Crysis 3 on PC is going to be a benchmark experience for at least two years. When I see what’s happening on the PC market, and even what we do. The PC market is not going to grow vastly more before a lot of games catch up. We had the same thing with the first Crysis on PC. When Crysis launched, it was the high-end benchmark for a good three years. I think Crysis 3 is going to do that again.
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Dec 15, 2012, 22:14:AngelicPenguin wrote on Dec 15, 2012, 21:36:No, it wasn't future-proofed. If it was then hardware released five years after the game should have been able to run it pretty well, yet I still get framerate drops. Also, there isn't much point developing a game that can only be run at maximum settings years after release - most people play a game and then move on. Genres move on so quickly and there are very few games that I enjoy going back to and replaying.
People say it was unoptimized as if they've cracked open the source code and taken a look - the amount of shader effects in that game is incredible. The only PC game I've seen to date to match it visually is Witcher 2.
It was simply future proofed - people complained that they couldn't run it on its highest setting, and upon release you were not supposed to be able to.
Games like Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament really pushed the graphic envelope and advanced the genre, yet they didn't collapse systems - and they scaled well to future hardware.
As for visuals, I disagree. I was never impressed by the graphics in Crysis, even though the engine was very advanced at a technical level. The Witcher 2 certainly had great visuals, especially for a DX9 game. For PC visuals there are lots to choose from: Alan Wake, Far Cry 3, Far Cry 2, Batman: Arkham City, Dishonored, Crysis 2, Metro 2033, Black Mesa and even Trine 2. I'm not saying any of those games are necessarily better at a technical level (nor are the screenshots I picked always the best representation of the visuals), just that I prefer the visuals.
Prez wrote on Dec 15, 2012, 23:25:Yeah, I really enjoyed Metro 2033. The game world was compelling and the supernatural elements kept you guessing - the end was really out there. It had its flaws and it took me a while to get into it but I regard it as one of my favourite games. Metro: Last Light has been top of my Steam wishlist since it appeared on Steam.
If you played it, what did you think of Metro 2033 as far as narrative? It takes its narrative very seriously, plays it totally straight, and does what I think a really good job of it. It has a very similar dark, brooding, and supernatural flavor to that of the STALKER games (which makes sense since it was by some of the same devs), though the linear design lent itself to a much tighter narrative.
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Dec 15, 2012, 22:21:
Yeah, I agree. The trouble is that Half-Life did such a huge amount with so little that it makes the narrative in games like Crysis all the more disappointing. Doom 3 was a classic example of what not to do - it knew it wasn't trying to have a plot, yet it committed to trying to tell a narrative. If it was heading in that direction it should have taken itself less seriously, like Painkiller did.
Prez wrote on Dec 15, 2012, 21:54:Yeah, I agree. The trouble is that Half-Life did such a huge amount with so little that it makes the narrative in games like Crysis all the more disappointing. Doom 3 was a classic example of what not to do - it knew it wasn't trying to have a plot, yet it committed to trying to tell a narrative. If it was heading in that direction it should have taken itself less seriously, like Painkiller did.
It's an outdated style for movies, I grant you, (which is why few, if any, movies use it anymore) but in creative respects videogames clearly lag behind movies by at least a decade if not more. I personally probably wouldn't watch a movie with a plot and characterizations like that of Crysis, but I have no problem playing a game with it. Games will grow up like movies did; it's just a process of progression and maturation of the medium itself.
AngelicPenguin wrote on Dec 15, 2012, 21:36:No, it wasn't future-proofed. If it was then hardware released five years after the game should have been able to run it pretty well, yet I still get framerate drops. Also, there isn't much point developing a game that can only be run at maximum settings years after release - most people play a game and then move on. Genres move on so quickly and there are very few games that I enjoy going back to and replaying.
People say it was unoptimized as if they've cracked open the source code and taken a look - the amount of shader effects in that game is incredible. The only PC game I've seen to date to match it visually is Witcher 2.
It was simply future proofed - people complained that they couldn't run it on its highest setting, and upon release you were not supposed to be able to.
It just took itself too seriously. At least with a Schwarzenegger or Stallone movie they don't pretend to be more than they are - they have serious elements but then you'll have Rambo crash a tank into a helicopter.
Prez wrote on Dec 15, 2012, 20:40:It just took itself too seriously. At least with a Schwarzenegger or Stallone movie they don't pretend to be more than they are - they have serious elements but then you'll have Rambo crash a tank into a helicopter.
So what's wrong with that? Lots of movies have achieved immense popularity with the same exact traits - obviously lots of people like that style. Not every game needs to be Citizen Kane, just like not every movie does either.
The narrative in the original Crysis was anything but "decent" - it was generic, macho sci-fi nonsense. It had the narrative finesse of a Jean-Claude Van Damme movie. Every character was a walking cliche...
SlimRam wrote on Dec 15, 2012, 02:15:
I actually still have a 'Turbo' button on my machine when I need the extra performance...
It basically just projects an image of Richard Gere's ass in front of the hamster, then the Hertz really start to soar! Weird ain't it?
Linthat22 wrote on Dec 15, 2012, 10:41:The narrative in the original Crysis was anything but "decent" - it was generic, macho sci-fi nonsense. It had the narrative finesse of a Jean-Claude Van Damme movie. Every character was a walking cliché, while the aliens demonstrated that Crytek learned nothing after the disastrous inclusion of mutants in the latter half of Far Cry. And making North Korea the primary human enemy was ludicrous. Crysis 2 at least had proper characters and some emotional depth, even though it was much more linear and I still had to force myself to play through it.
The only reason why I won't pick up Crysis 3 is because the story really turned for the worse with Crysis 2. The first one and Warhead had a decent story, part 2 just took a big shit.
ASeven wrote on Dec 14, 2012, 19:59:
Didn't I hear this same crap back with Crysis2?