Crysis 3 vs Cyberpunk 2077

+
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is the topic. You are not able to compare these games, because your setup is not working like it should, so based on your screenshots on page 1, we are not able to find out if Cyberpunk looks better than Crysis 3.
Saying so does not make it so. You need to prove this first. Many people on this forum complained of textures loading in real time, LOD increasing/decreasing with distance to an object(traffic light, garbage bags).
 
Last edited:
Non-sequitur. That only proves game is running poorly on my pc. Not that my pc is guilty for the textures looking bad. LOL.
For me, If the game run correctly on better PC, that just proves that's not the game itself and your PC isn't good enough to run Cyberpunk properly.
> ding ding, time for an upgrade :)

a bit like me if I said that the game is "bad" because on my XB1x it goes badly. Knowing that it runs well on my XBSX, it doesn't really come from the game, but from the console generation (with a lot of optimization, that could change, but it's useless to hope for a miracle either)
 
Last edited:
Non-sequitur. That only proves game is running poorly on my pc. Not that my pc is guilty for the textures looking bad. LOL.
:facepalm:

Don't you understand? There are people out there who have the exact same system specs but they're experiencing better performance. Your GPU is probably damaged.
 
I don't play Crysis 3, but how many they are those kind of characters ?
Because "my" screenshot, it's a character who you encounter one time in whole game (like 5 minutes if you really take your time).
I could take the same screenshot on many characters like that (I wouldn't even know how many they are).
Just for example : those are all well done.
Moving the goal post.
The argument is about graphical fidelity and face geometry not how many NPC are in the world.
In one game there are mostly aliens and masked mercenaries as NPC and the other is open world game in piece time.
Post automatically merged:

:facepalm:

Don't you understand? There are people out there who have the exact same system specs but they're experiencing better performance. Your GPU is probably damaged.
You only showed one example that was different from me(3700x as processor and 8gb card). What others?
My brother has similar bad performance. :facepalm:
Blaming gamers and their pcs for a game being badly optimized.
 
Moving the goal post.
The argument is about graphical fidelity and face geometry not how many NPC are in the world.
In one game there are mostly aliens and masked mercenaries as NPC and the other is open world game in piece time.
It's a joke ?
I'm talking about characters, not civilians. I just look for Crysis, there are less than 10... In Cyberpunk there are easily more than 50... (and again I'm nice). I don't know if you see the amount work "simply" for that ?
And sorry, for me, they are much better than Crysis anyway (even a random Character who you meet one time).
Like Meridith, Lizzy Wizzie, Maiko, the Peralez,... they are all unics.
 
Moving the goal post.
The argument is about graphical fidelity and face geometry not how many NPC are in the world.
In one game there are mostly aliens and masked mercenaries as NPC and the other is open world game in piece time.
Post automatically merged:


You only showed one example that was different from me(3700x as processor and 8gb card). What others?
My brother has similar bad performance. :facepalm:
Blaming gamers and their pcs for a game being badly optimized.
I think you can search by yourself to find for more examples.

EDIT: Even the RX 570 has better performance than your RX 580 and this time it's with the same CPU.

I'm gonna leave this thread now.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm well, Oh I just remembered crysis3 end boss, and the story. xD

No. NO! N-O, no way. And I say that as Crysis fan. Absolutely not. Cyberpunk 2077 miles ahead. IF you aren't bias that is.

Also you are comparing airliner with a super car. Different beasts fundamentally.

Compare it to Deus Ex: Mankind divided.

Yes CP has shitty water. Granted, yes It would be nice if it was like *insert whatever you feel like it has the best water ever*, add that to the list.

But Crysis3? It was cringe rollercoaster after the dam sequence getting worse and worse till the very end, where It murdered the entire franchise. Which (the murder) let's be real, started with horrible abomination that was Crysis2 where they took a dump on 90% of everything C1 established. While all they had to do was wrap up Crysis properly. Don't you even!

In the end of the day, it is all subjective of course. So you do you.
 
Last edited:
It's a joke ?
I'm talking about characters, not civilians. I just look for Crysis, there are less than 10... In Cyberpunk there are easily more than 50... (and again I'm nice). I don't know if you see the amount work "simply" for that ?
And sorry, for me, they are much better than Crysis anyway (even a random Character who you meet one time).
Like Meridith, Lizzy Wizzie, Maiko, the Peralez,... they are all unics.
Again the thread and the argument is about graphical fidelity and therefore face geometry not how many NPC, characters(main/secondary/episodic), civilians are in the world.
They are not much better:
photomode_16012021_135954.jpeg


Crysis-3.jpg

photomode_17122020_214010.jpeg

crysis-3_q35u.jpg

Crysis 3 faces look more realistic. Cyberpunk 2007 faces look plastique.
Post automatically merged:

Hmmm well, Oh I just remembered crysis3 end boss, and the story. xD

No. NO! N-O, no way. And I say that as Crysis fan. Absolutely not. Cyberpunk 2077 miles ahead. IF you aren't bias that is.

Also you are comparing airliner with a super car. Different beasts fundamentally.

Compare it to Deus Ex: Mankind divided.

Yes CP has shitty water. Granted, yes It would be nice if it was like *insert whatever you feel like it has the best water ever*, add that to the list.

But Crysis3? It was cringe rollercoaster after the dam sequence getting worse and worse till the very end, where It murdered the entire franchise. Which (the murder) let's be real, started with horrible abomination that was Crysis2 where they took a dump on 90% of everything C1 established. While all they had to do was wrap up Crysis properly. Don't you even!

In the end of the day, it is all subjective of course. So you do you.
The thread and arguments are about graphical fidelity not about story, gameplay mechanics and other stuff.
Crysis 3 graphics vs Cyberpunk 2077 graphics.
 
Last edited:
Crysis 3 faces look more realistic. Cyberpunk 2007 faces look plastique.
They look more Cyberpunky and on Crysis to come out of a sewer.
But if you prefer those ones on Crysis and me those ones on Cyberpunk, that could said only one thing : matter of tastes :)
 
Well guess what? You can compare screenshots whole day, but how the models move, how they are sounded, is equally as important. It's like having an argument about what tastes better? "picture of a burger" or "picture of pizza"

Utterly pointless, it will only ever be your impression of the whole that will enrich or ruin your experience of the thing even if then represented by a picture or video.

And Crysis3 didn't taste very well, I tell you that much.

Graphical fidelity. If you have well renered nonsense, I won't like it. Judging interactive media, by how they look especially how they look still is paradoxical at best.

Cyberpunk when it works is fucking amazing. Crysis when it works, HAH xD When psycho in C3 looks like highschool teacher with potato for nose, instead of that badass Crysis1 version (no not older DIFFERENT) When ovbious villan is so - I will stop my self. no I am done xD
 
You're using a mid-tier GPU. You're not able to experience CP2077 maxed out at 60+ fps. The game has numerous issues, but I feel like the discussion is invalidated by the inability to run it in all its RTX glory.
 
The thread and arguments are about graphical fidelity not about story, gameplay mechanics and other stuff.
Crysis 3 graphics vs Cyberpunk 2077 graphics.
Finally, I could said the same as the Characters for all of your points. It's all matter of tastes ;)
Except for the water, I grant it to you :)
But as on a playthrough of 140hrs on average, I go/stay in water for a very maximum of 15 minutes (i.e. 0.003% of my playing time), I want to say : whatever :D
 
Moderator: As a reminder to all, please, keep the discussion friendly, and respectful. Otherwise, this topic is headed for a closure.
 
"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.

I do not remeber details but enough. It is not like this was some strictly objective research anyway. You did not play with RT for example.

If people who compare usually look at water and plants even if the game does not show them much then they doing it wrong. I do not think it makes any sence to focus on things that are not priorities. They could be pros/cons for sure but not of a great value.

Geometry? Simply Cyberpunk has better defined detailed shapes, probably with more vertexes (polygonst, triangles...).

If you must comparing jungle to desert...
Screenshot_011.jpg
 
Last edited:
For me, If the game run correctly on better PC, that just proves that's not the game itself and your PC isn't good enough to run Cyberpunk properly.
> ding ding, time for an upgrade :)

a bit like me if I said that the game is "bad" because on my XB1x it goes badly. Knowing that it runs well on my XBSX, it doesn't really come from the game, but from the console generation (with a lot of optimization, that could change, but it's useless to hope for a miracle either)
You can use max settings and the lod is still shit.
Which graphics settings should I use to make the average NPC look like it's next gen?

Don't confuse style and esthetic with good graphics.

Static screenshots prove nothing. That's what baits most people into skyrim modding, all those depth of view filters look nice when you take a picture of your big titty nord but works like shit when you move around.
 
I will say I am very happy with the graphics in my game (with 60frp). They look as good to me as what I see many people on youtube with much better PC than myself. See below not using directx 12 with OS Win 7 and only geforce gtx 970 with MED to High settings and none of the crap like motion blur, Eye bloom, or film gain turned on:
1616793290206.png


I WISH my games from 8 years ago looked this good.
 
Last edited:
Many have praised Cyberpunk 2077 for the great graphics.
Someone told me in another thread: "And I'm sorry man, but stating that C3 is the better looking game is just ridiculous. My rig's far from the best rn, so while of course it can smoothly run C3 on Ultra, to have reasonably fluid gameplay in Cyberpunk I'm playing it on Medium. And still, it's clearly the better looking game. Facial models and expressions, textures, lighting - they're simply better."

I just played again Crysis 3 this week. I can fairly say on my 50" 4k TV or 30" 1080p TV Crysis 3 definitely looks better. Image is not blurred but crisp, detailed.
Rain and water are among the most realistic I have ever seen in a game(the water looks and behaves close to reality).

Cyberpunk 2077 looks blurred, grainy(SSR), textures are not that detailed or not loaded properly(on walls, cars, people); LOD distance is ugly.
TAA sucks compared with MSAA from Crysis 3. Rain and water are inferior(the water has basically no effect and physics, underwater feels like being on land with sky above, at a distance the water looks grainy) compared with Crysis 3.
Lighting is better (but that somewhat that got downgraded too with patches).
I compared rasterization look only.

Cyberpunk 2077(patch 1.22):View attachment 11223689
View attachment 11223692View attachment 11223695\View attachment 11223698View attachment 11223701


Crysis 3: View attachment 11223704
View attachment 11223707
View attachment 11223710
View attachment 11223713
View attachment 11223716




Q: What do you think? Is Cyberpunk 2077 that much better? If yes why?
Q: Why does it looks from pics for rasterization look that Crysis 3 is graphically better overall or at least that Cyberpunk 2077 is definitely not superior?
For me, it doesn't really matter what anyone says concerning graphics. Even on low settings, CP77 all but decimates anyone or anything, that even considers making an attempt to come close. The game looks like real. That's all there is to it. The graphics are so breathtaking, not only does it look like real, it also feels like real. Just go for a walk between those tall buildings, that are actually nothing more than empty shells, it looks like real.

Sorry choom, C3 looks great in your pics, as I've never played it, but to me, it pales in comparison with CP77. Find it actually on par with PS3's graphics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom