Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Crytek: There May Not Be Next Gen

Last response: in News comments
Share
August 18, 2009 4:59:26 PM

Ray tracing can not replace the good ole polygon-based rasterization rendering. Both have their advantage and limitations.

However, after ray tracing, which is mostly based on ray optics, the next challenge will be real time rendering based on Fourier optics.
August 18, 2009 4:59:48 PM

Quote:
Crytek will still focus on making its engines highly scalable--meaning that games of today will look even better two or three years from now while allowing older PCs to run the game admirably as well.


That is nice and all... but the thing is, people want to play games now that look nice with options turned up , not three years from now when the game is stale and old. By then people will move on to other games that are newer and fresher. New games three years from now might be light years ahead of what can be offered today... who knows.

I don't know about you, but I want games I play to be optimized for hardware that is out now, not hardware that might, possibly, be able to handle it two-three years out.

You can have a game that will look beautiful on today's hardware or you can get a game that looks sorta ok now, and might look great later. I know what game I'm going to pick out of those two.
Related resources
August 18, 2009 5:00:54 PM

I don't know how this was missed, but CryENGINE 3 deserves to get attention for more than just lighting and console compatibility.

At SIGGRAPH last week, they did a special demo of CryENGINE 3 running native stereoscopic 3D support. Native means no stereo driver by iZ3D, DDD, or NVIDIA was necessary to make the true 3D effects possible.

Here is the Crytek excerpt:

http://mtbs3d.com/cgi-bin/rss.cgi?news_id=333

Regards,
Enterfrize
August 18, 2009 5:04:29 PM

Of course, even though your product is unplayable on 90% of computers in consumers possesion as of now, blame piracy as the reason people don't fork out 50 dollars for a game they can't play above 3 fps. I like it.
August 18, 2009 5:07:16 PM

Pirating was the problem?.... oh.. i guess I was the only one who thought that crysis wasn't very good. Seriously.... who would make a game that no one could play with all the graphics maxed...at its release? I bought the game... but honestly ... i thought is was boring after a while....not to mention having to run in the low to medium settings.... now i have a 4870 1gig... but i have already finished the game.. so why would i reinstall just to play the same game over.. with better visuals?
August 18, 2009 5:21:45 PM

The game ran quite fine with a mid-range graphic card at mid settings. It still looked better then most games maxed out. Don't know why people complain so much. They gave options to pc gamers with high-end rigs. If you cant afford one then dont whine and play at mid-settings. As far as the gameplay it was "okay". My 3850 at the time played it fine and that was no way near a high-end card lol. =]
August 18, 2009 5:27:23 PM

Crysis was overrated. Not to mention when it came out it had a ton of competition from far better shooters like Call of Duty 4, Bioshock, and the Orange Box. I agree with other people here too, why would I go back to play an older game that I've already beaten just to see better graphics?
August 18, 2009 5:33:49 PM

Saying a game needs to run smoothly at "medium" or "high" settings is very relative. Medium compared to what? The "medium" of today will always look better than the "high" from yesterday.

Actually, I'm glad some games are unplayable at "maximum" settings. It means that, in a couple of years, I'll be able to fire the game on my new hardware and still enjoy it on the time's graphics standarts.

What game developpers need to do now is making game that will be optimized on whatever hardware you're using and look accordingly. I can't expect a game to look awesome on a Radeon 4300 but I expect it to run smoothly at a reasonable detail level for the Radeon 4300. If I have a Geforce 260 then great, it will just look better while still being smooth.
August 18, 2009 5:34:51 PM

This Turk can't run his company.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2009 5:35:53 PM

Um, pretty much every game plays medium to low when it's released.
August 18, 2009 5:39:23 PM

"It still looked better then most games maxed out. Don't know why people complain so much.".. you want some cheese with that wine?.. hell how about fun factor?.. replay factor?...don't get me wrong.. i couldn't begin to understand the complexities that create those beautiful graphics.. but i know a good game when i play it.. and crysis was not that great...graphics yes... but when you have to turn them down just to play it....uhhh.. doesn't that defeat the whole graphics thing?
August 18, 2009 5:39:33 PM

I'll buy it when the price matches the 20$ game it is.
August 18, 2009 5:46:46 PM

Quote:
...covering Crytek's desire to create an FPS that didn't contain corridor after corridor back in 2001...

Crytek has always being a follower. Max Payne gets out of the corridors in July 2001 and Serious Sam let the sun and blue sky in on March 2001. In fact, Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver abandoned the corridor concept back in August 1999.

I played Far Cry two years after it launched and don’t really see what the fuss was about. There are plenty of FPS released earlier with better graphic and story. Half Life 2, released in the same year is much more impressive and WOWed me with its facial animation.
August 18, 2009 5:47:54 PM

KT_WaspThat is nice and all... but the thing is, people want to play games now that look nice with options turned up , not three years from now when the game is stale and old. By then people will move on to other games that are newer and fresher. New games three years from now might be light years ahead of what can be offered today... who knows. I don't know about you, but I want games I play to be optimized for hardware that is out now, not hardware that might, possibly, be able to handle it two-three years out. You can have a game that will look beautiful on today's hardware or you can get a game that looks sorta ok now, and might look great later. I know what game I'm going to pick out of those two.


I totally agree. I'm fairly certain MW2, HL2: Episode 3 and Bioshock 2 will be only slightly more demanding than their predecessors, running practically the same. Therefore, people who want to enjoy sequels to those three games they played in 2007 at max settings can run their newer counterparts at max settings and will not have to upgrade.
August 18, 2009 5:48:05 PM

It looks like KT_Wasp said it first... the interest in a massively-expansive graphics engine is severely limited by the number of people who can actually play the game without turning a lot of the detail off.

There's a reason why there's a running joke about "will it play crysis" because if you didn't spend $3K building the box the answer is probably "no." You can blame piracy and act just like the RIAA with their fingers in their ears... at the end of the day people will buy what they can play and for most people Crysis and the massive crysisengine is not the answer.
August 18, 2009 5:52:39 PM

I throughly enjoyed Crysis and Farcry. Farcry 2, however, was awful. I don't want an RPG/shooter. I just like shooters. Good thing I borrowed it (console so DRM didn't stop me). I gave it about 4 hours and was bored out of my mind.
August 18, 2009 5:59:25 PM

... and another thing.. my old 1950's in crossfire.. played COD4 maxed out and looked amazing..i know it's not an apples to apples comparison.. but come on.... all that island... and you are still on a guided tour... what's up with that?... at least COD4 played well and fun factor was great.
COD4 had all the basics for a great game.. fun factor, playability and graphics..all it needed was co-op mode.. to be one of the G.O.A.T.
August 18, 2009 6:08:20 PM

I do like their idea: the game looked awsome in medium settings compared to any FPS when it lauched. Now we are close to playing it in very high settings and I still haven't seen a better looking game. Period! It keeps it's value over time. Crank it up with your upgrades! If you want a game maxed out right out of the box try playing Full Throttle godamn...

The biggest problem in Crysis is the AI. Probably they let EA Games make the code based on their ridiculous AI (take a look at all NFS games, some sports games and so on: they change physics like catch up and grip in NFS since they can't make good opponents so you can just think its harder). The only EA's game I bought the last 6 years was Crysis, just don't let EA mess up with AI anymore and I'll probably buy Crysis 2.
August 18, 2009 6:12:26 PM

I love crysis, i don't know what peoples beef is. halflife 2 is the only game out there that i like better. I WANT a game that will WOW me, not a game that's a trickled down console port. I WANT a game that i will be able to replay at even higher settings everytime i upgrade my PC. And finally, with Crysis, you CAN play it differently each time through.
August 18, 2009 6:13:46 PM

Some people like Crysis some don't... the fact is it was good for benchmarking.
August 18, 2009 6:15:11 PM

...and for comparison...I started replaying the highly acclaimed COD4 yesterday, at 2304x1440, max everything. Looks no different, plays no different, BORING.
August 18, 2009 6:45:18 PM

I think that as the line between CPU and GPU becomes less and less visible that those of us building custom PC's will have a tougher time in some respects and easier time in others. Seems to me that we are headed towards cluster based computing where we just have banks of CPU's doing whatever task is needed at a given time or having CPU clusters assigned specific tasks. This might take us closer to the way our brains work (maybe?). Every time I read about speeches and keynotes from industry folk like this I get excited about what's around the corner :) 
August 18, 2009 6:53:50 PM

I loved FC1, and I love Crysis1 (only liked Warhead as a friend). Crysis is the only game that I re-beat regularly (usually after every GPU or monitor upgrade) and am still amazed by.

I'm actually mainly looking forward to the new series of GPUs in hopes that they will be able to run Crysis on highest settings w/ 3dvision and get acceptable performance. I think that could possibly be the most awesome gameplay experience ever...
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2009 7:31:56 PM

scalability is good
August 18, 2009 7:38:40 PM

zambutuI love crysis, i don't know what peoples beef is. halflife 2 is the only game out there that i like better. I WANT a game that will WOW me, not a game that's a trickled down console port. I WANT a game that i will be able to replay at even higher settings everytime i upgrade my PC. And finally, with Crysis, you CAN play it differently each time through.

agreed. i think my favorates go like this stalker, bioshock, orange box, and crysis warhead.
crysis wasnt all that great IMO, crysis warhead gameplay was much more fun and intense.

my comp handles high settings just fine, around 40ish frames average. very high drops it to 20 though :p 
August 18, 2009 8:03:18 PM

I've noticed that for some reason Crytek has a hard time getting an online gaming community following of their Crysis product. Maybe if it was something on Steam it'd be more popular. That's where I always go to meet players to play games online. It is so easy that way. About as easy as being on Xbox Live.

Also for some reason Crysis isn't that fun after a little bit. I think mainly due to later levels having all this alien stuff. I like fighting against humans. Maybe they should make a Crysis war type game instead of having aliens come into play. It isn't that fun being chased around by aliens and such. I prefer combat with the Koreans in Crysis over all. Even that gets a little old. I'm not sure what it is. But I still consider it to be the FPS with the best graphics that exists and hoping to see companies come up with as good or better graphics. I'm not too impressed with iD's offerings so far. They are okay though. Maybe it just shows that the technology out for GPU now isn't really that good yet.
August 18, 2009 9:23:33 PM

cptnjarheadnow i have a 4870 1gig... but i have already finished the game.. so why would i reinstall just to play the same game over.. with better visuals?


Right! Not to mention the fact that you might not even be able to reinstall the game-- assuming you ran into the install limit before EA released the de-activator program...

Why in god's name would a company release a game that's intended for "future use" but then ship it with a copy-protection scheme that practically guarantees it'll be useless in the future?!?
August 18, 2009 11:17:29 PM

EnterfrizeI don't know how this was missed, but CryENGINE 3 deserves to get attention for more than just lighting and console compatibility.At SIGGRAPH last week, they did a special demo of CryENGINE 3 running native stereoscopic 3D support. Native means no stereo driver by iZ3D, DDD, or NVIDIA was necessary to make the true 3D effects possible.Here is the Crytek excerpt:http://mtbs3d.com/cgi-bin/rss.cgi?news_id=333Regards,En...


sweet, nice add to the article! :-p
August 18, 2009 11:20:38 PM

F*&K THE CONSOLES! they look to the technical advances in PCs when designing consoles, we can't wait for the next console before we start making the next big PC engine! worried about piracy? just use steam!! its not perfect - no DRM is - but its a good step forward in both protection and user friendliness.
August 18, 2009 11:33:02 PM

dreamphantom_1977I own all the crysis games, the original, crysis wars, and crysis.... I love the game. But in all reality piracy isn't why it didn't sell. I followed the development online for almost a year and a half before it came out. I waited and waited, and in the meantime they made all these promises, that when the game finally came out, all those promises fell through the roof. Free roam means go anywhere, anytime. Like gta series or prototype. Fully destructible means everything, including "all tree's and buildings and anything". Real physics means if you shoot down 3 pillars of a building, the roof should fall, not one pillar holding the whole thing up. Scalability means it should run at 30fps minimum on the minimum rated system. Don't get me wrong, the game is beautiful, and great, but it's not what was promised..


Yeah crysis made me hate my pc and run out and buy a console instead. It sucks when they make games that run at 4fps on current hardware. Now it runs at about 32-40fps on what I have now but it took me years to decide to switch back to PC.
August 19, 2009 1:43:39 AM

Crisis runs pretty good on todays $65 ATI 4650, playable in med setting and 1024x768 on 8600GT as well as 3850 / 3870 cards.

When UT2003 came out, it was killing the hardware.
August 19, 2009 2:56:23 AM

The simple reason why Crysis didn't do extremely well was simply that too many people have garbage PCs. Lets be honest.

How many people do you know that own a Wii, PS3, or Xbox360?

Now think about how many people have a $1500-$2000 SLI/Xfire rig? I loved crysis, and when I let my friends from work play the game on my PC they love it, when they suggest to me that they are going to buy it, I ask them about their PC, and I've yet to meet one average person that has PC capable of running the game worth a crap.

Thats why World of Warcrap did so well. They made an MMO that anyone's Mom with an Emachine and a keyboard could play it.

Sale numbers do not equate to game quality.

Crysis is a top notch enthusiast PC game, WoW is crap in a box. Crysis sold 1/50th the amount of copies that WoW did.

Do not equate sales and quality. And when it comes to people who enjoy crysis, all you got to ask are 2 questions.

1. Do they like FPS games in the 1st place.
2. Do they have a very nice gaming PC.

If they answered no to either question, asking them what they think about crysis is irrelevant.
August 19, 2009 3:01:49 AM

And for people suggesting that game designers should cater their designs to what an "average PC" can run, I call horseshit. If I wanted to play watered down console trash games. I'd buy an Xbox360 and play COD4 and Halo.

What we need are more games like Crysis, pushing hardware to the edge of whats possible. Not making WoW-like watered down garbage games. But sadly due to the fact that most "gamers" now a days are console gamers, it's hard to want to make a PC game when you know if you made an Xbox or wii game you'd sell 20x more units.
August 19, 2009 5:25:05 AM

Airborne11bThe simple reason why Crysis didn't do extremely well was simply that too many people have garbage PCs. Lets be honest. How many people do you know that own a Wii, PS3, or Xbox360?Now think about how many people have a $1500-$2000 SLI/Xfire rig? I loved crysis, and when I let my friends from work play the game on my PC they love it, when they suggest to me that they are going to buy it, I ask them about their PC, and I've yet to meet one average person that has PC capable of running the game worth a crap.Thats why World of Warcrap did so well. They made an MMO that anyone's Mom with an Emachine and a keyboard could play it.Sale numbers do not equate to game quality.Crysis is a top notch enthusiast PC game, WoW is crap in a box. Crysis sold 1/50th the amount of copies that WoW did.Do not equate sales and quality. And when it comes to people who enjoy crysis, all you got to ask are 2 questions.1. Do they like FPS games in the 1st place.2. Do they have a very nice gaming PC.If they answered no to either question, asking them what they think about crysis is irrelevant.

well said. crysis is not a game for the faint of hearted PC's. its ment for beefy systems. Crysis is what motivated me to upgrade from my 8600gt to a 3870. sure, 20-30fps on high settings was acceptable for crysis but i began to want more and more. now ive got a pretty uber rig that crushes just about everything i play.

thanks crytek!!! :) 
August 19, 2009 7:56:10 AM

it never ceases to amaze me. people just love to bitch. crysis was very playable on plenty of hardware. no you couldn't max out the graphics but it was there for those who had the hardware. not saying crysis was a awesome game, i thought it was ok. i did enjoy it. but because people couldn't play it with max settings they feel the need to get their panties in a bunch. grow up.
August 19, 2009 9:15:10 AM

What's all this crap about Crysis not selling well? Crysis alone has sold over 1.5 million copies and that was back in December and that doesn't inculde the additional sales from Warhead and the double pack. That compares very favourably to console only titles like Rock Band 2 and Star War Force Unleashed which have sold a similar amount of games but across 3 or 4 platforms rather then just 1 which came out around about the same time as Crysis.

Cevat Yerli is talking out of arse when blaming the sales numbers on piracy and if anything the game has sold more copies then it really should have given the criticisms levelled against it. He should count himself lucky as well given that really fun games like Psychonauts have badly flopped in past causing its developers to go bust a game like Crysis comes along gets slated by the people who buy it and gets is released at the same time as some good titles like COD4 and Half Life 2 EP2 manages to sell the numbers it did.
August 19, 2009 12:19:07 PM

I got Crysis for free with my Video card and the DRM caused my DVD drive to knock badly, so bad I thought it was going to break it. I Googled it and was not alone with the known DRM issue. Maybe that is why so many people played the hacked game. Get your draconian DRM fixed before you blame PC gamers for you woes Crytech.
Was a great looking game but if they want to get into bed with the kiddie consoles, so be it. There are other PC titles to choose from, no sweat off my marbles.
August 19, 2009 3:03:38 PM

The problem the developer misses ... and some posters, sure you could tune Crysis down to medium and play it OK. However, this GAME was in the hype machine for quite a long time as being very high end oriented. When it came out I completely passed on it as I thought my 7800 GTX would not stand a chance. I did however BUY CoD 4 and TF2. UT3 was a good looking game I did not bother buying until one of STEAMs big sales came out .. now I wish I didn't bother. UT is in my opinion a ghost of its former self. The game was fine, but the community was much smaller.

Also, piracy is a mixed bag at best. You never know if what you down load will ever work.
August 19, 2009 7:31:13 PM

Quote:
Although Crytek estimates 2012 or 2013, he also said that there's a big debate on whether there will be a next generation at all thanks to the "relatively horsepower-light" Nintendo Wii.


Did no one else notice this quote? What the hell does it even mean?

"Well, the Wii is current-gen, and it is pretty horsepower-light, so that means that there aren't gonna be any new consoles anymore."

WTF? Is this really what he means? Someone please explain this to me.
August 19, 2009 8:30:45 PM

Don't complain about not being able to play at max settings when the game was released.
If they don't make games that will bring video cards to their knees why would ATI and NVIDIA make new cards to run old titles at over 200 fps?
Would you pay BIGbucks for a difference you couldn't see?
I'd Pay $500+ for a GTX280 and play DOOM on a 30" monitor, boy wouldn't that look spiffy.
!