Originally Posted by thisischuck01
Crysis, even though it is an "older" game, is still one of the most hardware demanding. Crysis looks better than most of the PC games on the market today, even though they utilize DX11.
The only games that actually have comparable graphics to Crysis are Metro 2033/Stalker Call of Pripyat.
Hardware demanding? YEP! Best graphics? NOPE! Crysis is a great sign of how far optimization has gotten us. You see Bad Company 2 looks just as good, if not better than Crysis. Sure bad Company doesn't have those small things like Interactive Foilage, but the overall visuals are quite superiour (or equal at the minimum). Ok gather the amount of people who have gloated that they can max out Crysis to the amount of people who say they can max out Bad Company 2. The ratio is like 1:4!
Optimization sucked back in 06, I mean it was either good/great graphics but you had to have a kick ass system, or crap graphics. Now we have great graphics at a smaller price. When Bad Co. 2 came out you didn't need the strongest card to get it to at least good settings like Crysis right? So there is a difference between the most intensive game and the most graphically superb game.
On Topic: Hell ya. I mean it actually looks quite good on a console, from a distance anyway. We are taking a game made on a old API and we are taking a newer game with a lot more power and potential and we are saying that the console version of the new game can't look as good as the PC version of the old one?