Comments (216)
« 1 2 3 4 »
darklinx23  +   680d ago
CryEngine is beautiful i can't wait to see what the game is capable of
RevXM  +   680d ago
Im getting crysis 3 on pc, looks fun and graphics look awesome. Required hardware isnt too high, so my new laptop even should get the job done nicely.

But Im glad to hear that crytek is going to use almost 100% of the consoles...
Only...
Optimisation is the most important thing, Crysis 2 was great all in all. Just too blurry, jaggy, choppy and lacked the final coat of paint and polish. However while far from perfect it is way more playable and way less buggy than certain other games. (looking at you bioware and Bethesda)

So 99% is great... I just hope they make the best poosible use of those 99%, because unlocking power just too throw whatever at it doesnt work too well.
iNFAMOUZ1  +   680d ago
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA thanks for the laugh crytek, crysis is boringggg
A7XEric  +   680d ago
I feel like I'm the only one who loved Crysis 2. Yea it lacked the open-world that the first game have, but compare its campaign to any other console FPS and it shits on most of the competition. MP was solid, but a little too "me too"
MizTv  +   680d ago
Same!
I thought it was a good game
jaklink  +   680d ago
I agree! People seem to ignore the fact that the game was still more "open" than 90% of the other shooters on the market.
MizTv  +   680d ago
I care alot about gameplay but I also want game to look good
jaklink  +   680d ago
Running on a high-end PC, Crysis 3 will look phenomenal. But here's the issue, I want the game to actually run well on 360 and PS3. Crytek needs to abandon that 30fps half the time philosophy. Crysis 2 looked great, but it suffered in the frame-rate department quite a bit.
kaozgamer  +   680d ago
lmao at all the butt hurt fanboy comments on this article
IWentBrokeForGaming  +   680d ago
Crytek has ONLY maxed out consoles when their games actually contain steady amazing graphics with AMAZING open ended gameplay!

Say like FarCry3
sarshelyam  +   680d ago
Proving, yet again, that it doesn't matter how much of the console you use, it's still free of substance in a glossy wrap.

I can appreciate Crytek's work and their engine, but damn if I don't find each entry an incredible bore. Seriously, not one ounce of fun in those game if you ask me.
Holeran  +   680d ago
"No game will ever look technically better than Crysis 3 on these consoles, flat out. Most games are not even anywhere near Crysis 2 technically."

He continued: "Any day I will take a battle against Gears and Halo, whatever, the amount of data we put in and the detail level is far superior."

Did he mention any PS3 exclusives? Because so far Gears and Halo still have yet to trump some PS3 exclusives. After seeing them all there is no denying that.

In all actuality if Crysis 2 didn't play like a 1920s film
trying to keep up frame rate wise during multiplayer it would of been great on PS3. I just couldn't stand the amount of dropped frames. It was terrible.
#70 (Edited 680d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
CobraUnit  +   680d ago
"Did he mention any PS3 exclusives? Because so far Gears and Halo still have yet to trump some PS3 exclusives. After seeing them all there is no denying that."

He's right about Crysis 3 being technically superior to any game or PS3 exclusive on the market.

If you had any idea of the kind of tech Crysis 3 is running you'd shut your mouth a not say a word.
Holeran  +   680d ago
if Crysis 3 on console is running the same kind of tech that Crysis 2 on consoles was running I couldn't shut my mouth because I would be too busy laughing. I don't care semi-open world or not, Killzone craps all over Crysis 2 visually.
isyourhouseonfire  +   680d ago
Life is too short to be sticking with one console so long. This is ridiculous. Release the new consoles already.
Sugreev2001  +   680d ago
Crysis 2 was boring as hell.Look at Far Cry 3,where graphics and gameplay are equally stupendous.It's easily the most enjoyable game Crytek has ever made and I hope the same passion was shown during Crysis 3's development,because great graphics don't necessarily mean a good game.
DevilishSix  +   680d ago
Looks like Next-Gen and gaming will become crap
"Once our current contracts are complete we are going strictly to free to play"

That tells me the state of video games for the future are in bad shape.
annus  +   680d ago
Crytek has been going that direction for ages, free 2 play (aka pay 2 win) is simply better. You hit a WAY bigger market, and the people who buy the game will pay money for extra upgrades, characters etc. while the crowd who aren't sure still get to test out the game and can then decide to start paying money for extras. Add in the top of advertisement for the millions of people that are playing, and they are raking in the money. It is an extremely smart business move, and to be honest, do you think a company would decide this without actually looking at profit/loss? Let's be honest, the whole point of it is to earn more money, that's the goal of 99% of businesses. Warface is free 2 play, and holy shit does it look good, free 2 play doesn't mean the game is a crappy 2d flash game.
DevilishSix  +   680d ago
I understand, but I don't see that being a viable business model for true AAA blockbuster games that cost $50 mill to make like Gears, GOW, Halo, etc. and if that becomes the way of thinking next gen then we can expect much much fewer true blockbuster games of these types.

I can't see Crytek investing $25 to 50 mill in Crysis 4 and hope to not only recoup but make a profit off of $5 or $10 purchases here and there.
jalen247  +   680d ago
I will believe it when I see it.

Killzone 2/3 are still king in terms of console FPS graphics.

Even Halo 4 is looking superb.

I don't doubt Crytek ability as a tech studio but I don't think they can outdo dedicated PS3 devs like Guerilla, Naughty Dog, and Sony Santa Monica in terms of PS3 tech.

If they were PS3 only, they would probably get the most out of PS3 than any other PS3 devs but they are a multiplatform dev so not gone happen.
kB0  +   680d ago
You could say that the companies evolve to learn new tricks for a certain type of graphics. Either using trickory to achieve the same or a better result.

I don't think it's fair to assume that it's just "bs". I mean Uncharted 2 was apparently pushing ps3 to 100% but they managed to squeeze out a little bit more.

MGS 4 was said to use the full potential (actually kojima said it still wasn't enough), yet we have games that do look better now (maybe not artistically, but graphically)

:) I for one would like to believe we have more eye candy or more enemies on screen :D depends what they mean:P
CDzNutts  +   680d ago
Hey Crisis 3.....

The Last of Us and Beyond Two Souls say hello.
mcgrottys  +   680d ago
but that less than 1% has over 50% of the consoles visual fidelity! The 99% demands more!
Mathew9R   680d ago | Spam
ninjahunter  +   680d ago
Yea, thats nice and all, but come on, last time you said that we got a shit PC port that didnt even run well. (yea i know, it ran well on your 680, i wonder why)
black911  +   680d ago
This article is just referring to the 360 being maxed.
landog  +   680d ago
truth be told, if we consider 720p vs 1080p, the consoles have been "maxed" for a very, very long time.

launch games couldn't acieve 1080p, games year later couldn't, heck black ops 2 is 880x720 on consoles, call of duty 4 mw1 was 1024x600

resistance 3 was 940x550p

they devs have had to sacrifice resolution, anti aliasing and framerate since the day consoles came out, this will happen next gen too

its not like 8 years later they found some magic loophole to get the game to run better

hey crytek, whats the native resolution of crysis 3 on consoles? i bet is sub-720p, in fact, if you added more detail than crysis 2 (where the Xbox 360 version had a native resolution of 1152×720, while the PlayStation 3 version fell just slightly below, sporting a native resolution of 1024×720) I bet crysis 3 will be even less

so gutting the resolution of a game to add more trees isnt really getting anymore out of a system

crysis 2 looked great on console, don't get me wrong, but last of us, god of war ascension and beyond two souls looks more impressive to me

anyone who wants to get this game for the visuals is way better off getting it on pc, even a mid-range, 4 year old pc will play it with much, MUCH better graphics and performance than 7 year old consoles will.
#81 (Edited 680d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Bolts  +   680d ago
The CryTek guys are a bunch of self promoting trolls. The consoles were maxed years ago, they weren't maxed by Crysis 3 lol.
Dfooster  +   680d ago
It won't beat far cry 3 for pure awesome jaw droppingness. There's no doubt it will be pretty but it will also be an extremely shallow experience no doubt.
Kos-Mos  +   680d ago
It`s all about them graphics.
hiredhelp  +   680d ago
Each game gets developed on pc witch everybody knows then scaled down to what can fit and perform well.
Im seeing this guy talk alot He is a CEO he knows nothing hes not working on the game this guy can ruin his own game by causing rifts.
PS4isKing_82  +   680d ago
*sighs* Haven't we heard this statement 50x in the last two years? And yet were still getting games better looking than 2 years ago. MGS:gz, last of us, gta5, bioshock infinite. I really wish ppl would stop proclaiming this when so far, it hasn't been true.
shempo  +   680d ago
xbox was already maxed out with gears 3
ps3 will be maxed out with the last of us nad gow:A

say what u want crytek its not you who maxed out sony console its sony computers studios,naughty dog,guerilla games who did it.
llMurcielagoll  +   680d ago
Well, in all fairness, devs have said that a few times already with upcoming games before.

I guess it depends on their definition of "maxing out" a console.
unicronic  +   680d ago
Maxing out hardware doesn't mean all that much. Provide a compelling experience first, hardware max out second.
zero_cool   680d ago | Spam
« 1 2 3 4 »

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
Remember