miggle wrote:
no it's not.Vilham wrote:
fake, there is already footage and images of the actual game out.
PS3 and 360 might not quite have the same capabilities as the PC but its still using the same engine. The difference will be minimal.
I think the cost of developing such an engine/title isnt worth it to developers. Crysis looked great, but didnt sell that much because most people couldnt run it. Hell, I cant even run it on Very High/Enthusiest without taking a HUGE hit in performance over high/gamer.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
Indeed, Crysis used Crytek2, while Crysis2 is using Crytek3.Miggle wrote:
no it's not.Vilham wrote:
fake, there is already footage and images of the actual game out.
PS3 and 360 might not quite have the same capabilities as the PC but its still using the same engine. The difference will be minimal.
Only difference between the two engines is that Crytek3 is better optimized.
Which brings me to something else, how come after 2 years there still hasn't been a single game with better graphics than Crysis?
I'd say maybe in 2020 you'll get games looking like that
Have you not seen the rate at which graphics progress? I would say graphics like that would be 2015, possibly even earlier.Mekstizzle wrote:
I'd say maybe in 2020 you'll get games looking like that
Compare crysis to something 7 years before it and you'll see what i mean.
I totally agree with you Macbeth. I don't even understand how something like that would get out of a company!Macbeth wrote:
I'm surprised people actually take "leaked" screenshots and game info seriously anymore.
It definately looks rendered anyway. But I call fake.
Crysis screenies usually have comparisons with real world iirc.
this. the company CEO whined a lot about the game being a pretty shit project from a business point of view. crysis was a tech-demo and a benchmarking concept more than a game, and subsequently not many people could actually play it properly- shrinking their market. the CEO publically released a few whine-statements about piracy as well, because crysis was massively pirated by people that were too tentative about the tech-spec demands of the game to commit to paying $50 for a game that possibly wouldnt even run on their system.SonderKommando wrote:
I think the cost of developing such an engine/title isnt worth it to developers. Crysis looked great, but didnt sell that much because most people couldnt run it. Hell, I cant even run it on Very High/Enthusiest without taking a HUGE hit in performance over high/gamer.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
Indeed, Crysis used Crytek2, while Crysis2 is using Crytek3.Miggle wrote:
no it's not.
Only difference between the two engines is that Crytek3 is better optimized.
Which brings me to something else, how come after 2 years there still hasn't been a single game with better graphics than Crysis?
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
I thought you meant the same engine as Crysis.Vilham wrote:
really? so even though they are both called Crysis 2 they are using totally different engines. Sounds a bit of a con from them then.Miggle wrote:
no it's not.Vilham wrote:
fake, there is already footage and images of the actual game out.
PS3 and 360 might not quite have the same capabilities as the PC but its still using the same engine. The difference will be minimal.
And it's been done before, nightfire was a whole different game on consoles.