Ben-DutkaCrytek is talking again.
Perhaps the developer knows something we don't about the architecture of the next-generation consoles, but Crytek CEO Cevat Yerli told CVG that next-gen offerings won't look that much different than the upcoming Crysis 3 .
Yerli repeated a common refrain we've heard before:
"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."
At the same time, the boss said that their next-gen projects will be "way above what we've achieved on the existing consoles." …so if the next-gen titles don't look that much different than Crysis 3 , but your next-gen games will, doesn't that imply a certain sense of really arrogant superiority? Well, whatever. As for what he had to say about the impending sequel:
"Crysis 3 has its own visual identity, [the urban rainforest] is a world that hasn't been done before, that kind of depiction, the quality and level of immersion. I think no game has ever done that kind of setting, it's a visual spectacle.
It has not even been done in Hollywood. People might suggest there are similarities with I Am Legend, but that is quite different to this. I Am Legend is overgrown, but Crysis 3's urban rainforest is a whole different level of that. It has its own identity and I'm very proud of what the team achieved in this regard."
Clearly. We have no doubt that Crysis 3 will look unbelievable. We're just a little tired of the constant gloating…well deserved though it may be, is it really fair to say that Crysis 3 won't look any different from next-gen titles? Well, perhaps the launch software, which typically gives us mere glimpses of what that new hardware is capable of.
The graphics will look awesome and that's great……now if only the AI doesn't keep walking into a wall.
Last edited by Tim Speed24 on 2/9/2013 11:26:19 AM
Is it still goofy? I've only played Crysis 1
Crysis 2 jelly heads were complete idiots if you ask me. You could stay a ways off and shoot them all down with a sniper rifle and not one would come looking for you.
I really wish I could line up all executives and their associates, roll out one fat duct tape and just mute their sorry ass mouths.
Their talk may work in board meetings and sales negotiations, but puh-lease, STFU elsewhere! It's only… Noise!
We are just a FEW DAYS OFF CRYSIS 3 though! Woohoo – it will be GREAT!
Last edited by Beamboom on 2/9/2013 11:38:26 AM
I already know Crysis will look great, that's never been a problem…but it's almost half tempting to not buy this game out of spite that Crytek always seems to like spouting off about how awesome they are..lol.
I loved Crysis 2, although now that I think about it, I don't think I ever finished the game…hmmm..
"Crytek is talking again." Yup, that's about the size of it. And they have nice looking games but they have some Peter Molyneaux syndrome going on.
It's a fine line. If you talk about how awesome your game will be with some jargon to back it up that's usually good, if you talk about how you are working toward the higher art (like David Cage) that's typically awesome as long as you don't bash the competition too much, but when you just talk about how awesome you are people roll their eyes.
Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 2/9/2013 11:43:40 AM
Yup, these guys really need to learn to just talk their game up, rather than suggest what other games will/won't do. I find these guys worse than Molyneux – generally 'Promising Pete' focuses on what he's doing, rather than talking about how much better than the competition it is (which Crysis 2 at least wasn't – it was good, but it was just another arcade shooter to me).
I don't think it's fair to say it 'won't look any different' as Ben put it, but it may be fair to say that 'games from other companies may not be much different' as Yerli said it.
there's a pretty big gap there in interpretation.
I suspect for those who really enjoy the fidelity of higher res and precision effects will probably disagree with these sentiments. But those who don't care so much about that may feel similarly to Yerli.
Last edited by Temjin001 on 2/9/2013 11:44:03 AM
He's obviously talking from a graphical standpoint so the interpretation is apt.
heh no its not. he said 'they might not look better', you said they said they said they 'wont look any different'.
anyway, I dont care whatever hehe
Last edited by Temjin001 on 2/9/2013 1:40:44 PM
any btw, i dont want any hard feelings. I do agree with the point of the article. Yerli is acting pretty prideful even if he may turn out to be somewhat accurate. Who knows?
The only reason I took argument was because he stated it as a matter of probability and you summarized it as a statement of fact, without padding it with 'may'. Don't know why that bugged me but it did I guess.
It is an interesting distinction you point out there, Temjin. After all, there's plenty shooters who look worse than Crysis 2 on current platform (in fact there's very few who look better, imho), so from that perspective then yeah, it may even be probable that it might look like at least the early shooters on the Orbis (as Ben also points out at the end).
Still, these claims are bound to be both misunderstood and be taken as just boasting.
Let the game do the talkin', I say.
Last edited by Beamboom on 2/9/2013 2:22:26 PM
The pmc AI in C2 and then in the console C1 was laughable even on the highest difficulty,the aliens were much better though!
I'll wait for reviews before making my mind up,might be to busy with Aliens C M and GOW A
April might be a free spot in my gaming calendar
So what if he's right? Lots of ps3 games don't look as good as some late ps2 games. Big deal. the best ones don't.
Anyways, crysis 2 looked good but it wasn't as good as they said it would be
Oh man I *loved* Crysis 2. I think I loved everything about it – even the multiplayer.
for me there's distinct qualities of each shooter that is my fav.
CoD: for it's 60fps
Crysis: for it's great visuals and tactical-stealth design
Far Cry: for it's open world and open ended mission structure
Killzone: for it's gun play/cover and solid AI.. and usually it's graphics
Halo: For it's vehicles and amusing enemy behaviour. PLus I think it has a solid universe constructed around it.
Now someone just needs to design all of my favorite elements in one ultra FPS =)
oh, I'd be remiss to not include Resistance for it's high volume battle fields. Certain parts in like R2 were pretty dang awesome, like the Chicago plaza battle, because of just how much crap was going on all at once. Very epic feeling in battle with many many different units on screen at once.
Temjin:
I'm hoping that's what Respawn is doing with their new sci-fi game. Really can't wait till we get a look at that.
Well, to be fair, on a high-end PC with the HD texture pack Crysis 2 was pretty beastly
Sirbob, yes, but not to the extent they claimed. Especially the times they specifically talked about their console versions
He's right, a late cycle AAA title probably wont look much different from a 1st gen NextGen title.
Give developers a game or two under their belt and we'll be blown away.
He makes it seem as if he's already seen the competition.
Enslave, Fragile, The Last of Us and probably some others I'm missing have done, or are about to do the Urban forest type setting.
Maybe Crysis 3 will look the most technically detailed but the setting itself has been done in games before.
I dont like listening to these guys constantly brag about how great they are about pushing consoles, and how great their games look.
On consoles they look worse than 1st party titles, and on PC there are better looking games.
Although I will say I like Cryengine more than Unreal engine easy.
I agree. I would love to see the Crytek engine be used more than the Unreal one.
I wonder why it's not. Either the Unreal engine has huge technical advantages that's not so easy for us end consumers to see (that may very well be the case), there is a major licencing difference, or it simply is that there's much more Unreal expertise among developers. One tend to prefer what we already know.
I think the Unreal engine has easier tools to use, even though they aren't as robust as the Cryengines.
How can we possibly know how robust the developer tools are? (if you by "robust" means stable)
But it probably is the tools yes, and maybe also the documentation. Those are two extremely important factors.
Last edited by Beamboom on 2/10/2013 2:53:19 PM
Everytime I read something that is said out of Crytek, I can't help but feel that they worry about the sales of their game(s).
It's almost as if someone there at the Crytek offices is saying "ok, let's put someone elses candle out to make our candle look brighter".
I really don't understand why they keep doing this.
Come on, let them boost about their project that they slaved over and to be fair they're right sometimes. Being humble does not equal honesty.
Anyways, I wish these guys focus on gameplay as much as they did graphics… Crysis 3 should still be good though.
there probably wont be much of a difference, especially if the stories of the systems focusing more on social features rather than grunt are true.
plus launch titles are never that far and away that much of a leap over current systems, i mean look at resistance FOM compared to GOW2.
one was a strict linear shooter, the other a much more open scale.
and the open more vista driven title, the one on last gen systems, dident look that far behind.