Does Crytek's Engine suck?

[Angry_Games]

the only thing crysis requires is either SM3.0 or even SM2.0, which means it can scale down pretty well (if it can run under SM2.0). Compare the HL2 engine's graphics at max settings to the Crysis engine's graphics on max settings however and you'll see a very big difference and the HL2 engine shows it's age.

 

I've tried the Crysis demo on a few rigs, even an old 3200+ single core with 7800GT and it plays pretty well at 1024x768 with a mixture of low and medium settings. I remember HL2 when it first came out and it played decently on older stuff like 9700 Pro's at 1024x768 with low/medium settings.

[Branjo]

Yeah I got away with a 9800pro playing HL2 quite happily too. I can have only two things with Crysis, Smooth as silk gamplay 80+ FPS on low but not really looking any better than FarCry or Medium where everything looks nice but only 45 FPS, I don't like to play anything under the monitor refresh rate of say 60Hz after that you cant tell the difference between 80 or 200 FPS but when it runs under 60 It doesn't feel right to me, but for the sake of gameplay, low settings are ok I guess. Maybe it will all come down to drivers that improve the game but at the minute while its a good game n all, I can't help being a little disappointed that my rig can't play it the way I want it to. but what are ya gonna do :|

[Angry_Games]

60Hz and lower can also give you nasty eye fatigue, especially in fps games (me anyway)

[Uber-Noober]

I guess my system does not play the game at 60 Hz but it certainly is good enough for me.

 

I would agree that HL2 was a much more EFFICIENTLY coded program but there is no doubt that Crytek is a much more AMBITIOUS software program.

 

I really don't see that much work left in making games have better graphics past this. I agree with Mr. Wong here on http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/games/crash.html the graphics front.

 

Oh sure, they'll make games that look better and better, but those steps will become incrementally smaller and smaller. From the little I know about Cryteks engine in "true" DX10 (remember I cheated - custom config XP settings) there are many things held back in this engine right now because our meager systems can't handle it. I don't see game developers spending $10+ million on top of normal game development costs on future games just to put hair on peoples noses like in Beowulf. Especially when the people who would be impressed with that stuff would most likely buy the damn game anyway if it was creative and inspired and looked as good as Crysis currently on full AA full DX10 details on a 10800GTX SLI ultra in years hence.

 

I'm sure someone will pipe in here and say "better graphics is always better!"

 

To that I propose a hypothetical question, in two years what game would you buy? Assuming you all had superclocked gaming machines of the time, as is your wont......

 

(1) A FPS that actually has state of the art actual 3d object arm and nose hair on all their monsters / characters but due to the immense new graphics requirements can only put 2-3 baddies on screen at once and only play at 20-30 fps until yet another graphics card came out?

 

OR

 

(2) A FPS using the Crytek engine (DX10 + Full AA + Very High settings) some developer makes a true "Doom" or "Dawn of the Dead" type game where you are fighting armies (100+ ) of baddies at a time all easily handled by your watercooled and superclocked Core20Extreme Processors? However, the nose hair is "merely" texturized........

 

I know where my money will go. But maybe I'm crazy.......

[Angry_Games]

better graphics isn't better, but to say there's not much room left for graphics improvements is complete folly (no offense).

 

Even the best Hollywood 3d graphics that looks relatively real...that stuff is lightyears away from coming to your desktop. Oh it will happen one day, but not for a while. Those companies have complete rendering FARMS to do that kind of work, all specialized parallel processing machines with specialized processors and such to do that kind of work.

 

Imagine if you will, an everyday scene with all the details in it that your human eye can see. A tiny pebble 10' away. A slight discoloration on two bricks out of 1000 in a building's wall. Birdcrap on a car's window. A slight dent and scratch in the car. A million more details. Imagine a computer trying to draw such a complex scene...

 

Crysis tops in the game graphics department for now, but that will always change regularly.

 

As for that link, that guy is a total idiot. The gaming industry is now larger than the movie industry, and it will continue to grow as games evolve into interactive movies (they already are partially there with games such as HL2, Halo3, etc).

 

Now look at all the innovative games/systems that have just now started to come out thanks to the technology being available along with some brilliant minds:

 

1. Nintendo Wii - do I need to even explain why this console is revolutionary and evolutionary?

 

2. Guitar Hero / Rock Band - interactive games take the next big step. If you don't know what this is, you should go to your local Best Buy and take a look.

 

3. Halo/CoD4-type stuff - really...is there any game that is more cinematic AND puts you right in the middle of the action like say...Call of Duty series? Halo? Heck we could debate 100+ games that fall into this category and they too are evolving as technology evolves.

 

The game industry is so far from crashing that the only possible thing that COULD make it crash is a worldwide economic disaster (sorta like mortage/lending companies are going through right now, but EVERYONE around the world lol). As games and technology become more sophisticated yet easier to use and less expensive to purchase, they will soon make movies possibly an antiquity. Like books are becoming. Like LP's and cassette tapes and 8-track tapes already are...

 

People will always buy the latest and greatest, because marketing tells them they MUST own it.

[elito]

my cousin's rig: C2D E6400 2.1GHZ OC'ed to 3.3//2gig of rdata 6400//ati 2900HDXT.. runs this game like its running fking CS... loads fast..plays fast..ALL HIGH SETTINGS, all options are high, i have yet to experience ANY spikes,frameskips when playing crysis on his rig. but i can do it well on my in medium settings at 1280x1024 and this other mode. but yea, i was really surprised when his rig just ate the game like it was cake.

[Uber-Noober]

better graphics isn't better, but to say there's not much room left for graphics improvements is complete folly (no offense).

 

Even the best Hollywood 3d graphics that looks relatively real...that stuff is lightyears away from coming to your desktop. Oh it will happen one day, but not for a while. Those companies have complete rendering FARMS to do that kind of work, all specialized parallel processing machines with specialized processors and such to do that kind of work.

 

Imagine if you will, an everyday scene with all the details in it that your human eye can see. A tiny pebble 10' away. A slight discoloration on two bricks out of 1000 in a building's wall. Birdcrap on a car's window. A slight dent and scratch in the car. A million more details. Imagine a computer trying to draw such a complex scene...

 

Crysis tops in the game graphics department for now, but that will always change regularly.

 

As for that link, that guy is a total idiot. The gaming industry is now larger than the movie industry, and it will continue to grow as games evolve into interactive movies (they already are partially there with games such as HL2, Halo3, etc).

 

Now look at all the innovative games/systems that have just now started to come out thanks to the technology being available along with some brilliant minds:

 

1. Nintendo Wii - do I need to even explain why this console is revolutionary and evolutionary?

 

2. Guitar Hero / Rock Band - interactive games take the next big step. If you don't know what this is, you should go to your local Best Buy and take a look.

 

3. Halo/CoD4-type stuff - really...is there any game that is more cinematic AND puts you right in the middle of the action like say...Call of Duty series? Halo? Heck we could debate 100+ games that fall into this category and they too are evolving as technology evolves.

 

The game industry is so far from crashing that the only possible thing that COULD make it crash is a worldwide economic disaster (sorta like mortage/lending companies are going through right now, but EVERYONE around the world lol). As games and technology become more sophisticated yet easier to use and less expensive to purchase, they will soon make movies possibly an antiquity. Like books are becoming. Like LP's and cassette tapes and 8-track tapes already are...

 

People will always buy the latest and greatest, because marketing tells them they MUST own it.

 

I never said the whole article the guy wrote was right. I was referring to the graphics part showing the changes in graphics over 10-20 years (first page). The Wii was successful because it was a new concept not because it has the best graphics. Same thing with guitar heroes. I wouldn't say Halo 3 has the best graphics (COD4 arguably does) but those are games built on a highly reputable franchise already built around gameplay.

 

However, how much longer will Microsoft and Sony continue to lose money on their systems? Look at Sony's losses on the PSP and PS3. Look at Microsofts losses on the Xbox360. Do you know anyone who hasn't had a 360 fail since they bought it and exchange it under warranty?

 

Also, look at demographic trends in the developped world where in 20-30 years nobody in Europe / Japan / Canada / China / Russia under 20 will know what a brother or sister or cousin is? Are you going to play video games your whole life Angry? I certainly hope Microsoft and Sony isn't banking on us buying their newest system every 3 years until we die. Bungie and EA isn't making money on the Middle East with fertility rates of 7.1. The plain fact is that our generation was the video game generation and many of us just don't have the time to play video games anymore. The readers of this forum are a hardcore element. But so many of my friends have gotten marrried, had kids and no longer play vids at all. This is not just my friends too.

 

So what you're saying in light of the demographic collapse of most of the developed world, the steady loss of their most loyal customers, the video game industry is going to keep growing exponentially AND on top of that they are going to make video games with Beowulf type graphics with all the necessary overhead that goes with that?

 

Oh I'm sure someone CAN do that but I'm sure their investors will give reason to pause when they can invest (more wisely in my opinion) in a game like Guitar Heroes 4 or Wii sports pack that will make much more money.

 

If graphics are so important then why does guitar heroes and Wii sports pack outsell so many other games with infinitely better graphics?

 

I'll agree with you that the latest and greatest will always be bought, but that does not mean the best graphics will automatically be the latest and greatest thing to buy. Madden football outsells every game EVER reviewed on this forum not because of its graphics. Somebody just changes the numbers on the jerseys, updates a few stats and BAM millions fly off the shelf every year. Starcraft sold 13 million copies and was never THAT pretty to look at.

 

There will never be an end to this argument. But in two years time from this date, look at the top selling FPS and compare it to the Crytek or Unreal3 engine currently on FULL settings and tell me what the difference will be.

[Angry_Games]

Microsoft will continue to lose money until they make money. That's their strategy. They can bleed billions of dollars a year and it's actually GOOD for them...it's a write-off.

 

Sony...who knows about Sony but their problem is they got into a shooting war with Microsoft who can play the game a LOT longer while burning through money at the rate they both are.

 

Where do you get the idea that there's a "demographic collapse" and "steady loss of their most loyal customers" from????

 

Wherever you got that from, you need to stop reading their nonsense. Seriously.

 

The gaming industry WILL keep growing exponentially until they can no longer grow at such a rate, then they will level off, but that won't be for a good long time. How long did it take VCR's and CD players to penetrate the market to the point where mfg's were supplying more "upgrade" and "replacement" units than selling to new customers who never had such a device before? 10-20 years later everyone had a VCR and/or cd player. Is the cd player market or vcr market dead? Yes, but ONLY because the technology left them behind and introduced new formats like DVD, mp3, etc.

 

All the customers that bought a VCR are still buying products from these companies. They are now just buying DVD and HD_DVD and BLU_RAY etc these days.

 

This is how technology works when you stop thinking about the short term and start really looking at trends in the long-term. Does anyone still buy a 9800 Pro graphics card?

 

No, because they aren't being mfg'd anymore. But are the people who bought 9800 Pro graphics cards still buying ATI 2900XT/38xx cards or Nvidia 8800 cards etc? Damn right they are, and in more numbers than ever as computers are starting down same "trend" road as VCR's, cd players, dvd players, etc. Used to be a time when less than 25% of american households had a personal computer. We are now at something like 75%, possibly more.

 

What will happen when 100% of american households have a PC? Will all the PC mfg's go broke? Will the industry collapse?

 

No. It will not. PC makers will simply have newer technology to sell to existing customers.

 

 

Also note I have NEVER stated that graphics are what I think is the most important feature of a game. Problem is, game developers (mostly their publishers) use it as a marketing tactic to basically tell you that if you don't buy their new super awesome graphics game you are the type of person who has intimate sexual relations with members of your own gender.

 

Just like that xxxxING VISA COMMERCIAL. OMG SOMEONE HAS CASH/CHECKBOOK!!! HOLY . THE ENTIRE xxxxING WORLD HAS TO COME TO A xxxxING STOP JUST BECAUSE SOME butthole DOESN'T HAVE A xxxxING VISA CARD????

 

heh, yeah right. But stupid monkeys watch tv, and stupid monkeys believe what they see on tv, so stupid monkeys rush out to get a xxxxing Visa card so OMG they don't stop a wonderful, choreographed dance routine in the middle of Best Buy where idiot customers dressed as elves won't be interrupted during their best "do the robot" breakdance move.

 

Graphics, as we (with common sense anyway) know, are great, but don't make a game great. Look at Crysis. It's a lame, boring game that is nothing more than FarCry part2 with updated pretty graphics.

 

Then look, as you say, at games like Guitar Hero, the Wii games, etc. Those games are much more popular because they are FUN, and they bring people TOGETHER with entertainment, like movies used to do when you had to see them in a theater (and movies were actually worth paying to see, not like now where everything is computer-generated trash with background propaganda nonsense like 300, Star Wars, etc).

 

Wii Sports, btw, is bundled with the Wii, so it can't really be used as comparison.

 

But here again, forget graphics and that nonsense webpage you linked to, and think about something very important: when games have reached their technological limit for graphics, the next step is to innovate in another direction, like the Wii, like Rock Band, like Guitar Hero, like Karaoke Star or whatever.

 

You've now taken the graphics technology and made it a moot point, and focused on another area, potentially more important than graphics could ever be: you've focused on emulating real-world situations combined with bringing people together to play TOGETHER.

 

GTA series never had really good graphics, but the innovating "sandbox" open-ended gameplay is why we play it.

 

Guitar Hero doesn't have great graphics, but it has terrific gameplay, and a common "together" theme (music...we all music in common, and we are all bound by it, whether you love or hate each particular track/album).

 

Games like Starcraft look like total . today, as does Diablo2, Counter Strike original, etc, but they still sell well and still have thousands upon thousands of players playing at any given time because of GAMEPLAY.

 

Again, once technology tops out in one area, we move to another area. Look at cpu's. Intel and AMD topped out around 3Ghz, so what did they do? Did they crash and burn and go bankrupt?

 

No, they instead decided that parallel processing is the next way to go...why bother with trying to get 5Ghz on a single thread when you can have 2 threads @ 2.5Ghz? Why bother with 2 cpu's at 3Ghz when you can now have 4 cpu's at 2.4Ghz?

 

Graphics...same thing...why bother with an Nvidia 9999GTX-Ultra-MEga-Giant 4GB vid card that puts out about 10,000C heat when you can simply start stringing together gpu's to work together?

 

Is it more efficient to use a single tractor to plow a field or is it more efficient to use TWO tractors to plow a field?

 

Once again, technology evolves, and leaves other things behind (software like games that still don't take advantage of multi-core cpu's and multi-linked gpu's). The cpu mfg's don't collapse because customers don't say "well, I got a pc, so I'm good, no need to buy this new stuff!".

 

Customers instead say "well, i maxed out my rig 2 years ago with this single core Celeron, now everything is dual/quad core so I gots to have me one of those for this new game/application/whatever".

 

As long as game developers stay innovative, the market will NEVER crash. Not until 3000 years into the future when we finally do top out at our technological peak AND all 23 billion humans living on the planet have every piece of that technology as part of their daily lives.

 

Even then, we'd probably still keep evolving technology so really, it won't ever end unless the entire planet somehow collapses into a world-wide war, or a world-wide economic disaster like a depression/recession.

 

There's really no argument there. Anyone who thinks video games or technology itself is "limited" or going to "top out", they've been smoking Sani-Flush crystals waaaay too much. They don't see the big picture, they only see what THEY think is going to happen, which just isn't based on reality at all.

 

Two years from now Crysis3 or UT5 or QUake9 or whatever will be out and it will look even better than Crysis does right now. It's called evolution. As the hardware evolves into more powerful, more efficient systems, the software must also evolve to take advantage of it.

 

What happens when MS introduces DX11? Here's what will happen: game devs will start developing in DX11 because all the hardware devs will see that DX11 is the next new standard which offers more features than DX10.

 

It's like nature in a way.Nature, without man's influence, survives in ALMOST perfect harmony and balance. There are mutations and other events (like say an entire forest burning down killing the last known squirrel or plant of a certain genetic line) that can influence it in the short term, but in the long term, nature will always be in perfect balance (well, again, as long as man keeps out of it).

 

The technology industry is the exact same way, albiet a little more shaky sometimes. Hardware devs make a new faster/better part, then software devs learn how to program for it, and consumers purchase it. It's a cycle, like the cycle of life in nature.

 

In nature, when one predator takes over an area, he either starves to death because he ate everything, or he moves on to new areas to find new prey.

 

Technology is the same way. Once you've saturated the market with a particular technology, you simply die (go bankrupt) from sticking around that area where there is no food (customers), or you move on to something else where there is new food (customers).

 

Again, there's no argument here. There's nothing to argue. It's simply the way it is.

 

In 2 years we'll be talking about how "dated" Crysis looks compared to Battlefield9 on our new ATI X22,000SEXLULTRA and our Octo-core AMDwhatever.

 

ps I know plenty of people who haven't had a 360 fail on them. Good for them. Mine died. I got it replaced. MS can absorb teh 1.2 billion dollar loss without even breaking a sweat.

[Devil 07]

The plain fact is that our generation was the video game generation and many of us just don't have the time to play video games anymore.

 

Thats not true. I know many people who were deprived children growing up that never got to play any of the "cool" games. Or any games for that matter. (I'm one of them). Now that I've put myself through college and can afford to "be a kid" again, I play video games all the time. And I plan on it for the rest of my life.

 

Do I let it get in the way of real life, no. If it got in the way of real life, I couldn't afford to be the "PC parts Gear-whore" that I am.

 

Anyway, sorry to go off-topic. Just felt the need to comment on your comment.

 

Excellent reading in this thread so far, keep it up.

[Angry_Games]

yep, that's another FACT that is debunked by the sheer numbers of games and gaming systems being sold.

 

We have a lot more disposable income and time as adults these days than most previous generations, and society as a whole is accepting gaming when it always consider it "kid stuff" before. You can sense this by the FACT that the gaming industry generates more dollars than the entire movie industry, and is leaving the movie industry behind more each year.

 

Consider that movies are an entertainment form that is almost 100 years old, and video games are only about 30. When you factor in "modernness" then you see the movie industry is still about 80 years old (movies starting really coming about 1920), and the gaming industry is about 20 years old. We've had 100 years almost of movies to take up our time, as well as about 60-ish years of tv (which got more and more mainstream as the years went on until around 1969-1970 when the Vietnam War was watched by a huge chunk of households each evening on the news, which by then tv's had begun to saturate the market beyond 50% of households).

 

Like baby boomers in one way, our generation (20-40 year olds) grew up with Atari, NES, etc. Now that we are older, we have that disposable income to burn unlike we did as a kid (unless you had rich parents).

 

How many adults (30+ years old) have I turned on to games in the last 5 year? I couldn't even count. It's now considered mainstream entertainment, and game developers and hardware developers are striving to make it as mainstream as television, radio, vcr's, cd players, etc.

 

Some of us might not have time to play video games all day long, but those guys are usually ones with jobs, who spend the most money when it comes to this form of entertainment. I don't have time to play games even 1/10 as much as I did 5+ years ago, but I spend MORE now on consoles, games, peripherals, etc than I EVER did.

 

Get your "plain facts" straight before ya post something like that

[red930]

And the occasional 60 year old. :tooth:

[Branjo]

Im sure the same thing was said about TV's when they first came out. When we were all watching fishbowl TV's someone must have said "this won't catch on" or "you won't get much better than this". Now 60+ years on we are still buying the latest TV's to watch the same old crap but they just keep getting bigger and better.

 

As for games sooner or later the developers will concentrate more on story than graphics. At the minute it seems to be one or the other, although there are exceptions but very few. I think back to simple games like FF7 and how satisfying it was to complete and I felt like I had read a book with a start middle and an end. Same thing with movies nowadays, they blow more . up and the guy still gets the girl. Once a year a movie comes out that is just perfect and faultless but its never really in english so it doesn't get the credit it deserves cause lazy people just want hot women and ex special forces shooting everything that moves.

 

I actually play more games now than I ever did, probably cause im not out chasing skirt every week anymore or getting fooked up on this or that. I would if I could but I can't see the wife being ok with it.

 

I don't get the demographic thing either, strange statement.