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

[QUOTE=junker|154;39641934]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] If Crysis 1 was anything to go off of, expect to pay well over $1000 if you want to max it out and still be able to play. Of course, adjustable graphics settings exist for a reason. Cryengine is very good at scaling performance with decreased settings.

[QUOTE=mblunk;39641923]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?[/QUOTE] tbh its probably because i never had a bleeding edge PC so a lot of the games i grew up with were graphically backwards and so i never learned to be excited about advancements in graphics.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;39641866] 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)[/QUOTE] I don't see your point here. Yes, it's optional, but I don't see how the game is designed around little markers highlighting really obvious tactical positions on the level. This isn't like Oblivion's fast travel where the game is designed around it, and if you don't use it you'll end up walking for hours around a boring map. There isn't really any disadvantage at all if you don't use it, that was my point in the first place.

Oblivion's world was beautiful idk how people can call it boring it was the perfect realisation of a lame idyllic green forest place

crysis is the most obvious marketing ploy ever introduce a game with really great graphics that could be pulled off by other games if devs bothered to try, and then bundle it with video cards and all sorts of other deals to get people to buy it and be like "eh i'll get a somewhat decent game along with a benchmark for my awesome new build"

[QUOTE=PieClock;39641949]I don't see your point here. Yes, it's optional, but I don't see how the game is designed around little markers highlighting really obvious tactical positions on the level. This isn't like Oblivion's fast travel where the game is designed around it, and if you don't use it you'll end up walking for hours around a boring map. There isn't really any disadvantage at all if you don't use it, that was my point in the first place.[/QUOTE] It ruins the magic. Knowing that the developers have given you 4 ways to complete the next scenario is boring compared to being given the [i]illusion[/i] of infinite solutions. Crysis had less ways to approach situations but it never felt like that. Even without tagging the positions you could feel them there, judging you for doing the level "wrong" when you simply want to find your own way Maybe I'm just having a hard time getting my point across in a concise way [editline]19th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;39641954]Oblivion's world was beautiful idk how people can call it boring it was the perfect realisation of a lame idyllic green forest place[/QUOTE] No variety Skyrim had forests, lakes, hot springs, mountains, a bit of prairie Oblivion had fairytale forests But then Bethesda had to go and fuck up the dungeons in Skyrim worse than Oblivion

[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] That is true visually, films use that technique to make 24 fps seem natural. In gameplay environments it is different, especially fast paced once like Crysis. The reduced responsiveness of the game can severely cripple your ability to play. And the low frame rate can turn your game into a slideshow. This is especially relevant when using twitch aiming, which changes the position of the camera near instantaneously, the added blur would make it very hard to see anything at all until the scene calms down, which I why I always turn off motion blur. As for the hardware I remember reading next gen consoles would use 2008 consumer hardware which is 5 years old. The power of a GTX660 which is a current gen budget game video card, dwarfs the technology from that time many times over. Right now what I'm using is a Gtx 260 which is pretty old for today's standards. Yet I can still play 95% of games coming out on medium or higher simply because the graphical demands of games have not increased since consoles have been dragging them down. I'd wager I could still be using this video card even when next gen consoles release as its still a bit more powerful than what consoles are going to use.

[QUOTE=zombojoe;39642128]That is true visually, films use that technique to make 24 fps seem natural. In gameplay environments it is different, especially fast paced once like Crysis. The reduced responsiveness of the game can severely cripple your ability to play. And the low frame rate can turn your game into a slideshow. This is especially relevant when using twitch aiming, which changes the position of the camera near instantaneously, the added blur would make it very hard to see anything at all until the scene calms down, which I why I always turn off motion blur. As for the hardware I remember reading next gen consoles would use 2008 consumer hardware which is 5 years old. The power of a GTX660 which is a current gen budget game video card, dwarfs the technology from that time many times over. Right now what I'm using is a Gtx 260 which is pretty old for today's standards. Yet I can still play 95% of games coming out on medium or higher simply because the graphical demands of games have not increased since consoles have been dragging them down. I'd wager I could still be using this video card even when next gen consoles release as its still a bit more powerful than what consoles are going to use.[/QUOTE] The reason motion blur works well in films but not in games is because the blur is sampled from both frames gone by AND frames to come, whereas in games you can't tell what's going to happen next so you can only use old frames for the motion blur. Having played Crysis on a dell business laptop (8600M GT represent) on medium at 30 ish fps below maximum resolution I enjoyed the title as a game and not a tech demo and it makes me sad when others can't look past that. Also it makes me really sad that Americans get C3 today and I have to wait until the 22nd.

[QUOTE=BrainDeath;39642416]The reason motion blur works well in films but not in games is because the blur is sampled from both frames gone by AND frames to come, whereas in games you can't tell what's going to happen next so you can only use old frames for the motion blur. Having played Crysis on a dell business laptop (8600M GT represent) on medium at 30 ish fps below maximum resolution I enjoyed the title as a game and not a tech demo and it makes me sad when others can't look past that. Also it makes me really sad that Americans get C3 today and I have to wait until the 22nd.[/QUOTE] In both cases you're just displaying an integral of motion by streaking an object in a given frame vs. having it perfectly defined regardless of velocity, the time factor is identical because you only see a movie frame after it would've been completely recorded by the sensor anyways. The bigger problem is frame buffering, where frames are actually rendered and then sit in memory for a good chunk of time before actually being displayed, so that the frames can be doled out more regularly and to prevent wild variations in frametime between two consecutive frames, which can be more disruptive than a slower but more consistent framerate with a bit of input lag. Imagine what it'd be like to play if your game suddenly choked up for a split second every time you entered a new room or looked in a different direction, especially if you were already in the middle of some action. [editline]19th February 2013[/editline] But to be fair I'm not sure how strong the effect is exactly, I know the nvidia control panel lets you override the default 3 frames IIRC though.

[QUOTE=TonyP;39641743]I can not disagree more with this Cevat guy. Consoles always surpass what computers released at the same time can do (except Wii/Wii-U). It's called 'optimization'. When a new console first comes out, the games don't look that much better than previous gen, but after some years, once the developers learn all the tricks, games start to max out what they can do. Of course, by the time the consoles have been squeezed for every polygon they can handle, computers have far outpowered them, so people tend to not realize it. Let's see a computer from 2006 run Killzone 3, Gran Turismo 5, Beyond: Two Souls, or The Last of Us. Let's see a computer from 1999 run Gran Turismo 4, Killzone, Silent Hill 3, MGS3, Half Life 2 (xbox 1 edition) or God of War 2 How about a computer from 1994 running Soul Reaver or MGS, or Tenchu 2. So perhaps Crysis 3 maxed on a PC would 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. People have to think to the future instead of the present.[/QUOTE] you're so wrong it hurts

[QUOTE=Zeke129;39641973] [editline]19th February 2013[/editline] No variety Skyrim had forests, lakes, hot springs, mountains, a bit of prairie [/QUOTE] Guess what, Oblivion had forests, lakes, mountains and a bit of prairie as well. There was about as much variety in Oblivion as there was in Skyrim. And are hot springs really significant enough to be mentioned? Lmao Going back to Morrowind though, you had coast regions, swamps, huge mushrooms growing in countrysides, a large variety of towns such as Vivec, Telvanni, Caldera etc., Castles, Ashlands, nerevarine camps (forgot what they were called), a huge fucking volcano in the middle of the island and Solstheim, incorporating snow and ice as well. As for dungeons, you had Daedra shrines, ancestral tombs, Mines, caves, Dwemer structures, Draugr tombs (ooohhh), sewers, House Dagoth structures... do I need to go on?

[QUOTE=Dead Madman;39634573][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enb0zWbYUik[/media][/QUOTE] "Drowning, better relocate my whole fucking skeleton"

[QUOTE=SatansSin;39633871]all I can say is fuck graphics I want longer games, that have more content, and replay ability to it not sparkly shit granted, if the sparkly shit is good sparkly shit, then it's good shit[/QUOTE]Crytek licenses out cryengine to other devs. When other devs already have a great engine that makes people cry over how beautiful it is without much modifications, they can focus more on gameplay. Devs like Epic games and Crytek are the ones that makes the games industry work.

[QUOTE=Ericson666;39633827]Dammed if you optimize your game, dammed if you don't[/QUOTE] Um, what we want are well optimized games that [I]still[/I] torture our hardware, not unoptimized shit. I.e. you're wrong.

[QUOTE=Lizzrd;39643045]Crytek licenses out cryengine to other devs. When other devs already have a great engine that makes people cry over how beautiful it is without much modifications, they can focus more on gameplay. Devs like Epic games and Crytek are the ones that makes the games industry work.[/QUOTE] unfortunately no one buys Cryengine which is a shame because it's actually incredible (isn't it quite expensive?) instead they all buy unreal and don't change the bloom settings and the glowing molten plastic that makes up everything gives me a headache

[QUOTE=DrBreen;39642921]you're so wrong it hurts[/QUOTE] It's not that I'm wrong, it's that you are ignorant (which isn't an insult. Ignorance simply means a state of not knowing much of a subject). Everything in that post is true. Perhaps you're just a PC fanboy? If you really feel that it's incorrect, please show how I was wrong. Show me a computer using 1999 hardware running something that looks anywhere near as good as Gran Turismo 4.

[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] And some games... Like... [B]Crysis[/B] are tech demos designed to show you how fucking beautiful everything can be. Which is also fun and artistic.

[QUOTE=BrainDeath;39643132]unfortunately no one buys Cryengine which is a shame because it's actually incredible (isn't it quite expensive?) instead they all buy unreal and don't change the bloom settings and the glowing molten plastic that makes up everything gives me a headache[/QUOTE] I've read something about 1.5 million € somewhere once, don't know if it's still true. Although, in an industry where budgets usually are between 20-100 Million, it doesn't seem like much. [editline]19th February 2013[/editline] That figure is for full access to the source code and such.

[QUOTE=laserguided;39639394]graphics plays into immersion, which is a important gameplay aspect.[/QUOTE] Situational, and not always true. Shores of hazeron? Looks like literal, unfiltered, 100% genuine, turbo mega [I]ass.[/I] Probably the single most immersive space game I've ever played though.

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;39643657]Situational, and not always true. Shores of hazeron? Looks like literal, unfiltered, 100% genuine, turbo mega [I]ass.[/I] Probably the single most immersive space game I've ever played though.[/QUOTE] Um, which is sort of why he said "plays into" and not "is". Dwarf Fortress is immersive and it doesn't [I]have[/I] graphics.

You guys all act like consoles are totally worthless Yea sure PC can pack more graphics power and shit but honestly, Graphics have progressed to a point where there isnt that much noticeable difference between generations. Consoles may not be as powerful as a custom built computer but what they lack in power they make up for in innovation

ok then name 1 innovation on consoles that isn't a terrible gimmick from the past year, if not try the past decade. Kinda hard huhh??

[QUOTE=Zeemlapje;39645521]ok then name 1 innovation on consoles that isn't a terrible gimmick from the past year, if not try the past decade. Kinda hard huhh??[/QUOTE] Kinect Not that hard.

[QUOTE=TonyP;39643143]It's not that I'm wrong, it's that you are ignorant (which isn't an insult. Ignorance simply means a state of not knowing much of a subject). Everything in that post is true. Perhaps you're just a PC fanboy? If you really feel that it's incorrect, please show how I was wrong. Show me a computer using 1999 hardware running something that looks anywhere near as good as Gran Turismo 4.[/QUOTE] It's not possible. Mainly because GT4 was designed specifically for the PS2's hardware. Games specifically designed for PC hardware (see: Crysis 1) tend to be much much better looking than their console versions (see: also Crysis 1.)

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39645555]It's not possible. Mainly because GT4 was designed specifically for the PS2's hardware. Games specifically designed for PC hardware (see: Crysis 1) tend to be much much better looking than their console versions (see: also Crysis 1.)[/QUOTE] Thats not valid these days as consoles are so similar to computers nowadays that they basically function exactly like them [editline]19th February 2013[/editline] In terms of processing and internal crap, not interface so dont get on my ass

That's entirely valid. PS2 is one solid set of hardware. They optimize it around that and they're golden for an entire console. Current consoles are no different - developers simply don't have the resources to account for every single possible hardware combination in PCs.

Well, alright then. To all you people disagreeing with kinect, think about how much potential it has outside of gaming. It can be used in robotics or 3D mapping, you can use it to capture fluid body movements in real life and apply them to ragdolls in garrysmod... And many other things which would otherwise have been very expensive to get the technology for had it not been for microsoft developing a simple, affordable 3D-camera thing that is accessible to everyone

[QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;39632704]Great graphics, okay gameplay? I'd like to see those priorities swapped.[/QUOTE] Crysis had amazing graphics and amazing gameplay (in the first half).

the interessing thing is that stalling graphic advancement in games due to consoles, has made it easier for people not living in the US/japan/europe/other 1st world countries to get into PC gaming(and even those that live in 1st world countries but don't have a good pc) :v: i wonder if CoD and similar popular games would sell that much if the graphical requirements were much higher for instance.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39645555]It's not possible. Mainly because GT4 was designed specifically for the PS2's hardware.[/QUOTE] Precisely, no computer released at the same time as the PS2 could handle something like GT4. All you people rating me dumb need to go look at the history of games, because you obviously either have amnesia, weren't gaming back then, or are just in denial of that fact that consoles don't need the same level of performance to output the same quality of visuals as a computer.