Originally Posted by jtom320
Yeah I was looking at screenshots I've taken over the past three months of the witcher 2, metro, bf3 and Crysis 2. To me these are probabally the best looking games of the last two years. I never really appreciated just how good Crysis 2 looked while I was playing it. To be honest with you I think it's pretty clearly a better looking game then the first one even though a lot of people will disagree with that. The part that blows me away the most is the submarine in the beginning. WHen your marine team is talking to you it's almost jarring how real it looks. I really can't wait til next-gen consoles come out and we get another big leap. Crysis 3 though I'm sure will serve as a good bridge. No doubt Crytek is hard at work on the engine. With id and epic seemingly out of the graphics race they're one of the last ones really pushing things forward.
Not to be a jerk but it's posts like this that make me wonder if some people just don't have a good eye for graphical fidelity. Compare the submarine intro in C2 to the VTOL intro in Crysis and it's like night and day - Crysis wins hands down. For a true gauge of graphical fidelity you need to look to the details as well as the big picture and despite what some people say, textures are massively important. Look at any Marine's gear in Crysis 2 and compare that to the cloth textures of the Koreans in Crysis. It's like comparing console textures to PC textures (I wonder why). Look at Prophet's face in the VTOL compared to what's-his-name's face in the submarine - one looks eye-poppingly real and the other looks like a cartoon. I could go on and on with these comparisons but it's kind of pointless unless you see them for yourself. Crysis 2 looks great as a stand-alone (with the texture packs and DX11 that was patched in months after release, of course), but compared to Crysis and Warhead, it looks like a glorified cartoon.