"Can't remember, played it years ago on low end machine. Won't platy it now since I think there perhaps could be remaster and I woud like to try that."
Then if you cant remember and why come here and say "Cyberpunk 2077 looks a lot better". To make such bold statement and you don't remember.
I am telling u that there is no texture that are not loaded or are loading in real time. Textures look crisp and detailed everwhere.
There is no grainy textures anywhere.
There is no forced blurry TAA but many several choices including MSAA.
There are 3 factors that play in favor of Crysis 3 which plague Cyberpunk 2077.
"I don't think I ever heard that water is way graphic and I disagree. What is most common must look the best, not water."
Reviewers and people when make comparisons usually look at vegetation-foliage, ground-rock-wall textures, water.
Raining is bugged also and very bad implemented in Cyberpunk 2077. A minus in the graphics department.
Foliage and ground textures in the desert look bad compared with those in Crysis 3.
View attachment 11223845
View attachment 11223848
It just that it's not enough to make me think the Crysis 3 was better looking. Supperior geometry and lighting are just hard to beat with some grainy effect, water lacking post process effects or common open world problems.
Lighting i agree but dont understand about geometry. Explain.
All I know when i look at my TVs that Cyberpunk 2077 looks blurry, textures missing or loading in real time, very low textures, very low detailed LOD at distance, textures changing in real time depending on distance, water and textures looking grainy, water looking bland-no effects or physics, rain looks weird and bad with almost no effect/missing physics.