Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Crytek: There May Not Be Next Gen

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 40 comments

Crytek provided a forecast of what's to come in regards to CPUs, GPUs, and consoles.

Crytek co-founder Cevat Yerli yesterday spoke in a keynote address at GDC Europe, discussing the "future of gaming graphics" from a developer's perspective. He provided the company's timeline up until now, covering Crytek's desire to create an FPS that didn't contain corridor after corridor back in 2001, to the present development of Crysis 2 and the CryEngine 3 engine.

Despite the criticisms the company has received over the years, Yerli said that 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. He said this is partly due to the uncertainty of when next-gen consoles will be available. 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.

It's no secret that Crytek has a huge focus on consoles: the company blames its loss of revenue on piracy relating to PC versions. However, his keynote speech also recognized that GPUs and CPUs are on a "collision course," with CPUs becoming more parallel and GPUs taking on general-purpose computing. According to Gamesatura, he recommended OpenCL as a good base for addressing the eventual merger.

Additionally, his speech focused on techniques that could provide even faster graphics rendering such as using point-based rendering rather than triangle-based, moving towards ray-tracing, and more. He concluded by saying that there will be opportunities with new APIs and hardware platforms after 2013.

Discuss
Display all 40 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 27 Hide
    jgoette , August 18, 2009 5:04 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.
  • 20 Hide
    KT_WASP , August 18, 2009 4:59 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.
  • 12 Hide
    invisik , August 18, 2009 5:21 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. =]
Other Comments
  • 11 Hide
    chaohsiangchen , August 18, 2009 4:59 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.
  • 20 Hide
    KT_WASP , August 18, 2009 4:59 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.
  • 11 Hide
    Enterfrize , August 18, 2009 5:00 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
  • 27 Hide
    jgoette , August 18, 2009 5:04 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.
  • 10 Hide
    cptnjarhead , August 18, 2009 5:07 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?
  • 12 Hide
    invisik , August 18, 2009 5:21 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. =]
  • 6 Hide
    crom , August 18, 2009 5:27 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?
  • 1 Hide
    zak_mckraken , August 18, 2009 5:33 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.
  • -9 Hide
    Pei-chen , August 18, 2009 5:34 PM
    This Turk can't run his company.
  • -2 Hide
    Anonymous , August 18, 2009 5:35 PM
    Um, pretty much every game plays medium to low when it's released.
  • 1 Hide
    cptnjarhead , August 18, 2009 5:39 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?
  • 0 Hide
    bounty , August 18, 2009 5:39 PM
    I'll buy it when the price matches the 20$ game it is.
  • -2 Hide
    Pei-chen , August 18, 2009 5:46 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.
  • 1 Hide
    Anonymous , August 18, 2009 5:47 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.
  • 1 Hide
    TwoDigital , August 18, 2009 5:48 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.
  • 4 Hide
    hillarymakesmecry , August 18, 2009 5:52 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.
  • -1 Hide
    cptnjarhead , August 18, 2009 5:59 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.
  • 1 Hide
    Aerobernardo , August 18, 2009 6:08 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.
  • 4 Hide
    zambutu , August 18, 2009 6:12 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.
  • 8 Hide
    crashmer , August 18, 2009 6:13 PM
    Some people like Crysis some don't... the fact is it was good for benchmarking.
Display more comments