Corsair H170i Elite Capellix XT review
Forspoken: PC performance graphics benchmarks
ASRock Z790 Taichi review
The Callisto Protocol: PC graphics benchmarks
G.Skill TridentZ 5 RGB 6800 MHz CL34 DDR5 review
Be Quiet! Dark Power 13 - 1000W PSU Review
Palit GeForce RTX 4080 GamingPRO OC review
Core i9 13900K DDR5 7200 MHz (+memory scaling) review
Seasonic Prime Titanium TX-1300 (1300W PSU) review
F1 2022: PC graphics performance benchmark review
Crytek: its getting increasingly hard to wow people with graphics
Crysis and Ryse: Son of Rome developer are amongst the better looking games in the industry thanks to the proprietary CryEngine. In an interview with DSO Gaming the developer says that it's not as easy to impress players with beautiful graphics as it used to be.
"As opposed to the times of the original Crysis, we as an industry have reached a quality level now where it is getting increasingly more difficult to really wow people," Crytek’s principal rendering engineer Nicolas Schulz told DSOGaming in an interview. "That said, there’s still enough areas to explore and we will definitely keep pushing the boundaries as much as possible."
Schulz also discussed the limitations of high-end PC graphics processing units (GPUs) and the current generation of consoles. On PC, he said, the current generation of high-end GPUs is still far from being able to reach 60 frames-per-second at 4K resolution, which is four times the amount of pixels that need to be shaded compared to 1080p.
"This is very quickly saturating the available bandwidth," Schulz said. "The consoles are clearly behind high-spec GPUs in terms of raw horsepower, however on the positive side, they share the same modern architecture which enables a wealth of interesting optimization techniques."
Ryse: Son of Rome comes out for PC on October 10. Crytek recently announced that it has stripped the Xbox One's microtransactions out of the PC version of the game. If you want to know if you can run Ryse: Son of Rome, check out the PC system requirements.
Crytek: Graphics Are 60% Of The Game - 04/15/2013 08:36 AM
Crytek has always pushed the visuals of its games but in the great graphics Vs gameplay debate, Cytek boss, Cevat Yerli, believes graphics win and actually account for ’60% of the game&r...
Crytek: all future Crysis games will be in 3D - 08/16/2010 10:45 AM
Crytek CEO Cervat Yerli revealed all future titles in the Crysis universe will be playable in 3D. The game developer will introduce 3D support with Crysis 2 and believes that 3D technology will conque...
Damien_Azreal
Senior Member
Posts: 11116
Joined: 2009-04-20
Senior Member
Posts: 11116
Joined: 2009-04-20
#4931076 Posted on: 10/06/2014 03:27 PM
They took a wrong turn in the art direction starting with Warhead. Crysis 3 may have the superior engine under the hood but onscreen in game form its just like a hirez digital popup book as everything just looks so flat and oil painting/concept arty/cartoony.
Crysis 1 is still superior and the correct direction for life like gfx imo. Looking at Far Cry 1 to Crysis 1 is the perfect transition/evolution of "next-gen" graphics, but them from crysis 1 to 3, its just this transition of life likeness to a boring hirez comic book with tessellation.
Other than new graphic features and forms of shadow and particle etc etc, i feel graphics have gone backwards in sense. It all high resolution with hi resolution textures, but then they go and slap some boring post process over it and things just look muddy, bland, washed out and flat.
The performance of some games compared to how they look is not quite right these days.
And I personally prefer the stylized visual look of Crysis 2 and 3 over the first game.
Yes, the first Crysis looks amazing. But, the strong devotion to looking like the real world just looked dull to me. Yes, it's impressive... but it doesn't look creative.
Crysis 2 and 3's (to some 'overly') stylized visual design lead to a more interesting look. It gave the series a sense of personality.
They took a wrong turn in the art direction starting with Warhead. Crysis 3 may have the superior engine under the hood but onscreen in game form its just like a hirez digital popup book as everything just looks so flat and oil painting/concept arty/cartoony.
Crysis 1 is still superior and the correct direction for life like gfx imo. Looking at Far Cry 1 to Crysis 1 is the perfect transition/evolution of "next-gen" graphics, but them from crysis 1 to 3, its just this transition of life likeness to a boring hirez comic book with tessellation.
Other than new graphic features and forms of shadow and particle etc etc, i feel graphics have gone backwards in sense. It all high resolution with hi resolution textures, but then they go and slap some boring post process over it and things just look muddy, bland, washed out and flat.
The performance of some games compared to how they look is not quite right these days.
And I personally prefer the stylized visual look of Crysis 2 and 3 over the first game.
Yes, the first Crysis looks amazing. But, the strong devotion to looking like the real world just looked dull to me. Yes, it's impressive... but it doesn't look creative.
Crysis 2 and 3's (to some 'overly') stylized visual design lead to a more interesting look. It gave the series a sense of personality.
vejn
Senior Member
Posts: 1002
Joined: 2010-12-14
Senior Member
Posts: 1002
Joined: 2010-12-14
#4931088 Posted on: 10/06/2014 03:49 PM
They should better balance the performance and make their engine functional.
They should better balance the performance and make their engine functional.
(.)(.)
Senior Member
Posts: 9094
Joined: 2010-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 9094
Joined: 2010-11-10
#4931089 Posted on: 10/06/2014 03:50 PM
And I personally prefer the stylized visual look of Crysis 2 and 3 over the first game.
Yes, the first Crysis looks amazing. But, the strong devotion to looking like the real world just looked dull to me. Yes, it's impressive... but it doesn't look creative.
Crysis 2 and 3's (to some 'overly') stylized visual design lead to a more interesting look. It gave the series a sense of personality.
Dont get me wrong, they get there intended artistic direction perfect, but as far as realism goes, Crytek went the wrong direction starting with Warhead.
And I personally prefer the stylized visual look of Crysis 2 and 3 over the first game.
Yes, the first Crysis looks amazing. But, the strong devotion to looking like the real world just looked dull to me. Yes, it's impressive... but it doesn't look creative.
Crysis 2 and 3's (to some 'overly') stylized visual design lead to a more interesting look. It gave the series a sense of personality.
Dont get me wrong, they get there intended artistic direction perfect, but as far as realism goes, Crytek went the wrong direction starting with Warhead.
-Tj-
Senior Member
Posts: 17807
Joined: 2012-05-18
Senior Member
Posts: 17807
Joined: 2012-05-18
#4931092 Posted on: 10/06/2014 03:53 PM
If they made it look like in their tech demos then I dont mind, but some bs in between nah, no wonder they wonder like they do..
EDIT: Crysis3 did look kinda ok, but then they ruin whole game engine with overdone blurring, too much DOF and few extra post processfx.. Imo just because its "popular" doesn't mean it should be used by everyone or at least kept to minimum/suitable.
For example in this presentation Crysis3 looks kinda to cartoony, if it had more harsh "metal lighting" look it would be much better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=JWvgETOo5ek#t=32
If they made it look like in their tech demos then I dont mind, but some bs in between nah, no wonder they wonder like they do..
EDIT: Crysis3 did look kinda ok, but then they ruin whole game engine with overdone blurring, too much DOF and few extra post processfx.. Imo just because its "popular" doesn't mean it should be used by everyone or at least kept to minimum/suitable.
For example in this presentation Crysis3 looks kinda to cartoony, if it had more harsh "metal lighting" look it would be much better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=JWvgETOo5ek#t=32
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 785
Joined: 2014-09-22
There is only so much DOF and friggin' blur effects they can slap on screen before we can no longer see anything.
How about no load screens in games, no pop in or visible LOD, better physics and dynamic weather and changing wind directions with rain and grass responding appropriately to it and also to player movements.
Grass and clouds that actually cast shadows on the ground.
If someone told me that if I bought 32gb of ram and video card with 10gb of vram I would be able to enable those seamless effects in games I would do it immediately.
That is far more important to me than 4k, 120fps, 8k textures and all the blur effects in the world.
Seamless integrated game worlds fall under graphics to me because it is what you see and experience, it's hard to discuss graphics when it is defined as the experience between load screens.