Compare And Contrast

I spotted this over on GameTrailers’ featured user’s movies, where they explain: “The “CORE-X Graphical Benchmark” is a render Video by “Blur Studio” for CryTek that shows how they wanted Crysis to be like.”

So it’s the ideal visual experience that CryTek were aiming for. Compare and contrast that with the game you actually ended up playing:


Thanks, GameTrailers’ users’.

18 Comments

  1. ImperialCreed says:

    I might be mistaken, but in the second segment (ice field) does one of the soldiers cry out “They’ve got Walker!” as the alien squidies make their attack?

  2. muscrat says:

    Wow im so glad they changed the nano suit design so dramatically.

  3. Acosta says:

    This is why I smile when anyone says “graphics are good enough already”. We are far, far away from it and visuals are more than eye candy, they add credibility, intensity and a sense of involvement that I feel is fundamental for a videogame.

    The actual game is impressive, but there is a long way ahead.

  4. rb_lestr says:

    So this is like the e3 Killzone CG trailer, except Crytek didn’t try pass it off as a real game?

    Kind of like a visual design doc to be shown around so publishers (EA) could get a feel of what Crytek wanted to achieve in terms of visual theme and gameplay.

    I think they did a good job.

  5. Simon says:

    Thank god actual first person games don’t do the exagerated head-bob as these cg renders do. Hell, even films that do first person shots don’t do this kind of exaggerated head bob and bring in the steadycam instead.

  6. Piratepete says:

    I hate to disagree with you Acosta but I always felt I had credibility, intensity and a sense of involvement from the original Elite on the C64. I think you can have a quality game without relying too much on graphics. IMO its all about the gameplay mechanic rather than the graphics that provide the aspects you mentioned

  7. Turin Turambar says:

    Uhh… this is just concept art, in video form. They contracted Blur Studios just to do a video to inspire them about how the game could be visually, in theme and style.

    Graphic comparison is, in this case, stupid.

  8. Jim Rossignol says:

    Arguably though graphics and gameplay mechanics are tied up together – see vegetation moving in Crysis to give away enemies, or the rise of complex physics in games.

  9. CrashT says:

    Throught the whole video I was waiting for somebody to shout: “Game Over man, Game Over!”

  10. Jim Rossignol says:

    Turin: but it’s isn’t interesting that, in this case, ‘concept art in video form’ isn’t so far removed from the actual game visuals?

    I think it *does* make an interesting comparison, for exactly that reason.

  11. Piratepete says:

    I will give you that Jim, physics, graphical effects et al, do add to the modern gameplay experience, but I think the totality of the gameplay experience is derived at a far more basic level and are embelished by, and not created by, those affects on their own.

  12. Jim Rossignol says:

    Ok, rolling it back: FPS was created by the graphic developments of Wolfenstein/Doom. That’s an example, at the most basic level, of how the graphics *are* the gameplay.

  13. Acosta says:

    Piratepete. I believe that in some cases, technology leads gameplay. Some of the most important games on the videogames medium has been possible thanks to a new technology or a new technique of doing something. Wasn´t Elite a technical wonder in C64 days?.

    Advancement on graphics and technology open new possibilities for gameplay. We have seen it in games like GTA 3, Half-Life 2, Wolfenstein/Doom, Mario 64… Technology is not everything, but is fundamental to open new fields and create gameplay that were not possible before. I see it that way.

  14. Leeks! says:

    To me, (because I feel like poor Pete is being ganged up on) it seems as though graphics technology is the framework in which gameplay elements can be developed, but it’s still that essential Good Idea that makes the game work. So, while Pong may have been a technical marvel upon its release, it wasn’t the visual novelty that sold it.

    So I think what the “graphics are good enough” folks are getting at is really “graphics are good enough for the ideas that developers are having.” Honestly, besides the subtle visual ticks (plants moving, etc.) what could you do in Crysis, gameplay wise, that you couldn’t do with the Source engine? Or even in FarCry, for that matter? I’m certainly not a designer, but would it really be that far fetched to conceive of and implement a gameplay device (or nanosuit) that subtly tweaked game physics on command five or six years ago? I honestly don’t think it would be.

    So, yes, after all that long-winded rambling, I don’t really disagree… with anyone. I think graphics are are a necessary (and important) part of the videogame medium, but only insofar as they allow the artists to carry out their ideas. And–though I could be mistaken–I think that’s what Pete was getting at as well. Graphics should be a tool, not an end of themselves.

  15. Piratepete says:

    No I’m not arguing that graphics are the gameplay, and that technology leads games, of course it does we would all still be playing space invaders if it didn’t. I’m just saying that a lot of times extra graphical frippery is added to the game but doesn’t really add anything to the gameplay (I would argue that the moving trees and grasses of Crysis actually don’t add anything at all). If you look at my top post I was simply saying that you can have a great game without great graphics. Peggle anyone?

    Look at HL2 and Max Payne. Ok Max had movable objects, chairs, tin cans etc, that exploded nicely but it was HL2 that used physics to add to the gameplay. But was Max Payne a bad game because it didn’t use physics as well as HL2, no of course not. Becayse the gameplay was good.

    (That a robust enough defence for ya buddy, hu hu)

    *rotates fists in a marquis of queensbury style boxing pose whilst jogging up and down*

  16. Kast says:

    Better graphics/physics enable a greater variety of gameplay options and game styles. The holy grail of graphics (IMHO) is to be able to impart anything to the player using visual effects that could be imparted using text.

    The benefit of improved graphics is that a game can impart as much information is the blink of an eye as would require five minutes of reading text AND allow the player to make snap decisions in real time.

    It’s all about pace. If you fancy leisurely, considered games stick with text-based games. If you hanker for more rapid, exciting entertainment you’re going to want to go with more detailed graphical developments.

  17. Acosta says:

    Max Payne still uses it graphics for trying to add personality to the character. As ridicule as Max face it is now, it was a pretty impressive effect that added a new layer of realism and credibility to the story.

    My point is, that even without using technology to improve graphics, they are still important for their effect on the player.

    For example, in a game as Baldur´s Gate, you can´t watch the expression of the characters when you are speaking with them because the perspective is far away. In The Witcher, you have a close perspective of the characters but their face shows no remarkable expression. In Mass Effect the expression of the faces has gained a lot of realism, so when I am about to say something, the effect of the face looking at me is more noticeable than other games, for me at least.

    Here you can see a pure graphical trick that adds nothing to gameplay but add, in my opinion, to the title as whole.

    (And I don´t want to fight with anyone ;) just trying to express as I feel it).

  18. Kid Amnesiac says:

    That clip made me quite dizzy, actually. Don’t know if that was the intended goal or not.