People are so mad that Crysis Warhead isn't winning Best Graphics

just about every video game oriented forum on the web has dozens of threads with angry users posting about how mad they are that all the web sites are not giving Crysis Warhead best graphics of 2008 recognition. 

Well the thing is, Crysis isn't that good looking of a game.  Yea, yell and scream at me all you want, but it just has no style to it that it makes everything that doesn't look perfect look awful.   Things like MGS4, while they're not nearly as good technically, just look better do to using tricks and lighting effects that just make it much more pleasing to the eye.

I guess what I mean is, games like MGS, PoP, etc. look like they were made that way to get a desired feel.  Crysis just seems like they modeled things and slapped greatly detailed textures on and added some nice particle effects.  While it undoubtly is great technically, it just doesn't reach what it's going for.  Looking back on this from 2015, I can guarantee you that PoP will be better to look at than Crysis.

It's not a matter of being artistically well, it's a matter of accomplishing the look you wanted.  Crysis failed in that respect.  They wanted reality.  They didn't come close.

They can scream all they want, but a game needs to be artistic as well as technically sound. MGS4 is that. Gear of War 2 is that. Prince of Persia is that. Crysis isn't that.

It's because awards like "Best Graphics" aren't actually just asking what the most powerful technical achievement is anymore, art style and the way its used in games plays a huge role now. While It is technically miles ahead of anything released atm, other games look just as good because of the style that they have, or where they focus most of their power.

Just being the best "technical" game in this day and age isn't a huge deal at all anymore

The only one that I was dumbfounded about was Gamespot's award. They had seperate awards for "Graphics: Technical" and "Graphics: Artistic" and MGS4 took Technical over Crysis. That's just plain incorrect.

yeah i tried arguing with a pc fanboy on gamestop but i just ended up getting suspended for a week (for like the millionth time) because they said i was flaming. i just told him that crysis looks like they have a talented dev team, but a crap director when it came to graphics. 

It's incredibly subjective. The Graphics award is probably one of the most dangerous possible awards to give out.

"yeah i tried arguing with a pc fanboy on gamestop but i just ended up getting suspended for a week (for like the millionth time) because they said i was flaming. i just told him that crysis looks like they have a talented dev team, but a crap director when it came to graphics. 

seriously though, people are going CRAZY it seems. i mean outright anger over this and all kinds of silly claims, and others are even saying things like "so much for giantbomb.com" 

pfft. 

"

basically were at a point were you need more then just super realistic graphic. You need some artistic direction now, have a setting that can show off all that sweat graphic engine, gray and brown will not do it anymore.

This is coming from a dude that has a rig that can play crisis at max and yes it amazing to look.

"TwoOneFive said:

"yeah i tried arguing with a pc fanboy on gamestop but i just ended up getting suspended for a week (for like the millionth time) because they said i was flaming. i just told him that crysis looks like they have a talented dev team, but a crap director when it came to graphics. 

seriously though, people are going CRAZY it seems. i mean outright anger over this and all kinds of silly claims, and others are even saying things like "so much for giantbomb.com" 

pfft. 

"

arguing with a gamespot fanboy is like arguing with a spoon, hell even a spoon would say smarter things than a GS fanboy."

While Warhead was a great game...even with a dual SLI system running a quad core and maxed out all the settings...you still get bad pop-in problems and texturing issues.  That's why it won't win any graphics awards - because there aren't any fucking rigs that can run the game without there STILL being problems.

"While Warhead was a great game...even with a dual SLI system running a quad core and maxed out all the settings...you still get bad pop-in problems and texturing issues.  That's why it won't win any graphics awards - because there aren't any fucking rigs that can run the game without there STILL being problems.

HOWEVER, I feel that people need to separate PC and console graphics, period.  There's no reason to try and make them competition against each other, because...and no one can deny this...PC will always be able to deliver what consoles cannot.

"

And also something I wanted to add, it's rather uninspired.  Graphics aren't all about the effects but even design in structures believe it or not

Regardless of what anyone says, Crysis on very high settings at a high framerate is absolutely beautiful to look at. Hands down the best-looking game there is, period. And I think the "style" suits the game perfectly; it is a realistic tactical game with a more realistic-oriented visual style. It is by no means drab, most other current gen games are much more gray and brown (Gears, Resistance, etc), and the lighting is top notch and not overused. The bloom in some games like Oblivion, Gears, and Hell's Highway is just nauseating. The environments are very varied, with forests and jungle, beaches, ice, etc, and has some of the best alien design I've ever seen (epecially in the Core level of the first game). It has very high system requirements, but is by no means unoptimized. What's not to like?

"Regardless of what anyone says, Crysis on very high settings at a high framerate is absolutely beautiful to look at. Hands down the best-looking game there is, period. And I think the "style" suits the game perfectly; it is a realistic tactical game with a more realistic-oriented visual style. It is by no means drab, most other current gen games are much more gray and brown (Gears, Resistance, etc), and the lighting is top notch and not overused. The bloom in some games like Oblivion, Gears, and Hell's Highway is just nauseating. The environments are very varied, with forests and jungle, beaches, ice, etc, and has some of the best alien design I've ever seen (epecially in the Core level of the first game). It has very high system requirements, but is by no means unoptimized. What's not to like?"

lol i laughed when i saw a certain site give gta4 best graphics.

"Regardless of what anyone says, Crysis on very high settings at a high framerate is absolutely beautiful to look at. Hands down the best-looking game there is, period. And I think the "style" suits the game perfectly; it is a realistic tactical game with a more realistic-oriented visual style. It is by no means drab, most other current gen games are much more gray and brown (Gears, Resistance, etc), and the lighting is top notch and not overused. The bloom in some games like Oblivion, Gears, and Hell's Highway is just nauseating. The environments are very varied, with forests and jungle, beaches, ice, etc, and has some of the best alien design I've ever seen (epecially in the Core level of the first game). It has very high system requirements, but is by no means unoptimized. What's not to like?"

Art style>Technical quality.

"Regardless of what anyone says, Crysis on very high settings at a high framerate is absolutely beautiful to look at. Hands down the best-looking game there is, period. And I think the "style" suits the game perfectly; it is a realistic tactical game with a more realistic-oriented visual style. It is by no means drab, most other current gen games are much more gray and brown (Gears, Resistance, etc), and the lighting is top notch and not overused. The bloom in some games like Oblivion, Gears, and Hell's Highway is just nauseating. The environments are very varied, with forests and jungle, beaches, ice, etc, and has some of the best alien design I've ever seen (epecially in the Core level of the first game). It has very high system requirements, but is by no means unoptimized. What's not to like?"

"Colonel_Cool said:

"Regardless of what anyone says, Crysis on very high settings at a high framerate is absolutely beautiful to look at. Hands down the best-looking game there is, period. And I think the "style" suits the game perfectly; it is a realistic tactical game with a more realistic-oriented visual style. It is by no means drab, most other current gen games are much more gray and brown (Gears, Resistance, etc), and the lighting is top notch and not overused. The bloom in some games like Oblivion, Gears, and Hell's Highway is just nauseating. The environments are very varied, with forests and jungle, beaches, ice, etc, and has some of the best alien design I've ever seen (epecially in the Core level of the first game). It has very high system requirements, but is by no means unoptimized. What's not to like?"

Crysis may be beautiful in terms of lighting and texture detail, but there are tons of technical issues going on in those games, even with all the patches, that you just can't avoid.

I honestly think that the Company of Heroes series should be winning hands-down every year.

"

Mad? No. Surprised? Yes.

while it does have its graphical bugs itscloser photorealizm than any one has ever been able to get to before. Granted ive never played MGS4 but i was still surprised.

The problem that always springs up with the "Best Graphics" category is that its very open ended and to some extent unfair and misleading. What exactly makes a game have the best graphics? For me I'd say technical achievement rather than art design. Crysis Warhead for me was definately the game that had the best graphics this year, seeing some videos and screenshots of that game running on top of the line PC systems showed its miles ahead of any other game in the sheer quality and clarity of its visuals.

But then the questions of where does unique or unusual art design and visual style come into the mix. And that is where I think there should be two categories related to awarding games for their visual department. "Best Graphics" would be for technical achievement like it should in my opinion and the new one would be something like "Best Art Design" which would take into account not the quality on a technical level but rather a more artistic level. Games like Prince of Persia and Team Fortress 2 have a unique visual design but are obviously not as detailed or advanced as BioShock, Far Cry 2, Crysis etc. Yet I think those games with a unique visual design should be rewarded, but not at the expense of games that have genuine technical achievements to their visual quality.

It also doesn't help, as I think someone mentioned already, putting the PC alongside consoles. Because it essentially turns into the argument that if a PC game wins "Best Graphics" then everyone complains its unfair as PC's are obviously more powerfull than consoles. But if a console game wins the award it turns into the argument of how could someone pick a console games visual quality over that of a PC game? Shennanigans are afoot for sure!

Like I said there needs to be two categories to award games for their visuals. One taking into account the technical aspect and how well the game is brought to life and the other looking at the art direction in which the developers chose to create their game.

I said this exact same thing last year after people complained about Crysis winning best Graphics across the board while BioShock seemed to flounder in the visual awards categories. Even though the art design and setting of BioShock was for most people superior to the reminiscent Far Cry jungle Island in Crysis. Two different games, both amazingly attractive but for different reasons. One is a huge technical achievement, showing that if the hardware is pushed beyond its limits a game can look stellar. The other a game that proved a solid art design can be just as impressive visually even if it isn't on a similar technical level.

"Colonel_Cool said:

"Regardless of what anyone says, Crysis on very high settings at a high framerate is absolutely beautiful to look at. Hands down the best-looking game there is, period. And I think the "style" suits the game perfectly; it is a realistic tactical game with a more realistic-oriented visual style. It is by no means drab, most other current gen games are much more gray and brown (Gears, Resistance, etc), and the lighting is top notch and not overused. The bloom in some games like Oblivion, Gears, and Hell's Highway is just nauseating. The environments are very varied, with forests and jungle, beaches, ice, etc, and has some of the best alien design I've ever seen (epecially in the Core level of the first game). It has very high system requirements, but is by no means unoptimized. What's not to like?"

What?"

Crysis 1 looked real nice. Crysis warhead looks pretty much the same, probably a little more bland cause there's not as much diverse scenery. Something new should get the award. How about STALKER Clear Sky? That's a beautiful game. 

people dont get that real life looks boring, sylized graphics are much more pleasing on the eyes thats why i think the games with the best graphics are games like prince of persia, bionic commando rearmed and braid.

"It is a realistic tactical game, on delta difficulty at least (which is the only fun way to play the game imo). You don't run around willy-nilly and shoot around, you have to scout, plan ahead, take cover, and be careful or you will die very fast. As for alien design, I thought it was a very refreshing change from Halo, Gears and Mass Effect in which all the aliens are just bipedal human bodies with a different head that speak English. And the black bone-like organic alien environment in the first game was awesome, and kind of reminds me of the skin of the aliens in Aliens."

Crysis was a fantastic looking game last year and it's a great looking game this year. It's just that it's graphics don't have enough style or flavor to upstage an MGS4, Gears 2 or even a GTA 4

Why ISNT it winning best graphics?

From a technical standpoint you would think its a no brainer.

I mean, maybe not Best Art Style.

GOTY awards are dumb anyway. This is just another thing aside from review scores for retards to argue about.

Why is everyone so big onto the technical portions or stylization?

Why are people not counting the actual models?
I'll use an easy example.

Masterchief in Halo 1 development



how he turned out



That's just better design.  Technically it is better as well, but regardless, the actual design of the suit is what helps the majority of it.

"Colonel_Cool said:

"It is a realistic tactical game, on delta difficulty at least (which is the only fun way to play the game imo). You don't run around willy-nilly and shoot around, you have to scout, plan ahead, take cover, and be careful or you will die very fast. As for alien design, I thought it was a very refreshing change from Halo, Gears and Mass Effect in which all the aliens are just bipedal human bodies with a different head that speak English. And the black bone-like organic alien environment in the first game was awesome, and kind of reminds me of the skin of the aliens in Aliens."

You can't go throwing around crap like "realistic tactical game" while you're running around on an island, shooting thousands of what are apparently Korean clones in the face while wearing a super-suit and fighting aliens. That's... not how it works."

"Jayge said:

"Colonel_Cool said:

"It is a realistic tactical game, on delta difficulty at least (which is the only fun way to play the game imo). You don't run around willy-nilly and shoot around, you have to scout, plan ahead, take cover, and be careful or you will die very fast. As for alien design, I thought it was a very refreshing change from Halo, Gears and Mass Effect in which all the aliens are just bipedal human bodies with a different head that speak English. And the black bone-like organic alien environment in the first game was awesome, and kind of reminds me of the skin of the aliens in Aliens."

You can't go throwing around crap like "realistic tactical game" while you're running around on an island, shooting thousands of what are apparently Korean clones in the face while wearing a super-suit and fighting aliens. That's... not how it works."

It's no Ghost Recon, but on delta Crysis is still pretty realistic. Given that it is a futuristic-themed game, and does have aliens and nanosuits etc, damage is realistic, ballistics modeling is realistic, and you CANNOT just "run around the island and shoot people in the face". It is NOT a run-and-gun shooter like Half-Life or Halo (on delta at least). Maybe if you have actually played the game you'd understand."

We're not talking about Crysis' gameplay, as this is a thread about its graphics compared to the rest of the crop from the year...so let's get back to topic?

It didn't win because it looks like crap if your machine can't run it well, which is the majority of pc owners

i don't think artistic style had as much to do with this as many people think. Because its not simply a game thats meant to follow a strict artistic style as a game like Eden, or Braid. 

Technical design means how the game runs, and Crysis has a lot of visual glitches despite being very pretty.

I'm personally not mad at all about it. I could actually care less. However, it is quite ridiculous that the game was not chosen, because it clearly has the most sophisticated graphics engine out there. I mean, how many PC gamers do you actually know who can even get close to running the original Crysis with graphics maxed?

"I'm personally not mad at all about it. I could actually care less. However, it is quite ridiculous that the game was not chosen, because it clearly has the most sophisticated graphics engine out there. I mean, how many PC gamers do you actually know who can even get close to running the original Crysis with graphics maxed?"

"Art style>Technical quality."

"Well the thing is, Crysis isn't that good looking of a game.  Yea, yell and scream at me all you want, but it just has no style to it that it makes everything that doesn't look perfect look awful.   Things like MGS4, while they're not nearly as good technically, just look better do to using tricks and lighting effects that just make it much more pleasing to the eye.

I guess what I mean is, games like MGS, PoP, etc. look like they were made that way to get a desired feel.  Crysis just seems like they modeled things and slapped greatly detailed textures on and added some nice particle effects.  While it undoubtly is great technically, it just doesn't reach what it's going for.  Looking back on this from 2015, I can guarantee you that PoP will be better to look at than Crysis.

It's not a matter of being artistically well, it's a matter of accomplishing the look you wanted.  Crysis failed in that respect.  They wanted reality.  They didn't come close."