"Crytek are known for developing video games that push the hardware limit. They have developed a few franchises in the past but the most well known out of them is obviously Crysis. The game pushed gaming PCs to the limit and it coined a new term in the industry: Can it run Crysis? In 2011, Crytek released the fantastic Crysis 2 and later on added DX11 support although initially the PC version was not up to the mark."
Tell me more about this "sister" of yours...
I agree with Hellsvacancy, the Crysis games are just generic shooters with no substance. All they are good for is showcasing graphics on the most poorly un-optimized game engine to date.
Farcry 3 doesn't look better than this.
http://www.youtube.com/watc...
or can do this.
http://www.youtube.com/watc...
There so called "sucky" games sold million each time and crysis 3 will sell millions.
They are succeeding in f2p. Warface is actually a good game.
http://www.joystiq.com/2012...
These guys made an engine and have caught up despite the Unreal Engine success.
Any other console game have so many real time effects going on?
"Crytek has DX11 graphics running in Crysis 3 on PS3, Xbox 360"
http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...
If that is true have other console devs done it.
Cry more if you need to you only talk like that becuz you have seen people do it on n4g before.
A next gen demo of an rpg shown running a two year old laptop.
http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...
These make games so they have a right to talk game creation. Stick to your level of knowledge and worry about pressing power, start, R1.
I would bet $50 you have a copy of black ops 2 while talking sh!t.
Don't care about agrees like u.
Go ahead talk more as they sell million why waste ur time with non facts?
It means you aren't one of the millions that bought their games. Simple really. I don't buy a lot of games that others buy.
What are you trying to really say? Are you doing the text equivalent of blowing a raspberry at shutUpAndTakeMyMoney?
Because that's quite childish really.
And it is still blasphemy to say a pc has better graphics the a ps3 / 360..
I hate to throw logic back into everyone's windows but its a no brainer that ps3/360 are behind the curve.
The only thing interesting about this article is that Crytek is saying developers can still squeeze a lot into something that is so far behind to still make them feel current.
If your getting loads of screen tearing in far cry 3 you are playing a copy of it i havent seen before.
The curve isn't that vast, though; You can only thing about one game that defined PC gaming this gen, and it is Crysis.
Not crysis 2
Probably Crysis 3 though.
Other than that, the differences aren't to the point where everyone's going ape-scat over the PC's graphics like last gen, even.
I've seen interviews from Crytek guys admitting that they wished they could have pushed things further in Crysis 2 and that they are really trying to impress gamers with the improvements they've made in Crysis 3. There's also the fact that they put forth the considerable effort and investment to make CryEngine3 compatible with consoles. The idea that they are against consoles just doesn't square with what they've been doing. But if some want to instead just make assumptions based off of a provocative title on N4G, I guess that's what they'll do.
Think of it as me showing contempt towards game devs who have done jack-sh*t for gaming besides complain about the platforms they have to work with.
Also not feeling to good towards the gamers who defend Crytek and their resource hog title when it was a resource hog. It doesn't matter that years after the fact of releasing a single game which required massive upgrades to play on minimum settings they "fixed" the problem, its that they caused and further highlighted a problem with the PC gaming industry. Namely that it was pricing and upgrading itself out of existence.
Now they're trying to do things as cheaply and low-end as possible, have even moved into the competing console market, and yet companies like Crytek are still bit*ching that the market should cater to them instead of the other way around. Nevermind that they've yet to actually do anything of actual substance. Just make pretty looking FPS.
And not really being much of a FPS fan, first person perspective games in general which means I've largely been SOL for much of this gen, I have even less reason or want to touch a Crytek game.
If you and others like them all well and good, just please get off their co*k for long enough to realize that by the sales of their games they aren't the end all and be all of gaming.
Far Cry 3 has better rocks, fire, gun models, character models, and vehicle handling. Plus you can freaking fly (err, glide with style). Far Cry 3 also has the better story and is a lot more fun than Crysis 1 or 2 overall. The plants in Far Cry 3 are a lot stiffer and there are no destructible structures. The water is also relatively very static and animated looking, rather than organic & dynamic. Crysis 1 water is still better than any water I've seen in a game since; when a bullet hits the water in Crysi 1, it actually ripples and creates mist (though the ripples don't interact with one another).
That isn't to talk bad about Far Cry 3 on any platform; I think it's an amazing game and gave over 30 hours in it already. Just wish it wasn't fundamentally limited to what the consoles can do.
Too blurry durring movment hurts my eyes and makes my head hurt.
The detail in C3 is breath taking.
http://s.pro-gmedia.com/vid...
http://s.pro-gmedia.com/vid...
Crysis 1 was too open world thats why alot of people hated it. I loved that game played it on max graphics. And i had the best time just messing with the A.I sniping them sneaking up on them and just just screwing around and not playing the game lol.
You might not enjoy their games but there are many of us that do.
Really they might be the only studio ready right now for the next gen. They could always find a writer to story up their games though.
Far Cry 3 has no Physics.
Far Cry 3's environment is static compared to that of Crysis 1. You shot a plant or tree with a bullet, the leaves would sway in a realistic manner.
Crysis's water is more realistic than Far Cry 3, It was built using dynamic parallax occlusion mapping supported by DX10 cards available that generation.
The Textures are gorgeous and far more HD than Far Cry 3.
Far Cry 3 in terms of graphics (i again say) Far Cry 3 graphically is just a inferior mod of Crysis 1. Story is better in certain cases but im more of a Sci-Fi dude so you can take a hint.
When im playing FC3 the last thing on my mind is how plants react to a bullet. Im often too busy running away from a bear just to suddendly see a tiger in front of me and thinking that after all that running im gonna die when the tiger decides to go after the bear giving me enough time to get the hell as far away from them as i can. That is what i want in my games. I could care less about plants reacting to bullets.
They put in animals in the game which can be approached dynamically but left the key part of the jungle (Plants, Environment) static.
And yes, to you it may not matter but the dozens of comments above and below us prove that graphics and performance of any specific title may it be current gen or next gen is a point to ponder by gamers.
Fingers cross for this game.
They're just saying it the way it truly is, and I like how suddenly all these PS3 fanboys are using FC3 as a counter argument whenever Crytek mentions anything about their technical & graphical prowess.
FC3 looks like shit compared to Crysis 3, this site has to be the first site I've come across where people are saying FC3 looks better than Crysis 3, it's obvious you people are only saying that because you feel offended for absolutely no reason.
What's there to be offended about anyway? if Crytek maxed out the PS3/360 so what, ah! because ND haven't said it's maxed out then they're lying right? are you people lemmings? can't you think for yourselves.
Technically Crytek could use CE3 to make TLOU better looking than what ND have done, but you guys wouldn't know anything about engines would you since you're too busy bending down for Sony.
The only reason I'm bringing up graphics is because that's all you guys ever talk about anyway, and whenever you're beloved exclusives are out done you guys start rambling on about how it's all about the gameplay & story even though most PS3 exclusives lack good stories and have bad gameplay.
You guys must've been traumatised after reading this article seeing as how many of you guys overreact and post nonsensical jargon with your emotions running wild.
Are those peas functioning?
They are also making Homefront 2 for 2013. I question whether that game will be Grade A or average.
I'd be mad as hell too if I paid through the nose for some sloppy, glitchy ports of console games :D
All I think of them is that they do it for money.
But that said I think 3 will be real fun
Graphically, I think Crysis 3 will be the best looking game (after the mods are done with it), but I'd prefer I good story and better game-play. If I hear positive things about the story, I may just consider getting it.
I just think Crytek should work on releasing Crysis 3 for the PS4 and next Xbox and leave this gen that they seem to have some issues with.
They keep saying the same thing- "Consoles are maxed out"- as if it's the only thing that matters; meanwhile, they ignore all the other important aspects of a game that should be improved upon.
Frankly, it's gotten annoying.
Crysis1's story wasn't all that great, but the reveal of the aliens and snow transition was a memorable moment.
This was before/around the time of CoD4 though. Unfortunately, Crytek seems to be following CoD's formula now by making the typical linear shooters. Either they've lost their vision, or in the pursuit of having pretty visuals on consoles, they've decided to sacrifice the open level design.
But then again story never seems to be their real focus they just want to make people go “oooh that looks amazing” and on the PS3 and 360 unlike other developers they haven’t been able to do that. This is why I think Crysis 3 should be a release title on the next gen systems, then maybe they can impress us with their fireworks.
I wasn't knocking consoles btw I own em all. I was just saying how crysis 2 was a massive leap back from 1 in favor of a more linear console style shooter as opposed to an open world strategic shooter.
I dont know what Crytek is braging all about seriously.
edit* Just want to say i am referring to the PC version of Far Cry 3 and Crysis 3 and not the console versions.
I can name ten games off the bat that look better than Crysis2 on consoles.
Go on then.
Uncharted 2
Uncharted 3
Resistance 3
KillZone 2
KillZone 3
Heavy Rain
Gears of War 3
LA Noire
RAGE
inFamous 2
nothing more than a tech showcase,story/characters/ environment(despite being graphically advanced) are bland and generic in the literal term. Honestly these as engineers they may be brilliant but as game developers they gets more credits and free pass than they deserve.
I Can't wait for CRYSIS 3 on the PS3, The PS3 is truly an amazing piece of hardware
I've only played FC3 on PC.
The least - the very least - I can say about Epic is that though UE3 was broken and incomplete at the start of this gen, at least they shut up and did their best to make it work where they could.
were saying Heavy Rain isn't a game and was just quicktime events. Tectile Games used the exact formula Quadractic Dreams used with Heavy Rain and Indigo Prophecy. The fact is that Walking Dead uses QTE too, but that doesn't come up at all. I guess it's because Walking Dead is available for Xbox360/ps3. I guess all the unwarranted hatred towards Heavy Rain (by 360 crowd) turned out to be just jealousy and envy. The hypocrisy continues. But Walking Dead is enjoyable.
Crytek, shut up.
Hey crytec, Is the ps3 or xbox 360 so behind the curve that it cant run you complex AI where the enemies cant even go up 5 stairs. Is that the reason that pursuing enemies in crysis 2 stopped in a clump at the bottom of some stairs when chasing me?
Please make a game worth playing maybe we will listen to you.
If its the former, then they absolutely should just forget about consoles. But if its the latter then they're fucked either way...
I'm tired of "max out" or "push to the limit"
How about saying "optimize" for console and PC?
It's getting close to sexual harassment now, stop squeezing them!!!!
When a console is launched the hardware inside is already at least 2 years old compared to the most modern pc. THrow in a 7 year console life span and by the end you are left with something that is not even comparable to what can be seen on a modern pc.
Don't get me wrong I have a PC and a gaming PC, I just don't understand why people are so shocked that the pc is lightyears ahead by now.. Just think about how old the hardware in 360 / ps3 is.
Not really , it seems more like some people are tired of the dead horse being beaten constantly . It's starting to looks like necrophilia .
"pc are more powerful" DUUUHHH . OK everyone gets it for the most part let's move on .
In the meantime crysis 2 was a mediocre sequel , and they are already autocongratualing themselves for finding some middle ground between crysis 1 and a mediocre crysis 2 ? Wow ... that does look appealing /s