Submitted by john2 714d ago | article

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." (Cevat Yerli, Crysis 3, PC, PS3, Xbox 360)

« 1 2 »
chukamachine  +   714d ago
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.
Are you retarded?

Anyway.. Next gen starts on pc 2013!!
#1.1 (Edited 714d ago ) | Agree(20) | Disagree(18) | Report | Reply
AKS  +   714d ago
It's not truly "next gen" unless it has Toad Tech!
Nimblest-Assassin  +   714d ago
Yup... my pc is going to explode trying to render that toad
Feldman9000  +   714d ago
next gen started last year with battlefield.
StayStatic  +   714d ago
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 :)

#1.1.4 (Edited 714d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(0) | Report
Pain_Killer  +   713d ago
Next Gen on the PC started in 2008 with Crysis 1.

From then consoles have been a limiting factor for developers.
garos82  +   713d ago
@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  +   714d ago
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.
#1.2 (Edited 714d ago ) | Agree(9) | Disagree(19) | Report | Reply
Morrigan-Aensland  +   714d ago
I'm happy to hear this. I wish all pc devs would do this.
ninjahunter  +   714d ago
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  +   714d ago
i heard of that a lot xD
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  +   714d ago
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  +   714d ago
corsair baby
EDD213  +   714d ago
"Next Gen" actually started with BattleForge. Circa 2009
Unless you count S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat
#1.6 (Edited 714d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
tee_bag242  +   713d ago
@ chukamachine - You don't get it do you ? You must be pretty young so I'll bite my tongue.
SilentNegotiator  +   713d ago
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.
#1.8 (Edited 713d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
kasser  +   713d ago
"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  +   714d ago
Bring it on!
Crazyglues  +   714d ago
"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

#3 (Edited 714d ago ) | Agree(10) | Disagree(4) | Report | Reply
morganfell  +   714d ago
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  +   714d ago
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  +   714d ago
Give me a reason to upgrade my video card and I'll reignite my passionate love for you, Crytek.
Buljo  +   714d ago
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  +   714d ago
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  +   713d ago
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  +   713d ago
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.
#4.3 (Edited 713d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
VanillaBear  +   714d ago
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.
#5 (Edited 714d ago ) | Agree(21) | Disagree(14) | Report | Reply
Gamer1982  +   714d ago
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  +   714d ago
not sure if blind, or just trolling.

NO game came close to the beauty of Crysis 1 when it was released.
SolidSystem  +   714d ago
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  +   713d ago
Obviously you have never played FSX.
GezForce  +   714d ago
your right... unoptimised software ftl
Statix  +   713d ago
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.
#6.3 (Edited 713d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
DigitalAnalog  +   714d ago
Oh wow,
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".
#7 (Edited 714d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(4) | Report | Reply
DoomeDx  +   714d ago
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  +   714d ago
i5 with a 570 is a great rig ?? since when lol
vandal GAB  +   714d ago
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
#7.1.2 (Edited 714d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report
DoomeDx  +   714d ago
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  +   714d ago
Yes, I did. I still came away unimpressed. Crysis 1 texture/realitic mods blow the shit out of Crysis 2.
#7.1.4 (Edited 714d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report
Burnin  +   713d ago
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  +   714d ago
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...
#8 (Edited 714d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
SolidSystem  +   714d ago
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.
-NightShroud-   714d ago | Spam
kanetheking  +   714d ago
but i will play it on the ps3 jajaja
MysticStrummer  +   714d ago
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  +   714d ago
Cool story bro. Next time, use high to mid-range components, you'll have 3-5 years of headroom.
Farsendor1  +   714d ago
can you name the games you bought?
MysticStrummer  +   713d ago
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  +   714d ago
Duke Nukem 3D and Duke Nukem Forever?

No, but seriously.
torchic  +   714d ago
pandehz  +   714d ago
Challenge accepted
Bonerrr   714d ago | Immature | show | Replies(3)
Belking  +   714d ago
I don't know about melting PCs but it sure does look better than any game on consoles.
ninjahunter  +   714d ago
Heres a tip. Adjustable FOV. That 60/75 crap isnt cutting it.
DoomeDx  +   714d ago
75/80 is recommended. otherwise you get the Fish eye effect
Pandamobile  +   714d ago
75 is fine. The <55 degrees you see in console games however, is unacceptable.
ninjahunter  +   713d ago
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  +   713d ago
I tend to play at 90 its pretty good on a 16:10 monitor and its alot easier on the eyes
Zha1tan  +   714d ago
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  +   714d ago
good. Its a win for everybody.
Reverent  +   714d ago
Except for people who like to play fun* games.
nik666uk  +   714d ago
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  +   714d ago
Even though I will not be able to run this beauty, it is great to see this commitment again to the PC platform!
Plagasx  +   714d ago
Lets just hope this doesn't mean it's going be an unoptimized piece of shit...
spektical  +   714d ago
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.
#22 (Edited 714d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(4) | Report | Reply
Reverent  +   714d ago
Shoasura  +   713d ago
I'm really not giving a s*** anymore Crytek, give me fun and varied gameplay.
ginsunuva  +   713d ago
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  +   713d ago
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  +   713d ago
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  +   713d ago
Have fun trying to keep the multiplayer online active.
taquito  +   713d ago
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  +   713d ago
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
Tzunoy  +   713d ago
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.
#30 (Edited 713d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
« 1 2 »

Add comment

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

Looking Back: Was The PS2 Really The Best Console Ever?

9m ago - Reflecting on the past, was the PlayStation 2 the best gaming machine in history? More than 160 m... | PS2

E3 to SDCC - How strong is Bowser in Smash 4?

11m ago - Venks of Berathen takes a deep look at how a number of players take to using Bowser in Super Smas... | Wii U

San Diego Comic Con 2014 Video Game Images

23m ago - It is a fast growing part of this mega show and Skewed and Reviewed have posted a few images from... | Culture

Capcom Reveals New Artwork and Packshot for Dead Rising 3 PC

23m ago - Capcom has revealed 2 brand new pieces of artwork for their upcoming PC version of Dead Rising 3.... | PC

Start Making Games for the PS4

Now - Want to design the next generation of video games? Start learning game design today. Click for more info on how to get started. | Promoted post

Logitech G402 Hyperion Fury Worlds Fastest Gaming Mouse

24m ago - Logitech have announced that they will be producing "the worlds fastest gaming mouse", the G402 H... | PC
Related content from friends