In this week's debate, Evan argues that Crysis 3 is the best-looking game in gaming, while Tyler isn't wooed by its tessellated vegetation and volumetric fog shadows. It's undeniably impressive tech, but does Crytek still wear the graphics crown?
We assault, parry, and counter-parry on behalf of both sides in the debate below. Make your own case in the comments, and jump to the next page for opinions from the community. Evan, you've got the floor:
Evan: C'mon, Tyler, have you seen Crysis 3? Go ahead, look at it. I'll wait here.
Tyler: Oh, I've seen it. CryEngine is technically fantastic. Just like Thomas Kinkade was a technically skilled painter. But do I like his paintings? Not at all. Now Evan, I know you've seen BioShock Infinite. If Crysis 3 is a Kinkade, BioShock Infinite is a Norman Rockwell .
Evan: BioShock is beautiful, and I've talked with Irrational a bunch about what they're doing to make the game look as good as it can on PC. Infinite's art direction is inspiring, but I don't think its fidelity and effects approach Crytek's stuff, to be honest.
Man, we sound like a stereotype of teen girls, don't we? “Oh my god Tyler, Orlando Bloom is so much cuter than Ryan Gosling, I don't even know you anymore.”
Tyler: Psh, Gosling is way cuter, but I see your point. If not technical quality, we're arguing a subjective preference for one style or another. But we can still argue it. Art criticism is valid, and if it isn't, my doodles are just as special as Crysis 3's art direction, because that's just my opinion.
Evan: We have to consider both sides, though. Crysis is totally concerned with maximum performance, and that theme extends to the technology that drives the art as well as the art itself. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all, but Crysis also wins from a quantitative standpoint. The gun models are carefully animated, but they're piled with polygons. Wall textures in obscure corners of levels are given an unusual amount of care, but they look higher-resolution than any other game. In terms of raw texture quality and the 3D and 2D assets Crytek puts into the game, it's evident that Crysis 3 is the prettiest thing on PC. Even the damn grass is innovative.
Tyler: I see we've hit the semantics hurdle already. It's hard to avoid in debates like this, but let's try to leap over it. “Prettiest” can mean a lot of things. I'm not taking it to mean “great anti-aliasing” or “look at all that grass!” To me, it could mean Limbo's black and white film reel or Mirror's Edge's stark playgrounds. Can you argue for Crysis 3 on those grounds?
Evan: Sure, but as PC gamers we're interested in what our handmade machines can do. If someone asked you “I just built a PC. What game will really show me what my hardware can do?” would you recommend Limbo over Crysis 3?
Tyler: Alright, maybe not, but if you want to go technical, mods make Skyrim and GTA IV way more fun to look at than Crysis 3's rusted metal and overgrown foliage. iCEnhancer is insane .
Evan: iCEnhancer is a terrific mod. It's a great demonstration of what's possible on PC. And I don't want to shrug off the effort it took to make it, but it isn't a comprehensive approach to creating something visual and interactive. It's CG for the sake of CG. It's novelty, to some extent, like the Star Wars special editions . Great visual design originates from an artistic vision and having the technology to convey that vision. Crysis has both sides of that.
Tyler: So you agree it's not just about cranking up the polycount, but I disagree that Crysis nails the vision side of things. If I were going on vacation, I'd much rather book a tour through Skyrim's snowy peaks and shimmering lakes.
Evan: Yeah, it's obviously not all about stuff like polycount, but if we're comparing two 3D, first-person games, the technical quality of assets matters. It's the reason Skyrim's characters appear slightly flat to me—they feel like inexpressive NPCs, and Psycho feels like a virtual person.
Tyler: Your counter-argument is vanilla Skyrim, but I'll go with it anyway. Yeah, it's got some blurry bits, but a trip to New Zealand with my glasses off is still better than visiting a movie set with 20/20 vision.
Skyrim is so full of character and variety. It's got this unique sense of scale, where mountains somehow feel like huge miniatures. It's got- well, I could go on, but instead I'll just show you my tribute to it:
Crysis 3 just doesn't do that to me—It's got some lovely swaying grass, but for all that foliage it doesn't feel alive.
Evan: Skyrim is pretty, but not nearly as impressive. I guess I judge visual experiences more on how intensely (and how often) they produce that feeling of “I can't believe this is coming out of my PC.” Or “I can't believe this isn't pre-rendered.” Those moments that raise the bar in my mind of what computers can do. Crysis does that more than any other game for me.
Tyler: Does it? Crysis 1 got us so used to holding the series up as the benchmark for PC power that it's become our default, but it's not 2008 anymore. Have you seen Witcher 2 with ubersampling ? It's called “ubersampling,” man, how could we ignore it? And don't forget about RAGE. We didn't totally love the game, but damn it looks good.
Sorry buddy, id is still the tech leader. Since you like comparing characters:
Evan: Two bandanas? CryEngine can only render one; I am defeated.
But yeah, I actually had forgotten about RAGE. It speaks to id's technical strengths that they can take a brown setting and make it look that beautiful. I'd be willing to say that RAGE's acrobatic mutants are better-animated than Crysis' bad guys. But I'd rather be in Crysis' sunny, overgrown jungle than RAGE's bright, barren desert.
Tyler: No fair choosing such delightfully dramatic lighting.
Evan: I just like the idea of Psycho telling me a ghost story behind that flashlight.
Tyler: It'd probably be way better than some silly story about slapping a “Nanodome” over New York. Forget about people faces, there's something really special about RAGE's rock faces. Look at them for a while, and you realize that they haven't had a tiled texture slapped on like, say, almost every other 3D game before RAGE. The whole surface has been hand painted with virtual texturing. Yeah, that's something John Carmack invented. Have fun with your dumb non-virtual textures.
I asked id's Tim Willits to help explain, and he said something that's hard to argue: “Michelangelo could not have painted the Sistine Chapel using procedurally generated textures.” Hear that? id Tech 5 would totally be Michelangelo's preferred engine if he were alive today. Alright, maybe that's not exactly what he was saying, but it makes the point: an engine that removes limitations from the artist enables better art.
Evan: Virtual texturing is an exciting technique, and I'd love to see it used and iterated on more. But innovations in how flat, static surfaces are rendered don't excite me as much as the improvements Crysis 3 made to lighting, animated vegetation, and character tessellation. The game has more moving parts, and they all feel authentic. Here's a trailer that pans through some of the improvements:
Tyler: Alright, so that's some stunning simulation. I especially like the “dynamic water volume caustics.” Still, I think you might have something else to say about “flat, static surfaces” when Arma 3 comes out. Its scale is incredible and the lighting is gorgeous, but check out that repeating ground texture. Blech! It and Crysis 3 would benefit from id's technology and artists.
Evan: Oh, whatever. Arma 3 is a huge step forward from Arma 2, and I could even write a massive defense of Arma 2's visual design, flawed as it is. The animations are rigid, and most of the textures look like they were picked up at a garage sale, but it's one of the few games (with Crysis) where I go out of my way to run through grass because I love how authentically it animates.
It's easy to be critical of all of these games. I don't like Crysis 3's overuse of motion blur (though some console commands can help with that). But we're here to name a king—the best-looking game on PC. And I think Crysis' sci-fi setting, neon weaponry, uncompromising approach to movie-like effects, and Crytek's incredible engine represents the best-yet combination of aesthetics and technical quality.
Tyler: We'll see about that. You managed to derail my train and put it on the tech track, but now I'm re-railing it: objectively, both CryEngine and id Tech are superior to Unreal Engine 3, but BioShock Infinite is still better-looking. It's got more style than Crysis 3 has blades of grass, and that's where it counts. The magic isn't in the fancy shaders or even virtual texturing: it's in the idea-havers and the art-makers.
@ pcgamer modded or un-modded? Because I'm pretty sure you can make Skyrim look better than real life if you install enough mods.
— superkillrobot (@superkillrobot) February 20, 2013
@ pcgamer technology wise? Probably. Art direction? Imagination? Notsomuch.
— Tony Heugh (@standardman) February 20, 2013
@ pcgamer Definitely, no contest.
— Jake (keyboardN1nja) (@keyboardN1nja) February 20, 2013
@ pcgamer For me, I gotta say Battlefield 3.
— Tribesman Gaming (@tribesman256) February 20, 2013
@ pcgamer it is definitely, by far, the best unmodded game in terms of raw graphics ever. It just is. Real time caustics. 'Nuff said
— Kai Moseley (@Kibby_Cat) February 20, 2013
@ pcgamer Yes, from a tech perspective. Psycho's model is IMO the most realistic looking human model in a game yet, coming from a #BF3 fan.
— Gerardo Pena (@Tobi5480) February 20, 2013
@ pcgamer Crysis 3 does look fantastic, but something. about the snowstorms in Skyrim just blow me away.
— NSVG Blog (@NSVGBlog) February 20, 2013