Cevat Yerli: "We're bringing back the 'can it run it' myth" , "Crysis 3 will melt down a lot of PCs"

DSOGaming writes: "Ah, Gamescom. One of the best gaming events in which developers and publishers share their ideas and plans about their upcoming games. Naturally, Crytek is one of them and this time around, the company’s CEO, Cevat Yerli, decided to answer some crucial questions for both PC and console gamers."

[chukamachine]

Games have never melted pc's.

I always remember some idiot dev saying he once got the PS3 to smoke. Covering up the vents will do that for you.

Haven't seen anything in CRYSIS3 that looks that much better then 2.

No i haven't played it, but seen plenty of PC footage.

[shutUpAndTakeMyMoney]

Are you retarded?

Anyway.. Next gen starts on pc 2013!!
http://www.youtube.com/watc...

[AKS]

It's not truly "next gen" unless it has Toad Tech!

[Nimblest-Assassin]

Yup... my pc is going to explode trying to render that toad

[CoryHG]

next gen started last year with battlefield.

[StayStatic]

Your much better off downloading it from the cry-dev website , the youtube algorithm kills the quality a lot:

Link at the bottom of the page , right click + save as = maximum quality :)

http://www.crydev.net/newsp...

[Pain_Killer]

Next Gen on the PC started in 2008 with Crysis 1.

From then consoles have been a limiting factor for developers.

[garos82]

@stay static

thanks alot that looks great. +bubs

i always love checking out new tech in game industry even though im not a much of pc gamer. that looked great

[tachy0n]

actually CPU's and GPU's can do overheat like crap after running at full 100% load after a couple of hours running, which can melt down the motherboard.

BTW, u appear to be just another frostcrap 2 fan.

CRYSIS 3 does looks way better than ANY other game ever released thanks to its use of DirectX 11 and many other superior features which no other game engine can compete with one of them its the amazing tessellation.

[Morrigan-Aensland]

I'm happy to hear this. I wish all pc devs would do this.

[ninjahunter]

Starcraft 2 melted PCs.
The game didnt have a locked FPS on the main menu when it first launched causing A large amount of PC's to overheat, destroying their graphics cards.

[tachy0n]

i remember when the mod for GTA IV icehancer was in its beta stages, there was a warning by the mod creators which they said if you owned a GTX4xx cards it will overheat them and kill them(melt) unless you had an aftermarket cooler O.o

i didnt believed it at first, i tried the mod anyways, the temps on my GTX460 went from 35c to 98c even though i had an aftermarket cooler (artic cooling accelero)

[Somebody]

Company of Heroes fried my power supply. Of course it was one of those cheap ones that came with the casing but it taught me not to use cheap non-branded ones anymore.

[mistajeff]

corsair baby

[EDD213]

"Next Gen" actually started with BattleForge. Circa 2009
Unless you count S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat

[tee_bag242]

@ chukamachine - You don't get it do you ? You must be pretty young so I'll bite my tongue.

[SilentNegotiator]

It's a figure of speech, silly. Obviously Cevat hasn't made it his goal to MURDER PCs...

Anyway, I doubt my machine will even whimper playing another console-centric Crysis. Just make the game good and stop drumming up the elitist hype crap.

[kasser]

"Games have never melted pc's"

Obviously you don't know what you're talking about. He is talking about the previous PC eras, before the 360 launched and MS stopped making games for PC.

We are talking about games like DooM III, Half-Life 2, Star Wars big titles like Jedi Outcast, Max Payne 1, Battlefield 2, Unreal games and more.

The last games that pushed systems to its end that I can think of are Crysis 1 and Oblivion. They were very demanding games -at their launch time- that required latest graphics card, multi-core CPUs and high amount of RAM.

Now, buying the latest graphic tech & intel CPUs is irrelevant because no game push your system to the end unless you play it at crazy resolution, maximize the AA multiplier, and maybe throw in some 3D and you still at 40 frames per seconds. With Crysis 3 latest PC showcase trailer, we have hope and faith in Crytek and I hope newer games showcase that too.

[SlavisH2]

Bring it on!

[Crazyglues]

"We're bringing back the 'can it run it' myth" , "Crysis 3 will melt down a lot of PCs"

-Yeah Ok, somehow I doubt that... -But you have to give him credit for this -

Yerli has also admitted "that Crysis 2 PC was compromised by the console versions." -Finally the truth

I respect him for being honest with gamers.. I hope they do something amazing and knock it out the park with Crysis 3

____........___...____
.____||......||.......____||
||.........___||.......____||

[morganfell]

And as soon as the next console gen appears Crytek will go running back. This is the company that is preaching melting PCs but also says free to play is the future.

If you drive to their offices you will see a guy run outside every ten minutes and stick a wet finger in the air.

[john2]

If we get free to play games looking like Crysis 3, then I won't mind this move. And after Command & Conquer going F2P (and powered by Frostbite 2), I expect to see more triple-A quality games as F2P titles

[Pandamobile]

Give me a reason to upgrade my video card and I'll reignite my passionate love for you, Crytek.

[RedDeadLB]

So you want someone to make you spend more money in exchange for a recognition of your love for Crytek?

I on the other hand want to see excellent looking games that can run nearly maxed on older hardware (like Battlefield 3 for instance). I don't want to spend a whole lot of money to enjoy a game.

It's not all about the technology behind a game you know. Art style also matters. I find that even Half Life 2 still looks good.

[Pandamobile]

I haven't touched the insides of my computer since 2009 and I'm looking for a reason to throw some money at it. Is that such a problem for you?

Obviously art direction is important too, but nothing irks me more than seeing a game with good art and crappy technology behind it.

[Muffins1223]

get a gtx680,can run the first crysis at 60 fps and above at max settings.Will easily run this game at 30 fps at least on max settings if there saying is true about it going back to "can it run crysis"

[ATi_Elite]

Crysis and the CryEngine 2 was the TRUTH and it beat the crap outta millions (using my Rock Voice) "AND MILLIONS" of GPU's! Crysis made my X1950 Pro about worthless upon release!

Crysis 2 and 3 on the CryEngine 3 is the Next Gen Unreal Engine. Although it renders nicely, everything seems to be made from the same material. That Play-Doh / Plastic look that everything has TO ME is not impressive.

Make no bones about it the CryEngine 3 is a console game engine with DX11 slapped on top of it. Yes it has some nice features, scales well, and you can Slap DX11 on top of it but it's NOT A true PC DX11 Engine!!

I'll take Virtual Reality Engine 3 (Arma 3) Frostbite 2 (Battlefield 3) and the 4A Engine (Metro 2033) over the CryEngine 3 any day of the week but that is just my Graphical preference.

I think Arma 3 is gonna put a hurting on many PC's especially when they release the ACE MOD 3 which gives Arma some very high detailed photo-like graphics.

Crysis 3 not so much! Metro 2033 is still the beast to judge a GPU's power by. Most benchmarks are run with D.O.F. (Depth of Field) turned off cause GPU's can't handle it.

Also the Witcher 2 on Max settings with Uber sampling on is a GPU killer.

[VanillaBear]

Here we go...Crytek running it's mouth as usual

How did Crysis 2 work out....oh yeah you had your head too far up MS arse to notice.

[Gamer1982]

Crysis 1 was badly made THATS why it melted pcs down. not because it looked great. Dont get me wrong it looked great i'm not saying it didn't but the power needed for the graphics? Lets just say after crysis better looking games came out that required a lot less hardware showing it was just terrible coding that made them "melt down" pc's.

[tachy0n]

not sure if blind, or just trolling.

NO game came close to the beauty of Crysis 1 when it was released.

[SolidSystem]

doesn't have to be near the time of release.

Warhead a crytek game ran better with less hardware than Crysis 1. either the original engine or the first game wasnt not optimized.

[Organization XII]

Obviously you have never played FSX.

[GezForce]

your right... unoptimised software ftl

[Statix]

Also note, more (advanced) shaders and effects DO NOT equal a better looking game.

Crytek seems to pride themselves on cramming the most graphical features and effects they possibly can into their engine--as many as they can find or think of--including any of the newest techniques that can be even remotely feasibly run in a realtime game. Mostly, they do this for hype value and bragging rights for their engine. But many of these shaders and effects are either highly unoptimized (partly because they're such new and experimental techniques), or they don't necessarily enhance the visual fidelity of the game by a margin that is worth the penalty in GPU framerate.

Just for example, Crysis 1's SSAO code back in 2007 was probably EXTREMELY unoptimized and power-hungry compared to more recent implementations of SSAO (e.g., compared to the SSAO in Gears 2 (2008) or Uncharted 2 in 2009).

You can crank up the "SSAO Samples" option in Amnesia to ~128x or something ridiculous like that, and it won't yield ANY improvement in quality, yet it will slow down nearly every gaming PC out there to a crawl.

[DigitalAnalog]

And yet, the game will still run on "consoles". I find it hard to believe with that as a placeholder could bring current gen PC's to it's knees. Unless of course they're admitting it's serverely unoptimized. That or they've introduced stupid graphical shit options like "intense shadows per pixel quality" and "64x MSAA".

[DoomeDx]

Dude. have you even played Crysis 2 in DX11?

It runs great on my i5, and a GTX570.
Its a great rig, but not perfect. and yet i run Crysis 2 maxed out with 50-60 FPS. And it looks amazing.

And if you have seen the Cryengine 3 tech demos (especially the Cryengine 3+ one), you will see that Crytek aint kidding around

[MRMagoo123]

i5 with a 570 is a great rig ?? since when lol

[vandal GAB]

You sure Crysis 2 with DX11 + Hi-res textures at ultra settings in 1080p can run anywhere from 40-100+ on my GTX680 + i7 2700k @ 4.2GHz.. My old 570 was around 35-70 fps tops

[DoomeDx]

i5 is a great rig. Did you know that the i7 doesnt make THAT much of a diffrence in terms of gaming?

i7 makes use of Hyper Threating. Which only works on the OS itself. not on games because they only support 4 CPU Cores (most of the time).

And yes, i5 with a 570 is a great rig. You dont have to spend $1000 in order to do good at gaming.

I run BF3 multiplayer with 60FPS solid. maxed out.

@ Vandal, i play with 1440x900 resolution

[DigitalAnalog]

Yes, I did. I still came away unimpressed. Crysis 1 texture/realitic mods blow the shit out of Crysis 2.

[Burnin]

it is a great rig indeed!

I have been running an overclocked i5 @4.0 plus an overclocked 5850 @900/1200 for more than 3 years now. I have been able to play everything maxed out until recent games (in BF3 I get an average of 40 FPS with a combination of high & ultra settings)

@MRMagoo123: you are such an spoiled brat

[Kingdom Come]

This is the problem with Crysis 2, Crytek focused more on the advertising and hyping of the titles graphics and as a result, many, including myself, who adored the gameplay of the original, where sorely let down by the linearity and simplified gameplay.

Gamers and fans of Crysis do care about more than graphics you know Crytek...

[SolidSystem]

Well the first time around was poorly optimized code and used theoretical specs for "extreme".

Warhead was much better, and shows how optimization can really change how a game runs.

[kanetheking]

but i will play it on the ps3 jajaja

[MysticStrummer]

This is exactly why I don't game on PC. The last time I tried to get into it, I bought one game in a series and was able to run it at full settings, then the next game in the series came out and I could barely run it at minimum settings. No thanks.

[Moragami]

Cool story bro. Next time, use high to mid-range components, you'll have 3-5 years of headroom.

[TitanUp]

can you name the games you bought?

[MysticStrummer]

N4G... tell the truth and lose the ability to tell it again in the future. What a cesspool this site is. X-Wing and Tie Fighter are the games I was referring to. That was a long time ago obviously, but it completely turned me away from PC gaming when I couldn't run the next game in that series at all. I have a brand new rig and have no interest in gaming on it. I'm sure that will hurt some feelings, for some damn reason.

As for buying mid to high range components... why? The game itself isn't changed by upgrading the visuals. I've been gaming since before the Atari 2600. Graphics mean very little to me next to gameplay and story. Smooth animations and decent AI are waaay more important than high rez visuals. The current consoles have reached a "good enough" level of graphics, but most of the games themselves could have been done last gen. I want advances in gaming, not graphics. Pile on with the disagrees all you want. I'm not trolling, just giving my opinion.

[Motion]

Duke Nukem 3D and Duke Nukem Forever?

No, but seriously.

[torchic]

+1

[pandehz]

Challenge accepted

[Belking]

I don't know about melting PCs but it sure does look better than any game on consoles.

[ninjahunter]

Heres a tip. Adjustable FOV. That 60/75 crap isnt cutting it.

[DoomeDx]

75/80 is recommended. otherwise you get the Fish eye effect

[Pandamobile]

75 is fine. The <55 degrees you see in console games however, is unacceptable.

[ninjahunter]

IDK, 75 is scraping the bottom if your playing on a computer, but i suppose it depends what size of screen your using. 22" should probably be around 90 at a desk 75 is like a relatively small laptop at a desk.

[fossilfern]

I tend to play at 90 its pretty good on a 16:10 monitor and its alot easier on the eyes

[Zha1tan]

yeah so i can be amazed by the shiny for about 10 minutes then get severely bored with the gameplay because it will probably suck.

[sriki007]

good. Its a win for everybody.

[Reverent]

Except for people who like to play fun* games.

[nik666uk]

Didn't like Crysis1 or 2 so I'm giving 3 a miss, it's all about Far Cry 3 for me, loved the 2nd one

[Bonerboy]

Even though I will not be able to run this beauty, it is great to see this commitment again to the PC platform!

[Plagasx]

Lets just hope this doesn't mean it's going be an unoptimized piece of shit...

[spektical]

you can make a game pretty as you want, but a dull game is a dull game.

cryis1 was boring, crysis2 was as generic as they come. Crysis3? Not getting my hopes up. More excited for the mods that will come.

[Reverent]

Exactly^

[Shoasura]

I'm really not giving a s*** anymore Crytek, give me fun and varied gameplay.

[ginsunuva]

They can just not optimize it whatsoever. And make the whole world rendered constantly as you play.
And while they're at it, make the game run some hidden benchmark programs in the background.

Tada! Melt PC

[Raider69]

I find this statement a piece of you people know what!I the hell do we want melting graphics,not every people can affort gtx680....and them the game will run like...on a 580,or even on a 660 just because this idiots want to melt peoples eyes with graphics,leaving the other stuff that make a good game off.If i have to upgrade to a gtx 680 or a 780 i will do gladly ,but i feel sorry of those that cant do it and are going to end up playing this game like crap.

[asmith2306]

Its a pity that all Crytek really cares about every release is "can it run it". Crysis looks great but its an average FPS.

[BlitzAK]

Have fun trying to keep the multiplayer online active.

[taquito]

we'll see, i'll hold my breath for an amazing testiment to pc graphical prowess, but, then again, games like the witcher 2 (in ultra, 1600p) already make crysis 2 loook old, they got a lot of work to do

[Paballo]

what I want to know is that will it be more fun then the first Crysis and have a unique multiplayer unlike crysis2 which was dumbed down in gameplay and had a COD style multiplayer.
what makes it worse is the multiplayer aspect of crysis2 was made by free radical which are now Crytek UK......
It was such a let down and not even as fun as timesplinters2 or 3 in the slightest bit.
and another thing we need improved A.I in this game.
I could not give a damn about how many shaders that game will display.
Gameplay>graphics always

[Tzuno]

Yeah don't optimize the game and make the game to demand a lot of resources so people go out and buy upgrades and Crytek makes money not only from a game but a bonus percentage from the pc's that are sold with the game. Imagine a package of crysis 3 and monster pc's in stores.

[Drummerdude41]

I just hope the can't run on my pc happens because of amazing coding and rendering and not sloppy work that is just hard for the architecture of my hardware to run.

[Steadyhndz]

Poor coding or rendering would not allow a game to work on a computer that has poor specs...As long as you meet the requirements to install and play...it'll run, just not at great performance.

[Drummerdude41]

Lol yah I understand that. What I ment to say came out differently than What I was thinking in my head lol.

[Eyesoftheraven]

Sure hope my PC can churn at least 40fps solid maxed. Phenom ii x4 955 @ 3.2, Radeon 7970 3gb @ 1125gpu/1575mem, 8GB DDR3 @ 1333mhz

[Steadyhndz]

You could actually run it at 60fps..the only thing I would do is upgrade to a higher speed for your RAM...something like 2100mhz...AMD needs higher speeds in RAM where Intel just needs to match the CPU...

The 955 is not a bad CPU at all, actually one of the best from AMD for gaming. I used to have a 945 and it could run Battlefield 3 like a charm, but my GPU was bottlenecking it...now my GPU is bottlenecking my 3750k :p

[ATi_Elite]

As a PC Enthusiast Gamer and a certified graphics whore.....

Sorry Crytek I'll take gameplay over graphics! Crysis 2 was CRAP compared to the gameplay of Crysis. Bring back Crysis 1 gameplay for Crysis 3 and then we can talk.

I beat Crysis many many times but never played it the same way twice because of the unique set-up of the nanosuit and the ability to go from stealth to Rambo on the fly determined by how I wanted to play the sandbox and not the Linear level design like in Crysis 2.

[capcock]

not my pc at least :D

[Steadyhndz]

I'll go over some of the arguments in the comments...but first I'll start with the PC...

Before I do that let me mention this, I've been working with computers for 6 years now. I've been fixing them, building them, and always learning about them ever since.

So Crysis 3 seems to have an exhilarating look, and honestly the best to date other than GPU Benchmark videos. Something like this will eat up a decent CPU and GPU...but with todays technology of extreme handling of CUDA Cores from Nvidia, and ATI comparison...the newest of cards will have absolutely no problem handling this game. As long as you're running a 550 card or better from Nvidia, or a 6950 from ATI...you will have no problem running this game AS LONG! as you don't have something to bottleneck it like less than 8GB of RAM, or a RAM that is less than 1300Mhz, or a CPU that is awful for this kind of gaming.

Even right now the top end graphical games can't even scratch the surface of the newest cards such as the GTX680, or the 7950.

For CPU's you shouldn't overlook at all. If you want no problems at all playing this game, you're going to need something pretty hefty. I would recommend Intel, but if you have to go the budget route then get a high end FX CPU from AMD, or even a high end Phenom II Quad or 6-core CPU...Phenom II's are actually optimized for gaming more than the FX series...

As for the question of the computer "Melting"...is this true? That seems to be an argument here. It's entirely true that this can happen, but what are you actually melting? Well your CPU won't start melting till....300+ degrees celcius which would never happen...motherboard probably a little less...but still would never happen. But you could start melting some pieces that use plastic, or a cheap metal for a heatsink...like the RAM's heatsink if it's a poorly made metal...or the fan on a CPU heatsink...these are possible at 120-150 celsius.

So actually melting your PC is not a true idea of happening, but certain parts of a PC, yes.