Crytek: its getting increasingly hard to wow people with graphics

Mato87

2014-10-06 21:09

the OP isn't about crytek, though Mato of course you can add anything, but it's more about 1 like Undying said Cevat is all about graphics in games 2 a few days before ryse is released he comes out sayin this 3 what does he mean? Man I like reading through these great forums, but your grammar and your sentence composition makes it really hard for me to understand it the way you meant it. Although I kind of agree with you on that, the head of crytek is trying to sound as humble as possible and is trying to cover up the fact his games are not that good looking, but the true fact is, his games are most likely only about graphics.

#4931383

schmidtbag

2014-10-06 22:18

Kind of hard to impress people with graphics when they're already becoming pretty life-like. I'd say next gen consoles (after XB1 and PS4) will basically be the end of the line of realistic graphics. This isn't to say that hardware and graphics will stop improving, because there's still higher resolutions, physics, and virtual reality to look into. Crytek is looking pretty pathetic whining about something that they only were "allowed" to get once. Crysis 1 was basically the first of its kind and set a high standard. Back then, it was all about the graphics and level of detail to the world, but not so much gameplay. Crytek now expects to do the same thing when Crysis 1 is still decent looking for today's standards. The irony is their current graphics engine is more realistic than their expectations.

#4931401

shymi

2014-10-06 22:48

Seriously?!! News flash! I still play games 10-15 yr's old. Because they are still fun to play, that's what it is all about. 70% game play 30% graphics. Not the other way around. If the game is boring the most amazing graphics ever will not help much.

Agreed - for me also the game play was more important than graphics. Also I prefer games with more... hm... artistic visual style?(like Bastion/Transistor/Child of light)

#4931427

Prince Valiant

2014-10-06 23:34

Well said. I find it amazing how oblivious the game industry is to its own legacy. When computer gaming was in its prime there were hundreds of amazing games released using the technology of the times. One would think the developers would revisit the library of titles and see what they could resurrect with modern technology. There have been a few so far but no where near what's possible. Titles already given a make-over include Carrier Command, Elite and a new title by Chris Roberts of Wing Commander fame called, "Star Citizen". Currently under development are "Midwinter" and "Heavy Gear" (although Heavy Gear looks to be an online multi-player arena game only). I'm sure there are some more being looked at and worked on but I think there should be more effort applied. There are dozens of games that people today never heard of because they had not been born yet. If they knew what gaming was comprised of in the past they would probably be in awe. Graphics are wonderful. We all wanted better graphics, realistic play, physics and depth of play but pretty graphics alone are really a let down when the game turns out to be dorky (Far Cry 3 is an excellent example).

Juggernauts like EA and Activison could probably remake (original intent intact) multiple games for less than one entry in their terrible franchises. I've had a preorder down on Homeworld Remastered since day one, short of Gearbox really screwing it up I have no intention of cancelling it.

#4931429

millibyte

2014-10-06 23:37

I stopped being impressed with Crytek as a games developer halfway into Crysis 1. Far Cry 1 is still a good game today if you're in the mood for a campy B-rated script and challenging gameplay.

#4931437

dcx_badass

2014-10-06 23:48

That's good, all the game companies have been shovelling **** for the last few years. Might actually het a half decent game now. Nintendo might not focus on graphics but their games are brilliant so who cares, style over substance only works for so long.

#4931447

kendoka15

2014-10-07 00:15

I loved Crysis 3 for the graphics (and to some extent the gameplay) but we're all individuals with different tastes and ideas in what makes a good game and when I saw Ryse gameplay for the first time I was thoroughly disappointed in one of my favorite developers as it looks gorgeous but gameplay wise...

#4931448

Bladeforce

2014-10-07 00:15

Anyone with half an ounce of sense knew that games would get so realistic they'd end up having to actually concentrate on gameplay eventually. Now that scares the **** out of games companies

#4931535

(.)(.)

2014-10-07 02:19

Art direction plays a massive role also. I was really looking forward to what Prey 2 was showing long ago. What a shame that it got canned.

#4931581

Mato87

2014-10-07 04:15

Art direction plays a massive role also. I was really looking forward to what Prey 2 was showing long ago. What a shame that it got canned.

Prey 2 wasn't developed by crytek, heck, that game was even associated with crytek whatsoever.

#4931588

schmidtbag

2014-10-07 04:29

Prey 2 wasn't developed by crytek, heck, that game was even associated with crytek whatsoever.

I'm pretty sure he just brought that up as an example of how a game shouldn't just be realistic looking but beautiful too; something Crytek doesn't always focus on.

#4931592

(.)(.)

2014-10-07 04:37

I'm pretty sure he just brought that up as an example of how a game shouldn't just be realistic looking but beautiful too; something Crytek doesn't always focus on.

Thank you *high five*

#4931596

Mato87

2014-10-07 04:43

I'm pretty sure he just brought that up as an example of how a game shouldn't just be realistic looking but beautiful too; something Crytek doesn't always focus on.

Realistic looking? are you sure? Because the only footage that was released for that particular game was a prerendered CGI video about the main protagonist catching some alien who was on the run from prison. The first prey one the other hand was an outstanding game in terms of graphical fidelity and from the gameplay perspective.

#4931639

drac

2014-10-07 07:24

You know what the issues are, anti-aliasing mostly, also resolution. Whats needed is low cost AA that doesn't impact scene clarity and sharpness at all. This makes SO much of a difference, certain games look movie like at the right resolution with no AA. (4k or even 2k). Give it some time for gpu horsepower to catch up to resolution.

#4931655

RealNC

2014-10-07 08:15

How about "wowing" people with gameplay instead? That might help.

#4931659

(.)(.)

2014-10-07 08:26

Realistic looking? are you sure? Because the only footage that was released for that particular game was a prerendered CGI video about the main protagonist catching some alien who was on the run from prison. The first prey one the other hand was an outstanding game in terms of graphical fidelity and from the gameplay perspective.

FFS! Stop picking peanuts out of poop and then complaining that they taste funny. I didnt say Prey 2 was realistic, i was talking about art direction.

#4931672

Mato87

2014-10-07 09:02

FFS! Stop picking peanuts out of poop and then complaining that they taste funny. I didnt say Prey 2 was realistic, i was talking about art direction.

I was not talking to you, obviously.

#4931684

pedropaulo

2014-10-07 09:25

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.

Close Thread:)

#4931708

fusion

2014-10-07 10:18

I want dynamics, not more shiny. Besides, I thought crytek were dead already. Hurry up.

#4931881

schmidtbag

2014-10-07 15:46

You know what the issues are, anti-aliasing mostly, also resolution. Whats needed is low cost AA that doesn't impact scene clarity and sharpness at all. This makes SO much of a difference, certain games look movie like at the right resolution with no AA. (4k or even 2k). Give it some time for gpu horsepower to catch up to resolution.

I'm honestly surprised somebody hasn't made a hardware instruction dedicated to AA. In many games, I can increase details 100% (ok, maybe not shadows...) and it will have a playable framerate. Add AA and suddenly it drops below 30FPS. I would be really interested to see something released where you can have a GPU dedicated to AA and maybe other post-processing things like motion blur. The problem is hooking up everything properly. The secondary GPU in this case would have to be where your primary display is connected (at least if you want peak efficiency). That can be annoying, since the first PCIe slot usually has the highest bandwidth (meaning your primary GPU would go there) and would therefore be where your default display comes out of. The other nice thing about this idea is supposing you use a much lesser GPU for AA and post-processing, it could also be used as your primary desktop GPU. Cut the power to your heavy-duty primary GPU and you could save a lot of power. This would also help put good use to intel's IGPs.