370°

“CryEngine is the best engine,” does what Unreal can’t – Crytek

You can’t make the same games with Unreal Engine that you can with CryEngine – but CryEngine could replicate anything made with Unreal or other engines, argues Crytek CEO Cevat Yerli.

Read Full Story >>
beefjack.com
Johandevries4643d ago

Might be, but Crysis 2 was plain crap

CrzyFooL4643d ago

Crysis 2 was linear, repetitive and a letdown for PC gamers.

Take that Quake logo off your avatar, traitor :-p

NuclearDuke4643d ago

Crysis 2 is one of the worst FPS games in ten years. It is terrible, the graphics was worse than Crysis and the gameplay reminded me of some korean MMOFPS.

Venjense4643d ago

Cryengine = great for PC, laughable for consoles (sub hd, bad framerate, grain bug on 360)

Montrealien4643d ago

So some people like the Crysis 2, and some people don't. Funny how that works, you know, human opinion.

Pandamobile4643d ago

Crysis 2 wasn't as good as Crysis 1, but to call it a bad game is just wrong.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 4643d ago
InNomeDiDio4643d ago (Edited 4643d ago )

laughable comments! Crysis 2 is technically a big step forward on consoles. for you PC Gamers maybe not, but really no need to call it crap. It's a great game. Best looking FPS on consoles along with the Killzone series.

Da One4643d ago

I don't believe they're complaining about the graphics....well in comparison to the first on PC yeah, but more or less how the gameplay turned out

Pl4sm44643d ago

uncharted 2 was a big step ....crysis 2 only had pretty awesome visuals ..... but the game is bloody repetitive (sneak or attack) while uncharted 2 was a dynamic cinematic gameplay with movie settings to a very epic ending

Persistantthug4643d ago

And to top it off,
Crysis 2 was SUB HD.

Crysis 2 is no technical marvel for consoles

SilentNegotiator4643d ago (Edited 4643d ago )

"Best looking FPS on consoles along with the Killzone series"

Sub-HD, no AA, blurry, some jumpy framerates and screen tearing......Nope. The console versions of Crysis 2 doesn't hold a candle to several other console games.

edit: It appears that another informed gamer (Persistantthug) beat me to it.

Other developers make fools out of Crytech's "graphical ceiling" console game. It just goes to show that just because you can create a resource consuming engine and effects, doesn't mean you're a marvel at programming.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 4643d ago
fluffydelusions4643d ago

Can't speak from personal experience but I hear Bulletstorm PC looks pretty phenomenal.

InNomeDiDio4643d ago

Bulletstorm looks also awesome on consoles on a good TV with LED and things.

outlawlife4643d ago

what does LED have to do with how good a game looks?

somebody doesn't understand tv's

InNomeDiDio4643d ago

LED and THINGS, I have a 23" Acer TV-TFT with LED and a lot of other Specials according to colors etc. It's like day and night compared to my older HDTV which was actually pretty good. I'm glad you understand TV'S.

outlawlife4643d ago (Edited 4643d ago )

LED is simply the backlight method...really has nothing to do with the screen specs. It may sometimes effect the color simply due to the positioning of the lights or the type of lighting such as edge lighting.

I have an older Samsung LCD with a CCFL backlight that easily competes with my new LED samsung. I also have a few Asus(Acer) monitors and 2 apple cinema displays in my home office.

I'm a design professional, I work in games, and I know my equipment.

Touting your screen has "LED and a lot of other Specials according to colors", doesn't really shout proficiency with the subject from your end.

While your screen may look good, you have no earthly idea why.

A display does not change the source. If a game is done well a good display will only enhance it. Games that are good looking will still look good across a variety of displays, including SD displays.

wicko4643d ago

Bit of a correction - it certainly helps black levels when your TV has local dimming.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 4643d ago
kaozgamer4643d ago

crysis 2 was good imo. yeah sure that it didnt have a bigger graphics jump like the first one but nonetheless it was a great game and a interesting story unlike the first one which imo didnt make sense.

Cmpunk4643d ago

i fear for them' there the wrong company to have a timesplitters ip, not even the great free radical members could save them

european_cannon4643d ago

DUPLICATE STORY!

http://n4g.com/news/806075/...

How stupid is this site sometimes.

Heartnet4642d ago

Its not :) Unreal with never be beaten in terms of flexibility and ease of Use and the quality it produces.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 4642d ago
swiftshot934643d ago (Edited 4643d ago )

I dont remember Crysis 2 running at a stable frame rate at all on consoles. And the PS3 version wasnt HD (dont know about the 360 version).

Unreal Engine does HD.

Venjense4643d ago (Edited 4643d ago )

Yep and on 360 Crysis 2 looks like shit half way through the campaign. Theres this horrible looking grain bug that makes lines go across the screen and turns the normal small dots of grain into big rectangles essentially making the game look like it suffers from bad cable reception.

I'd rather play with unreal graphics anyday - better framerate, resolution and no grain bug.

The Media hasn't said anything but an 113 page thread on the 360 Crysis 2 forum demonstrates that a lot of 360 owners think the Cryengine is crap.

113 pages is A LOT of pages for a thread...Crytek totally ignored it while admiring to the bug too.

SilentNegotiator4643d ago

"And the PS3 version wasnt HD (dont know about the 360 version)"

Both were sub-HD, PS3 version had the lower resolution.

The Meerkat4643d ago

I couldn't care what engine a game runs on.

Its the vision of the devs that is the most important.

Fishy Fingers4643d ago (Edited 4643d ago )

You'd still need the right tech (engine) to make your vision a reality. Games dont run on cool ideas.

CaptCalvin4643d ago

Too bad most devs today don't run on vision/passion. They run on money and publisher deadlines.

Urrakia344643d ago

I'm getting sick of Crytek's talk about the CryEngine. Just please show me something amazing already.

Tachyon_Nova4643d ago (Edited 4643d ago )

This is actually a duplicate from a story that was run about a month ago, so don't get angry at Crytek for talking too much.

In any case, if you want to check out some amazing stuff, check out the Crymod site, specifically the CE3 Art thread. Some of the stuff in there is phenomenal.

EDIT: To make it easier on you guys, here is the link to the Crymod CE3 art page: http://www.crymod.com/viewt... - I suggest you skip towards the back if you want to see the best work, but right the way through you will find amazing screens that blow any other engine out of the water.

wallis4643d ago ShowReplies(1)
Show all comments (62)
70°

Fortnite maker's appeal in Epic vs Apple case smacked down by Supreme Court ruling

The Supreme Court seems to have given it's final verdict on Epic and Apple's legal battle in the US.

Read Full Story >>
videogamer.com
220°

Epic win: Jury decides Google has illegal monopoly in app store fight

Three years after Fortnite-maker Epic Games sued Apple and Google for allegedly running illegal app store monopolies, Epic has a win. The jury in Epic v. Google has just delivered its verdict — and it found that Google turned its Google Play app store and Google Play Billing service into an illegal monopoly.

Read Full Story >>
theverge.com
gold_drake129d ago (Edited 129d ago )

oooo shiiiit
well, there ya go

but i think the biggest issue are the judges in these cases.
most of them have no clue about all them things.

ii wonder what the judge will decide Epic actually "won" or what the out come is.

Petebloodyonion129d ago

Why are you saying the judge have no cases?
I think the judges shows lots of clairity that in a duality market (APPLE and Android) there's no competition when both are already agreeing on the price.
Do you think there would be deals if Wallmart was the only store where you could buy food?
How would the argument of "but there's competition between Cookies and cereal brands" would hold up when Wallmart could decide that each provider must pay a 30% comission just to display product in store?

There's already tons od laws to make sure that there's not only 1 physical store brand and that store owners can't be in cahoot with competition in order to fix price so why would this be different for Virtual storefront?

gold_drake129d ago

i didnt say that.
read properly next time.

and the digital market is more complex than supernarkets.

Einhander1972129d ago (Edited 129d ago )

"Do you think there would be deals if Wallmart was the only store where you could buy food?"

This isn't even the same types of argument, you have a variety of different devices you can get content on, like Apple pr Google or PC or consoles, all these things plus more compete with each other.

The only winner in this decision are Epic, Microsoft and other people who are already rich. All these greedy companies are using the law to steal profits from each other and it's going to be the consumers who pay more.

All these devices we use are heavily subsidized by the profits these platform holders make from selling peoples products. If you think Epic is going to start charging less for their MTX now or whatever your crazy, consumers are not going to get anything back from the winners here. All consumers get is the privilege to pay more for devices.

Edit:

"Wallmart could decide that each provider must pay a 30% comission just to display product in store?"

Walmart does take a cut of every sale in their stores....thats how they make money. They also sell shelf space, the products that are are in the center instead of the top or the bottom pay to be there and to have higher visibility and easier access. They also sell access because obviously they don't have enough space for every brands products.

Using your Walmart analogy, how long do you think Walmart would stay in business if they just let anyone walk into their store and sell things without helping to pay for the upkeep of the stores and other costs? They wouldn't that's why things don't work like that.

That is what Epic wants, they want to use these devices with out paying to help maintain them.

Petebloodyonion129d ago (Edited 129d ago )

@Gold _Drake
Sorry bad writting from my part I meant to say Why do you think Judges have no clues?

@Einhander1972
Last I checked tons of small developpers and consummer association complained about the 30% tax cut that Sony Steam, Google, Apple are charging so why do you say only Epic benefit from that decisision is beyond me. Heck I recall this article making the headline recently
https://www.gamesindustry.b...

As for Walmart Upkeep, I would like to remind you that it's Wallmart and other store who need to cut in THEIR profit margin if they want to match price seen in other stores and not the other way around like in the digital market where Game publisher must sign price parity clause to please Google, Apple, Valve and Sony
https://www.linklaters.com/...
https://www.ign.com/article...

129d ago
Extermin8or3_128d ago (Edited 128d ago )

Thst isn the issue here. Thr issue ws the secret deals Google was doing to lower its cut for certain big apps publishers and only them and the fact that a requiremenf for said deals was nof helping epic games sefup its own mobile store.

Einhander1972128d ago (Edited 128d ago )

"Last I checked tons of small developpers and consummer association complained about the 30% tax cut that Sony Steam, Google, Apple are charging so why do you say only Epic benefit from that decisision is beyond me. Heck I recall this article making the headline recent"

Yes, yeah developers and other people who are selling things to you may benefit but the main benefit is these large companies who want to bypass fees.

But at the end of the day they are not going to start charging you less, they are going to charge the same but get more profits.

And the link you posted about the case against Sony is filed by Alex Neil a certified con artist who doesn't care about consumers they just want a huge personal payout.

And as for parity clauses again the money is going to come from the consumers one way or another, these people are fighting to take each others profits, if the parity clauses are blocked we'll pay more for hardware.

The idea that any of these changes are going to make things cheaper for the consumer are a joke, the only thing that changes is who gets the profits.

And as for Walmart, you missed what I was saying Walmart may lower the price on an item but they just charge the manufacturer of that item more to stock it on the shelves.

In some ways the digital stores are better because they don't charge an upfront fee to put an item on the store they instead charge a fee per sale. Which if they have to reduce the fee that charge for sales they would likely recoup that money by charging a fee to sell something on the ap store. Which also would benefit the rich companies over small developers who would be able to pay upfront fees that smaller developers may not.

Which is the reason Walmart only stocks the major brands and not a bunch of start up small brands, because the major brands can pay for shelf space.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 128d ago
1Victor129d ago

Don’t hold your breath yet there’s a long road ahead with the appeals process then the Supreme Court will have the last words and I don’t see this court going against the big corporations earnings.

I’m been known to be wrong some times and truly hope I am on this one

anast129d ago

The pot has been stirred.

Einhander1972129d ago

This is terrible news for consumers, while Epic and others get richer we'll now have to pay more for our devices.

ChasterMies129d ago

How? Android phones like Samsung Galaxy are not subsidized by purchases from Google Play Store. And Google can’t quit on Android because of how much money Google makes from Google search on Android.

Einhander1972128d ago (Edited 128d ago )

Google pays Samsung billions to have their store on Samsung phones.

Samsung also offers it's own store.

neutralgamer1992128d ago

Einhander1972

samsung has it's own store but how many know about that store? its like comparing MS store to other well known stores

GamerRN129d ago

So does this mean Apple also has a monopoly?

Plague-Doctor27129d ago

No. The cases argued were different.

Epic sued Apple for a monopoly over iOS. Apple said iOS competes with Android, MS, Nintendo, Sony, etc for Fortnite. Therefore there is market competition and no monopoly. The judges agreed.

Epic sued Google over a monopoly on android devices. Because Google was found to have shady deals preventing phone manufacturers from putting competing stores on phones as a default app, among other shady dealings, they found google has a monopoly on android marketplaces specifically.

Basically, Apple being a walled garden actually kind of protected them

ChasterMies129d ago

Android isn’t a walled garden tied to hardware like iOS. Android is like Windows or Linux for PCs. Any phone manufacturer can use Android and any seller can have their own store on Android. But Google used its muscle to tie up 90% marketshare for apps on Android. That’s monopolistic behavior.

Hofstaderman129d ago (Edited 129d ago )

Phil and slimey company sitting up and plotting.... expect to hear how Sony is anti-gamer for refusing to have GamePass on their ecosystems they may very well do this to avoid 2027 . I can imagine his email to Satya...."we got them" lol.

Show all comments (33)
40°

Crytek Interview - Hunt Showdown's Success and How It Has Evolved | MP1st

MP1st talks to Crytek about Hunt: Showdown's success, future title updates, inspiration behind weapons and more.