Why Orokin Voids Look Better Than Crysis

[Tesseract_The_Pariah]

you did good, art director.

Edited May 28, 2013 by Gaminus

[sambarpowder]

It totally blew me away. I can't see how anyone could bring themselves to rush a void run. Warframe's art is one of its greatest assets.

[MAL1WAN]

It totally blew me away. I can't see how anyone could bring themselves to rush a void run. Warframe's art is one of its greatest assets.

Yep. It forces me to kill my enemies with blunt weapons to avoid blood on walls.

[krisp]

...but Warframe makes full use of graphics technology as its greatest asset. The void levels look really nice, but you can hardly pull that comparison.

[SirNerdsAlot5]

100% agreed. CoD: Ghosts just went further into graphics and left aesthetics behind.

[SilentCynic]

This is actually one of the reasons I want to run Void missions solo. Not to be a greedy, misanthropic jackass who won't share, but just to enjoy the artistic style and design at my own pace.

[gell]

While I think the void is amazing, and we're all expressing opinions, Crysis, and its sequels, have some fantastic technical aspects in their own right. The way lighting works in the CryEngine is extremely well done, and while it's not bad in Warframe, I can see where DE is just faking stuff in a specific part of a level. The fidelity to which light is simulated with foliage and indoor areas still blows Warframe away. Even though it's evolution engine, WF looks a lot like Unreal Engine 3 to me, with how it renders lighting and edges. Gotta give Crysis its props. On the flip side, Crysis faces are boring, and WF has better style there. I just wanted to give CryEngine its dues because it has an amazing lighting engine, even if the games have boring "real world" designs.

 

And while I say that, I love TF2's style over both these games, but perhaps it's too different to compare? Makes me wish WF and TF2 could be done with CryEngine's lighting engine.

Edited May 28, 2013 by gell

[J-Pax]

...but Warframe makes full use of graphics technology as its greatest asset. The void levels look really nice, but you can hardly pull that comparison.

 

That was the point, the graphics are used based around an aesthetic idea, they aren't just used because GRAFIX R AWSUM. It's like having an active virtual fairground rendered in 3D. If you had it so that the lightning was muted, the sound was off and the interaction with your environment was not of the theme or experiences of the fairground, you would not have the virtual experience of a fairground. If you had it with all of those things you would have that vibe of a fairground, and the immersion relating to it.

 

 

The argument wasn't NOT to use graphical potential, it was to use it within an aesthetic goal. It's fantastic that you have god rays, but if every low watt light fixture in your game set in a broken down apartment complex/slum uses god rays then you're breaking the immersion of the slum.

Edited May 29, 2013 by J-Pax

[CosyPigeon]

Agreed, the art style of the game is half the reason I became a founder and continue to play. 

[Tesseract_The_Pariah]

That was the point, the graphics are used based around an aesthetic idea, they aren't just used because GRAFIX R AWSUM. It's like having an active virtual fairground rendered in 3D. If you had it so that the lightning was muted, the sound was off and the interaction with your environment was not of the theme or experiences of the fairground, you would not have the virtual experience of a fairground. If you had it with all of those things you would have that vibe of a fairground, and the immersion relating to it.

 

 

The argument wasn't NOT to use graphical potential, it was to use it within an aesthetic goal. It's fantastic that you have god rays, but if every low watt light fixture in your game set in a broken down apartment complex/slum uses god rays then you're breaking the immersion of the slum.

Not to mention it'll look like diarrhea

[krisp]

hat was the point, the graphics are used based around an aesthetic idea, they aren't just used because GRAFIX R AWSUM. It's like having an active virtual fairground rendered in 3D. If you had it so that the lightning was muted, the sound was off and the interaction with your environment was not of the theme or experiences of the fairground, you would not have the virtual experience of a fairground. If you had it with all of those things you would have that vibe of a fairground, and the immersion relating to it.

 

 

The argument wasn't NOT to use graphical potential, it was to use it within an aesthetic goal. It's fantastic that you have god rays, but if every low watt light fixture in your game set in a broken down apartment complex/slum uses god rays then you're breaking the immersion of the slum.

 

So what does this have to do with Crysis then? Crysis arguably does the same thing as Warframe. In some regards perhaps better.

Edited May 29, 2013 by krisp

[Tesseract_The_Pariah]

So what does this have to do with Crysis then? Crysis arguably does the same thing as Warframe. In some regards perhaps better.

Did you watch the video?

I'm saying that the art style in this game makes it look better than Crysis.

[krisp]

Did you watch the video?

I'm saying that the art style in this game makes it look better than Crysis.

 

Art style is subjective. Since we're picking and choosing, remember the alien bits from Crysis 1? Those were great aesthetic-wise.

[Tesseract_The_Pariah]

Art style is subjective. Since we're picking and choosing, remember the alien bits from Crysis 1? Those were great aesthetic-wise.

Yes but the rest of the game is just generic jungle fighting and military hardware.   It doenst quite match up - However crysis 1 had a better art direction than say, 2 or 3.  2 and 3 had generic cities and city-jungles that clashed with each other nad just looked like a slur of high poly diarrhea on the screen - and even then they just went the uninspired ultrarealistic route for most of the games.

Warframe's void areas are clean, simple, and yet stunning.  Not to mention that they didn't just up the poly-count pointlessly.  The game looks more interesting than crysis ever did.  Even in other areas the enemies match the environs that you find them in, and still pop out and look unique.  It looks more crisp and enjoyable to many, many people.

 

In short, Warframe has a better aesthetic value than Crysis.  I was hoping the video would show you that.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Gaminus

[krisp]

Yes but the rest of the game is just generic jungle fighting and military hardware.   It doenst quite match up - However crysis 1 had a better art direction than say, 2 or 3.  2 and 3 had generic cities and city-jungles that clashed with each other nad just looked like a slur of high poly diarrhea on the screen - and even then they just went the uninspired ultrarealistic route for most of the games.

Warframe's void areas are clean, simple, and yet stunning.  Not to mention that they didn't just up the poly-count pointlessly.  The game looks more interesting than crysis ever did.  Even in other areas the enemies match the environs that you find them in, and still pop out and look unique.  It looks more crisp and enjoyable to many, many people.

 

In short, Warframe has a better aesthetic value than Crysis.  I was hoping the video would show you that.

 

You're cherry-picking the void areas. What about everything else? Generic space ships, generic mining stations? Admittedly not quite as generic because there's fewer things that are in space, but...

 

In short, stop cherry-picking. Void areas look really good, but the comparison is idiotic.

[Tesseract_The_Pariah]

You're cherry-picking the void areas. What about everything else? Generic space ships, generic mining stations? Admittedly not quite as generic because there's fewer things that are in space, but...

 

In short, stop cherry-picking. Void areas look really good, but the comparison is idiotic.

Even in other areas the enemies match the environs that you find them in, and still pop out and look unique.  It looks more crisp and enjoyable to many, many people.

Picking the alien areas in Crysis would be cherry picking, as the rest of the game is uninspired.  Yet the rest of Warframe looks pretty unique as well.  Warframe is more Inspired than Crysis.

I made the comparison to Crysis because that is the standard comparison that everyone makes games to.  It IS the benchmark after all.  I meant it as a compliment to the Art DIrection of this game.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Gaminus

[krisp]

Picking the alien areas in Crysis would be cherry picking, as the rest of the game is uninspired.  Yet the rest of Warframe looks pretty unique as well. 

 

You ever play Mass Effect, chief?

[Emotitron]

For sure. While the game is letting me down on actual gameplay content and endgame experience, it definitely has been surprising me with its ability to deliver on aesthetics and feel without abusing GPUs to do it. If they tear apart the flat and boring mod/loot system and make the game progression more addicting this game will have real legs.

[Tesseract_The_Pariah]

You ever play Mass Effect, chief?

Of course.  This game has a different aesthetic and that aesthetic meshes better with the gameplay than Mass effect.

[krisp]

Of course.  This game has a different aesthetic and that aesthetic meshes better with the gameplay than Mass effect.

 

[Tesseract_The_Pariah]

I dont quite understand why you seem so hostile towards my opinion.

[krisp]

I dont quite understand why you seem so hostile towards my opinion.

I'm not hostile towards your opinion. Any hostility is directed towards how you present it.

[Valiant]

Of course.  This game has a different aesthetic and that aesthetic meshes better with the gameplay than Mass effect.

Eh, I wouldn't say that at all. Mass Effect 1 and moreso 2/3 are brilliant and fit the gameplay amazingly well. They 100% fit everything. The same can be said for Warframe. Each fits, there isn't too much of one or another so comparing them isn't the best thing to do as they both succeed in both areas. You shouldn't be comparing them. You even said it yourself, the game has a different aesthetic. One which is successful and balanced. 

 

The comparison to Crysis 2/3? That makes sense. Comparison to BF3/4? Damn straight that makes sense as well, blue tint and brown/orange. Too much focus on graphics and less on aesthetics, as the video dictates. If they removed the tint the games visuals would be much better otherwise it just hurts your eyes and is troublesome combined with the brightness of some environments and the supernova sun with contrast. Jeez I really come across as a BF3 hater.... MordorUK forever. 

Edited May 30, 2013 by Naith

[Virt]

This is Minecraft all over. People complain of its cruddy graphics, and they don't even think about aesthetics, which are amazing in this case. For Minecraft, the aesthetics immerse you in a life-like experience, all while having alot of fanatical content implemented.