Crytek shows latest CryEngine features

I don’t know if this new CryEngine eye candy will make its way into Crysis 3, but I would certainly hope so. Crytek has released an update to its free CryEngine SDK, bringing it up to version 3.4.0 and adding a host of improvements, from “revamped” DirectX 11 tessellation to enhanced character rendering. (Here’s hoping the tessellation is better than the mess in Crysis 2.)Β The trailer below showcases some of the changes:

Crytek says DX11 support has “come a long way since Crysis 2,” gaining features like “Phong, PN triangles and displacement maps, along with no need for pre-tessellated assets.” Character rendering tools now have “[n]ew settings, checkboxes and sliders for things like oiliness, iris control, colors, pupil dilatation, tessellation and parallax support,” and CryEngine 3.4.0 also boasts a new-and-improved shader for rendering realistic glass surfaces.

Game developers can download the CryEngine 3.4.0 SDK here free of charge. Crytek says folks are free to use the engine for educational or non-commercial purposes. If you plan to make money, though, you’ll have to pay up and get a license from the company. (Thanks to Rock, Paper, Shotgun for the heads up.)

Comments closed
    • rjseo1
    • 8 years ago

    as Ashley responded I am in shock that anyone able to make $7579 in a few weeks on the computer. did you read this website… [url<]http://ohxiid.notlong.com[/url<]

    • lycium
    • 8 years ago

    i think TR needs a bayesian spam classifier

    • rjseo
    • 8 years ago
    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 8 years ago

    What are in your opinions the best and worst technology out there right now in terms of game engines, AI and all? I still feel the source engine is good, but can’t really ignore the phenomenal awesome of BF3’s frostbite 2 animation, sound and lighting engine. I do love cryengine 3 heck 2 was great, all around good with good AI. I still can’t care about unreal engine, texture popin was allover the place when i last played ME3 and Gears 3, not to mention the fact that it just can’t come up with a trick for hair that works. I personally don’t appreciate the engine in skyrim at all, rage is perdy but really its all trickery IMHO and has lots of limitations to it probably limiting its lifespan. The witcher was sporting some impressive tech but as with Unreal engine hair is the item holding it back for pure awesome.

    Any way just trying to broaden the conversation beyond, I hate or love crysis.

    πŸ™‚

    • Jingles
    • 8 years ago

    Really? Whats with all the hate? The demo looks amazing. If you think it’s so shit then you try making an even better engine. People need to stop drinking the haterade.

      • Silus
      • 8 years ago

      Actually this is mostly a Crytek hate thing. No other company receives this much hate over something as simple as showing what their engine can do.
      In fact some companies are praised for keeping their extremely old engines that look like crap, which is quite sad to read on a PC enthusiast site…

    • sydbot
    • 8 years ago

    Foliage still doesn’t look that great. Using DOF obstruction is a clever way to hide how awkward leaves look in games.

      • kamikaziechameleon
      • 8 years ago

      I’ll be happy when all games have grass and not some silly plastered texture. (trbes ascend I’m looking at you πŸ˜‰ )

    • Bensam123
    • 8 years ago

    As a side snippet, could you imagine what would happen if Skyrim was made on the Crysis 3 engine?

      • ClickClick5
      • 8 years ago

      I would sell my house to the person(s) who agreed to move the game over to Cry 3.

    • Bensam123
    • 8 years ago

    So Crysis 3 might actually meet the baseline set by Crysis 1 in terms of technological improvements for the time… maybe. Lets see if this one turns into another consolized PoS.

    I really do miss the innovation from mid 04-05… Remember the big push for physics that had the major GPU makers duking it out with each other and a standalone company making their first attempt at a hardware accelerated physics? Then that company got bought out, their product bastardized and lobotomized, the other GPU maker stopped caring, and the entire video game industry buried their collective heads in the sand as if nothing ever happened.

    Fuck.

    There WILL be a reckoning and it will be glorious.

      • Vasilyfav
      • 8 years ago

      I remember Oblivion absolutely shattering standards for immersive and continuous world graphics when it came out in 2006. That’s also when things kinda started stagnating, because everything was limited by console hardware.

      It’s evident even to this day that graphically we didn’t get anywhere since Crysis, and that was over 4 years ago.

        • Bensam123
        • 8 years ago

        Yup… Oblivion was the last of its kind. Only in the last year or so has the video game industry remotely caught up to where they were with Skyrim and BF3 edging out a bit over what Crysis came to the plate with. It’s like they took a giant hiatus. Even then they aren’t showing remarkable strides like they did before.

      • shaq_mobile
      • 8 years ago

      I’d like to see a greater emphasis on team based play. Graphics are nice, but community makes a gigantic difference in games. I’d really like some more team mechanics with all of our fancy new graphics. I think companies could do a better job with scenario based multiplayer. Boss encounters are great and all, but I’d really like to see complex scenario PVP. Raid boss = human sort of thing. Take world of tanks, for instance. Straight forward 15v15. Get in your tank, pew pew each other to death. Great.

      How about a classic battle reenactment? Somewhat representative maps, objectives, environment, vehicle restrictions and progressive strategic gameplay model. If the battles you fought with tactics had an impact in the war you fought with strategy, against human players, that would be amazing.

      Heck, if you represented scenarios well enough, you would actually get people to learn relatively useful information. I’m sure it’s not easy, but the video above shows some incredible technology that’s taken decades to achieve. What I’m talking about doesn’t even require massive strides in technology.

      Developers have already somewhat polished the small scale, independent progressive gameplay model. Something like PlanetSide with today’s technology and lessons from the past would be a blast. It would be even more fun if you could make it relevant to our history.

        • Bensam123
        • 8 years ago

        You’re talking more along the lines of coop. I do really enjoy coop and there aren’t many games that accelerate in that area. Firefall is something you should consider looking into, although it’s quite beta-ie right now.

        Faces of War / Men of War series of games is a lot of fun with friends and very strategic, however, there is almost no one that knows about it. L4D1/2 of course, while not amazing for what a zombie game could be is still very fun. Personally I think Men of War would be right up your alley.

        I do agree though, game play in general has not improved since the Q3 deathmatch days. I’d say Teamfortress 2’s payload map has been the only real fun evolution in that area of interest. Even the new DOTA style games still almost directly copy DOTA when it was made in WC3, usually with one or two maps and that’s it. Demigod is the only one that stretched its legs and added things like infrastructure upgrade, which I think adds a whole other element to that style of gameplay (which is probably why all the other clones decided not to include it).

        I believe either developers are inherently shallow when it comes to developing games or they believe gamers are too ADD to actually be able to do objective based game play, which is a shame. Honestly it is sort of true. I’ve been in countless games where people simply ignore objectives and run around willy-nilly. It just means you have to design the game around their style of play.

    • JdL
    • 8 years ago

    What’s causing the “jerking” / stuttering in the pan / zoom scenes?

      • cegras
      • 8 years ago

      I assume someone recorded the video by moving their mouse, so the stuttering is just from them picking it up to reposition it ..

    • Chrispy_
    • 8 years ago

    An engine is only as good as the people able to use it.

    Unreal has been around forever and is relatively simple to use. I don’t know about CryEngine, but unless it’s easier, there’s no motivation for people to switch to it. It’s just unecessary effort.

    • merryjohn1
    • 8 years ago
    • merryjohn1
    • 8 years ago

    my best friend’s sister makes $77 hourly on the internet. She has been out of a job for eight months but last month her pay was $20778 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read more here… [url<]http://bit.ly/IndIH9[/url<]

      • PrincipalSkinner
      • 8 years ago

      Time to bring up the ban hammer +5.

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 8 years ago

    eat your heart out unreal engine. What a great piece of technology. I’m really annoyed that it isn’t used in games more. Hopefully mechwarrior online will use it to good effect.

    EDIT: If you don’t agree grow a pair and put up a counter argument. Thanks πŸ˜‰

      • Silus
      • 8 years ago

      Thumbs up, since the only counter argument you got was a thumbs down!

      Obviously I agree! We need companies like Crytek to actually advance graphics technology. Crysis 1 is already old and many engines still fail to catch up with it in terms of technology. As I’ve said in other comments in this same thread, it’s quite sad to read so much hate over on a PC enthusiast site, what’s essentially the pinnacle of graphics fidelity.

        • kamikaziechameleon
        • 8 years ago

        thanks, I don’t get the hate for tech new and or old its all good its tech. The only engine I don’t care for is unreal and its not that it looks bad its that it is literally 8 years behind on embracing some basic technologies that flipping steam has. They keep making game engines that are so limited in implementation its frustrating. Even at that games like mirrors edge have shown how you can overcome and sort of limitation with good ingenuity.

    • ronch
    • 8 years ago

    Sometimes, I’ve been thinking. A lot of us bash today’s technologies and take them for granted. Just because a CPU, GPU, or some software (case in point: CryEngine) is off by a few watts, a few (ok, sometimes by as much as 33% lower) benchmark points vs. its competitor, or some other shortcoming that doesn’t mean you’d go bankrupt, it gets a lot of flak. I guess this new engine is one of them. But look again… it’s absolutely stunning when you realize that just 25 years ago we only had CGA graphics. ~20 years ago 256-color VGA on a VL-Bus add-on card was state-of-the-art. When you think that our technology has evolved this much in just a few years, then you stop taking it for granted. This is absolutely brilliant.

      • axeman
      • 8 years ago

      I know, I recently discovered this when watching the opening sequence from the original Unreal. I thought it looked pretty damned good at the time, now it just looks so very basic, yet this is only 14 years ago.

      [url<]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcTVFiw60oc[/url<]

      • lilbuddhaman
      • 8 years ago

      Get that optimistic crap out of here!

        • ronch
        • 8 years ago

        So you want us to be pessimistic instead?

          • lilbuddhaman
          • 8 years ago

          Yes ! Yes ! A thousand times Yes !

      • Silus
      • 8 years ago

      Agreed! Those that bash are just a bunch of snotty a**holes that think they are entitled to everything and anything, disregarding everything just to suit their argument.

      And Crysis 2 was the perfect example of that. The amount of rage with the most ludicrous argument of them all to NOT buy a game was incredible. The argument being “It doesn’t have DX11 so I won’t buy it” at a time where the half a dozen games that supported DX11 showed almost not visual gain at all, yet these idiots criticized a stunning game based on the lack of support to that graphics API at launch.. Haters gonna hate….

        • LastQuestion
        • 8 years ago

        Crytek basically promised that DX11 support and high-res textures would be there at launch and wouldn’t be half-assed. They weren’t there at launch and when they did finally arrive they didn’t make Crysis 2 suddenly look like it wasn’t made first for dx9. When promises are broken people get upset, especially when those promises were integral in deciding a purchase.

        As to how awesome Crysis 2 was I personally felt it was rather meh. Instead of those very open and choice orientated levels you had in the first Crysis you had very linear levels which reeked of being designed for a console that had limited memory. Crysis 2 was just a few steps above a corridor shooter and the only thing I found stunning was the level of detail Crytek was able to achieve on a console stunted by dx9.

          • Silus
          • 8 years ago

          And I’m still waiting to see that promise. Everyone raved about how Crytek promised it, but no one shows proof of that, except a GTX 590 box with Crysis 2 on the back or something like that. Somehow a box of a NVIDIA card is Crytek’s problem…

          Anyway, I too share the feeling that Crysis 2 lacked the freedom of the first game, but as far as corridor shooters go, Crysis 2 was quite good.

      • Duck
      • 8 years ago

      [quote<]This is absolutely brilliant.[/quote<] No it isn't. Duke Nukem 3D was brilliant. This is just a glorified tech demo.

        • ronch
        • 8 years ago

        [quote<]No it isn't.[/quote<] Yes it is.

      • tootercomputer
      • 8 years ago

      I’m 61, addicted to this stuff and am still very much enthralled and blown away by the technology. I just built an i5 2500k ASRock system easily OCed to 4.5GHz. 4.5GHz!! I’m in awe. And it’s not just a meaningless benchmark, either. It’s a fast fast system. My first PC was a 386-25 with a whopping 1mg of RAM, a 40Mg hdd that cost $200, a Hercules monochrome graphics card with 256k of ram that cost $100.

      Oh, it’s still so very exciting. And never taken for granted. The above graphics of that guy’s face is stunning.

    • flip-mode
    • 8 years ago

    Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee-haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

    • Duck
    • 8 years ago

    FYI, source engine already has ‘Phong’.

    Crytek makes awful games. It’s a good tech demo for sure… but they really should be aiming for like a $10 launch price. Perhaps a single map multiplayer game with lush graphics and tessellated water. It’s good enough to show off the engine, now let’s have some one else make a real game out of it.

      • Silus
      • 8 years ago

      Yes and it looks like crap as any other engine from 2004…

        • kamikaziechameleon
        • 8 years ago

        While I don’t agree with duck that crysis or farcry are crap games I do think that the source engine even by today’s standards still packs some technology that other more mainstream game engines lack. Physics, animation, and lighting have all been tenants of the source engine that most engines are just now getting a hold of, frostbite engine 2 and cryengine 3 are finally getting it right. Now its valve’s turn to move up their poly count and texture tech to catch up.

          • Duck
          • 8 years ago

          Crysis and Farcry are pretty weak. The main draw of these games is for their graphics quality. Without that they are nothing.

          This constant need for better graphics for a game to be any good is the 2nd worse thing to hurt games after consolitis.

            • SPOOFE
            • 8 years ago

            [quote<]This constant need for better graphics for a game to be any good is the 2nd worse thing to hurt games after consolitis.[/quote<] Consolitis doesn't exist, and the "constant need for better graphics" has been a staple of the video game industry since there was a video game industry. Get over it.

            • Duck
            • 8 years ago

            Lies.

            • Silus
            • 8 years ago

            Not to mention necessary. It’s obvious that a game isn’t good just for the amazing graphics and more realistic graphics is what makes hardware makers evolve their architectures to handle these more complex environments.
            It’s ridiculous to read these comments on a PC enthusiast site. since by the standards of some of these posters, we would still be playing Super Mario Bros, because that one already has tremendous gameplay and fun factor and the high-end of graphics cards would still be the Trident 1 MB or something worse…

            • kamikaziechameleon
            • 8 years ago

            yeah the trolls that dwell here are so amazing.

            • kamikaziechameleon
            • 8 years ago

            I agree, consolitis isn’t what holds back games it what holds back console games. Even with the stagnant hardware of this generation we’ve seen continual improvement in software.

            • Silus
            • 8 years ago

            Which is precisely why criticizing a game for the lack of DX11, completely idiotic.

            As for Crysis being nothing, LOL…you know, there’s opinion and then there’s stupidity. If Crysis was all about graphics to you with nothing else to praise (sandbox like gameplay, nanosuit, weapon customization, etc) then there isn’t really much to discuss. You say that graphics don’t make a good game, yet you only look at Crysis graphics as its only strong point, when in fact it has many when compared to other shooters. If you don’t like them fine, but it would then be interesting to see these other amazing shooters that you play, that trump all the features that Crysis has and then some.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 8 years ago

            You’re partly right – FarCry was a terrible game. Never played Crysis.

            • Grape Flavor
            • 8 years ago

            Funny thing about so many of the games that certain people denounce as “tech demos” or “just graphics”:

            I played a lot of these games on medium or low settings, [i<]negating all of that[/i<], and yet I had a total blast. So forgive me if I don't give much credence to that.

            • kamikaziechameleon
            • 8 years ago

            You seem to really not look at the underlying design. The AI in both game was really earth shattering at the time(and are still benchmarks), the diversity of play and the level design are great at times. Sure the stories aren’t particularly good but still you omit these fundamental GAMEPLAY strengths. Another amazing thing is how the Game engine allows for more diverse forms of play.

          • Kaleid
          • 8 years ago

          Lighting hasn’t really ever been very good with source.

            • Silus
            • 8 years ago

            Thumbs up, since everyone seems to be blind over here. The only thing the Source Engine does well, is handle physics.
            And even in that one it’s already been surpassed by many other engines that offer much more complex physicalized environments, while buffing up the graphics fidelity (which Source Engine lacks), for a number of years now.

            • kamikaziechameleon
            • 8 years ago

            The fundamental features the source engine has vs what is uses are two different things. Sighting the games as being all its capable of is miss leading and wrong. The aim for valve has been similar to blizzard, as many pcs as possible. They don’t aim to push hardware at all. Still the animation engine is huge and is overlooked in a silly way, specifically the facial animation. The physics it has now things like unreal engine really struggles with. I agree it doesn’t look AMAZING anymore but its got some baseline tech that other poly and texture based engines really struggle with.

            • kamikaziechameleon
            • 8 years ago

            It was one of the first engines to pioneer HDR lighting. It hasn’t appreciably evolved from then sadly, but there is no reason to expect it can’t just look at how dynamic and modular the engine is. Its no big thing for them to overhaul the lighting.

          • Silus
          • 8 years ago

          Now ? You’ve got to be kidding…CryEngine 2 was the most advanced engine for quite a while ever since Crysis was released in 2007. Now there’s an engine you can say very few have caught up with.
          The source engine is old and it looks like crap by today’s standards. Anyone catching up with the Source Engine has some serious problems. Not that I expect a company like Valve to do anything about it. They don’t really care about the PC for ages now, which is even more evident by the fact that they ignore the fans of the Half Life series that are waiting for Episode 3 for 5 years…you know, one of the episodes that was more content in less time. We’re already over a period where most full games would be finished, with more content and in less time than a Valve “episode”. Valve is a company above all and wants to make money, but people giving them slack over what is obvious lazyness is ridiculous. Any other company would get major flak over it…

            • kamikaziechameleon
            • 8 years ago

            I think you misread what I was getting at. I won’t even begin to declare the source engine as comparable to cry engine 2 or 3, lol. I was just sayin that source engine was for a long time unchallenged, crysis came along and well it took 3 years till most players could appreciate what the game was capable of producing. Now that we can all play crysis and BF3 and Crysis 2, while you might point out that source is primitive in geometry and texture work not to mention post processing πŸ˜› The game has some amazing underpinning tech that the flashy unreal engine doesn’t have, let alone most other game engines. Yeah its old, but that is the point it did almost 8 years ago what game tech has only recently have brought to the masses with EFFICIENT game engines. One game engine that was overlooked was the fear game engine it was similarly built on a strong underlying tech that was overlooked for lacking poly’s and texture pizaz.

            • Vaughn
            • 8 years ago

            While you had some good points this was laughable.

            “Valve is a company above all and wants to make money”

            Isn’t that the idea of making a company to make money or do you do it to lose money?

      • Meadows
      • 8 years ago

      Good for them! What about the other 10 features?

        • Duck
        • 8 years ago

        Bump maps and HDR is as close as it gets I think.

          • Meadows
          • 8 years ago

          Meaning very faaar away.

            • Duck
            • 8 years ago

            I never claimed it wasn’t far away. It looks good to me though. Better to have a good source engine game than a crap game with great graphics a la Crysis.

            • kamikaziechameleon
            • 8 years ago

            what please what makes a game crap to you??? I would understand if the poor story is your reason but at the core it isn’t what makes for good gameplay and I feel like though the entirety of crysis and farcry aren’t amazing the high points are really quite phenomenal.

      • Bensam123
      • 8 years ago

      Yuh… and that means exactly what for their ancient engine? You can teach an old dog new tricks, but some dogs should just be put down.

        • kamikaziechameleon
        • 8 years ago

        I don’t care to see source go, if they can continue to mod it into relevancy it has the underlying tech it needs to be next gen just needs some bells and whistles.

          • Bensam123
          • 8 years ago

          If they replace it with a newer engine why would it matter? Did you feel the same way when they replaced the HL1 engine with Source?

            • kamikaziechameleon
            • 8 years ago

            Firstly it wasn’t really the HL1 engine it was quake 1.5 or something like that. And that was a VERY primitive engine.

            You forget the way that engines are built, asset properties are layered and represented inside the engine. Havok the original physics tech that valve has used is not utilized the same in all games, just look at unreal tech it has havok too since the beginning pretty much and it can’t accomplish half what valve can. Why? Because the integration of the logic is different. Upgrading how they stream polygons and textures doesn’t have to effect the underlying physics and animation engines that are still some of if not the best implemented. The perceived Issues you see in their tech is CHOSEN for maximum optimization and system compatibility. I wouldn’t be sad if they replaced the tech, I’m just saying there is not anything to get excited about. YEAH THEY IMPROVED PHYSICS SOO MUCH! that won’t happen, OMG, lighting is so great! That is already pretty solid, animations can’t really get much better beyond a blending engine like BF3. Audio needs a work up, but otherwise the asset streaming end most of what you perceive is engine shortfalls are CHOICES not something they have to do but rather what they wanted to. If you took that engine and basically said hey lets make the system req the same as BF3 it would end up not looking terribly worse without even tweaking much. Do you see what I’m saying. Its not the engine its the devs. This isn’t like how for some reason ubisoft thinks unreal engine 2 is the best and all splintercell games will be made in it forever!

            • Bensam123
            • 8 years ago

            Who says the Source engine isn’t primitive with bandaids tacked onto it compared to what they could make today using todays technology?

            The source engine was originally designed around a completely different technology set for technology that was available at the time. It pushed the edge of the envelope, now I get something like 300FPS while playing TF2. There is plenty they can do if they designed a new engine, such as improving physics… I don’t know why you think it can’t happen (because it hasn’t?)?

            Source engine has like almost no lighting in it. It doesn’t even match up with Crysis, I’m guessing you never looked for it. If you want a real treat for lighting play Hard Reset. No time of day cycles, no clouds, foilage…

            You can only do so much by tacking things onto an old engine. That and a new engine with easy to use bells and whistles allows developers to implement it too. What do you think BF3 would look like if it was run on the Source engine?

            • kamikaziechameleon
            • 8 years ago

            I’m not saying if they built a new engine it wouldn’t be better. I think there is miscommunication here but I generally agree with you and your comparison of steam implementation vs a modern engine implementation. Thing I’m promoting about it is how it actually does many things better than some more popular modern engines like UE3. Its funny to play HL2 and be astounded by the facial animation then play a UE game that… is struggling with that component, or has fundimental issues with physics. I agree it could be put to better use for sure or even replaced with something better, but before I’m annoyed by steam I’d really like Epic or other less competent engine designers to step up ya know.

            EDIT: for me its like an UE3 game feels like CoD and source feels like BF:BC2
            BF:BC2 looks worse in screens but has a better more kinetic world that pulls me in ya know. CoD its like a strangely detailed and realized world that doesn’t react to me and the guns I have.

            • Bensam123
            • 8 years ago

            I honestly was never a huge fan of the Unreal Engines at all. They always just looked pretty at first glance, but when you get down to the nitty-gritty it’s all fluff. Crysis isn’t completely like that, play Living Legends if you want some hands on.

            I do believe the Source engine was amazing when it came out and still is to a certain extent, but after tacking on addons for so long I think it’s better off left to rest. People have a way of putting things up on a mantle and never wanting to move from them as they get attached with nostalgia and then start associating biases with it because it’s been used for so long. Like ‘How can this be bad? So many great games were based on it!’.

            It’d be great if other companies stepped up, but I have less faith in them then I do in Valve if they got off their lazy bumms and made a new engine.

    • glacius555
    • 8 years ago

    DX11 Ocean!

    *Frame-rate comes to a crawl, as you look up from ocean to the tesselated skies.. GPU lets out magic smoke*

    BTW, you suck, dear artist, I’ve seen better portraits of Bruce Willis!

    • PrincipalSkinner
    • 8 years ago

    Looking mucho bueno. Especially the faces.
    I hope more games will use this engine.

    • curls
    • 8 years ago

    looks great, hopefully it will come in the shipped version. i beat crysis 2 before the dx11 patch came out and had zero interest in replaying it.

      • Silus
      • 8 years ago

      And you lost nothing, because DX11 in Crysis 2 or in any other game brings little to nothing visually.

        • kamikaziechameleon
        • 8 years ago

        The patch had the HD textures, he did miss something πŸ˜› forget about the tesselation.

          • ltcommander.data
          • 8 years ago

          The HD textures were a separate patch and compatible with the DX9 codepath. I believe an Ultra rendering setting for DX9 was also added that supported some of the same improvements added to the DX11 path, although I don’t remember whether the DX9 Ultra path was tied to the base 1.9 patch or incorporated as part of the DX11 Ultra patch.

          • Silus
          • 8 years ago

          Fair enough, but it wasn’t a game changer in any way.

    • Silus
    • 8 years ago

    Crytek is the ONLY company…let me write this again the ONLY company that actually advances graphics with their engines and get huge flak from PC gamers, where graphics fidelity is much more important. They’ve made 3 games and all of them had 3 distinct engines with increasing levels of graphics fidelity. Apparently Crysis 3 won’t get a new engine altogether, but the new feature set is impressive.

      • BobbinThreadbare
      • 8 years ago

      Did Crysis 2 push graphics? I didn’t notice it.

        • Silus
        • 8 years ago

        Can you name one game at that time that had better graphics than Crysis 2 ?

          • BobbinThreadbare
          • 8 years ago

          The first Crysis looks equally, if not more impressive to me.

            • Silus
            • 8 years ago

            I clearly mentioned “at that time”…the first Crysis is from 2007 plus it had quite a different setting.

            Crysis 2 had no equal in terms of graphics fidelity at that time and is still of the most stunning games ever made. And it still got flak over how it looked, with people pointing to the first Crysis as an example of a game that looked better…you know, the game criticized for being a “tech-demo” over anything else.

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 8 years ago

            Your meaning of at the time is not something I understand then. You could buy Crysis 1 when Crysis 2 came out right? That means it was available “at the time” of Crysis 2.

            • kamikaziechameleon
            • 8 years ago

            While Crysis 1 still is a stunner by most any standards crysis 2 had a dramatically improved animation engine. I would argue the physics though more limited in implementation were much more sound as well. The Audio engine is also dramatically more polished though not about to challenge frostbite 2 any time soon. Lighting was about 10 times better, seeing as it was probably the biggest weakness of the original, granted the foliage presents some extreme challenge in this arena. The proposed “optimization improvements” for pc were dramatically overstated after the texture pack and DX11 patch were released. But I’ll tell you it looks good. Particle effects are also DRAMATICALLY improved. If you are a graphics whore you can’t deny many of the improvements in 2, though it is accomplished in a less challenging setting it doesn’t diminish these accomplishments. I do however hope we return to an island or forest setting to really see what this engine can do.

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 8 years ago

            While the engine might have improved, you seem to agree that they didn’t use it to show off anything that looked significantly better than the previous Crysis.

            And on another note, I didn’t say anything about sound.

            • kamikaziechameleon
            • 8 years ago

            I’ll agree, the city is dramatically less challenging to render than the jungle. I still thought crysis 2 looked better all around than crysis 1, but the lack of achievement through challenge is apparent. The natural world remains the most difficult thing to represent in games period for numerous reason and I think that this might have been why they moved to the city, to present a landscape they knew they would be able to flawlessly conquer.

            • Silus
            • 8 years ago

            Thank you! Someone that actually analyzes facts instead of hating just cause…

            • kamikaziechameleon
            • 8 years ago

            Its good go see someone respond to a logical statement. Thanks. πŸ™‚

        • kamikaziechameleon
        • 8 years ago

        It did but in a different direction that the other game engine. I’m hoping we can go back to the island one more time. Maybe this next game will afford that to some degree. At any rate with a 1080p monitor brush and foliage looks so muddled and nasty. I’m inclined to get a Dell 30 inch just to get a clearer image of all the nuanced detail we render these days. I really hope the intel screen resolution standards come into effect ASAP.

      • can-a-tuna
      • 8 years ago

      I think latest Unreal Engine is pretty impressive too.

        • Silus
        • 8 years ago

        And how many games has Epic made for PC since UT3 ? Yeah that’s right: none!

        The latest Unreal Engine looks great, sure, but you won’t see any game made with it in the near future. Epic is a console w*ore.

          • ltcommander.data
          • 8 years ago

          It’s actually 1 new game after UT3 since Bulletstorm was a development collaboration between People Can Fly and Epic Games.

            • Silus
            • 8 years ago

            People Can Fly was the developer. Epic just helped with the engine. I wouldn’t say that’s an Epic Games game, any more than ET Quake Wars was an id Software game.

          • trek205
          • 8 years ago

          lol, what? Unreal Engines are the most common engines used and that’s not going to change with Nvidia working closely with them. and I am sorry but I think Batman Arkham City blows Crysis 2 away visually.

          • JohnC
          • 8 years ago

          I enjoyed playing various UT3-based games (ME series, Borderlands, new Batman:Arkham series, GoW series, and so on) , and I don’t give a fuck if Epic made them or some other company. When you’re trying to troll, at least try to use things that actually matter to people.

            • Silus
            • 8 years ago

            Troll ? You’re a complete idiot. We’re comparing what this Crytek engine allows now and what Crysis 3 will use in 2013, with a UT3 demo that Epic themselves said won’t be used in any game any time soon, because hardware isn’t ready for it yet.

        • kamikaziechameleon
        • 8 years ago

        Unreal engine shortfalls:

        Poor physics implimentation, animation, and sound design.

        They are still building the game engine like the only game that they’ll make with it is UT2012. Perdy is more than Poly counts and texture tricks.

          • JohnC
          • 8 years ago

          The physics is perfectly fine in latest builds of UE3, same goes for animation. Go watch the “Samaritan” demo, there’s nothing wrong with physics/animation in it, and it was made last year.

          • BobbinThreadbare
          • 8 years ago

          Don’t forget anything trying to look organic looks like it’s made out of wax.

      • Chrispy_
      • 8 years ago

      They get flak for fobbing off PC gamers, and either a) taking nvidia bribe money, or b) being incompetent with their polycount.

      I actually enjoyed the first crisis game, because I played it two years late and on decent hardware, but not all of us are sporting Quad SLI gaming rigs.

        • Silus
        • 8 years ago

        There we go again with NVIDIA bribes…AMD bribes as many as NVIDIA does…

        And the polycount argument is actually a funny one, since you’re judging a game solely based on its graphics, which shows precisely how committed Crytek is to actually advance graphics in their games, since you expect them to look 1000x times better than anything else. Something that NO other company does. And in the process, you forget everything that the Crysis games did right. You might not like the games (hopefully not because of some stupid “no DX11” support at launch) but you can’t deny that it has many things that enhance the experience in a shooter, that no other shooter has.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This