At last I got around Crysis demo, I own all of Valve's games since Half-Life 2, well except CS:S and I love them all, but damn Crysis looks TOO good I've been messing around with Hammer for a while and wondered if it was possible to achieve a Crysis look with Source, or if by the time Half-Life 3 comes around Valve will put on clinic when it comes to graphics. At times while playing Crysis I thought "Valve can't do this...". What do you people think?

The difference is easy: 3 years.

Plus source could run pretty nicely on old computers at the time. Putting Crysis on on a more than one year old machine often means instant slide show. Plobably adds 6 month to a year technologic gap between the two.
This difference costs Crysis a lot, because most people won't invest money in a new PC just for one game that doesn't innovate that much in terms of gameplay.
But it sure does look good. But I personnally, like many people, don't have the money to upgrade my PC all the time. I'm glad to have games still coming on good old source engine for my old PC.
I may buy a discount version of Crysis when I buy my new PC in minimum one year.

I will not be buying crysis. One reason - It will melt my PC.
I currently have TF2's graphics maxed out and it runs just fine.

Thats the difference between the two, it makes crysis look amasing, but also makes it crap - because masses and masses of gamers can't run it with anything higher than 'low' graphics setting.

Crysis made me poop my pants.

The CryEngine 2 Editor is pretty good too - simple to work with. I haven't made any levels yet, but I took some pictures with it:

Full gallery here. I have 1920x1200 resolution versions too if you want them.

I've got crysis and the game was freaking awesome. Seemed a little shorter than I expected, but it was lots of fun throughout. My computer was able to handle having the graphics around medium-high with good framerates, so no problems there.

The source engine is not able to handle crysis-type graphics. The engine is getting older now, and would require an overhaul to handle true real-time lighting, and just higher overall graphics. You might be able to get fairly close, with a lot of work, but you'd never get the same look. IMO.

Those pictures look kick ass hamster! I'm hoping to build a new computer that can handle crysis, I need an upgrade.

I might be able to play crysis on my system now(recently upgraded, but not to top of the line), but I honestly don't care. I played it some on my friend's PC and yes it was fun and it was pretty, but judging from what I've seen the second half of the game takes a major turn downward in game quality. It seems like they threw away nearly every game mechanic that made the first half fun.

On the other hand I've seen some really great artistic videos where someone's gone into the Sandbox Editor and set up a few thousand boxes then torn them apart just to watch the physics engine do its thing.

Crysis is a tech demo to show of their new engine, and it worked. Far Cry 2 might be the watered down version that more computers will be able to handle. They've managed to sell 1 million copies of Crysis which is a lot more than they expected to sell, I'm told. They're really going to make their money off leasing the engine.

With the Unreal 3 engine, which seems to focus on details, and CryEngine 2 engine, which seems to focus on realism, the Source engine is really out of date. However, that is to be expected.

Deviant wrote:
Far Cry 2 might be the watered down version that more computers will be able to handle.

Don't count on this, IMO.
Far Cry 2 looks visually awesome.

Deviant wrote:
They've managed to sell 1 million copies of Crysis which is a lot more than they expected to sell, I'm told.

I've been told exactly the opposite thing.
Crysis was a little failure, as they released it in the same time than Halo 3, Call of Duty 4 and the Orange Box.
#1, #2, #3, #4, #5
On the other hand, it's very possible that crysis will keep seeling for months, or maybe years, just like Far Cry.

Deviant wrote:
With the Unreal 3 engine, which seems to focus on details, and CryEngine 2 engine, which seems to focus on realism, the Source engine is really out of date. However, that is to be expected.

Yeah, but you know, basicaly, there's more than four years between these engines. This is like comparing Half-Life 1 with Unreal Tournament 2003 or GTA III.

Totally incomparable.

msleeper wrote:
Totally incomparable.

BAM!

msleeper wrote:
Totally incomparable.

Incomparable indeed, although I can tell you this:

Source is awesome cause it powers the most awesome games ever, ever.
EVER. And if you don't agree, gtfo!

KooKas-Kreationz wrote:
Sun Jul 06, 2008 11:36 am

MrThompson wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:47 am

Wow.

evile bump

Old shit is old.

KooKas-Kreationz wrote:
And if you don't agree, gtfo!

You'd better gtfo before msleeper sees you bumped a 5 month old thread

youme wrote:
You'd better gtfo before msleeper sees you bumped a 5 month old thread