When Crysis first came out, it was like the epitome of computer graphics,
the culmination of what could be achieved by the best of the best of brand
new graphics hardware. When run on the newest hardware that could only be
owned by people who were willing to spend the price of four modern (at
the time) laptops on the newest graphics cards and processors, it looked
absolutely stunning. The realism was without par. It put to shame all other
existing games.

When I recently finally upgraded my PC to an almost top-of-the-line one
(64-bit quad-core, a pretty decent graphics card, way faster than even
the fastest ones when Crysis was first published, and OS support for the
latest DirectX) I tried Crysis again, pumping all of its settings to
maximum, in order to experience its splendor as it was meant to be
experienced.

And the experience was... underwhelming.

Maybe the game hasn't aged that well. It was actually not all that
good-looking. In fact, it looks relatively mediocre compared to many of
the newest games. It looks good yes... but not *that* good. It's not
absolutely stunning. It's ok... but not the top of the top. It looks like
a slightly above-average modern game.

I was left wondering, "did it really look like this when it was published,
and did it really feel that stunning back then, while now it looks almost
mediocre? How is that even possible?"

If even many Xbox 360 games (which is a way older hardware) look *better*
than Crysis (and man, do some Xbox 360 games look stunning, taking into
account the limited hardware by nowadays standards), I have to wonder what
exactly was that great about it in the first place.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message