Crysis director Cevat Yerli: "If you predict how hardware evolves at the current speed of evolution, - Polidicks

Talk about missing the point. The actual PC gamers weren't pissed because your game wasn't pretty, they were pissed because you crippled the series in order to work with the pathetic amount of RAM inside consoles. RAM is the order of the day. When your levels are made significantly more tiny because you lack sufficient RAM to play with, THAT IS WHEN YOU HAVE FUCKED UP.

[QUOTE=thisispain;39639408]so why do people complain about games not being as immersive as they used to be[/QUOTE] Shouldn't you be asking them and not me? Because I don't complain about 'games not being immersive as they used to be'. Maybe I'm playing the wrong games.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;39637211]Crysis 2 had absolutely amazing stages with lots of cool vantage points and whatnot, but basically shat all over it's own face by pointing each and every one of them out to you [i]every time[/i]. The first Crysis had jack-all in terms of tactical variety but at least it let you figure things out on your own.[/QUOTE] I took great joy in vehicle assisted tactical breaches. Or in layman's terms: Driving a jeep through the wall of a shack.

[QUOTE=laserguided;39639428]Shouldn't you be asking them and not me? Because I don't complain about 'games not being immersive as they used to be'. Maybe I'm playing the wrong games.[/QUOTE] or maybe immersion isnt a quantifiable quality that can be created by graphics [editline]18th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=GunFox;39639425] The actual PC gamers weren't pissed because your game wasn't pretty, they were pissed because you crippled the series in order to work with the pathetic amount of RAM inside consoles.[/QUOTE] maybe both crytek and "actual" pc gamers missed the point of games, which is fun or artistic expression, not computer workload or showcasing what you can do with RAM.

[QUOTE=thisispain;39639467]or maybe immersion isnt a quantifiable quality that can be created by graphics[/QUOTE] can you give me examples of where graphics don't play into enhancing immersion?

I guess this guys is right, but he's implying that a console to be as powerful as a PC would be $2000 or $3000? Lol no, you could build a computer better than a console for about $600 or 700.

[QUOTE=laserguided;39639481]can you give me examples of where graphics don't play into enhancing immersion?[/QUOTE] i personally dont find morrowind graphics mods to improve morrowind in anyway, in fact i think they take away from morrowinds immersion but the point was that it's not quantifiable at all, i don't think immersion can be an objective quality

[QUOTE=thisispain;39639513]i personally dont find morrowind graphics mods to improve morrowind in anyway, in fact i think they take away from morrowinds immersion but the point was that it's not quantifiable at all, i don't think immersion can be an objective quality[/QUOTE] by objective quality you mean a quality to work towards as the developer of a game?

[QUOTE=thisispain;39639467]maybe both crytek and "actual" pc gamers missed the point of games, which is fun or artistic expression, not computer workload or showcasing what you can do with RAM.[/QUOTE] Showcasing? It isn't about showcasing what you can do with RAM, it is about not designing linear levels. When you have more memory to access, you can design a much more involved level. If you wish you consider it from an art standpoint, the production can be far more involved and subtle. The player can derive additional enjoyment from approaching a problem in a much wider variety of fashions, rather than being corralled into a single option. Many of the player's choices may not even be ones envisioned by the original designer. Crysis 1 let you destroy a significant percentage of man made constructions, further expanding the variety of options at your disposal and increasing the depth of the gameplay.

[QUOTE=laserguided;39639533]by objective quality you mean a quality to work towards as the developer of a game?[/QUOTE] yeah sure its like if i as a musician would listen to my own music and say that it needs to be more emotional, which is also completely unquantifiable imo games become immersive when their rule set and system of play allows the player to feel part of the experience. this is why DnD's immersion relies completely on how the players respond to the game, not necessarily the game itself. [editline]18th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=GunFox;39639552]It isn't about showcasing what you can do with RAM, it is about not designing linear levels. When you have more memory to access, you can design a much more involved level.[/QUOTE] that's the idealistic conception of what more RAM does, not necessarily what more RAM actually does. in reality involvement or non-linearity has nothing to do with RAM.

[QUOTE=thisispain;39639570]yeah sure its like if i as a musician would listen to my own music and say that it needs to be more emotional, which is also completely unquantifiable imo games become immersive when their rule set and system of play allows the player to feel part of the experience. this is why DnD's immersion relies completely on how the players respond to the game, not necessarily the game itself. [/QUOTE] Graphics directly influences games such as ArmA. More powerful consumer level hardware would mean more could be presented to the player, in better quality. Thus camouflage might actually work as it does in real life if we ever get to the point where consumer level hardware can power a game of such vast detail. Because as it is right now, camouflage does not work in ArmA because of cheap lighting, not very detailed environments and overall low quality of the environment which makes GPU power a barrier. Detailed grass that can be seen as far as the eye can see would be absolutely amazing in a game like ArmA and would absolutely enhance gameplay by magnitudes. Graphics quality enhances both gameplay and immersion by increasing the detail of the environment and becoming more lifelike. Thus, graphics detail giving more for the player to do and making the game more difficult. Thats just a few examples, in many other games graphics detail can directly enhance gameplay and immersion. Obviously, in a game like Mario cart that isn't the objective, its objective is to simply be fun and quick.

[QUOTE=thisispain;39639570]yeah sure its like if i as a musician would listen to my own music and say that it needs to be more emotional, which is also completely unquantifiable imo games become immersive when their rule set and system of play allows the player to feel part of the experience. this is why DnD's immersion relies completely on how the players respond to the game, not necessarily the game itself. [editline]18th February 2013[/editline] that's the idealistic conception of what more RAM does, not necessarily what more RAM actually does. in reality involvement or non-linearity has nothing to do with RAM.[/QUOTE] Inherently? No. In the case of a game like Crysis? Yes. When you can't fit a large level into the RAM, your game becomes more linear. Shrink level size, shrink available options. Even open world games that work generally pretty well on consoles still are crippled by the small amount of RAM. Ever had a vehicle disappear on you just by turning around in a GTA/saints row game? RAM. Ever notice how only a certain selection of vehicles can appear at any given time? RAM. When you don't have much memory to work with, you often need to cut corners. Removing things like building destruction or drastically decreasing the level size in order to make it compatible with consoles makes a game like Crysis less entertaining.

I sincerely thought Crysis 2 was better as a game than Crysis 1 though fighting people and soldiers in Crysis 1 was somewhat more rewarding and made a better bulk of gameplay than either game, but most of what Crysis 2 did was much better. I loved the level design and the depth of gameplay that was available on almost every map. Some people have said vehemently that it was very linear, but of course it was linear, it just had a handful of approaches and a large amount of potential to every situation, where as in Crysis 1, these moments existed, but I found them less than common for at least a few maps.

[QUOTE=laserguided;39639662]Graphics directly influences games such as ArmA. More powerful consumer level hardware would mean more could be presented to the player, in better quality. Thus camouflage might actually work as it does in real life if we ever get to the point where consumer level hardware can power a game of such vast detail. Because as it is right now, camouflage does not work in ArmA because of cheap lighting, not very detailed environments and overall low quality of the environment which makes GPU power a barrier. Detailed grass that can be seen as far as the eye can see would be absolutely amazing in a game like ArmA and would absolutely enhance gameplay by magnitudes. Graphics quality enhances both gameplay and immersion by increasing the detail of the environment and becoming more lifelike. Thus, graphics detail giving more for the player to do and making the game more difficult. Thats just a few examples, in many other games graphics detail can directly enhance gameplay and immersion. [/QUOTE] that's not immersion, i mean ArmA is notoriously not immersive to most players is it really the fault of hardware producers when software producers don't use the resources they have available to them effectively to create interesting or fun games? [editline]18th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=GunFox;39639696] Removing things like building destruction or drastically decreasing the level size in order to make it compatible with consoles makes a game like Crysis less entertaining.[/QUOTE] isn't that the failure of Crytek to deliver an entertaining game? games with far less RAM and resources have been entertaining and more so than Crysis imo

[QUOTE=thisispain;39639871]that's not immersion, i mean ArmA is notoriously not immersive to most players is it really the fault of hardware producers when software producers don't use the resources they have available to them effectively to create interesting or fun games? [editline]18th February 2013[/editline] isn't that the failure of Crytek to deliver an entertaining game? games with far less RAM and resources have been entertaining and more so than Crysis imo[/QUOTE] It is immersive for me and it shows a direct relation of graphics to gameplay value. There you go.

Hardware limitations are a reality no matter who's fault it is that a sequel isn't as good as its predecessor.

Crysis 1 was very fun and very immersive. You always had several angles of attack that were never specified, you had to find them by looking around or alternatively create your own paths by destroying sections of the enemy compound thanks the destructible environments. You could do wacky shit like throwing chickens at people or more intelligent things like collapsing enemy sheds with explosive barrels. You could even punch down a palm tree and beat people up with it. In Crysis 2 you only got 3 angles of attack that there all announced in your face as soon as you entered a gameplay area. Instead of looking around for a good vantage point for sniping, the game literally gave you at trail to follow to a clearly set up sniper's nest. The game held your hand throughout the entire game, which was repulsive to anyone who enjoyed the freedom the original game had to offer.

I'm sorry but all these posts about Crysis 2 pointing out things is a bit stupid saying you can just opt out of using those binocular things (which has pretty much 0 other purpose, other than tagging enemies which isn't really needed anyway 90% of the time) and look about yourself. The closest you're forced into using the help is the suit saying "Tactical options available".

I can not disagree more with this Cevat guy. Consoles (except for the Wii and Wii U) always surpass what computers released at the same time can do. It's because consoles all use the same specifications and can be highly optimized When a new console first comes out, the launch games don't look that much better than the games released at the end of the previous generation. Once the developers learn how to use the hardware, games gradually become more and more advanced. By the time the consoles have been squeezed for every polygon they can handle, computers have far outpowered them. Because of this, people tend to not realize the progression of a console's graphics. For example: Let's see a computer from 1994 running Soul Reaver, MGS, or Tenchu 2. Let's see a computer from 1999 run Gran Turismo 4, Killzone, Silent Hill 3, MGS3, or God of War 2 Let's see a computer from 2006 run Killzone 3, Gran Turismo 5, Beyond: Two Souls, or The Last of Us. Crysis 3 maxed on a PC may look better than launch PS4 games, but how will it compare in 6 years when we there are games on PS4 that make the launch PS4 games look like crap? Compare Killzone 3 to Resistance: FoM. Killzone 3 is so much more advanced, the comparison isn't even fair. People like this guy need to think to the future instead of the present.

Crysis 2 didn't really betray the playerbase, it just played into the homogenization of all shooter games into "Call of Duty" clones. Because Callf of Duty is apparently "what gamers want". Face it, PC veterans are like the old people that keep complaining about the music kids listen to these days. P.S. I fucking hate Call of Duty.

[QUOTE=thisispain;39639513]i personally dont find morrowind graphics mods to improve morrowind in anyway, in fact i think they take away from morrowinds immersion [/QUOTE] Personally I can't get immersed in Morrowind because the draw distance is permanently set to Mexico City. Graphics definitely play a role. Graphics don't necessarily require raw processing power if you have a specific art style in mind - look at Wind Waker - but if your game takes place in the real world you're going to need to muscle out a lot of lighting, particle effects, and complex geometry. [editline]19th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=PieClock;39640254]I'm sorry but all these posts about Crysis 2 pointing out things is a bit stupid saying you can just opt out of using those binocular things (which has pretty much 0 other purpose, other than tagging enemies which isn't really needed anyway 90% of the time) and look about yourself. The closest you're forced into using the help is the suit saying "Tactical options available".[/QUOTE] I know it's optional to tag the tactical locations. Fast travel in Oblivion/Skyrim was optional as well but since the game was designed with it in mind it broke a lot of things The tactical options could have been about exploring and improvising but since they were designed as specific things for everyone to do they were always the same. (High area, flank area, low area, environmental trigger spot, etc)

Console hardware does outperform the same hardware on PCs because their OS at their root is designed for video games. In turn they can use the resources available to them more efficiently solely for the purpose for rendering video games. John Carmack likes to talk a lot about this stuff. That being said, the next gen of consoles only barely comes close to current gen low end gaming PCs. Even if we see similar graphical fidelity to PC games it will most likely be running at 30 FPS which is not a smooth experience.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;39641866]Personally I can't get immersed in Morrowind because the draw distance is permanently set to Mexico City.[/QUOTE] i live in the bay area so it just reminds me of home :) [QUOTE=Zeke129;39641866]Graphics definitely play a role. Graphics don't necessarily require raw processing power if you have a specific art style in mind - look at Wind Waker - but if your game takes place in the real world you're going to need to muscle out a lot of lighting, particle effects, and complex geometry.[/QUOTE] well realism is just as much as a specific art style as cartoonism, i mean Crysis in motion doesn't look anything close to photo-realistic to me at least i'm just saying that this realistic shtick crysis goes for is entirely new, if games were immersive in the past and still are for a lot of people then i don't see why the "cutting-edge" graphics matter beyond just getting something out of the way too expensive consumer-grade computer parts we buy

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;39633846]Actually, Crysis 2 was very well optimized for what it was. Crysis 1 still makes my PC whimper every now and again because of how unoptimized it is, but Crysis 2 runs smooth.[/QUOTE] Crysis 1.0 was unoptimized. The 1.1 patch will nearly double your FPS, and the 1.2 patch will nearly double it again. Both were released within a total of 6 months from launch. The game runs very well on modern hardware now, and still looks great. Crysis 2 runs at a similar level of optimization, except using only DX9 features (without the DX11 patch) and the environments are crippled to satisfy console limits, which in turn means it runs much better on the PC... which isn't surprising considering it's hardly, if at all, an improvement on Crysis 1's appearance. [QUOTE=thisispain;39641889]i live in the bay area so it just reminds me of home :) well realism is just as much as a specific art style as cartoonism, i mean Crysis in motion doesn't look anything close to photo-realistic to me at least i'm just saying that this realistic shtick crysis goes for is entirely new, if games were immersive in the past and still are for a lot of people then i don't see why the "cutting-edge" graphics matter beyond just getting something out of the way too expensive consumer-grade computer parts we buy[/QUOTE] Because some of us find the concept of creating digital worlds as close as possible to the real one exciting. Of course it's not necessary, but it sure is fun. And that's what games are all about in the first place.

[QUOTE=zombojoe;39641879]Console hardware does outperform the same hardware on PCs because their OS at their root is designed for video games. In turn they can use the resources available to them more efficiently solely for the purpose for rendering video games. John Carmack likes to talk a lot about this stuff. That being said, the next gen of consoles only barely comes close to current gen low end gaming PCs. Even if we see similar graphical fidelity to PC games it will most likely be running at 30 FPS which is not a smooth experience.[/QUOTE] 30fps with object motion blur is smooth, see: original Crysis. But we don't even know what the next gen systems specs are for sure yet right? Not counting rumors?

[QUOTE=thisispain;39641889] well realism is just as much as a specific art style as cartoonism, i mean Crysis in motion doesn't look anything close to photo-realistic to me at least[/quote] We're probably a good decade away from actual photo-realism but you can tell what they were going for [QUOTE=thisispain;39641889]i'm just saying that this realistic shtick crysis goes for is entirely new, if games were immersive in the past and still are for a lot of people then i don't see why the "cutting-edge" graphics matter beyond just getting something out of the way too expensive consumer-grade computer parts we buy[/QUOTE] I can't really put my finger on it but if Far Cry 3 was done in a cel-shaded cartoon style I wouldn't have liked it as much I don't know why but it makes it more enjoyable for me maybe I'm just a nerd who gets a hard on for ambient occlusion I don't know The water alone in Just Cause 2 made me enjoy the game more

[QUOTE=mblunk;39641893] Because some of us find the concept of creating digital worlds as close as possible to the real one exciting. Of course it's not necessary, but it sure is fun. And that's what games are all about in the first place.[/QUOTE] yeah but it has nothing to do with that, i'm talking about immersion if a game feels like a tech demo when you play it its not going to be fun no-matter how much it uses your RAM, and judging from Crytek's games i don't think they understand that

[QUOTE=TonyP;39641896]30fps with object motion blur is smooth, see: original Crysis. But we don't even know what the next gen systems specs are for sure yet right? Not counting rumors?[/QUOTE] Subjective. 30fps was (very) smooth when I was running gmod on a 1.8 ghz celeron and a radeon 9200, then I upgraded to a Q6600 and 8800 when they were new and anything less than 60 was disappointing. For those of us accustomed to high-performance machines, 30fps isn't so smooth anymore. Playable, but not smooth. [editline]19th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;39641922]yeah but it has nothing to do with that, i'm talking about immersion if a game feels like a tech demo when you play it its not going to be fun no-matter how much it uses your RAM, and judging from Crytek's games i don't think they understand that[/QUOTE] It will feel like a tech demo if you approach it like that. I got the above PC for Crysis and played it like I would any new game I was excited about, and I loved it. I'm not sure how some people are unable to view Crysis as a game just because the underlying engine was ahead of its time?

I just hope that the according pc parts and hardware will be affordable and priced reasonably. Nice graphics and physics are nice but only for a certain price.

[QUOTE=mblunk;39641923]Subjective. 30fps was (very) smooth when I was running gmod on a 1.8 ghz celeron and a radeon 9200, then I upgraded to a Q6600 and 8800 when they were new and anything less than 60 was disappointing. For those of us accustomed to high-performance machines, 30fps isn't so smooth anymore. Playable, but not smooth.[/QUOTE] I play 99% of my games in 60fps thanks to my PC. Whenever I play a 30fps game I.E. most console games, it's less smooth, but still nice. The lower framerate also gives a sort of cinematic feel to it.