CVG: "Crytek CEO Cevat Yerli doesn't expect there to be much disparity between Crysis 3 and the first wave of games for the next Xbox and PlayStation consoles."
LoL, silly Crytek. When Killzone 4 launches this year, you will see the difference, mark me.
killzone 4 this year...very unlikely
Actually it's very likely considering Killzone 3 was their last game back in 2011, and with the PS4 rumored specs. basically making it a mid range gaming PC. With those rumored specs. Sony and MS has significantly less optimization they have to do to get games running on their consoles, because they're so close to being off the shelf PC's, which is why game development will not increase significantly in cost, and games will be developed much faster than last gen. That being said I hope it's not Killzone 4, but a new IP. I enjoyed Killzone, but the PS3 top franchises need a quick rest and let the new PS4 trilogy's and franchises start things off holiday 2013, and kick in with the known IP's throughout 2014. I'm ready for something new, before diving back into games I already know so well after 2+ releases on PS360.
Evidently there are rumours of a Killzone 4 this year, but really who knows. And yeah, Crysis 3 will have its own look on ultra settings due to its different engine, Killzone 4 will look very different which will make it harder to compare the two graphically, it will be down to subjective taste. But really, for a PS4, if you can get Killzone 3 looking like Crysis on Ultra settings, you did it for probably one third the price if the $450 PS4 launch price is to be believed.
Depends on how long the team of Killzone have had time to work on PS4 hardware, but we have to look at it realistically, PS3 was launched in 2006, Killzone 2 came out in 2009, they needed 3 years to make as great of use with the hardware. PS4 will be easier to utilize and develop for, but I highly doubt 1-2 years would be great enough to make something that takes GOOD advantage as an exclusive game to be a console benchmark as much as Killzone 2 was for the PS3.
Let's compare the difference between Resistance1 and Resistance2/3, and the difference between between Uncharted1 and Uncharted2/3. Now let's look at the laughable Crysis2&3 console versions. Crytek? More like Crowntek. The Crying Crown Technology.
which was worse than Crysis 1. But they may be right. Like they said, launch games may not look that much better than Crysis 3. But within a year, I'm sure many more games will.
Killzone 4 pre-rendered trailer perhaps. If the Crytek 3 MP beta is anything to go by next-gen games will look like crap.
Who cares if they don't look much different to Crysis 3. At least most of those games PLAY BETTER. Crysis will forever be a graphics powerhouse with mediocre gameplay
The thing I hate about Crytek is that they only speak about graphics all the time. I get the feeling they only want to sell their engine.
That's where they get all their money from. So ya, they are...
Yeah that's the main point. Epic gets the vast majority of their money from licensing the Unreal Engine, and Crytek are trying to do the same thing. That being said it is a great engine especially considering graphical capabilities, and art style / graphics are an important part of gaming whether we like it or not. Now my question is does he believe PS4 launch titles will not look much different from Cyrsis 3 on PS3 or on a standard PC? My guess is a standard gaming PC, in which case he's likely right, but IMO that's completely fine because that's still a big jump, with no more blurry textures, better AA, better AI, 1080p resolutions, better framerates, practically no screen tearing, and tessellation FTW.
@Abizzel1 I think he was talking about the console version "I don't think Crytek can do more on current generation consoles than Crysis 3." "I actually think people will be astonished that next gen launch titles from other companies might not be much different from Crysis 3."
@Norrison I hope not. I can't believe Crysis on consoles is what he's talking about, because if so then people will be disappointed. Crysis 3 looks good on consoles, but compared to PC it's a hot blurry mess. Hopefully the full version sees some dramatic increases on console, but the current screenshots are like wearing prescription glasses when you don't need them or not having glasses when you do need them.
They really don't do anything too impressive on the consoles anyway, and yet talk as if they're experts at console hardware.
Yeah but their sales number are mediocre
Maybe because Crysis 3 is a first gen, next gen game? I hope Guerrilla Games is showing their game this 20th! it will amaze anyone.. even PC gamers and this team.
If next gen launch looks like crysis 3 on ultra settings, that will be fine because its only the beginning. And killzone 4, which releases in2014 will look amazing but it isnt so much of a trick anymore to build for ps4 because the architexture isnt as complex as ps3 was at launch,. But i cant imagine what guerilla and naughty do will be doing in 3-4 yrs when they have had time.
@NukaCola We will see the difference but Crytek want admit it looks better. Crytek talks to much trash like their game is leaps and bounds better anything else. I think The Last of Us and God of War: Ascension already look as good as Crysis 3 if not better and I would definitely say the gameplay of those games will be better than Crysis 3. Next gen games especially Sony's 1st party AAA games will look way better at launch IMO.
Lol comparing Crysis to Killzone, what a joke.
I know, Crysis 2 sucked, and Crysis 3 doesnt look any better
Next Console Gen games will look just like Crysis 3 PC and Battlefield 3 PC of today. So go play BF3 PC or Crysis 3 PC on High/Ultra and you will get a taste of what next console gen games will look like! 1080p 60 fps with some form of AA to this day I don't understand why "some" consolers think your gonna get something better than what PC Gamers already have when the consoles are basically being made from old PC Hardware. Perfect Example: The Cell and it's Graphics accelerator along side the X360's 3 core CPU and it's advance R520 GPU were NO Match for the 8800GT that launched shortly after the PS3/360. PS4 = AMD A-10 APU with low end HD7000 gpu, toss in some cheap ram, a cheap HDD, some Plastic, wires, controller and this should keep you in the $400 to $500 price range. PS4 will be a very capable machine to pump out Hi-res 1080p games and FINALLY be able to run Crysis on the CryEngine 2. (not that CryEngine 3 remake but the REAL DEAL)
Don't get delusional, those specs you said won't run bf3 on anything higher than med at 1080p. I think 1080p and 60 fps is enough to be better than this gen since that will dramatically improve the gameplay, BUT framerate drops will be a lot more noticeable
I think you PC crowd are very limited in terms of intellectual abilities as most console titles have had AA for several years, yet you keep spreading your urban legends about "jaggies" (what a tech term!). It shows how clueless you are about technology and gaming. The only thing you are able of is spitting out specs from the box of your graphics card. The last paragraph of your comment is the best. Previous version of the engine is better than the later version. Brilliant.
To be honest most console games have pretty low quality anti aliasing, if they have any at all. If you run at 720p or less to get effective AA you generally need it to be very high quality and the current consoles can't, or more accurately afford to do it. Even the best looking console games this gen suffer from more aliasing than a half decent PC game running 4x MSAA effectively. However if the next consoles can actually manage to get closer to 1080p native resolution, you can get away with less AA and still have much better image quality. A good quality implementation of FXAA would suffice at 1080p, although MSAA is still better it is more costly.
Killzone's artistic style really makes it pop. I still play killzone 2 every once in a while. It has such an unique feel and look; not even killzone 3 can touch it at that. I think killzone 4 will do the same, and that is, to go for a very unique feel, look, and atmosphere, that will make it stand out from the other exclusives and competitive shooters.
I dunno the game is beautiful and all.. BUT! The grey pallet really makes the game feel depressing, dead and boring.. I had to force myself to play through the game just looking at grey walls 80% of the time..every stage felt like a rehash of the last... Very underwhelming If they want me to give KZ another chance then they need a more vibrant color scheme and pallets.
@ WitWolfy your being a little bit biased, KZ2 was full of greys and browns. KZ3 was full of life and color. here check out this MP map from KZ3. i imagine you must have skipped on part 3 based off the fact you think every KZ game is full of greys and browns? http://www.youtube.com/watc...
Fox Engine already has Cry Engine beat. And Kojima may allow 3rd parties to lease it at a cheap price (and free for other konami studios). Also, Luminous Engine is beautiful too! And the new Unreal Engine is nothing to sneeze at either. I think the limit can go beyond Cry engine.
Graphics aren't everything you know, last I checked the only GREAT killzone game was 2. 1 and 3 were barely average generic FPS, but you guys always make PS exclusives seem godly.
yeah, a game on a 400 dollar console is gonna look better than a game that requires a 1000 dollar + gaming PC. seems legit.
funny how Crytek said "we push the ps3 to its limits with Crysis 2!!!!" ....and what have they said about 3??? (insert cricket sound here)
yes we will see how it stacks up against crysis 3 on pc. I dont think it will be better but could be close enough as Yerli said
You dont know if it will be noticably different when you havent seen the game.
crysis 3 in 4k resolution 120fps? ok! crytek said it first folks!
You won't see any next gen games at 4k resolution with 120fps.
hell killzone 3 and uncharted , the last of us ,and infamous can compete with crisis..
I think these are the graphics we will see.
no man, just dont, dont compare a sub hd jaggie fest against a graphical masterpiece like the cryengine.
no man, just don't, don't compare a techdemo with an actual game that ACTUALLY plays like a charm! and also is fun :)
That's not even the actual gameplay footage, how old are you actually? THREE?
No console game to date has beaten the first Crysis on Max settings on a technical graphics level. Some games like Last of Us might look artistically pretty, but the 720p res looks noticeably dated today. I own kz2 & 3, uc2 & 3, played infamous2, and also owned Crysis on PC. In Crysis, every blade of grass is sharp but not jagged, leaves on trees have separation instead of one low res clump of mass, lighting is amazing, shadows are accurate. All of that and more is rendered in an open world.
You are right however i doubt you will find a game that runs and looks better the the ps3 games you listed using the same specs as the ps3
Uncharted, compared to Crysis. The ignorance is strong in this one.
Its just good graphics really not gameplay
Lol. Don't believe this for a second. There's what 4-5X more power, first parties will look better.
You forget that 1080p requires MORE POWER than 720p. So it's likely they won't look as good ad you fanboys keep thinking.
How much power does this 1080p you talk about require?
@ILive 1080p has twice as many pixels as 720p. Really, I am not to fussed with these comparisons. A lot of pointless speculation. All I know is that the transition from PS3/360 to PS4/720 will be amazing.
He is talking about crysis 3 on pc and not on consoles for clarification purpose.
Exactly... The PC version is definitely nextgen quality...u have to be stupid and blind not to see the graphics quality of Crysis 3 on PC. I think the launch games we will see on Nextgen Console will have this quality for starters and i'm very happy about that...it could have been less.
A lot of stupid and blind (by fanboyism) people on here.
Hmmm having read this comment 10 times now he makes no distinction about whether he's referring to the console or PC version. Yet Yerli said: "I don't think Crytek can do more on CURRENT GENERATION consoles than Crysis 3. "I actually think people will be astonished that next gen launch titles from other companies might not be much different from Crysis 3." Therefore he must be talking about Crysis 3 on Xbox 360/PS3. Unless CVG are trolling and misquoted him deliberately for hits. If we remain objective: Please guys for one moment. Compared Day 1 launch games for PS3 or Xbox 360 and compare those to the last best looking games on Xbox and PS2 like Splinter Cell Chaos Theory, how big was that difference? Not huge. Crysis 3 on consoles is a good looking game as are many games coming out now. The Last of Us, GOW Ascension, Gears J, Halo 4 etc. Some of the lesser quality games and perhaps even some big ones might not look so much different other than the increased resolution. It takes years or the biggest budgets to get the most from new consoles. So I am sure he does mean some lesser games will not look so much different to last gen games. It always happens. The only respite is there should be some kick ass showcase games from first party developers.
Crysis 2 is a joke, animation system is rinkadink and the gfx engine isn't the jump this generation which Crysis 1 was back in the day. They are trying to blow a supreme horn, but they are out of line.
I agree with you on the animation system does need some work but crysis 3 on ultra settings for PC look pretty darn good.
I would also agree about animation--if its one thing Sony devs really did that blew the competition away this gen is to that extra mile on the animation front. I love many of their games and admit they look great but animation sort of stands out as a huge leap even though most focus on other aspects of visual fidelity.
If the full game looks lika the beta on consoles then 100% don't belive that.
Already said this days ago. http://n4g.com/news/1168685...
This from the same people who said that Crysis2 will be the best looking game on the PS3, TLOU and Beyond will destroy it not to mention KZ4.
well if I'm not mistaken, crysis 1 was released in 2007 and the PS3 2006 (360 2005). So even those Hardware couldn't run it to the maximum, even less crysis 2. How do they expect to run crysis 3 full specs on consoles next gen? will it be different than this gen? Even more, the rumored next xbox/ps4 are said to have 8 cores. Gaming as of now hasn't been optimized for more than 4 core (On PC, generally speaking, there could be exceptions) so maybe they could get a pleasant surprise on those new console too!
I get this is PR spin to say ...just buy our game now cause this will look as good as next gen...and to be fair Crysis 3 looks fantastic. What they don't say is while visually they may look close, what is happening, what can be done, load times, size of enviornments... that all will be very different with Next Gen.
I think Crysis 3 looks spectacular but Killzone 2 looks %25-%45 better
I'm sure I speak on behalf of the N4G community when I ask; where the f*** did you get those percentages from? Lol. Nevertheless, while it will be graphically very nice, I'd like to see it compared to Killzone 3 on Digital Foundry. As far as I'm concerned, Killzone 3 is still the best looking FPS on consoles.
People are in denial here. Crytek CEO Cevat Yerli has most likely been working with next gen systems for quite some time now and therefore knows what the f*** he's talking about - and obviously is under strict NDA not to say too much. I'd say he's More informed than a bunch of websites who have nothing more than speculation and rumors to go by.
I think he's comparing launch games with Crysis 3 on PC. If that's the case then sure, why not.
Yeah that's how I interpreted it. If not, then that's some serious arrogance.
Let's hope we are right.
Lol. Yeah, okay. Crysis 3 looks like crap on consoles. Stop being so full of yourselves, Crytek.