Ben-DutkaGee, where have we heard these claims before? Oh right, the last time Crytek put out a Crysis on consoles.
There's no doubt that the upcoming Crysis 3 will be one of the best looking games of the generation. But once again, Crytek CEO Cevat Yerli is boating that it has maxed out both the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360, to the point where there isn't "even 1% left." He went so far as to say that no game could ever be "technically better" than Crysis 3 on consoles, as he told VideoGamer :
"Crysis 3 is absolutely maxing out the consoles. There is absolutely not even 1% left. No game will ever look technically better than Crysis 3 on these consoles, flat out. Most games are not even anywhere near Crysis 2 technically. I'm not talking about art style – art is subjective – but the pure fact of what we have been cramming in with Crysis 2 on Xbox [360] and PlayStation [3], I've yet to see a game do that still today."
He added that he will take a battle against Gears and Halo any day, saying that the amount of detail they put into Crysis is just "far superior." You know, I like how he just sort of dismisses the art style as not being part of the overall graphical presentation. There's a reason many believe the Uncharted titles look better than Crysis 2 …and based on his comments, one also gets the feeling that Yerli doesn't really play PS3 games.
I'm a big fan of confidence and even of boasting, especially if you can talk the talk and walk the walk. But personally, I'm getting a little tired of Crytek's hot air; first they said Crysis 2 maxed out consoles and now they're saying the same of Crysis 3 . Unless both games are basically the same, that means you were lying the last time, right guys?
Related Game(s): Crysis 3
I thought Crysis 2 looked absolutely fantastic. But not better than RAGE; That game blew me clear off my socks.
Crisis 2 did look good!
Crysis*
Lame auto text!
I thought Crysis 2 looked better than RAGE imo. I remember RAGE looking good but ruined by what do you call that when you can see the textures all coming in slowly after an area just loads up? Anyway, I wasn't as blown away as I was with Crysis 2. Then again I didn't know anything about C2 going into it, so I was really blown away with this game that wasn't even on my radar. RAGE I guess I had higher hopes for. Though I think I'll track down a cheap copy and continue my playthrough from where I left off. I'll admit it was a good game.
As for these recent comments by Crytek, I'm cool with him bigging up something his team and himself most probably put a lot of man hours into and of course there's a sense of pride. Is he over-egging the pudding? Maybe. But when the game releases and it's a badass game, whether it's the greatest looking game this gen I guess we'll find out, but he's just proud of the hardwork and we'll get to play something really cool. Lets not nit-pick.
The texture popups, Frosty. Rage is extremely dependent on fast read speed on the hard drive, cause the entire game is built upon streaming from the drive. So if you had a fragmented or/and full drive, you would experience a lot more popups than if you had a tidy HD with lots of free space.
I know first hand, cause I've played RAGE on both my old fattie and newer slim. On the Slim with a new, large drive there was not much popups to speak of at all, while on the fattie (small disc with barely enough room to install the game) the popups were so bad I though there was something wrong with the machine. Seriously.
But yeah, Crysis 2 was a masterpiece. I even loved the blurriness that some complained about, I thought it added extra depth to the picture.
Last edited by Beamboom on 12/12/2012 1:46:14 AM
Crysis 2 didn't look better than a handful of games. This kind of crap is getting old. As if people are stupid or something.
Naughty Dog may have something to say about this statement, and so does Santa Monica when Ascension is released.
If there were a time to kick a dev in the nads for talking too much about a 3rd party game would be now. I say ND makes an easter egg about this on one of their games.
"No game will ever look technically better than Crysis 3 on these consoles"
So we can say that the framerate will be the best yet? Because technically, that's what that quote is more or less saying.
Now, I don't think the guy is talking about art design there (I don't think the art design in Crysis 3 will be better than some PS3 games, such as Journey).
It's a lot more than just framerate. It's specifications/performance of shader in regards to polygons, particles, bitmaps, tech talk like that.
But personally I put art design higher than technology. Many of my greatest game experiences has been in games with great artistry built on completely average, or even outdated engines.
" He went so far as to say that no game could ever be "technically better" than Crysis 3 on consoles.
Except all PS3 exclusives from 2013 onwards (& probably UC 2 & 3)
Betcha The last guardian(whenever it gets here) is technically more impressive than crysis 3
One of my favourite quote's from spartcus:gods of the arena comes to mind….
"Words fall from his mouth like sh!t from a$$"
Developers have been claiming to have maxed out 360 and PS3 for years now. And really, maxing hardware out isn't what matters because game development is all about getting the most out of what little you have. The trick is doing as much as can be done WITHOUT maxing out.
Anyway, I wish he would go into specifics.
From a purely technical standpoint if he claimed our game does this:
Parallax Occlusion Mapping
High precision HDR
Ambient Occlusion
XX million vertices per frame
XX real time light sources
X sized bitmaps
A higher end anti-aliasing algorithm
etc.
And then state that no other game has implemented all of these things altogether at playable frame rates, then he'd have something I could take as more credible.
…but that whole no game can never look better than ours… um okay, is this guy still in middle school?
Anyway, as it stands Crysis 3 is looking like a real technical beast. The early screens are excellent and I'm excited to see it in action.
Poor fellow is embarrassing himself.
True that!
Yeah… he did say the same about Crysis 2. It was a good looking game, but it wasn't the best, and plenty more has come out since Crysis 2 that looks better and better each time.
More room in blu-ray, they should make it better looking on the PS3.
The performance of an engine is not depending on storage capacity.
yep.
A couple things come to mind. First if the ps3 version runs equivalent to the 360 version, what does this mean? Because most PS3 exclusives run and perform, and look better than anything on the 360. Are they somehow finding more power in the 360 hardware? This is assuming both consoles are almost tapped out as they say.
Second, using Gears and Halo as examples is a scapegoat. Crysis 2 looked and ran better than both recent installments in each respectable franchise. Halo 4 looked good probably the best looking exclusive the 360 has, but that's the only reason it's getting attention, it's really not as impressive as a game like KZ3. With that said, Crysis 2 fell short of getting close to the technical accomplishments of a game like Uncharted and KZ3.
I love their confidence though. But they never, ever mention going up against a PS3 exclusive. There's a reason for that.
Crytek reminds of Turn 10.
Definitive! Definitive! Definitive!
Since they keep repeating this statement with every game they release, aren't they basically saying,
"This game will look exactly like the last one!"
Multi-plat games will never outshine exclusives, get used to it.
Crysis 3 does indeed look good but b**** please, RAGE is huge and runs at 60fps.
RAGE set the standard for FPS graphic.
So, it'll be in 1080p? 'cause that's technically impressive. Whatever Monsieur Yerli; I care more about the gameplay than the graphics, so just make sure you've got that right, then you can go and p*ss away your company in the F2P market.
Uncharted, The last of us, Beyond 2 souls, GoW:Ascension, all look amazing to me and Crysis 2 didn't look that fantastic to me. I have to agree with BeamBoom, I thought Rage looked ridiculous.
Rage does look great. Ironically, it doesn't utilize much of those higher end graphics features that many modern FPS games implement this gen.
What you say, Temjin?
Yea, really. John Carmack recently stated in interview that even "Doom 3 pushed the GPU harder than Rage ever did." I'm not sure if this was in context of relativity or what, but it's an interesting point, and something I've noticed myself.
Rage doesn't do a whole lot by way of effects. Even it's lighting is very simplistic compared something like Uncharted or the latest Halo. Rage is pelicular in the way it handles textures. It's basically the trick that paid off in spades for id. Notice how there appears to be zero redundancy in environment textures? It's to my understanding that entire areas are actually one HUGE bitmap, carefully painted, being traversed as a player walks around within the game world. It gives the game a more organic hand painted look, rather than the more mechanically generated process of applying bitmaps to individual objects. It's very interesting and so unconventional. It's basically a polar opposite approach to how Crytek is handling things.
Last edited by Temjin001 on 12/11/2012 3:30:50 PM
Yeah I think what took me was the animations of Rage the most. The characters felt pretty alive. I wasn't really saying that it was technically better but here is the thing.
Red Orchestra 2 when it first released was pushing high end computers and it was touted as having all of these complex graphical things going on to make it one of the best looking games.
However framerate was a huge issue in the beginning and the funny thing is after a couple updates they cut and changed a lot of the things that were hogging resources and a lot of people didn't even notice. The people who did were tech artist buffs like yourself.
So in the end if only a small percentage of people can notice these who cares right?
I also completely agree with your post further up. He doesn't give specifics, he could have maxed out the ps3 but it could be poorly optimized.
I still think the most technically impressive stuff done on a console FPS is the KZ3 snow levels. The art direction and tech both came together real well during those missions. I have problems with KZ3 because some levels just looked ugly due to artistic design choices I don't agree with. But anyway, the rolling waves off shores crashing against solids, and ice bergs inset the ocean, the many flailing flags in the air and snow drifts being swept off snow dunes and ridges with snow flurries, just gave a lot of motion and feel to the environments that I don't see in other FPS games. Add all of that to the excellent Helghast animations and quality closer up texture work and we have a strong looking title. Halo 4 has the best lighting I've seen in an FPS, but it's definitely far more static and far less computationally intensive with all of the stuff I just listed about KZ3.
And by better graphics they just mean more shader effects….
I don't like these guys
probably will be.
judging by how ahead of the curve crysis 2 was, and also judging by the resent alpha they had it looks SO much better than 2 already!
interested to see how much of the DX11 effects they take advantage of.
Crytek CEO Cevat Yerli is boating again,well thats got to be better than boasting i'm thinking,because if he is really boating again he just might get himself wet,what with all that water about,just saying. 🙂