Crytek Announces Five of Seven Studios "will not remain within Crytek" - Polidicks

I wonder how many failed CryEngine games are out there? It seems like every time a game uses cryengine it's just doomed.

Shame we never got a real sequel to Crysis.

5 years later I still have no idea what Crytek were thinking with Crysis 2. The reason Crysis was good was because of its amazing graphics and its open-world gameplay, Crysis 2 had neither.

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;51562047]5 years later I still have no idea what Crytek were thinking with Crysis 2. The reason Crysis was good was because of its amazing graphics and its open-world gameplay, Crysis 2 had neither.[/QUOTE] Saying Crysis 2 didn't have great graphics really is unfair. First, you can't expect such jumps in graphical fidelity like Crysis 1 anymore. Second, the setting is completely different. Even a bright shitty looking tropical beach will look much better at first glance than a ruined city area. Third, it might be even possible people set all the settings to maximum, which enabled that very blurry anti-aliasing they used in the game, and the game looked worse than it really is. And the most important thing: Crysis doesn't look that great like people remember it. I have seen people saying Crysis 1 had graphics like the pre-rendered cut scenes in Halo 2 anniversary... not in game graphics, but [U]pre-rendered cut scenes[/U]. That has absolutely nothing to do with the truth. However in Crysis 3 the face rendering tech was highly advanced, and that comparison would make some sense. Also the reason why Crysis had [B]SOME[/B] wast and open levels is because it was a Far Cry spinoff. The last 5 levels(starting with the space ship) of original Crysis were all the most linear levels you can make. Warhead also had some linear levels. Crysis 2 is linear, no doubt about it, but it is a great example of a linear shooter. You still had plenty of areas that gave you many options to approach the situation from different angles. Only thing truly missing is good vehicular combat. The driving sections in C2 were just not good.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;51562249]Saying Crysis 2 didn't have great graphics really is unfair. First, you can't expect such jumps in graphical fidelity like Crysis 1 anymore. Second, the setting is completely different. Even a bright shitty looking tropical beach will look much better at first glance than a ruined city area. Third, it might be even possible people set all the settings to maximum, which enabled that very blurry anti-aliasing they used in the game, and the game looked worse than it really is. And the most important thing: Crysis doesn't look that great like people remember it. I have seen people saying Crysis 1 had graphics like the pre-rendered cut scenes in Halo 2 anniversary... not in game graphics, but [U]pre-rendered cut scenes[/U]. That has absolutely nothing to do with the truth. However in Crysis 3 the face rendering tech was highly advanced, and that comparison would make some sense. Also the reason why Crysis had [B]SOME[/B] wast and open levels is because it was a Far Cry spinoff. The last 5 levels(starting with the space ship) of original Crysis were all the most linear levels you can make. Warhead also had some linear levels. Crysis 2 is linear, no doubt about it, but it is a great example of a linear shooter. You still had plenty of areas that gave you many options to approach the situation from different angles. Only thing truly missing is good vehicular combat. The driving sections in C2 were just not good.[/QUOTE] The switch of scenery excuse would work if the switch of scenery was actually for the better. I don't like the ruined New York setting, it was grey and brown and boring. If the choice of setting took away both the things I like about the original Crysis and added nothing in return, then I will think it was a bad choice.

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;51562391]The switch of scenery excuse would work if the switch of scenery was actually for the better. I don't like the ruined New York setting, it was grey and brown and boring. If the choice of setting took away both the things I like about the original Crysis and added nothing in return, then I will think it was a bad choice.[/QUOTE] I really loved the setting of NY but not so much the execution. There were a lot less ways to experiment and it felt more gamey design. But the actual setting was awesome.

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;51562391]The switch of scenery excuse would work if the switch of scenery was actually for the better. I don't like the ruined New York setting, it was grey and brown and boring. If the choice of setting took away both the things I like about the original Crysis and added nothing in return, then I will think it was a bad choice.[/QUOTE] Then you should have said "amazing setting" not graphics. Far Cry 1 and Crysis 1 were both in the same tropical setting, and had similar gameplay and open level design, making a third one would be just more of the same from a one developer. Plus you have Far Cry series which did continue with open colorful levels. I don't see why people need another Far Cry spin-off with a nanosuit ? Also in most today's open world games the player is more powerful even without the nanosuit. Lara Croft in the new Tomb Raider games is a far more dangerous killing machine than the guys from Crysis games with all their fancy tech.

I don't know, Crysis 2 sure had flaws but it still felt way more memorable to me than C3. Also keep in mind that C2 was a multiplatform game, that needed to perform decent on consoles. The urban setting makes sense since vegetation has a huge performance impact in general, see how much [URL="http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/1/14817/1891196-123.jpg"]they had to tone down it in the console port of C1.[/URL]

The city did not work in C2 since it did not add a vertical element to the game or reward or encourage exploration. You just had like 3 approaches to an objective and that was their "openness." You didn't even feel like a badass in the city since nothing was destructible and there wasn't anything heavy to throw around. The one vehicle segment sucked ass since everything stopped the vehicle whereas in the first game, a tank would plow through vegetation until you hit some rocks or a thick tree. Arkham Knight did city driving well since the batmobile would clip the sides of buildings off and destroy several objects. To me, MGSV is the closest thing we have to a crysis successor since it's the most recent game where you instantly go from stealth to full on combat without feeling like you fucked up for being spotted. It also let you tackle objectives anyway you wanted to. Gameplay wise, C3 is better than C2 but C2 is a more memorable game with better setpieces.

[QUOTE=Kecske;51562859]I don't know, Crysis 2 sure had flaws but it still felt way more memorable to me than C3.[/QUOTE] I couldn't agree more. Only memorable part in C3 for me was fighting the hunters in tall grass in second level. It was too often "clean one room with a bunch of guys", then go through a corridor "clean another room with the same bad guys" and there was nothing in between to spice things up. C2 at least had some "boss fights" with pingers, helicopters and stuff and had well done Half Like 2-like "interactive cutscenes" to build the story and give you a break from fighting. There were also a lot of areas I felt felt empty, I thought something is just about to attack me, but nothing did. Like when you get a buggy, you drive around and simply nothing interesting is happening. There were some levels that were very open (the dam or that night level at the end), but they just weren't well designed. It all just felt like they lacked experienced people to fill up the levels and design good fights. Also the cross bow was way too overpowered, making the game too easy even on highest difficulty. The story wasn't that great either, I couldn't care less for Prophet, the others or Earth, except for Psycho, he was cool. No homo. [QUOTE=Kecske;51562859]Also keep in mind that C2 was a multiplatform game, that needed to perform decent on consoles. The urban setting makes sense since vegetation has a huge performance impact in general, see how much [URL="http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/1/14817/1891196-123.jpg"]they had to tone down it in the console port of C1.[/URL][/QUOTE] The bottom image looks to me like one of those shader mods, the original wasn't so colorful. Unless the images are actually Warhead, it had better lighting IMO.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;51563032] The bottom image looks to me like one of those shader mods, the original wasn't so colorful. Unless the images are actually Warhead, it had better lighting IMO.[/QUOTE] They "revamped" the lighting for the console release. To me it just looks like they slapped some awful filters on it, I liked that Crysis looked neutral and grounded without all sorts of "cinematic" post-processing.

[QUOTE=Destroyox;51561082]I wonder how many failed CryEngine games are out there? It seems like every time a game uses cryengine it's just doomed.[/QUOTE] A lot. I think only Warhorse and Arkane have managed to make potentially successful games with Cryengine so far. Everything else is either terribly mediocre, or Steam Greenlight trash.

[QUOTE=Rahu X;51564970]A lot. I think only Warhorse and Arkane have managed to make potentially successful games with Cryengine so far. Everything else is either terribly mediocre, or Steam Greenlight trash.[/QUOTE] Obsidian also made Armored Warfare which is moderately successful too. The biggest problem about CryEngine is the horribly lacking documentation and support, you practically need a direct line to Frankfurt to make to make something thats worth the effort, and not many are given that privilege.

[QUOTE=Kecske;51565304]Obsidian also made Armored Warfare which is moderately successful too. The biggest problem about CryEngine is the horribly lacking documentation and support, you practically need a direct line to Frankfurt to make to make something thats worth the effort, and not many are given that privilege.[/QUOTE] I pretty much stopped working with the damned engine when it wanted always-online login bullshit to work and then, during a fuck-up on the authentication servers on their side, ended up messing up all my work. Like, why? WHY would you think to have an always-online system on a piece of software that you released for free and needed to be used for extensive periods of time. Can you imagine the shitstorm if,say, 3ds Max or Maya had such a straight up stupid system like this?