Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Crytek: It's Getting Hard To 'Wow' Gamers With Graphics

Tags:
  • Gaming
  • Software
  • Crytek
Last response: in News comments
Share
October 6, 2014 2:15:37 PM

A Crytek developer talks about 4K graphics and Ryse: Son of Rome.

Crytek: It's Getting Hard To 'Wow' Gamers With Graphics : Read more

More about : crytek hard wow gamers graphics

October 6, 2014 2:23:24 PM

Been gaming on 4K for a few months now with 2 GTX 780 classifieds, there have been some rough edges but the driver has finally smoothed things out at least on BF4 getting 70-80 fps ultra.
m
-10
l
October 6, 2014 2:40:26 PM

Could just be me, but personally, I'm more about gameplay now than graphics (and have been for several years now).

I've had more fun and more play time spent on rinky dink indie titles over the last year or so than all the AAA games that I own combined in my Steam library. For instance - spent an hour or so playing Risk of Rain on Saturday night, and had a blast. Kept my interest a lot more than the last several Call of Duty's have.

Again though - could just be me.
m
31
l
October 6, 2014 2:40:46 PM

There's more to gaming than graphics. Just ask Naughty Dog.
m
6
l
October 6, 2014 2:53:12 PM

I wonder if game developers think everyone with a pc can afford a powerful gaming rig. I cant speak for anyone else but I cant. I would love to play these games but I am falling behind big time because I cant afford the i7s, high end gpus and even a new operating system (still on Vista 32bit).

I do think a lot of people are like me and that by setting computer games at such a high end expense companies are missing out on revenue. The point I am making though is it would be a big leap for people like myself but its far too expensive to make it.
m
3
l
October 6, 2014 2:57:18 PM

8GB of VRAM is that right? Maybe a Titan but most cards don't have 8GB of VRAM.
m
3
l
October 6, 2014 3:09:43 PM

For me it has always been more about gameplay and story than graphics. I'm pretty sure tons of people agree, why else would someone play World of Warcraft, lol. If the gameplay is fun and/or the story immersive, the graphics are a much lower priority. Blizzard is the poster child for this. Gameplay graphics are decent (cinematics are awesome tho) but the game is fun and the story is pretty good (historically the story has been better, but the current ones are decent).

Putting graphic quality over gameplay and story is like putting perfume on a pig.
m
18
l
October 6, 2014 3:12:58 PM

Here's a fun thing to consider, since the PlayStation two I don't believe the graphics have gotten much better in video games at all. This is gonna take a little bit of explaining.

Sure the poly counts of gotten better the textures have gotten better anti aliasing shadows all that crap has gotten better... However look at a game like Psychonauts, would higher polygon counts make the game better? Would more lighting effects make the game just fantastic?

Take a look at the game Crysis, when everything is moving tell me that it's just not as easy to see your enemies as it would be in a game where all the scenery didn't move. See your enemies are crack shots, they can see you no matter what, all the scenery moving only affects your ability to see them... Crysis is a very pretty looking game, but it sacrifices some of the playability to look that good.

Back to Psychonauts, all the game could really use is just higher resolution textures, that's it.

But then take a look at a game like skyrim, Bethesda did such a crappy job texturing the game that even using their high resolution texture pack the game doesn't look that good. However other people have taken that game and re-textured everything, was lower resolution textures, but they look like they are higher resolution.

The further we push technology the crapier and lazier the devs are actually going to be when it comes to graphics, they get four gigs of RAM there to use that four gigs of RAM regardless if the game could actually use it or not. they're not going to try and make the littlest texture possible that looks the best, they will use the bigger texture even if it looks like crap just because its bigger.
m
-4
l
October 6, 2014 3:13:44 PM

I've always been an advocate for resolution over graphics. Two branches of the same tree. Which probably explains why I find the constant lowering of res on the modern consoles such a silly idea.

Graphics in a 3D title can look as good or as bad as they want, but, unless the game is running on a high enough res, or, preferably the native res to your screen - It's just going to look blurry.

To give an example, Batman: Arkham Asylum. Definitely not the most visually impressive of titles but it didn't really matter when things looked crisp and clear.

I would much rather the developers dropped some of the eye-candy in their console versions and kept it at 1080p, than to keep them and drop to 900, or 720p.

Not that it matters as a PC gamer but hey, the poor sods need to experience 1080p sometime in the next decade, right?
m
3
l
October 6, 2014 3:19:40 PM

joneb said:
I wonder if game developers think everyone with a pc can afford a powerful gaming rig. I cant speak for anyone else but I cant. I would love to play these games but I am falling behind big time because I cant afford the i7s, high end gpus and even a new operating system (still on Vista 32bit).

I do think a lot of people are like me and that by setting computer games at such a high end expense companies are missing out on revenue. The point I am making though is it would be a big leap for people like myself but its far too expensive to make it.

the average gamer may not be able to play the latest AAA titles at max settings right away, but everyone eventually upgrades their computers. over time, games and computer parts get cheaper. for example, the 780ti has dropped in price by a couple hundred dollars recently, and bioshock infinite is now half the price it was at launch. eventually, 4k screens will get cheaper, and the GPUs needed to drive 4k gaming will get cheaper, and you can game at 4k without selling a kidney.
m
2
l
October 6, 2014 3:19:54 PM

Graphics can be pushed much further. We still don't have graphics like in some of nvidea tech demos. Of course 10fps would suck.
m
3
l
a b 4 Gaming
October 6, 2014 3:25:25 PM

Graphics quality has barely moved for years, most decently written games don't push high end gpus at all. What we get now is console junk which needs a high end gpu to run at max.
m
4
l
October 6, 2014 3:26:27 PM

Yeah there's really only so much better you can push polygons before the eye notices less and less graphics detail and you run into the law of diminishing returns. I didn't get started in PC gaming until the late 90s with a 1280x1024 monitor with the likes of Quake II and Half Life. While primitive today, it was light years ahead in visuals compared to my N64 console with 480p TV graphics at the time.

Throughout the 00s it seemed more transitional in upgrades, even with moving up to 1080p graphics. Crysis though in 2007 really set the bar to the next level of graphics, and it would be two years before my next PC build that I could play that at high level with decent frame rates. In my opinion, even today playing the likes of Crysis 3, BF4, and Far Cry 3 and using a 1440p monitor was not nearly a leap in graphics awesomeness as was that very first Crysis experience on a 1080p monitor from seven years ago.
m
6
l
October 6, 2014 3:29:15 PM

I spent a large portion of my time gaming with graphics < Gameplay. I have come to the realization that you do not need to sacrifice graphics for gameplay,. However I would prefer something more modern to my graphics. Something that Cloud Point Darter was advertising, but something that actually works. If you really want to wow me, create a game/engine where your character taking a step into the sand and have that exact physical encounter work exactly as it should where the sand reacts to the foots force. This goes along with water with how objects interact with it and especially would love to see realistic crashing waves and the physics behind it as well. I'd just love to see this extra step come to fruition, but just as ray tracing was out of sight several years ago, I expect it to be several more before this becomes reality.

m
4
l
October 6, 2014 3:46:27 PM

Personally I think graphics are at the point where we are not seeing leaps and bounds in anything, while lithography process developments are both slowing down and becoming longer used with less of a performance gain and more R and D between. Yet games are still hindered by console performance and ports, and it will continue to be like this until there is a reason for the developers to change. I am currently playing a couple games right now, and including the half life and far cry series being the newest I see how inefficient FC3 is compared to the source engine. Where I can get 300+ FPS with a 650 Ti in HL2 on high 1280x1024 I am probably getting 40 on medium settings in FC3. Yes this is due to the graphics and over 60 is moot anyway but FC3 was available on PS3, and does not negate the fact that HL2 is only using 3- 15% of the available resources while FC3 is using much more.
m
1
l
a b 4 Gaming
October 6, 2014 3:54:20 PM

i've not seen anything that wowed me since crysis warhead battlefield 3 was impressive but nothing groundbreaking like crysis.
m
2
l
October 6, 2014 4:06:33 PM

Hate to say it, it's because too many companies are going for all the eye candy, and completely borking on stability and game play, let alone replay value. And unfortunately, the short attention span, eyecandy theater we've been receiving lately has had a bad effect on the general quality of gamer as well.

I agree with others, been having way more fun with indie titles like Terraria, etc, that put game play and fun before graphics.
m
6
l
October 6, 2014 4:11:37 PM

I wasn't wowed by the graphics of any of their games except Far Cry. Crysis came close, but they made some stupid decisions, like toning down the violence to completely ruin the immersion.
m
3
l
October 6, 2014 4:15:08 PM

soldier44 said:
Been gaming on 4K for a few months now with 2 GTX 780 classifieds, there have been some rough edges but the driver has finally smoothed things out at least on BF4 getting 70-80 fps ultra.


calling BS on that
m
4
l
October 6, 2014 4:17:41 PM

it's been hard to impress gamers in graphic? well since you make your latest game xbox one exclusive while your older title was PC gaming optimized (except crysis 2). Don't believe at M$'s money, look what they did to Nokia, and lately you also bitching about ur company on the edge of bankruptcy, Crytek. Please continue to make games that you are best at, PC Games. Your idea to always melt pc gamers rig is what always push your games to "WOW" us, not making a game for consoles (look at Crysis 2 not as epic as Crysis since it was console optimized).
m
1
l
October 6, 2014 4:31:55 PM

What about Photogrammetry? Has Crytek considered using that technique? Graphics still have a long way to go especially in terms of photorealism and texture quality IMO. The character models and facial features (skin, eyes, hair) still look too much like plastic. Some games have made some strides, but there is really so much more that can be done in terms of wow factor.
m
2
l
a b 4 Gaming
October 6, 2014 4:38:34 PM

To be honest, I'm pretty happy with where graphics are at. What i'm not happy with is the amount of absolutely crap games out there. There are a few cames i've played recently for only a few hours, before getting bored and deleting them from my hard drive. Make good games and people wont care so much about the graphics. Look at Minecraft...hardly a breakthrough in graphics technology.
m
2
l
a b 4 Gaming
October 6, 2014 4:39:47 PM

zero2dash said:
Could just be me, but personally, I'm more about gameplay now than graphics (and have been for several years now).

Same for me. The game I have enjoyed the most in the past five years is Portal2 which happens to have some of the blandest graphics of any game I have played over the past decade other than Portal1.
m
3
l
a b 4 Gaming
October 6, 2014 4:42:43 PM

Distello said:

I would much rather the developers dropped some of the eye-candy in their console versions and kept it at 1080p, than to keep them and drop to 900, or 720p.

Couldnt agree more with this. there is really no reason to do it. I remember when i first went from a 1440x900 monitor to a 1920x1080 and playing starcraft. I had to drop details at the time to get it playable, but you were able to see more detail at the higher res with lower detail settings than with the lower resolution and higher setail settings.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
October 6, 2014 4:47:37 PM

It will eventually reach a point that producing such better textures and graphics will become too costly and time-consuming for developers. That is why so many prefer to develop console games - easier and less graphics to design.
m
-1
l
a b 4 Gaming
October 6, 2014 4:48:53 PM

iam2thecrowe said:
To be honest, I'm pretty happy with where graphics are at. What i'm not happy with is the amount of absolutely crap games out there. There are a few cames i've played recently for only a few hours, before getting bored and deleting them from my hard drive. Make good games and people wont care so much about the graphics. Look at Minecraft...hardly a breakthrough in graphics technology.


Yes it seems that many developers these days use graphics, especially on PC gamers, as a decoy for how truly poor gameplay is. Don't let graphics ever fool you into buying a game.
m
2
l
October 6, 2014 6:00:14 PM

I do agree that what we have now for graphics is enough to be content with. Enough with the whining and ask for optimization. Be glad that your hardware canot be taxed by current games. That leaves you with financial freedom to spend on other things, like getting a cruise vacation. Instead of budgeting up for another 1000 dollar gpu next year.

Every part that you buy for your pc is an investment which quickly loses its useful purpose of running games at your desired level of visual fidelity through the pushing of bigger eye candy just for the sake of taxing high end hardware.
Thus resulting to unoptimized games for pc. Just look at watchdogs.

Its like increasing the fuel consumption of a motor vehicle just for the sake of a wow factor. It kinda makes you scratch your head.

It makes it hard for people who are who minds the money you drop on things to keep up.

It makes one ever question on why should i keep throwing money on my pc if it loses its potential in a year and a half.
m
3
l
October 6, 2014 7:19:35 PM

I have to admit, it's really getting to the point where I have to take people's word that graphics are getting better from game to game, because a lot of times I can't tell the difference. Perhaps DX12 will open up some new lighting possibilities, which I suspect I will notice when well implemented... but honestly, if game graphics never got better than they are now, I'd still be a gamer til death parted me from my keyboard. In fact, the games I play don't even have cutting edge graphics (SWTOR and Path of Exile) and I never even notice their deficiencies. I think a more interactive game world is more important than pushing every polygon, texture, and local lighting effect possible. I actually will turn graphics settings down until I can set the AA to a point where I don't see any shimmer.... shaders and lights be damned.

Honestly, I don't see much difference (barring frame rate and resolution) between most console and PC games. If the next round of consoles rendered at 1080p and 60+ fps with decent AA, I doubt I would ever notice any subsequent changes for another two generations.
m
3
l
a b 4 Gaming
October 6, 2014 7:28:54 PM

Well I agree that gameplay has a higher priority BUT we should at least have 1 game that is a graphics game. Crysis 3 especially is that right now, gameplay sucks but graphics are pretty sweet. The very best thing they can do is start developing for PC and combine their speciality(graphics) with some gameplay they had with C1.
m
0
l
October 6, 2014 7:30:08 PM

We need a new workflow that enables developers to create amazing textures, models and special effects with much less effort and still look finished. Right now, making fancy graphics takes many man hours and isn't very feasible financially. Making it easier to make amazing visuals will take away developers excuses for not making better graphics.
m
0
l
October 6, 2014 7:41:52 PM

I don't think developers have been resting on their graphics laurels. The nature of the console space means that the graphic fidelity of many mainstream games simply doesn't change from year to year, and that's not the fault of the devs. Indeed, many devs were really excited about how much they're going to be able to do with all the RAM the new systems have. I can't stand low-res and low FPS experiences, so consoles aren't for me, but most people don't notice - and if they can't tell the difference, then there is a good argument that improvements aren't better, they're simply more.

I'm looking forward to the day when I get game at 4K and never worry about AA settings again.
m
0
l
October 6, 2014 8:12:07 PM

I find it kind of Ironic that PC users tend to hate on consoles and talk down on their graphics ability but when it comes to gaming at 4k we as a group tend to say "well graphics do not really matter"

Im not trying to favor the consoles but come on now. Crytek puts out the best graphics in the industry and its nice to see them to continue putting out games that will take advantage of your million dollar gaming rig. For most of us who cannot afford to game at 4k, the minimum requirements are easily fulfilled.

Sure most of us cannot afford it but at least for those who do put down serious cash, they can be confident that the Cryngine games will take full advantage of their hardware unlike most games that are just a quick and dirty port. COD Ghost, Watch Dogs, GTA4 come to mind.
m
2
l
October 6, 2014 9:33:03 PM

Graphics don't interest me nearly as much as solid game design and a bug free experience. Shadow of Mordor was a lot of fun but I never really though oh wow these graphics are amazing. Shovel Knight is still also super fun and I'm enjoying trying to find everything. Even minecraft is entertaining and it has no plot and block/pixel graphics. Really wish designers would spend more time developing things that are fun and engaging than things that just look nice. Although Skyrim is probably the best example of doing everything right, 457 hours logged on that one.
m
0
l
October 6, 2014 9:48:02 PM

firefoxx04 said:
I find it kind of Ironic that PC users tend to hate on consoles and talk down on their graphics ability but when it comes to gaming at 4k we as a group tend to say "well graphics do not really matter"

Im not trying to favor the consoles but come on now. Crytek puts out the best graphics in the industry and its nice to see them to continue putting out games that will take advantage of your million dollar gaming rig. For most of us who cannot afford to game at 4k, the minimum requirements are easily fulfilled.

Sure most of us cannot afford it but at least for those who do put down serious cash, they can be confident that the Cryngine games will take full advantage of their hardware unlike most games that are just a quick and dirty port. COD Ghost, Watch Dogs, GTA4 come to mind.


AA for a lot of people inst something we turn on after we got to 1920X1080 at 21-24 inches, because the only time you see aliasing is on high contrast areas and if the game is put together with any sort of aesthetics, you will rarely see jaggies outside of a screenshot or in game if you just try to find them.

the only advantage 4k at 24-28 inches has over 1080p is less jaggies... which lets be honest, are NOT AN ISSUE ANYMORE. i have this argument with my brother all the time and i'm honestly sick of it, some how even after i explained it to him 10 times over, he still doesn't understand ui scaling and how all the benefit of sub 48 inch 4k is lost for general purpose computing, or how gpus aren't going to magically be able to handle 4k in 4 years. we got to the point where single gpus can just barely push 1080p maxed at 60fps, and somehow he thinks going to 4k is doable off a single gpu at 60+fps right now... god i hate this conversation with people who dont get it.

i got off on a tangent.

4k is useless for gaming, as all it will be used for is antialiasing which many people don't have a problem with...

what devs need or focus on is 1 gpu and hardware set, and it sure as hell isn't the best of the best. just go mid range, 1-2gb vram and 2-4gb dedicated to the game system ram, lets say dual core cpu, possibly 4 core if you aren't using it to be lazy.

take that space, and optimize the graphics, i said it before, there are sub 2k retextures for skyrim that use the space given SO much better than the devs did that they get so much more and better detail out of that smaller size than bethesda does out of their high res texture pack.
m
0
l
October 6, 2014 10:17:37 PM

Wow me with consistent, clean graphics with good frame rates at reasonable system settings. Then impress me with simple, clear controls and the options I want. Then don't parcel the game out to me with "Season Passes", let me pay for it and enjoy it, and let DLC just be either a large expansion to the game, or cosmetic if I want it.
m
2
l
October 6, 2014 11:16:21 PM

We haven't reached the ultimate graphic fidelity yet. Just wait until you see large scale ray tracing Lighting, similar to what you see in Pixar movies, but multiply that by 100.

Lighting is where it's at. Textures make it look good, but lighting is what makes it look real and amazing.
m
0
l
October 6, 2014 11:56:16 PM

They still have a long ways to go in terms of photo realistic graphics. But i don't care what a developer from crytek thinks. He doesn't drive the GPU market, Nvidia and AMD do. Only they can deliver the hardware its up to the developers to utilize it. And i have yet to see a game fully utilize a games potential for graphics. Were getting there but theres a lot of room to improve. Gameplay is important but honestly graphics drive us to buy new parts to play at 4k or whatever Res we play at it. To each his own. But its the truth, indie games are great, but any PC can run them and i'm never impressed.
m
1
l
October 7, 2014 12:33:09 AM

If you ask me, I'd take gameplay over just graphics any day. Any game with addictive gameplay with decent graphics will glue the user. Also, character design also affects it.
m
0
l
October 7, 2014 1:02:32 AM

The problem is in polygons and how GPUs render .... of course you guys could make a difference between a Lara Croft of 80 polygons and a Lara Croft of 10.000 polygons or 30.000 one ... but there is a point where even if they 100.000 polygons you won`t see the difference and say the graphics are the same. There was a tech around youtube few years ago about rendering with individual pixels and thus making unlimited detail...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00gAbgBu8R4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AvCxa9Y9NU
m
0
l
October 7, 2014 2:42:42 AM

i'd rather be wowed with a game you can't finish in 4 hours, and there is only one possible way to go. Farcry is a good example, just give the player freedom. Doom was so succesfull because it was a puzzle shooter. Better story and gameplay please!
m
0
l
October 7, 2014 3:15:57 AM

NightLight said:
i'd rather be wowed with a game you can't finish in 4 hours, and there is only one possible way to go. Farcry is a good example, just give the player freedom. Doom was so succesfull because it was a puzzle shooter. Better story and gameplay please!


Let`s not forget removing all the "disabled mind" things in games like "Press Jump to Jump, move your mouse to Look around, you don`t know what do to next? Well follow the big glowing arrow and finish the game like a zombie"
m
1
l
October 7, 2014 3:21:19 AM

alidan said:
i have this argument with my brother all the time and i'm honestly sick of it, some how even after i explained it to him 10 times over, he still doesn't understand ui scaling and how all the benefit of sub 48 inch 4k is lost for general purpose computing, or how gpus aren't going to magically be able to handle 4k in 4 years. we got to the point where single gpus can just barely push 1080p maxed at 60fps, and somehow he thinks going to 4k is doable off a single gpu at 60+fps right now... god i hate this conversation with people who dont get it.

actually, umm, you're the one who doesn't get it. you apparently don't understand where technology is at and where it's going. we're not "just barely" pushing 1080 @ 60fps, we're pushing 1080 @ 120hz with a single GPU. we can already game at 4k with SLI (hell, tomshardware even wrote an article about it a year ago), and you can bet the farm we'll have a single GPU that can drive 4k gaming in the next 2 years. I don't think you've been following the news for the last couple years.
m
0
l
October 7, 2014 3:57:15 AM

Oh no, you mean you might have to focus on game play? To me, all shooters are alike. They look different - some better and some worse - but they're all very much the same monotonous action.
m
0
l
October 7, 2014 4:31:46 AM

games are kind of an art IMO. art does not need to be realistic to be good :) 
m
0
l
October 7, 2014 4:34:45 AM

Crytek:

How about you WOW me with kickass Oculus Rift support. As well as VR input device (Leap, Hydra, Stem, prioVR) support and easy integration.
m
0
l
October 7, 2014 4:54:31 AM

really where things are with graphics I think devs need to stop trying to push graphics further and just try to maximize resources with the graphics they can achieve. What I mean by that is they need to explore ways to make games look as good as they do currently while being less demanding on hardware. IE they need to work on optimizing from the ground up. DX 12 seems to be a great step in that direction as well as AMD Mantle API (both are going to give devs direct access to the hardware layer as opposed to running through the API/OS itself). what they need to obassically is stream line code to be more effective maybe even come up with an entirely new code language just for that purpose. I think as we push into the future streamlining code itself will be key especially in light of the ever growing mobile market thanks to tablet PC's
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
October 7, 2014 5:17:07 AM

All aboard the VRAM hype train, choo choo...

Such BS, much wow...
m
0
l
October 7, 2014 5:27:39 AM

A reason is that Microsoft didn't really came up with anything innovative since DirectX 9 because they are being busy developing dumb shit console called XBOX.
m
2
l
a b 4 Gaming
October 7, 2014 5:33:11 AM

red77star said:
A reason is that Microsoft didn't really came up with anything innovative since DirectX 9 because they are being busy developing dumb shit console called XBOX.


Typical opinion based on ignorence. No offence meant, just the truth. ;) 
m
0
l
October 7, 2014 7:01:16 AM

There are so many other ways to push games forward besides graphics.
Better AI, bigger levels, better physics and so on. Most of these fall into “playability” not eye candy.
Take Liberty City in GTA 4, imagine if you could go into all the building?, or having the NPC’s exist in the game world as part of the city, with AI that was unique to each NPC, instead of popping in and out of the map doing repetitive scripted events. The replay factor alone would be huge.
m
0
l
      • 1 / 3
      • 2
      • 3
      • Newest
!