# [VB] Crytek’s chief: Nothing will beat Crysis 3′s graphics for at least two years



## Zombiechow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chris13002*
> 
> link
> 
> Will this be what the original Crysis did to our machines?


I'm inclined to agree, but I suppose we will all see.

I'm buying it for the eye candy alone.


----------



## Ghooble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Zombiechow*
> 
> I'm inclined to agree, but I suppose we will all see.
> *I'm buying it for the eye candy alone.*


I thought that's why EVERYONE bought Crysis


----------



## Benladesh

We'll see, games like Far Cry 3 have set the bar pretty high.


----------



## Tomus

Well, i was not impressed by crysis3 alpha. The only difference i've seen was usage of cloth physics with ability to scatter them. But probably i've missed something...


----------



## Chris13002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Benladesh*
> 
> We'll see, games like Far Cry 3 have set the bar pretty high.


I disagree and think the original Crysis looks better than Far Cry 3. Far Cry 3 just has that 'cartoonish' look IMO... Battlefield 3 looks much more realistic...


----------



## frickfrock999

Better graphics than The Witcher 2? Considering W2 has the best display of PC graphics to date, that's no small feat.
Pretty bold statement, Crytek.


----------



## Zombiechow

The particle effects, lighting effects, and tessellation blew my mind in this video.





Frostbite 2 is also a very capable engine and Battlefield 3 showcased it beautifully.


----------



## HK_47

I think the unigine looks the best..... but Its still only a benchmark, I think they did an RTS game with the engine, but I have yet to see an FPS that truly makes it shine.


----------



## un-midas touch

I have a lot of things in my head trying to stop me from saying this, but they're not strong enough.

All in all it's a marginal difference.

edit: and maybe this is off-topic, but don't lens flares give the impression that you're viewing the world through a camera and not with your own eyes? Probably an old argument...


----------



## Zombiechow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *un-midas touch*
> 
> I have a lot of things in my head trying to stop me from saying this, but they're not strong enough.
> 
> All in all it's a marginal difference.


It's all next gen tech, and we get to enjoy it before dem console folks do


----------



## Mattbag

I'm willing to bet the gameplay isnt all that great in this one, just goes to show that sometimes graphics > gameplay !


----------



## un-midas touch

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Zombiechow*
> 
> It's all next gen tech, and we get to enjoy it before dem console folks do


I get this. But I still feel we've reached the point in graphics where it will require other, more mechanically-based improvements to add significantly to realism.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mattbag*
> 
> I'm willing to bet the gameplay isnt all that great in this one, just goes to show that sometimes graphics > gameplay !


pseudoninja'd.


----------



## hollowtek

won't happen. nvidia milkin' it to the extreme while amd is forever playing catch up.


----------



## Mattbag

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hollowtek*
> 
> won't happen. nvidia milkin' it to the extreme while amd is forever playing catch up.


What?


----------



## NateST

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mattbag*
> 
> What?


----------



## HowHardCanItBe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mattbag*
> 
> I'm willing to bet the gameplay isnt all that great in this one, just goes to show that sometimes graphics > gameplay !


Games aren't just about graphics or just about gameplay. It's about the whole complete package. TO be a good/great game, it needs to have gorgeous graphics,great gameplay,great soundtrack,great AI and great story. Crysis 1 & warhead were great games. Though, I'll believe this when I see it.


----------



## XAslanX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mattbag*
> 
> I'm willing to bet the gameplay isnt all that great in this one, just goes to show that sometimes graphics > gameplay !


This, I found the first one dull and boring for gameplay and nothing more than a glorified benchmark tool. Far Cry 3 is more impressive to me than Crysis 3, I feel hyped up the way I was when Far Cry came out, holding out for the steam sale to pick it up.


----------



## Shrak

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *5entinel*
> 
> Games aren't just about graphics or just about gameplay. It's about the whole complete package. TO be a good/great game, it needs to have gorgeous graphics,great gameplay,great soundtrack,great AI and great story. Crysis 1 & warhead were great games. Though, I'll believe this when I see it.


I partially agree, but after many long years I still find myself playing SMB1/3, Contra, and a few other oldies more so than most new games









Although maybe that's just because that's what I grew up with.


----------



## Conspiracy

2 years!!!!!!


----------



## rquinn19

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *XAslanX*
> 
> This, I found the first one dull and boring for gameplay and nothing more than a glorified benchmark tool. Far Cry 3 is more impressive to me than Crysis 3, I feel hyped up the way I was when Far Cry came out, holding out for the steam sale to pick it up.


I bought Crysis 1 and I'm willing to bet I logged more hours benchmarking than playing.


----------



## Zombiechow

I'm funny about games. My favorite games tend to be those where I become emotionally invested in the characters. The Mass Effect Series, Final Fantasy 7, Heavy Rain, Red Dead Redemption, and many others are great examples of this.

Simply put, graphics are pretty and can add a lot to the overall experience, but if the gameplay and story, and character developent are lacking, it's a terrible game to me. This is why I don't care for a lot of FPS titles (Every Crysis title included).

(Team Fortress 2 isn't included in that statement. I like sandviches way too much).


----------



## Cheezman

And the point of this is... _what?_

"Oh we can make a game that only a very small number of people in an already niche market will be able to run at high-max settings!"

Yeah, so, I'll pick this game up in a few years when it's $5.99 in a Steam season sale.


----------



## HowHardCanItBe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shrak*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *5entinel*
> 
> Games aren't just about graphics or just about gameplay. It's about the whole complete package. TO be a good/great game, it needs to have gorgeous graphics,great gameplay,great soundtrack,great AI and great story. Crysis 1 & warhead were great games. Though, I'll believe this when I see it.
> 
> 
> 
> I partially agree, but after many long years I still find myself playing SMB1/3, Contra, and a few other oldies more so than most new games
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although maybe that's just because that's what I grew up with.
Click to expand...

I revisit oldies for nostalgia reasons only.Anyway, if this is true,we enthusiast may finally get a game that makes good use of the extra horsepower. Isn't that what we have been asking for?


----------



## tpi2007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Zombiechow*
> 
> The particle effects, lighting effects, and tessellation blew my mind in this video.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frostbite 2 is also a very capable engine and Battlefield 3 showcased it beautifully.


That actually looks much better than what I remember from Crysis 2.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HK_47*
> 
> I think the unigine looks the best..... but Its still only a benchmark, I think they did an RTS game with the engine, but I have yet to see an FPS that truly makes it shine.


They did a game called Oil Rush, it's a strategy game, but yes, an FPS would definitely give it an opportunity to truly shine, although Oil Rush does look very nice.

On topic, I wonder what Valve has in store ? By this time next year they will have Steam running on Linux, probably with their whole library, plus some third party games, next generation consoles will be released around that time, so they will probably wait a few months or even a full year, into late 2014 in order for the new consoles to sell in the market and thus have their own and the competitor's consoles... and then... there is only one thing that everybody is waiting for. So my bet is that they are currently working on Half-Life 2: Episode 3 (or Half-Life 3, or both), and will release it in 2014 with a vastly improved Source engine, with full DX 11 support. And if they want to make a splash, I think Crytek may be in for a surprise. Half-Life 2 won game of the decade, ten years later Valve may be aiming to do the same again, in every respect: graphics, story, music, sounds, A.I., facial and character animation.

Also, what do you guys think, DX 11 as an API basically has everything we need to transition to realism or not ? I sense that what we need right now is to increase GPU horsepower in order to take full advantage of it, developers also need to improve A.I. in games (CPU utilization), so, is there any major feature left for DX 12 ? And if there is, what is it / are they ? I know that DX 12 is supposed to bring more robust multi-threading to GPUs, but apart from that, what are we missing ? And if DX 12 is justified, is there a need for anything more after that ? Will we have reached an API that is good enough to have photo-realistic graphics and realistic environments in all senses ?


----------



## Zombiechow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tpi2007*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Zombiechow*
> 
> The particle effects, lighting effects, and tessellation blew my mind in this video.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frostbite 2 is also a very capable engine and Battlefield 3 showcased it beautifully.
> 
> 
> 
> That actually looks much better than what I remember from Crysis 2.
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *HK_47*
> 
> I think the unigine looks the best..... but Its still only a benchmark, I think they did an RTS game with the engine, but I have yet to see an FPS that truly makes it shine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did a game called Oil Rush, it's a strategy game, but yes, an FPS would definitely give it an opportunity to truly shine, although Oil Rush does look very nice.
> 
> On topic, I wonder what Valve has in store ? By this time next year they will have Steam running on Linux, probably with their whole library, plus some third party games, next generation consoles will be released around that time, so they will probably wait a few months or even a full year, into late 2014 in order for the new consoles to sell in the market and thus have their own and the competitor's consoles... and then... there is only one thing that everybody is waiting for. So my bet is that they are currently working on Half-Life 2: Episode 3 (or Half-Life 3, or both), and will release it in 2014 with a vastly improved Source engine, with full DX 11 support. And if they want to make a splash, I think Crytkek may be in for a surprise. Half-life 2 won game of the decade, ten years later Valve may be aiming to do the same again, in every respect: graphics, story, A.I.,facial and character animation.
> 
> Also, what do you guys think, DX 11 as an API basically has everything we need to transition to realism or not ? I sense that what we need right now is to increase GPU horsepower in order to take full advantage of it, developers also need to improve A.I. in games (CPU utilization), so, is there any major feature left for DX 12 ? And if there is, what is it / are they ? I know that DX 12 is supposed to bring more robust multi-threading to GPUs, but apart from that, what are we missing ? And if DX 12 is justified, is there a need for anything more after that ? Will we have reached an API that is good enough to have photo-realistic graphics and realistic environments in all senses ?
Click to expand...

I think as a whole, we have a ways to go in terms of hardware and software development, but we're getting there. One of the major features of DX 11 was tessellation, and that in and of itself is a huge leap toward photo realism.

Source, in my opinion, is THE best engine of all time due to the quality of the games produced on it. I've had countless hours of fun playing Left 4 Dead 2, Team Fortress 2, Portal, Portal 2, Half-Life 2, and others. It's not the greatest looking engine in existence, but it's held up amazing well over the years and amazing content is still being produced on it.


----------



## XAslanX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Zombiechow*
> 
> I think as a whole, we have a ways to go in terms of hardware and software development, but we're getting there. One of the major features of DX 11 was tessellation, and that in and of itself is a huge leap toward photo realism.
> Source, in my opinion, is THE best engine of all time due to the quality of the games produced on it. I've had countless hours of fun playing Left 4 Dead 2, Team Fortress 2, Portal, Portal 2, Half-Life 2, and others. It's not the greatest looking engine in existence, but it's held up amazing well over the years and amazing content is still being produced on it.


I agree with this, source is an extremely configurable engine and I got more enjoyment out of games that use that engine than I have with Cry engine.


----------



## Scorched912

I don't know Crytek, pretty bold statement. Rome II: Total War looks amazing.


----------



## Bonkers

Very bold statement but Id love to see it happen.


----------



## DBEAU

I'm all about amazing graphics but I can't help but think of this as marketing. I do hope it looks as good as they say. Just please, don't put crap like water droplets on my screen like in BF3.


----------



## doomlord52

2 years, eh?

Those better be some godly textures, as well as amazing shading. It's got to compete with Metro: Last Light in terms of indoor lighting, and TBH from what I've seen, it's not doing that.


----------



## HK_47

there is so much emphasis on visuals, but we never really stop to think that physics and AI are pretty much in their infancy. AI are still very very predictable and haven't changed at all in the last 10 years, even in the latest games like hitman, once you know their route and set path it is quite obvious they are machines, even in the harder difficulties its not hard to calculate their reactions. we have barely scratched the surface of destruction physics in games like bad company 2, then you see battlefield 3 and it appears the physics were actually downgraded. when are we going to see realistic physics engines where entire buildings are composed of thousands of individual bricks, and each brick can dynamically shatter into multiple pieces? I think there will be a plateau effect once we reach a certain point graphics-wise. I think textures and polygon counts are going to stay pretty much the same throughout next gen. developers will spend another decade tweaking lighting effects, after all you can have insanely high poly counts and super high res textures but without the right lighting its going to look like clay or plastic. but how are physics and AI going to be approached next gen and how will developers tackle these issues? are we are going to continue have photo-realistic worlds with all the assets in brick and mortar, lethargic trees that never drop leaves or break a single branch, water that moves in continuous waves but doesn't move particles of sand or rocks? right now digital environments can look photo real, but in reality that's all they are, just a 3d photo with very limited interaction.


----------



## venom55520

i'm assuming that the mp alpha will not add anything as far as graphics go. i'm waiting for the single player experience.


----------



## iEATu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HK_47*
> 
> there is so much emphasis on visuals, but we never really stop to think that physics and AI are pretty much in their infancy. AI are still very very predictable and haven't changed at all in the last 10 years, even in the latest games like hitman, once you know their route and set path it is quite obvious they are machines, even in the harder difficulties its not hard to calculate their reactions. we have barely scratched the surface of destruction physics in games like bad company 2, then you see battlefield 3 and it appears the physics were actually downgraded. when are we going to see realistic physics engines where entire buildings are composed of thousands of individual bricks, and each brick can dynamically shatter into multiple pieces? I think there will be a plateau effect once we reach a certain point graphics-wise. I think textures and polygon counts are going to stay pretty much the same throughout next gen. developers will spend another decade tweaking lighting effects, after all you can have insanely high poly counts and super high res textures but without the right lighting its going to look like clay or plastic. but how are physics and AI going to be approached next gen and how will developers tackle these issues? are we are going to continue have photo-realistic worlds with all the assets in brick and mortar, lethargic trees that never drop leaves or break a single branch, water that moves in continuous waves but doesn't move particles of sand or rocks? right now digital environments can look photo real, but in reality that's all they are, just a 3d photo with very limited interaction.


Weren't destruction physics pretty good with Crysis(? Haven't played it yet







own it though lol) and Crysis: Warhead?

Haha maybe AI will be great once we can run a self thinking AI on top of everything else our computer has to do. Then we'll finally see CPUs getting maxed out.

Oh and on a side note, why don't we use the CPUs anymore to calculate physics (or at least be an option to use the CPU over the video card, which could be done in the console in the Crysis games) when the GPUs are already being loaded heavily for some games?


----------



## Zombiechow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HK_47*
> 
> there is so much emphasis on visuals, but we never really stop to think that physics and AI are pretty much in their infancy. AI are still very very predictable and haven't changed at all in the last 10 years, even in the latest games like hitman, once you know their route and set path it is quite obvious they are machines, even in the harder difficulties its not hard to calculate their reactions. we have barely scratched the surface of destruction physics in games like bad company 2, then you see battlefield 3 and it appears the physics were actually downgraded. when are we going to see realistic physics engines where entire buildings are composed of thousands of individual bricks, and each brick can dynamically shatter into multiple pieces? I think there will be a plateau effect once we reach a certain point graphics-wise. I think textures and polygon counts are going to stay pretty much the same throughout next gen. developers will spend another decade tweaking lighting effects, after all you can have insanely high poly counts and super high res textures but without the right lighting its going to look like clay or plastic. but how are physics and AI going to be approached next gen and how will developers tackle these issues? are we are going to continue have photo-realistic worlds with all the assets in brick and mortar, lethargic trees that never drop leaves or break a single branch, water that moves in continuous waves but doesn't move particles of sand or rocks? right now digital environments can look photo real, but in reality that's all they are, just a 3d photo with very limited interaction.


With regards to physics simulations, I agree. We have a long way to go, however I think that software development is vastly outpacing hardware development in this category.

Proper physics simulations are very CPU intensive, and multiple simulations happening at one time can easily tax lower end dual-core PC's, etc. It's all about optimization, that being the ability to play a game with reasonable image quality across a multitude of platforms. In a perfect world, everybody would have a 2600k or higher and GPU's with absurd shader core counts (for Cuda/DirectCU), but we don't.

Eventually, Moore's law will kick in with current hardware and developers will have to innovate new ways to increase realism in their games beyond the means of what hardware can provide. I mean, you can only have so many Transistors in a GPU, let alone shader cores, and RAM, not to mention eventual clock speed limitations. Same goes for CPU's, but I digress.

I think improving the quality and accuracy of physics simulations in games is an excellent step forward in achieving realism. When a bullet hits a wall, i want to see pieces (of all sizes) of the surface fly off the wall and bounce realistically on the ground. That's just one example.


----------



## Foxrun

Hopefully some better optimization, I still cant max the original crysis


----------



## Zombiechow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iEATu*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *HK_47*
> 
> there is so much emphasis on visuals, but we never really stop to think that physics and AI are pretty much in their infancy. AI are still very very predictable and haven't changed at all in the last 10 years, even in the latest games like hitman, once you know their route and set path it is quite obvious they are machines, even in the harder difficulties its not hard to calculate their reactions. we have barely scratched the surface of destruction physics in games like bad company 2, then you see battlefield 3 and it appears the physics were actually downgraded. when are we going to see realistic physics engines where entire buildings are composed of thousands of individual bricks, and each brick can dynamically shatter into multiple pieces? I think there will be a plateau effect once we reach a certain point graphics-wise. I think textures and polygon counts are going to stay pretty much the same throughout next gen. developers will spend another decade tweaking lighting effects, after all you can have insanely high poly counts and super high res textures but without the right lighting its going to look like clay or plastic. but how are physics and AI going to be approached next gen and how will developers tackle these issues? are we are going to continue have photo-realistic worlds with all the assets in brick and mortar, lethargic trees that never drop leaves or break a single branch, water that moves in continuous waves but doesn't move particles of sand or rocks? right now digital environments can look photo real, but in reality that's all they are, just a 3d photo with very limited interaction.
> 
> 
> 
> Weren't destruction physics pretty good with Crysis(? Haven't played it yet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> own it though lol) and Crysis: Warhead?
> 
> Haha maybe AI will be great once we can run a self thinking AI on top of everything else our computer has to do. Then we'll finally see CPUs getting maxed out.
> 
> Oh and on a side note, why don't we use the CPUs anymore to calculate physics (or at least be an option to use the CPU over the video card, which could be done in the console in the Crysis games) when the GPUs are already being loaded heavily for some games?
Click to expand...

As a means of optimization, it makes more sense to use Cuda/DirectCU cores to process physics simulations due to the sheer amount of work that a GPU is able to handle in this department. You have to assume that the average joe probably runs a low to middle end dual or quad-core processor, which would be too taxing on it.


----------



## brfield

It's gonna be one of those "it has HOW MUCH tessellation?" games again. lol
I poke fun...


----------



## knd775

I really hope they succeed in doing that. I love the Crysis series so much. Beautifully made games.


----------



## randomizer

How does one "beat" the graphics of another game? Games are stylistically different, and (fortunately) not everyone aims for photorealism, so therefore that can't be the sole metric. I've seen some nice things coming out of Project CARS and that game is only in beta.

Personally I'd rather they make a good game than a good looking game. Crytek just don't seem to have a handle on the former.


----------



## Zombiechow

I want to see the tech in something other than an FPS.


----------



## General123

I hope it is much better then the Alpha, which was by no means ground braking, at all.


----------



## Halo_003

Having played the alpha I do hope they improve a lot as it wasn't that great.

I would love to see 4K textures in this, along with a crap ton of tessellation. I may be in a small margin when I say this, but I want this to crush 680s.


----------



## QuietlyLinux

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HK_47*
> 
> I think the unigine looks the best..... but Its still only a benchmark, I think they did an RTS game with the engine, but I have yet to see an FPS that truly makes it shine.
> 
> They did a game called Oil Rush, it's a strategy game, but yes, an FPS would definitely give it an opportunity to truly shine, although Oil Rush does look very nice.
> 
> On topic, I wonder what Valve has in store ? By this time next year they will have Steam running on Linux, probably with their whole library, plus some third party games, next generation consoles will be released around that time, so they will probably wait a few months or even a full year, into late 2014 in order for the new consoles to sell in the market and thus have their own and the competitor's consoles... and then... there is only one thing that everybody is waiting for. *So my bet is that they are currently working on Half-Life 2: Episode 3 (or Half-Life 3, or both), and will release it in 2014 with a vastly improved Source engine, with full DX 11 support. And if they want to make a splash, I think Crytek may be in for a surprise. Half-Life 2 won game of the decade, ten years later Valve may be aiming to do the same again, in every respect: graphics, story, music, sounds, A.I., facial and character animation.*
> 
> Also, what do you guys think, DX 11 as an API basically has everything we need to transition to realism or not ? I sense that what we need right now is to increase GPU horsepower in order to take full advantage of it, developers also need to improve A.I. in games (CPU utilization), so, is there any major feature left for DX 12 ? And if there is, what is it / are they ? I know that DX 12 is supposed to bring more robust multi-threading to GPUs, but apart from that, what are we missing ? And if DX 12 is justified, is there a need for anything more after that ? Will we have reached an API that is good enough to have photo-realistic graphics and realistic environments in all senses ?


I am far more exited for Half-Life 3 myself for these reasons.
Crysis has good graphics but the game play is average, it isn't bad just not great and games like Quake and portal have really good story/game play but the graphics isn't excellent.


----------



## TheBlindDeafMute

I hope they achieve it. I came late into the crysis game. And after I saw what was up I bought them all. Glad to see someone is interested in pushing the boundaries. To all the naysayers that state the gameplay wasn't up to par, put the game on hard, and try not to die.


----------



## TheReciever

So is he trolling himself by indirectly saying hes not making another title for 2 years?...

Crysis hard? go play some Quake III arena


----------



## XAslanX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheReciever*
> 
> So is he trolling himself by indirectly saying hes not making another title for 2 years?...
> Crysis hard? go play some Quake III arena


This, crysis was a walk in the park compared to most of the FPS games I've played. Regenerating health? please try again, I'm use to Quake/Unreal type games where you rely on finding health packs to stay alive. Go play Far Cry 1 on max difficulty and see just how hard a game can get without regenerating health.


----------



## Owned

I hope the game is not like the alpha
But the graphic is awesome


----------



## wierdo124

A return of "but can it run Crysis (3)"?


----------



## iARDAs

From the looks of it 670 4GB sli will give me like 40 fps at 1440p resolution 

I best wait for 770 4gb and SLI it than.


----------



## Duff-Man

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Benladesh*
> 
> We'll see, games like Far Cry 3 have set the bar pretty high.


Far Cry 3 didn't look _*that*_ good, my old GTS 450 could easily handle it on Ultra presets. Secondly Far Cry 3 is based on the Dunia 2 engine, which is a revision of the original Dunia which itself was based on the original CryEngine, which Ubisoft acquired when it bought the Far Cry IP those years back after the first Far Cry. The original Dunia engine probably retained around 14-18% of the original CryEngine's code and the Dunia 2.0 engine would have probably retained around 4-6% of the original CryEngine's code.

The first Crysis was then powered by CryEngine 2 and Crysis 2 powered by CryEngine 3, although utilizing only say 45% of the engine's capabilities at the time, the reason for this was that many complained that their system couldn't run the original Crysis and the limitations of consoles, but as Crytek worked with the consoles the more their knowledge of console software and programming grew and allowed them to make better use out of the consoles, so they set out to rip CryEngine 3 to pieces to get it to work _well_ on consoles and the end product is CryEngine 3.4 (the console version), which Crytek's CEO says maxes the consoles out, to their limit with not even 1% of energy left available. Crysis 3 will be powered by CryEngine 3.4, an engine which was developed to max out PC's but was then ported to consoles.


----------



## lan cable garrotte string

OUR GRAPHICS - WILL BLOT OUT THE SUN

...then we will OC in the shade.


----------



## HowHardCanItBe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheReciever*
> 
> So is he trolling himself by indirectly saying hes not making another title for 2 years?...
> 
> Crysis hard? go play some Quake III arena


Comparing a game that's predominately Single player(Crysis) vs a game that's predominately a Multiplayer game...How is that fair?


----------



## IronWill1991

That's pretty bold statement, Crytek. There are couple games coming out next year might beat you. One game I can think of is "Reset" used by their own Praxis engine. Unreal Engine 4 also looks pretty amazing.


----------



## pwnzilla61

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Duff-Man*
> 
> Far Cry 3 didn't look _*that*_ good, my old GTS 450 could easily handle it on Ultra presets. Secondly Far Cry 3 is based on the Dunia 2 engine, which is a revision of the original Dunia which itself was based on the original CryEngine, which Ubisoft acquired when it bought the Far Cry IP those years back after the first Far Cry. The original Dunia engine probably retained around 14-18% of the original CryEngine's code and the Dunia 2.0 engine would have probably retained around 4-6% of the original CryEngine's code.
> The first Crysis was then powered by CryEngine 2 and Crysis 2 powered by CryEngine 3, although utilizing only say 45% of the engine's capabilities at the time, the reason for this was that many complained that their system couldn't run the original Crysis and the limitations of consoles, but as Crytek worked with the consoles the more their knowledge of console software and programming grew and allowed them to make better use out of the consoles, so they set out to rip CryEngine 3 to pieces to get it to work _well_ on consoles and the end product is CryEngine 3.4 (the console version), which Crytek's CEO says maxes the consoles out, to their limit with not even 1% of energy left available. Crysis 3 will be powered by CryEngine 3.4, an engine which was developed to max out PC's but was then ported to consoles.


I highly highly doubt you can play at ultra with a 450. 300x200 maybe.


----------



## Bloitz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lan cable garrotte string*
> 
> OUR GRAPHICS - WILL BLOT OUT THE SUN
> ...then we will OC in the shade.


Nice one


----------



## mohit9206

i dont think crysis 3 is going to blow me away with its graphics especially after having experienced skyrim with hi res texture mods and far cry 3. both being two of the most gorgeous games i have ever played on my pc.


----------



## Duff-Man

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pwnzilla61*
> 
> I highly highly doubt you can play at ultra with a 450. 300x200 maybe.


My GTS 450 ran it on Ultra presets at 1920x1080 with an average of around 35 FPS with occasional drops here and there.


----------



## EmL

Woops wrong thread!


----------



## Artikbot

Come on Crytek!!

I want Crysis 3 to be like the 1st one. The game with the best graphics until the next one launched.


----------



## RJacobs28

Personally, I'm loving that games out there now are starting to tax my two cards. Means the money spent was well invested for me.

As for the above comment of a 450 running ultra presets on Far Cry 3 - my two 7970's run it on ultra and they're BOTH being used 100% to generate 50FPS.


----------



## Tatakai All

I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## Duplicated

Challenge accepted anyone?


----------



## kenpachiroks

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lan cable garrotte string*
> 
> OUR GRAPHICS - WILL BLOT OUT THE SUN
> ...then we will OC in the shade.



















crysis 1 was a graphical milestone. it wowed me when I first played it.
But the mods were jaw dropping. One just couldn't go back to vanilla crysis.

Based on pure visual appeal :
Hope : Crysis 3 with mods > Crysis 3 > Crysis 1 with mods > Crysis 2 => Crysis 1 vanilla
Pessimistic prediction : Crysis 3 with mods> Crysis 1 with mods = Crysis 3 > Crysis 2 => Crysis 1 vanilla

Based on gameplay:
Hope : Crysis 3 > crysis 1 > Crysis Warhead> Crysis 2
Pessimistic prediction : Crysis 1 > Crysis 3 (marginally)> Crysis 2
Crysis 1 had horrible AI compared to 2. But the linear-ness of crysis 2 killed any AI inprovement.


----------



## edo101

No I dissaggree? High amounts of unnecessary tessellation does not a beautiful game make


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RJacobs28*
> 
> As for the above comment of a 450 running ultra presets on Far Cry 3 - my two 7970's run it on ultra and they're BOTH being used 100% to generate 50FPS.


I'd expect much more better framerates on an Intel processor considering the graphics system you have.


----------



## kx11

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iARDAs*
> 
> From the looks of it 670 4GB sli will give me like 40 fps at 1440p resolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I best wait for 770 4gb and SLI it than.


1000$ upgrade for the sake of 1 game ?

good thing i got 560ti+670sli ready for it


----------



## FlyingNugget

They said the same thing about Crysis 2, and then published a garbage console port(relative).


----------



## kx11

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FlyingNugget*
> 
> They said the same thing about Crysis 2, and then published a garbage console port(relative).


the fact that they listed an AMD processor in hardware requirements list makes me believe C3 is outstanding


----------



## Superplush

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FlyingNugget*
> 
> They said the same thing about Crysis 2, and then published a garbage console port(relative).


I have to agree there. So much hype was generated about Crysis2, even the tech demos looked amazing. I thought that the game really didn't live up to expectation of what was promised, for example, the facial animations. Then we had the disappointment of no High-resolution textures at launch like they said they would, we waited just over 3 months for them to come out ( God that felt like forever too







).

I think that Crysis 3 will be better than the second but I don't think it'll live up to what Crytek thinks it will, there are afew really lovely looking games out there and after all, it is an EA game because of this I'll be watching from afar as I vowed never to buy another.


----------



## ThePath

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Duff-Man*
> 
> My GTS 450 ran it on Ultra presets at 1920x1080 with an average of around 35 FPS with occasional drops here and there.


Thats impossible.

Are you playing it on DX9 ?


----------



## Bloodbath

Ive said it before and Ill say it again " My loop is filled with Cevat Yerlis tears!" come at me, I said come at me!


----------



## watsoverclockin

Too bad it will prolly have a crappy hud/ui just as crysis 2 did. Obviously for console compatibility.


----------



## Crouch

Hmmm.... Question is, will it look better than the original crysis ? Cuz i don't think so.


----------



## AngeloG.

Yeah, and developers will take that realistic beauty, and create...a big BROWN mess.

Prove me wrong, Crytek.


----------



## AblueXKRS

If nothing will beat Crysis 3 for two years, I'm guessing the tech to max it won't exist for about another 12 months...








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Zombiechow*
> 
> The particle effects, lighting effects, and tessellation blew my mind in this video.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frostbite 2 is also a very capable engine and Battlefield 3 showcased it beautifully.


Time to buy a couple new video cards.


----------



## Magariz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *frickfrock99*
> 
> Better graphics than The Witcher 2? Considering W2 has the best display of PC graphics to date, that's no small feat.
> Pretty bold statement, Crytek.


After Crysis 2 I am highly skeptical


----------



## funfortehfun

dat frog tessellation.


----------



## mohit9206

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Duff-Man*
> 
> Far Cry 3 didn't look _*that*_ good, my old GTS 450 could easily handle it on Ultra presets. .


thats a load of bull****. my 7750 is faster than your GTS 450 and it only manages 35 fps on high settings at 1440*900 with AA off .


----------



## Eduardv




----------



## Eduardv

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *frickfrock99*
> 
> Better graphics than The Witcher 2? Considering W2 has the best display of PC graphics to date, that's no small feat.
> Pretty bold statement, Crytek.


Well i dont see the Witcher 2 graphics that "Great" ,the animated characters looks like crap


----------



## F1ynn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Duplicated*
> 
> Challenge accepted anyone?


Challenge accepted!


----------



## Dimaggio1103

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chris13002*
> 
> I disagree and think the original Crysis looks better than Far Cry 3. Far Cry 3 just has that 'cartoonish' look IMO... Battlefield 3 looks much more realistic...


Agreed, farcry 3 looks good, but way to cartoony, and character models are sad IMO.

I cant wait for crysis 3, I still have to upgrade my mobo, and a second gtx 660ti, then hopefully I can max it?.....


----------



## Mygaffer

I am going to go ahead and play the baloney card on this one. In two years both xbox720 and PS4 will most likely have been out for a full year. That means games that are in production today, aiming to release during the first year, and graphically targeting the specs of the new consoles, will be released within two years.

Despite any PC tweaks I just don't see them putting enough time and money to make the PC version with that much higher fidelity than the console versions, especially since for marketing purposes they have to claim that the experience across platforms is "virtually identical".

That being said I am sure it will be a good looking game and the trailers, which are all running on PC, look great. I've never been a fan of the actual games themselves but maybe this one will be different.


----------



## newphase

Just... WOW!

After watching those vids I had a little chuckle at how amazed players were with he tech-demo in he firs serious sam

How far we have come, eh?

i also remember my partner at the time being amazed at he stained-glass windows in the original Hexen.

Amazing stuff!


----------



## [email protected]

I can't wait to see how this turns out. I really enjoyed Crysis 1. Crysis 3 is going to give the PC community a revolutionary in graphics and superior beauty. I hope i can keep up because nobody likes upgrading PC parts every year lol.


----------



## kx11

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *F1ynn*
> 
> Challenge accepted!


i bet his challenge is towards casual PC gamers

or he will make the game unoptimized and call it a day


----------



## CBZ323

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Benladesh*
> 
> We'll see, games like Far Cry 3 have set the bar pretty high.


mmmh, I am personally not impressed *at all* with Far Cry 3 maxed out.


----------



## overclockedham

the top secret toad tech sold me. pre ordering now.


----------



## Zombiechow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *overclockedham*
> 
> the top secret toad tech sold me. pre ordering now.


That's one sexy toad


----------



## Born For TDM

Wow im definitely picking up another 660 ti before release so i can get some good fps on this game xd


----------



## Duff-Man

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ThePath*
> 
> Thats impossible.
> Are you playing it on DX9 ?


I'm confused here







, I played Far Cry 3 on DX11 with Ultra presets on my GTS 450, with around an average of 32 FPS with occasional drops, when people are coming here and saying Far Cry 3 on Ultra maxes out 7970's in Crossfire?


----------



## Vlasov_581

looks good and all, but i'm really getting tired of this vegetation taking over city thing in crysis......do they realize that it takes about 50+ years for trees to get THAT big


----------



## zkalra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Benladesh*
> 
> We'll see, games like Far Cry 3 have set the bar pretty high.


It would be naive to think that FC3 will be able to compete with Crysis 3. Just look at some of the trailers. Plus being Crytek, i am sure they will code it way better than the frogs at Ubisoft.

And also Cryengine 3 >>>>> Dunia 2 !!!!


----------



## Dimaggio1103

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vlasov_581*
> 
> looks good and all, but i'm really getting tired of this vegetation taking over city thing in crysis......do they realize that it takes about 50+ years for trees to get THAT big


its set in the future well over 50 years I believe.


----------



## jameschisholm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjIgylqahrI

Watch in 1080p

It looks incredible, I'm sure Crytek have done it again!


----------



## Cheezman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jameschisholm*
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjIgylqahrI
> Watch in 1080p
> It looks incredible, I'm sure Crytek have done it again!


The highest it goes is 720p?

And honestly, didn't look _that_ impressive.


----------



## meetajhu

Metro: Last Light and Metal Gear Solid 5 says "Hi"


----------



## TKFlight

I have a feeling that this will be poorly unoptimized, but I look forward to playing it. I just want them to make a well rounded version of Crysis that has a good campaign/MP and is accompanied by good graphics. Instead of "Can your PC run Crysis" type of game.


----------



## xutnubu

I bet they will add some crazy AA method for the ultra preset. Something like 16xSSAA.

Same "technique" some games have been using to make you think it's to glorious for your pc to max. (Far Cry 3, Sleeping Dogs, Hitman: Absolution).


----------



## kx11

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meetajhu*
> 
> Metro: Last Light and Metal Gear Solid 5 says "Hi"


you can't compare Wood & coal with diamonds


----------



## diggiddi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kenpachiroks*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> crysis 1 was a graphical milestone. it wowed me when I first played it.
> But the mods were jaw dropping. One just couldn't go back to vanilla crysis.
> Based on pure visual appeal :
> Hope : Crysis 3 with mods > Crysis 3 > Crysis 1 with mods > Crysis 2 => Crysis 1 vanilla
> Pessimistic prediction : Crysis 3 with mods> Crysis 1 with mods = Crysis 3 > Crysis 2 => Crysis 1 vanilla
> Based on gameplay:
> Hope : Crysis 3 > crysis 1 > Crysis Warhead> Crysis 2
> Pessimistic prediction : Crysis 1 > Crysis 3 (marginally)> Crysis 2
> Crysis 1 had horrible AI compared to 2. But the linear-ness of crysis 2 killed any AI inprovement.


Which mod are using for Crysis1 ? IMO maldo's mod for Cry2 is the best looking


----------



## Baasha

This is excellent news if true.

Crysis 2 with MaldoHD v3.0 + Blackfire Mod + Quality Mod played on a 30" monitor @ 2560x1600 with everything maxed out using 4 GTX-680 Classified in 4-Way SLI = WIN: http://youtu.be/s01EpZ-T224


----------



## Newbie2009

I would prefer a beautiful game rather than a game that looks nice and kills my pc. Far cry 3 less cartoon style.

Looking at crysis 3 vids it looks really nice, but not blown away.


----------



## Totimoshi

Unreal Engine 4?


----------



## Nick7269

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *frickfrock99*
> 
> Better graphics than The Witcher 2? Considering W2 has the best display of PC graphics to date, that's no small feat.
> Pretty bold statement, Crytek.


This is exactly what I thought, a lot of games have come a long way recently.


----------



## Mygaffer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vlasov_581*
> 
> looks good and all, but i'm really getting tired of this vegetation taking over city thing in crysis......do they realize that it takes about 50+ years for trees to get THAT big


You know why it didn't take 50+ years for the trees to get that big? Because the aliens radiate an energy that causes plants to grow at an accelerated rate. Or maybe their DNA mixed with the tree's DNA and caused the accelerated growth. Or the aliens are terraforming earth.

Bottom line it was an aesthetic choice and a design decision. It does not matter how long it takes a tree to get that big in real life. This is a video game and one of the best things about video games is that they can do things that don't and can't happen in real life. They would be much more boring if everything had to reflect reality, there is already far, far too much of that in games today.


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AblueXKRS*
> 
> Time to buy a couple new video cards.


This.

But I'll wait until it releases to see how well it runs on which hardware... And then upgrade.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Totimoshi*
> 
> Unreal Engine 4?


Is that a game?


----------



## Totimoshi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Is that a game?


Touche,,

Well not yet


----------



## rockgod213

How 'bout they just try making a good game, for once.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rockgod213*
> 
> How 'bout they just try making a good game, for once.


Any game thats PC only it good.

Look at PC game exclusives.

Wow, LoL, SC2, Dota 2. People cant get enough of these games. Same was with Crysis 1. They where all good games. The moment you include consoles you sacrifice/compromise so much.


----------



## Zombiechow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rockgod213*
> 
> How 'bout they just try making a good game, for once.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rockgod213*
> 
> How 'bout they just try making a good game, for once.


Their business model probably doesn't rely on their ability to do that









Invest money in next gen engine.
License said engine at a high premium.
Produce average shooters showcasing the engines tech and watch gamers clamor to it.

Rinse, repeat, profit.

Epic Games does the exact same thing, however there are more than a few quality titles available based on their engine.


----------



## HK_47

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Zombiechow*
> 
> With regards to physics simulations, I agree. We have a long way to go, however I think that software development is vastly outpacing hardware development in this category.
> Proper physics simulations are very CPU intensive, and multiple simulations happening at one time can easily tax lower end dual-core PC's, etc. It's all about optimization, that being the ability to play a game with reasonable image quality across a multitude of platforms. In a perfect world, everybody would have a 2600k or higher and GPU's with absurd shader core counts (for Cuda/DirectCU), but we don't.
> Eventually, Moore's law will kick in with current hardware and developers will have to innovate new ways to increase realism in their games beyond the means of what hardware can provide. I mean, you can only have so many Transistors in a GPU, let alone shader cores, and RAM, not to mention eventual clock speed limitations. Same goes for CPU's, but I digress.
> I think improving the quality and accuracy of physics simulations in games is an excellent step forward in achieving realism. When a bullet hits a wall, i want to see pieces (of all sizes) of the surface fly off the wall and bounce realistically on the ground. That's just one example.


I'd like to think there is progress being made in physics engines, small things here and there but nothing groundbreaking. this has been the same for a while though, first time I saw it was GTA IV (2008). The video here is impressive except for the fact that the truck is the only thing in the scene that takes damage, everything else seems impervious.




it would be awesome if the collision caused a sizable impact on the wall, for example bits of concrete flying everywhere, exposing the rebar, an impact with enough force would actually bend the rebar. Quad Cores are pretty much a standard these days,especially for PC Gamers, people with lower end dual cores simple switch the physics off, it shouldn't break the game just dull the experience.. when I was talking about the plateau of polygons and textures that is essentially mores law waiting to catch up like you were saying. I agree software is outpacing the hardware in many aspects, on the other hand there is also plenty of room for optimization, balancing assets. maybe crysis 4 will focus on some of these things, I don't imagine that crysis 3 will have anything groundbreaking when it comes to physics, but I do believe they are going to tessellate the crap out of the game LOL


----------



## Zombiechow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HK_47*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Zombiechow*
> 
> With regards to physics simulations, I agree. We have a long way to go, however I think that software development is vastly outpacing hardware development in this category.
> Proper physics simulations are very CPU intensive, and multiple simulations happening at one time can easily tax lower end dual-core PC's, etc. It's all about optimization, that being the ability to play a game with reasonable image quality across a multitude of platforms. In a perfect world, everybody would have a 2600k or higher and GPU's with absurd shader core counts (for Cuda/DirectCU), but we don't.
> Eventually, Moore's law will kick in with current hardware and developers will have to innovate new ways to increase realism in their games beyond the means of what hardware can provide. I mean, you can only have so many Transistors in a GPU, let alone shader cores, and RAM, not to mention eventual clock speed limitations. Same goes for CPU's, but I digress.
> I think improving the quality and accuracy of physics simulations in games is an excellent step forward in achieving realism. When a bullet hits a wall, i want to see pieces (of all sizes) of the surface fly off the wall and bounce realistically on the ground. That's just one example.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to think there is progress being made in physics engines, small things here and there but nothing groundbreaking. this has been the same for a while though, first time I saw it was GTA IV (2008). The video here is impressive except for the fact that the truck is the only thing in the scene that takes damage, everything else seems impervious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it would be awesome if the collision caused a sizable impact on the wall, for example bits of concrete flying everywhere, exposing the rebar, an impact with enough force would actually bend the rebar. Quad Cores are pretty much a standard these days,especially for PC Gamers, people with lower end dual cores simple switch the physics off, it shouldn't break the game just dull the experience.. when I was talking about the plateau of polygons and textures that is essentially mores law waiting to catch up like you were saying. I agree software is outpacing the hardware in many aspects, on the other hand there is also plenty of room for optimization, balancing assets. maybe crysis 4 will focus on some of these things, I don't imagine that crysis 3 will have anything groundbreaking when it comes to physics, but I do believe they are going to tessellate the crap out of the game LOL
Click to expand...

That's incredibly impressive, and I agree with your comments.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Zombiechow*
> 
> That's incredibly impressive, and I agree with your comments.


I think that was released before Crysis 2 came out if i am not mistaken. The game shares nothing like that. Thats what Crysis 2 lacked. Physics. There was nothing to do other then the story.


----------



## newphase

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Any game thats PC only it good.
> Look at PC game exclusives.
> Wow, LoL, SC2, Dota 2. People cant get enough of these games. Same was with Crysis 1. They where all good games. The moment you include consoles you sacrifice/compromise so much.


Whilst I agree with your post in principle, I would call you to task about mentioning WOW in there! For heavens sake it is (at best) mmorpg for nublets.

Everquest has just been released on Steam; try working your way through THAT for an mmorpg. Levelling down as a consequence? Losing gear as a consequence? The way that you level FORCES you to be a good player - or you will never group and will find levelling tuff! TUFF!

I am dismayed at the amount of players that WoW has for such a cartoony, unskilled game with Lore as deep as your average puddle. Do not get me wrong - I play it occasionally when the world is dry of games... All I see are Raid this, raid that, smoke this, stalk that. Really? Is that your endgame? *yawn* Everquest (last time i played it) had no end game.

Ever felt like a crack-whore, WoW playas? Cos that is what you are.


----------



## newphase

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Any game thats PC only it good.
> Look at PC game exclusives.
> Wow, LoL, SC2, Dota 2. People cant get enough of these games. Same was with Crysis 1. They where all good games. The moment you include consoles you sacrifice/compromise so much.


Whilst I agree with your post in principle, I would call you to task about mentioning WOW in there! For heavens sake it is (at best) mmorpg for nublets.

Everquest has just been released on Steam; try working your way through THAT for an mmorpg. Levelling down as a consequence? Losing gear as a consequence? The way that you level FORCES you to be a good player - or you will never group and will find levelling tuff! TUFF!

I am dismayed at the amount of players that WoW has for such a cartoony, unskilled game with Lore as deep as your average puddle. Do not get me wrong - I play it occasionally when the world is dry of games... All I see are Raid this, raid that, smoke this, stalk that. Really? Is that your endgame? *yawn* Everquest (last time i played it) had no end game.

Ever felt like a crack-whore, WoW playas? Cos that is what you are.


----------



## Zombiechow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *newphase*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Any game thats PC only it good.
> Look at PC game exclusives.
> Wow, LoL, SC2, Dota 2. People cant get enough of these games. Same was with Crysis 1. They where all good games. The moment you include consoles you sacrifice/compromise so much.
> 
> 
> 
> Whilst I agree with your post in principle, I would call you to task about mentioning WOW in there! For heavens sake it is (at best) mmorpg for nublets.
> 
> Everquest has just been released on Steam; try working your way through THAT for an mmorpg. Levelling down as a consequence? Losing gear as a consequence? The way that you level FORCES you to be a good player - or you will never group and will find levelling tuff! TUFF!
> 
> I am dismayed at the amount of players that WoW has for such a cartoony, unskilled game with Lore as deep as your average puddle. Do not get me wrong - I play it occasionally when the world is dry of games... All I see are Raid this, raid that, smoke this, stalk that. Really? Is that your endgame? *yawn* Everquest (last time i played it) had no end game.
> 
> Ever felt like a crack-whore, WoW playas? Cos that is what you are.
Click to expand...

Your statement adds nothing to this topic.


----------



## Newwt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chris13002*
> 
> I disagree and think the original Crysis looks better than Far Cry 3. Far Cry 3 just has that 'cartoonish' look IMO... Battlefield 3 looks much more realistic...


I with this guy...I expect FC3 to look alot "realer" I suppose. The jungles look nice but other than that not so much.


----------



## newphase

SOMETHING WENT WEIRD! I never meant to post the same thing 3 TIMES!!!! Sorry peeps!


----------



## iEATu

I can't wait for the tessellated vegetation


----------



## cravinmild

looks amazing. Didn't like Crysis2, not really and never had a rig that could play original Crysis back in the day, now it just wont run period for me. I hope Crisis3 does everything Crytek says it will. I want my rig to perform like a midrange off the shelf Future Crap weekend special. The reason is that there is nothing really to strive for currently, I get pretty amazing quality now and I want more even if I have to upgrade to get it.

Set that bar again Crytek


----------



## Ploppytheman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *5entinel*
> 
> Games aren't just about graphics or just about gameplay. It's about the whole complete package. TO be a good/great game, it needs to have gorgeous graphics,great gameplay,great soundtrack,great AI and great story. Crysis 1 & warhead were great games. Though, I'll believe this when I see it.


No your wrong.

Gameplay is all that matters. Gameplay is the core element of games that is needed no matter what type of game it is. Story can be important if its a single player only game but a game ceases to be a game if there is no gameplay. And a game can still be great with a bad or even no story. So your a plumber and some evil turtle stole the princess so u have to jump on potatos and go through pipes to save her.

-AI doesnt need to exist because humans are better than AI, and AI doesn't even need to exist anyway in the sense of an enemy to outsmart.
-Soundtrack doesnt matter, and most people mute game music.
-Story doesn't matter, because games can exist without stories. Even a game like minecraft or simcity doesn't require it, let alone a game like starcraft or counterstrike or quake.
-Graphics don't matter, quake, dwarf fortress, IWBTG, Starcraft 1+2 (Id mention other blizzard games but they all suck), minecraft, even those terrible moba games don't have good graphics. In fact graphics are expensive and usually make the game worse because all the attention to graphics takes time/funding from the parts of the game that matter.

Planescape Torment vs Mass Effect 3

Graphics mean nothing. If you need graphics to be immersed that's a personal problem and it must be very challenging to read a book since the graphics in most books are very poor.


----------



## Zombiechow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ploppytheman*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *5entinel*
> 
> Games aren't just about graphics or just about gameplay. It's about the whole complete package. TO be a good/great game, it needs to have gorgeous graphics,great gameplay,great soundtrack,great AI and great story. Crysis 1 & warhead were great games. Though, I'll believe this when I see it.
> 
> 
> 
> No your wrong.
> 
> Gameplay is all that matters. Gameplay is the core element of games that is needed no matter what type of game it is. Story can be important if its a single player only game but a game ceases to be a game if there is no gameplay. And a game can still be great with a bad or even no story. So your a plumber and some evil turtle stole the princess so u have to jump on potatos and go through pipes to save her.
> 
> -AI doesnt need to exist because humans are better than AI, and AI doesn't even need to exist anyway in the sense of an enemy to outsmart.
> -Soundtrack doesnt matter, and most people mute game music.
> -Story doesn't matter, because games can exist without stories. Even a game like minecraft or simcity doesn't require it, let alone a game like starcraft or counterstrike or quake.
> -Graphics don't matter, quake, dwarf fortress, IWBTG, Starcraft 1+2 (Id mention other blizzard games but they all suck), minecraft, even those terrible moba games don't have good graphics. In fact graphics are expensive and usually make the game worse because all the attention to graphics takes time/funding from the parts of the game that matter.
> 
> Planescape Torment vs Mass Effect 3
> 
> Graphics mean nothing. If you need graphics to be immersed that's a personal problem and it must be very challenging to read a book since the graphics in most books are very poor.
Click to expand...

I agree that a good game doesn't always need a good story. I, however, disagree with your statements regarding the score and the visuals, both of which can deeply add immersion to the overall experience.

The score also has the ability to accent emotional elements in a games story (if it contains one). Same goes for film.

Great games DON'T need next-gen tech at their backbone, but lets face it, pretty graphics are pretty and add to the overall value and experience of the game.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ploppytheman*
> 
> No your wrong.
> Gameplay is all that matters. Gameplay is the core element of games that is needed no matter what type of game it is. Story can be important if its a single player only game but a game ceases to be a game if there is no gameplay. And a game can still be great with a bad or even no story. So your a plumber and some evil turtle stole the princess so u have to jump on potatos and go through pipes to save her.
> -AI doesnt need to exist because humans are better than AI, and AI doesn't even need to exist anyway in the sense of an enemy to outsmart.
> -Soundtrack doesnt matter, and most people mute game music.
> -Story doesn't matter, because games can exist without stories. Even a game like minecraft or simcity doesn't require it, let alone a game like starcraft or counterstrike or quake.
> -Graphics don't matter, quake, dwarf fortress, IWBTG, Starcraft 1+2 (Id mention other blizzard games but they all suck), minecraft, even those terrible moba games don't have good graphics. In fact graphics are expensive and usually make the game worse because all the attention to graphics takes time/funding from the parts of the game that matter.
> Planescape Torment vs Mass Effect 3
> Graphics mean nothing. If you need graphics to be immersed that's a personal problem and it must be very challenging to read a book since the graphics in most books are very poor.


Crysis 1 party piece was Graphics and Physics. Its what made us play it. Each game has it one perks. In PC gaming and people like me with $1000 in GPU we want that graphics/physics side of the games. If i did not care about graphics and did not play online games like SC2. Dota 2, Wow i would not make sense to play PC. Like for example GTA IV mod. Skyrim mod etc etc all add to graphics.


----------



## iEATu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ploppytheman*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *5entinel*
> 
> Games aren't just about graphics or just about gameplay. It's about the whole complete package. TO be a good/great game, it needs to have gorgeous graphics,great gameplay,great soundtrack,great AI and great story. Crysis 1 & warhead were great games. Though, I'll believe this when I see it.
> 
> 
> 
> No your wrong.
> 
> Gameplay is all that matters. Gameplay is the core element of games that is needed no matter what type of game it is. Story can be important if its a single player only game but a game ceases to be a game if there is no gameplay. And a game can still be great with a bad or even no story. So your a plumber and some evil turtle stole the princess so u have to jump on potatos and go through pipes to save her.
> 
> -AI doesnt need to exist because humans are better than AI, and AI doesn't even need to exist anyway in the sense of an enemy to outsmart.
> -Soundtrack doesnt matter, and most people mute game music.
> -Story doesn't matter, because games can exist without stories. Even a game like minecraft or simcity doesn't require it, let alone a game like starcraft or counterstrike or quake.
> -Graphics don't matter, quake, dwarf fortress, IWBTG, Starcraft 1+2 (Id mention other blizzard games but they all suck), minecraft, even those terrible moba games don't have good graphics. In fact graphics are expensive and usually make the game worse because all the attention to graphics takes time/funding from the parts of the game that matter.
> 
> Planescape Torment vs Mass Effect 3
> 
> Graphics mean nothing. If you need graphics to be immersed that's a personal problem and it must be very challenging to read a book since the graphics in most books are very poor.
Click to expand...

isn't there music in minecraft?

You can't say those things don't matter. Sure they don't have to matter for some games, but the way another game is made they are needed. The play style is different from the games the listed.

In minecraft and sim city, the player is creating the story. So a story is still there, just not made by the developers specifically.

And like zombiechow said, visuals (not really the same as good graphics always but this also depends on the type of game), and score can really enhance the game.

One example that would make sense for you is Pokemon. It doesnt have an extensive story, ok graphics (visuals are nice though), sometimes people play with the music off completely (usually to not disturb others). But everyone that plays the Pokemon games associates the music with Pokemon and different places in Pokemon, and can even play it out loud.

As for AI, if the rest of the game works well, AI can work well too. This also depends on the type of game.


----------



## cravinmild

I loved half life when things were getting intense and the music started up. Really added to the whole experience. Got me excited


----------



## somethingname

dx11 only means youll need a beefy card or cards


----------



## psyside

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *frickfrock99*
> 
> Better graphics than The Witcher 2? Considering W2 has the best display of PC graphics to date, that's no small feat.
> Pretty bold statement, Crytek.


Crysis 1 blows W2 out of the water (with mods) heck, it blows any game.


----------



## XAslanX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *psyside*
> 
> Crysis 1 blows W2 out of the water (with mods) heck, it blows any game.


That is with mods, apples to oranges. Stock VS stock witcher 2 looks better, a lot of games have come out since crysis that have impressed me more than that game did.


----------



## randomizer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *psyside*
> 
> Crysis 1 blows W2 out of the water (with mods) heck, it blows any game.


It's just unfortunate that it is merely a pretty facade for a pile of trash whose only use is for taking screenshots. I found TW2 to be a much more enjoyable game (partially because I'm quite tired of FPS which are all the same), and I also preferred its art style to that of Crysis, which is why I don't think Crysis blows it out of the water.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *XAslanX*
> 
> That is with mods, apples to oranges. Stock VS stock witcher 2 looks better, a lot of games have come out since crysis that have impressed me more than that game did.


I have said that many times that Crysis was not only about graphics. It had amazing physics. It made it s funs blowing up trees, buildings, cars etc etc. Todays game like FC3, Crysis 2 etc have graphics as good maybe even better but they feel like paper graphics too me.


----------



## XAslanX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> I have said that many times that Crysis was not only about graphics. It had amazing physics. It made it s funs blowing up trees, buildings, cars etc etc. Todays game like FC3, Crysis 2 etc have graphics as good maybe even better but they feel like paper graphics too me.


The physics in crysis didn't really impress me as it wasn't anything I hadn't seen before in far cry or HL2. Portal 2 impressed me more with it's physics, infact it's used as a learning tool that it's that impressive, http://www.fastcompany.com/3002872/how-portal-2-developers-became-best-6th-grade-physics-teachers-ever


----------



## randomizer

The CryEngine physics engine is ok. It's mostly useful for making crazy videos with the level editor but Crytek didn't make much use of it in the actual game. It's also a bit buggy, but that's true of most physics engines.


----------



## X-Nine

Graphics is fine and dandy, but make a game that's at least worth a damn. Crytek has yet to make a solid game (in story and gameplay). Sure, the graphics are pretty, but when I can have way more fun on a free game...something's very, very wrong.


----------



## Sarec

Toad Tech > All.

All seriousness though. Crysis suffers from lack of invested story play. Sure you have a basic story but ultimately the players do not feel involved. Most people I have talked to about crysis talk about the way the armor looks and/or about how it feels to 'play' in a movie. Not about the story, the characters or anything with substance. Warhead started to slowly go in this direction but did not really drag me in. To be fair, a lot of games in the past couple of years have had this issue. And it is getting worse, in my opinion. This is partly why indie games have had a HUGE take off as most of them focus on either repetitive, addictive traits or they use a consuming story line.

Graphics are fine and I won't fault a company for doing the hard earned work to develop the technology for it. Producing a game with it is how they get their costs back. However, let us not pretend that it is a 'fantastic game'. It is not.


----------



## Zombiechow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *randomizer*
> 
> The CryEngine physics engine is ok. It's mostly useful for making crazy videos with the level editor but Crytek didn't make much use of it in the actual game. It's also a bit buggy, but that's true of most physics engines.


Like this


----------



## doomlord52

^ I was about to post that.

Also, I think most people who say "Crysis has bad gameplay" really didn't play it right. Play on delta and explore. If you play on normal, and follow the objectives, yea, it's not that great. Playing on delta makes the AI fairly decent (there's mods - like one I made - that makes it amazing), and exploring allows you to come up with your own stuff. For example, in C1, there is no reason to go to the radio antenna right after the checkpoint on the first level. However, recently I did, and I jumped over the ledge. While in mid-air, I shot an explosive barrel with several guys around it, killing them all (while in mid air). I can't think of any other game that allows you to do stuff like that.

Yes, the story isn't perfect, but the freedom allowed in that game is far superior to almost any other game. Simply doing things your own way IS its own gameplay style. TBH It's one of the best FPS games every made - and a 91 on metacritic supports that.

Anyway, I'm still waiting on this. I think if the new consoles weren't just around the corner, this claim would be believable - but with C3 being a current-gen title, I think it will be quickly defeated with next-gen stuff (Depending on how well they push the PC this time).


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *doomlord52*
> 
> ^ I was about to post that.
> Also, I think most people who say "Crysis has bad gameplay" really didn't play it right. Play on delta and explore. If you play on normal, and follow the objectives, yea, it's not that great. Playing on delta makes the AI fairly decent (there's mods - like one I made - that makes it amazing), and exploring allows you to come up with your own stuff. For example, in C1, there is no reason to go to the radio antenna right after the checkpoint on the first level. However, recently I did, and I jumped over the ledge. While in mid-air, I shot an explosive barrel with several guys around it, killing them all (while in mid air). I can't think of any other game that allows you to do stuff like that.
> Yes, the story isn't perfect, but the freedom allowed in that game is far superior to almost any other game. Simply doing things your own way IS its own gameplay style. TBH It's one of the best FPS games every made - and a 91 on metacritic supports that.
> Anyway, I'm still waiting on this. I think if the new consoles weren't just around the corner, this claim would be believable - but with C3 being a current-gen title, I think it will be quickly defeated with next-gen stuff (Depending on how well they push the PC this time).


While Crysis 2 did nothing like that. To dam linear no matter what difficulty and style you played. Its not like you had a choice.


----------



## My Desired Display Name

Just imagine when the quality of gameplay matches the quality of graphics.


----------



## Pikivirta

..just imagine when there will be some new idea in the games more than just quality of graphics.

That's something I'm waiting. Just graphics has not been enough for long time. They're all just the same.


----------



## james8

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ploppytheman*
> 
> No your wrong.
> Gameplay is all that matters. Gameplay is the core element of games that is needed no matter what type of game it is. Story can be important if its a single player only game but a game ceases to be a game if there is no gameplay. And a game can still be great with a bad or even no story. So your a plumber and some evil turtle stole the princess so u have to jump on potatos and go through pipes to save her.
> -AI doesnt need to exist because humans are better than AI, and AI doesn't even need to exist anyway in the sense of an enemy to outsmart.
> -Soundtrack doesnt matter, and most people mute game music.
> -Story doesn't matter, because games can exist without stories. Even a game like minecraft or simcity doesn't require it, let alone a game like starcraft or counterstrike or quake.
> -Graphics don't matter, quake, dwarf fortress, IWBTG, Starcraft 1+2 (Id mention other blizzard games but they all suck), minecraft, even those terrible moba games don't have good graphics. In fact graphics are expensive and usually make the game worse because all the attention to graphics takes time/funding from the parts of the game that matter.
> Planescape Torment vs Mass Effect 3
> Graphics mean nothing. If you need graphics to be immersed that's a personal problem and it must be very challenging to read a book since the graphics in most books are very poor.


ah another gameplay-blinded person. everything is gameplay eh? gameplay is an extremely abstract and broad concept that is hard to compare and define
Minecraft has 0 gameplay. there's nothing to "play" in there! yet it's still popular. so no gameplay isn't necessary to make a good game.

certain books have very nice pictures as far as i'm concerned.

Even though the graphics between games on CryEngine 2 and Crysis 2 may be arguable, i think the sounds in the Crysis series have been top-notch so far. and the soundtracks in C3 seems pretty good as well


----------



## d33r

too bad games never end up being as good looking as those tech demos claim to be of cryengine3 , unigine 2, frostbite 2 ect ect....







they always end up being scaled down ported crappa doo...







crysis 3 will be a dx 11 ported console game.... the only way to win is to buy a console these days...so thats what im going to do when xbox720 is manufactured...


----------



## Zombiechow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ploppytheman*
> 
> No your wrong.
> 
> Minecraft has 0 gameplay. there's nothing to "play" in there! yet it's still popular. so no gameplay isn't necessary to make a good game.


Minecraft (along with Steam) is one of the greatest things to ever happen to PC gaming. It's a freakish anomaly from an independent developer that's sold well over 8,000,000 digital copies. It looks like something that came out of the 8 or 16-bit eras, and it garners a massive amount of emotional investment from its community.

Franchises like CoD have seen greater success numbers wise in all areas, but how many people do you hear complain about CoD on a frequent basis. Compare that to the number of Minecraft players who do the same







.

Notch's achievement (along with Steam) has helped lay the groundwork for independent developers to innovate in a space that was once exclusively reserved for mega publishers with huge budgets.

Kickstarter seems to be an interesting concept as well.

Off topic. I'm rambling.

Edit: Oops, I somehow posted twice.


----------



## cloudbyday

Minecraft is a great game and all, but after awhile you get tired of it. Minecraft is only as fun as your imagination allows you to have. Run out of ideas, or in my case people griefing and constant map changes, then the game is no longer of interest.

A sandbox game were you create your own story is great and all, but is limited to the imagination of the player. I have played on hundreds of different servers, I have not found one yet that has kept my interest for longer than a week. These are some of the problems that I have encountered (server speaking): inconsistent player base, abuse of admin/moderator powers, average age of players is 13, average age of head admins/moderators is 16, bad implementation of plugins, global chat rooms unfiltered (I wonder what the parents teach their children these days), loyalty to a server, and griefing.

I have tried doing my own server, but finding good moderators is really tough and I gave up.


----------



## Chrit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cheezman*
> 
> And the point of this is... _what?_
> "Oh we can make a game that only a very small number of people in an already niche market will be able to run at high-max settings!"
> Yeah, so, I'll pick this game up in a few years when it's $5.99 in a Steam season sale.


I bought Crysis 2 for $10!


----------



## i7monkey

Games are like women. It doesn't matter how good looking she is, if she's boring and has a rotten personality you won't be happy in the long run. Sure, you'd enjoy it for the sheer looks a few times but after that you'll get sick of it, and who wants to spend so much money on a short-term thing? My games (and women) need to be fun.

I'm not spending $1000 on a woman I barely know just to go out with her a few times and end it there. I'd rather invest in something that I enjoy doing (heh)









Gameplay is KING.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Games are like women. It doesn't matter how good looking she is, if she's boring and has a rotten personality you won't be happy in the long run. Sure, you'd enjoy it for the sheer looks a few times but after that you'll get sick of it, and who wants to spend so much money on a short-term thing? My games (and women) need to be fun.
> I'm not spending $1000 on a woman I barely know just to go out with her a few times and end it there. I'd rather invest in something that I enjoy doing (heh)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gameplay is KING.


Crysis is the Model, COD is the house wife, Minecraft is i do what ever i want and i dont care how she looks.


----------



## TheBlindDeafMute

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dimaggio1103*
> 
> Agreed, farcry 3 looks good, but way to cartoony, and character models are sad IMO.


I said something similar about crysis 1, and crysis 2. To me, crysis 2 looks more "graphical" as crysis 1 looks more cinematic.


----------



## mjpd1983

They will have to do a hell of a lot to beat BOTH the gameplay and the graphics of Far Cry 3, i think that engine feels better than the cry engine did on *any* day.

It's got the perfect balance of gameplay and graphics, something crytek has failed to do on its last hallway shooter.


----------



## randomizer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *james8*
> 
> gameplay is an extremely abstract and broad concept that is hard to compare and define


And how, pray tell, does one define "graphics"? What makes a game look "better" than another? These are all meaningless terms that are heavily laden with personal opinion.


----------



## Azuredragon1

now now guys, we all know that story>gameplay>eye candy is the right order


----------



## HowHardCanItBe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Games are like women. It doesn't matter how good looking she is, if she's boring and has a rotten personality you won't be happy in the long run. Sure, you'd enjoy it for the sheer looks a few times but after that you'll get sick of it, and who wants to spend so much money on a short-term thing? My games (and women) need to be fun.
> 
> I'm not spending $1000 on a woman I barely know just to go out with her a few times and end it there. I'd rather invest in something that I enjoy doing (heh)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gameplay is KING.


If you are going to use women as analogy, I may as well say that a lot of us,like it as a whole package. This applies to women & games







. A lot of us,such as myself, play game for the overall experience.It's kinda like watching movies at the cinema compared to watching it on youtube. I think it's fairly obvious which of the experience you would prefer... ?

Also,as previously mentioned, many people do like a pretty game.Those who deny it are denying it for whatever reason that maybe.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *randomizer*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *psyside*
> 
> Crysis 1 blows W2 out of the water (with mods) heck, it blows any game.
> 
> 
> 
> It's just unfortunate that it is merely a pretty facade for a pile of trash whose only use is for taking screenshots. I found TW2 to be a much more enjoyable game (partially because I'm quite tired of FPS which are all the same), and I also preferred its art style to that of Crysis, which is why I don't think Crysis blows it out of the water.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I beg to differ. Crysis 1 maxed out looks superior to the witcher 2 having played both games on my gtx480 maxed out. The witcher 2's cutscene is where the witcher 2 stands out but when you are in control crysis wins by miles. No doubt though The witcher 2 looks great.

Also,comparing crysis' graphics vs the witcher 2 is fine but the gameplay? How is that fair? The witcher 2 is an RPG while crysis 1 is a tactical shooter so comparing the two in gameplay aspect would be unfair. You are comparing apples with oranges here.


----------



## almighty15

First game was one of the best FPS's I've ever played, even to this day I can still play a map and have a completely different experience then I did from the last.

How many other FPS's can claim that?

The first game was only as boring as you allowed it to be..... Sticking C4's to truck tires and then rolling said tire down a hill into the enemy and Kaboom!!! Priceless....


----------



## randomizer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *5entinel*
> 
> Sorry but I beg to differ. Crysis 1 maxed out looks superior to the witcher 2 having played both games on my gtx480 maxed out. The witcher 2's cutscene is where the witcher 2 stands out but when you are in control crysis wins by miles. No doubt though The witcher 2 looks great.
> Also,comparing crysis' graphics vs the witcher 2 is fine but the gameplay? How is that fair? The witcher 2 is an RPG while crysis 1 is a tactical shooter so comparing the two in gameplay aspect would be unfair. You are comparing apples with oranges here.


I don't think it's an unfair comparison (that would imply that being an RPG somehow gives an inherent advantage which is not the case), but it is certainly a meaningless comparison. But why is it any less of an apples to oranges comparison when comparing graphics than gameplay? You seemed to have skipped over my note about preferred art style (which is completely subjective), and instead refuted my statement by simply stating that it looks "superior", to which I can say that it doesn't and be no more or less correct. "Superior" means nothing unless you can provide some objective metric which everyone agrees on to compare the two. That or you can admit that the "superiority" is purely opinion just as my disagreement with that statement is purely opinion.

TL;DR - We are all debating things that have no grounding in objective data and instead - as we humans so very much enjoy doing - resort to tossing around opinions.


----------



## Wattser93

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *almighty15*
> 
> First game was one of the best FPS's I've ever played, even to this day I can still play a map and have a completely different experience then I did from the last.
> How many other FPS's can claim that?
> The first game was only as boring as you allowed it to be..... Sticking C4's to truck tires and then rolling said tire down a hill into the enemy and Kaboom!!! Priceless....


I must have been playing it wrong, because I hated it.

I'll have to give it another shot. I tried playing stealthily the whole game and never really "played" with the environment to appreciate those things.


----------



## TheBlindDeafMute

All I can say is.... wow.


----------



## Chris13002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheBlindDeafMute*
> 
> All I can say is.... wow.


Very impressive! I love seeing engines put into cinematic mode... This makes me want to go through and play Crysis 2 again with the combat moves being utilized like that...

That's one thing that always bothered me, games even like Deus Ex HR - they had cinematic scenes that were literally recorded onto a video, but you could tell the video was made in a cut scene using the engine...
I thought I would never say it but the graphics looked better than the video itself...


----------



## Duff-Man

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Games are like women. It doesn't matter how good looking she is, if she's boring and has a rotten personality you won't be happy in the long run. Sure, you'd enjoy it for the sheer looks a few times but after that you'll get sick of it, and who wants to spend so much money on a short-term thing? My games (and women) need to be fun.
> I'm not spending $1000 on a woman I barely know just to go out with her a few times and end it there. I'd rather invest in something that I enjoy doing (heh)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gameplay is KING.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but in your analagy you're saying gameplay is equivalent to sex. In which case you're saying that sex with a woman, who has good character traits (and will probably tell you how great the previous night was in the morning, and then stick around until you have to make up some excuse to get them out of your bed and out of your house) is better than sex with a swinsuit / lingerie model, who after your one night stand, leaves promptly in the morning?


----------



## killerhz

I agree. This is what's important to Crytek and they will achieve this. Crysis dummed down is a beautiful game. Just my opinion.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheBlindDeafMute*
> 
> All I can say is.... wow.


One thing i dont like is the colors. They are to dark. Its like a theme with mud. The grass looks too dark green.


----------



## kx11

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> One thing i dont like is the colors. They are to dark. Its like a theme with mud. The grass looks too dark green.


it's a video so .....


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kx11*
> 
> it's a video so .....


It was same with Crysis 2 somewhat. The colors either too Vivid or too dark. You did not get the same felling as the greens in Crysis 1.


----------



## zalbard

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> It was same with Crysis 2 somewhat. The colors either too Vivid or too dark. You did not get the same felling as the greens in Crysis 1.


Probably trying to simulate HDR and overdoing it. Crysis 1 looked much better in this regard, I agree.


----------



## JTHMfreak

If any of that video is how actual in-game will look, I will be impressed


----------



## iEATu

Well before it was on an island. Here there are buildings and the nano dome, as well as a different area.


----------



## HowHardCanItBe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JTHMfreak*
> 
> If any of that video is how actual in-game will look, I will be impressed


There is an alpha footage of the game but it violates the TOS(excessive swearing) but from what I saw, it was jawdropping. Google is your friend though


----------



## ErOR

I personally have not seen better graphics then Crysis Warhead with mods and that was some years ago now. If they do the same thing with Crysis 3 then it probably will be a game to remember, graphics wise.

Crysis 2 and BF3 was shockingly ugly, FC3 is alright.


----------



## ELCID777

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ErOR*
> 
> I personally have not seen better graphics then Crysis Warhead with mods and that was some years ago now. If they do the same thing with Crysis 3 then it probably will be a game to remember, graphics wise.
> Crysis 2 and BF3 was shockingly ugly, FC3 is alright.


Personally, my biggest gripe with Crysis/Warhead are with the textures, vanilla or modded, they simply show their age now. Jungle areas look the best in Crysis, imo. Everything else looks pretty underwhelming to me.

I suggest you try Crysis 2 with MaLdo HD 4.0 textures and his config tool with everything on max settings + DX11. Or, if you want to see what a tropical world looks like when it's rendered in CryEngine 3, grab the Crysis 2 Warhead 2 map. You will be amazed.

Far Cry 3 is pretty stunning at times. It gets my vote for having the best detailed weapons of any FPS I've ever played.


----------



## i7monkey

Looks awesome but it seems to play the same as Crysis 2, I don't like this.


----------



## Digikid

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Benladesh*
> 
> We'll see, games like Far Cry 3 have set the bar pretty high.


You cannot compare a crappy game series like FarCry to Crysis.

Crysis was actually GOOD.


----------



## dph314

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Digikid*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Benladesh*
> 
> We'll see, games like Far Cry 3 have set the bar pretty high.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot compare a crappy game series like FarCry to Crysis.
> 
> Crysis was actually GOOD.
Click to expand...

....have you played Far Cry 3? Granted, the 2nd one sucked. But 3 is great.


----------



## noobdown

excluding fc3 cause I haven't played it yet.

crisis is fc but with a fancy nano suit and the aliens.


----------



## Chris13002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELCID777*
> 
> *Personally, my biggest gripe with Crysis/Warhead are with the textures, vanilla or modded, they simply show their age now. Jungle areas look the best in Crysis, imo. Everything else looks pretty underwhelming to me.*
> I suggest you try Crysis 2 with MaLdo HD 4.0 textures and his config tool with everything on max settings + DX11. Or, if you want to see what a tropical world looks like when it's rendered in CryEngine 3, grab the Crysis 2 Warhead 2 map. You will be amazed.
> Far Cry 3 is pretty stunning at times. It gets my vote for having the best detailed weapons of any FPS I've ever played.


We obviously see very differently...



I know tessellation is much more complex (many polygons) but the use of such high resolution textures can almost eliminate the need for tessellation(not saying it's useless in anyway)...

I remember when DX11 was first introduced, and games like Alien vs Predator; people would create videos and literally have to zoom in to see the difference that tessellation made with such a performance hit...
Other games like Crysis 2 and even the Heaven Benchmark put really good use to tessellation.

OT Crysis 3 does look to be a nice looking shooter but I am still skeptical of it beating Crysis 1 and Warhead... Hopefully this actually gets released with full textures and dx11 enabled... I had to wait more than a month to play Crysis 2 the way I wanted to...


----------



## kx11

worst video to show textures ever

720p ? really ?


----------



## Chris13002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kx11*
> 
> worst video to show textures ever
> 720p ? really ?


I made that video over 2 years ago... on my stock i7 920 and gtx 295... try getting reasonable frames on that while recording fraps...

better?


----------



## kx11

with your specs you got a point


----------



## ahhell

I really despise the arrogance of Crytek.









A shallow game with pretty graphics is still a shallow game.


----------



## routek

On paper the tech is great but looks completely underwhelming. The limited colour range looks like any flat green or brown hue console dull fest. Would like a mix of style and realism for crysis, high res detail.

Only thing really to shine for me is Crysis 2's indoor corridor lighting.


----------



## ELCID777

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chris13002*
> 
> We obviously see very differently...
> 
> 
> 
> I know tessellation is much more complex (many polygons) but the use of such high resolution textures can almost eliminate the need for tessellation(not saying it's useless in anyway)...
> I remember when DX11 was first introduced, and games like Alien vs Predator; people would create videos and literally have to zoom in to see the difference that tessellation made with such a performance hit...
> Other games like Crysis 2 and even the Heaven Benchmark put really good use to tessellation.
> OT Crysis 3 does look to be a nice looking shooter but I am still skeptical of it beating Crysis 1 and Warhead... Hopefully this actually gets released with full textures and dx11 enabled... I had to wait more than a month to play Crysis 2 the way I wanted to...


Ahem....

For what it's worth, I have the games. No need to show me terribly compressed YouTube footage of the game, and at 720p at that. Crysis/Warhead are installed on my rig as I write this, and with plenty of mods, too.

In case you didn't catch it, I've mentioned in my last post and in previous posts before this, that Crysis looks best in terms of texture quality in its jungle/foliage covered areas.

With Slicks HD foliage/plants, plant textures look crisp, sharp, and impressive. However, the roads, the rocks, and random objects, interiors, etc., remain looking pretty terrible and suffer from low texture resolutions.

People always refer to Rygel's 'HD' texture pack, but are seemingly unaware that his texture pack is merely vanilla textures which have undergone post-sharpening/darkening in Photoshop, and nothing more.

The vast majority of textures in Crysis are 1024x1024 size, and lower. Crysis 2, after the DX11 patch, saw the majority of its textures at 2048x2048 - double the resolution of those seen in the original game.

MaLdo's HD 4.0 textures pack for Crysis 2 are all 4096x4096 - triple and double the size of those in Crysis and Crysis 2, respectively. He spent well over a year creating and re-doing thousands of textures in the game, and his hard work is very apparent as soon as you load the game with his textures. He managed to implement proper tessellation in objects as well, and he really made the game look marvelous overall.

I believe most people would agree with me in that the main problem graphically speaking with Crysis today is it's textures. They simply show their age.

If someone like MaLdo made a true HD textures pack for the original Crysis, it would be the best looking game, and by far, for years to come. But as it stands now, Crysis 2 with MaLdo textures is the best showcase of PC graphics, imo.


----------



## ELCID777

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Digikid*
> 
> You cannot compare a crappy game series like FarCry to Crysis.
> Crysis was actually GOOD.


lol.....wut? Far Cry and Far Cry 3 are amazing games. And Crysis was spawned out of the Far Cry series, in case you didn't know......


----------



## ErOR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELCID777*
> 
> Personally, my biggest gripe with Crysis/Warhead are with the textures, vanilla or modded, they simply show their age now. Jungle areas look the best in Crysis, imo. Everything else looks pretty underwhelming to me.
> I suggest you try Crysis 2 with MaLdo HD 4.0 textures and his config tool with everything on max settings + DX11. Or, if you want to see what a tropical world looks like when it's rendered in CryEngine 3, grab the Crysis 2 Warhead 2 map. You will be amazed.
> Far Cry 3 is pretty stunning at times. It gets my vote for having the best detailed weapons of any FPS I've ever played.


Cool thanks will do


----------



## lacrossewacker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meetajhu*
> 
> Metro: Last Light and Metal Gear Solid 5 says "Hi"


Metal Gear solid has only been impressive to me with a consistent and unique art style. Outside of that, pretty bland


----------



## mushroomboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELCID777*
> 
> I believe most people would agree with me in that the main problem graphically speaking with Crysis today is it's textures. They simply show their age.
> If someone like MaLdo made a true HD textures pack for the original Crysis, it would be the best looking game, and by far, for years to come. But as it stands now, Crysis 2 with MaLdo textures is the best showcase of PC graphics, imo.


You can't really beat Crysis 2 currently with the MaLDoHD textures. I don't even think you could say Crysis would be great with his textures considering he banked on the fact that DX11 was out. it helps depth a lot, as you can only fake it so far with a flat texture. That's one of the biggest problems pre DX11, was the use of shading to simulate depth. Any art major, or anyone serious enough in art as a hobby can instantly tell. It's a put off, as you really cannot fake depth with shading alone. You can make it look somewhat pretty but that's about it.

[rant]
One of the biggest problems with games today is that PC games aren't utilizing the new tech. That makes a huge difference, as then we have hardware manufacturers who will not make hardware that can really run it. You get caught in a loop, which is pretty nerve racking considering we have GPU power out our ears. I've fully believed both AMD/Nvidia haven't really pushed the hardware due to the fact that there is no demand yet. I'm sure many of us would foot the power bill if we had more games come out looking like Crysis 3 does already. Heck, many already do with dual/quad card setups. Frankly your using a ferrari to race a mustang. No offense to car owners who like their mustang but I'd expect a ferrari to beat it's... You get the point.

All in all, some will say this is what you get with consolitis. Even worse when the console makers don't release new ones, spouting "new life" from each new tittle. Frankly I'm sick of it. I personally believe, due to me being such an art fan, that the graphics play an equal role in the game play. It's not just you having a very highly functional game, it's about the image and story that they want you to feel. Being creatures so heavily reliant on sight, we should expect developers to have complete freedom of how they want to deliver that visual glory. Consoles limit that, hence limiting creative freedom which I find very very crappy. We get limited products as consumers, AAA tittles that are basically being crippled because somebody wants more money.


----------



## Thingamajig

lies.

A company with ties to EA, and their track record, leaves me with very little faith in their words.


----------



## andrews2547

This just sounds like arrogance to me considering it's taken them 2 years since the Crysis 2 to make 3.


----------



## Digikid

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELCID777*
> 
> lol.....wut? Far Cry and Far Cry 3 are amazing games. And Crysis was spawned out of the Far Cry series, in case you didn't know......


Sorry but I CAN and WILL call em as *I* see them.


----------



## ELCID777

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chris13002*
> 
> I made that video over 2 years ago... on my stock i7 920 and gtx 295... try getting reasonable frames on that while recording fraps...
> better?


The first seconds of that video really illustrate how poor some of the textures are. Those rocks look horrible.

This is Crysis 2 with MaLDo HD. These textures are unmatched. Crysis 1 has really poor textures by comparison.

Open in new window to see full size.


----------



## gAMEtiME

Tbh, Crysis isn't hardcore until their system specs require people to have a high end IPS monitor (e.g. Eizo SX2462W) to enjoy the game.


----------



## CaptainChaos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Digikid*
> 
> You cannot compare a crappy game series like FarCry to Crysis.
> Crysis was actually GOOD.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Digikid*
> 
> Sorry but I CAN and WILL call em as *I* see them.


Did you not realize that you told someone else that *they* can not compare FarCry to Crysis?


----------



## executorchunk

I seen Crysis 3, I plan to get it. I'm running two 550ti in SLI and I get by nicely in pretty much all games... run BF3 at max along with Crysis 2. To be 110% honest, I'm not that blown away by Crysis 3's visuals so far.







Honestly it looks like Crysis 2 with slight improvements in graphics.

Alot of people pick at the 550ti's, I'm happy with them. Here's the thing: Crysis, Battlefield, there's probably about 2-5 games that REALLY push a computer hard. Crysis 3's minimum GPU requirement will be the 670ti, a $500 GPU. I really don't think it's worth getting that for ONE game. Espeically for a game that's known to have a completely broken online system. Seriously, has anyone here gone on Crysis 2 online lately? I couldn't find one match where I didn't get roflstomped by cheaters running out with non-stop firing machine guns and flying abilities.

Graphically it's the best of the best. And I LOVE the campaign, but the game just has a few too many shortcomings for me to put more money into than just the game itself.


----------



## y2kcamaross

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *executorchunk*
> 
> I seen Crysis 3, I plan to get it. I'm running two 550ti in SLI and I get by nicely in pretty much all games... run BF3 at max along with Crysis 2. To be 110% honest, I'm not that blown away by Crysis 3's visuals so far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly it looks like Crysis 2 with slight improvements in graphics.
> 
> Alot of people pick at the 550ti's, I'm happy with them. Here's the thing: Crysis, Battlefield, there's probably about 2-5 games that REALLY push a computer hard. Crysis 3's minimum GPU requirement will be the 670ti, a $500 GPU. I really don't think it's worth getting that for ONE game. Espeically for a game that's known to have a completely broken online system. Seriously, has anyone here gone on Crysis 2 online lately? I couldn't find one match where I didn't get roflstomped by cheaters running out with non-stop firing machine guns and flying abilities.
> 
> Graphically it's the best of the best. And I LOVE the campaign, but the game just has a few too many shortcomings for me to put more money into than just the game itself.


1) there's no such thing as a 670ti
2) the 670 doesn't cost $500


----------



## randomizer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELCID777*


Unfortunately that otherwise nice image is tainted by crappy AO.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I posted a game play vid a few days ago (which got locked because there was too much profanity in the vid) and I have to say that the graphics were jaw-droppingly good. This will absolutely be the best looking game of 2013 and probably for a couple years afterward. I personally cannot wait to play!


----------



## xutnubu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I posted a game play vid a few days ago (which got locked because there was too much profanity in the vid) and I have to say that the graphics were jaw-droppingly good. This will absolutely be the best looking game of 2013 and probably for a couple years afterward. I personally cannot wait to play!


Agreed.

Has anyone seen the new gameplay "The Train Yard"?

And don't watch it on crappy YouTube quality, please.

The grass is so crisp, they were really not kidding with the tesellated vegetation.

And particle effects, is just crazy.

Textures are really high quality, at least on characters.

What dissapoints me was the AI, it looked really stupid. Hope it gets worked out.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Probably won't. When is AI ever really that good to be honest?


----------



## ELCID777

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *randomizer*
> 
> Unfortunately that otherwise nice image is tainted by crappy AO.


It's strange, it doesn't look like that in-game.


----------



## ELCID777

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xutnubu*
> 
> Agreed.
> Has anyone seen the new gameplay "The Train Yard"?
> And don't watch it on crappy YouTube quality, please.
> The grass is so crisp, they were really not kidding with the tesellated vegetation.
> And particle effects, is just crazy.
> Textures are really high quality, at least on characters.
> What dissapoints me was the AI, it looked really stupid. Hope it gets worked out.


Yeah, the new footage looks amazing. Do you have a direct download of the train yard gameplay? YouTube compresses it to all hell and destroys IQ, but I've seen uncompressed footage of the first gameplay video (the fields) in 1080p and it looked amazing.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I only saw the train yards vid on YT and it still looked amazing...


----------



## dmanstasiu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I only saw the train yards vid on YT and it still looked amazing...


Same here, 1080p was nice. I just about pre-ordered it until I realized download was via origin


----------



## DefCoN




----------



## dmanstasiu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DefCoN*
> 
> damn....well. It'll be a long time before I ever get to experience a game like this on ultra settings. Can't justify spending $1.5-2k on a new rig just to play one game. >.<


Remove the last emoticon to fix your disappearing text


----------



## spacin9guild

I played the Alpha. It looks good. Could play a solid 60 fps on high with a single GTX 670 @ 1920 x 1080. Not sure if it's Crysis-blow every computer out of the water graphics.


----------



## doomlord52

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spacin9guild*
> 
> I played the Alpha. It looks good. Could play a solid 60 fps on high with a single GTX 670 @ 1920 x 1080. Not sure if it's Crysis-blow every computer out of the water graphics.


You had to put it to max to get the "melt your rig" performance. I dont remember which setting it was, but once tessellation was turned on, your FPS went down the drain.


----------



## Imglidinhere

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DefCoN*
> 
> damn....well. It'll be a long time before I ever get to experience a game like this on ultra settings. Can't justify spending $1.5-2k on a new rig just to play one game.


Then just upgrade your GPU? The 7850 is well within reach of what you want.

However back on topic...









I am not looking forward to this game. Unless someone manages to mod the gameplay system to match the feel and control scheme of the first game, I'm out.


----------



## nukem

If this game looks as good as that video ill buy two copies, grind one up, and smoke some before I play. I agree that the rotary menu was nice for the suit. One hot-key instead of street fighter combos like slide jumps.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Imglidinhere*
> 
> Then just upgrade your GPU? The 7850 is well within reach of what you want.
> However back on topic...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not looking forward to this game. Unless someone manages to mod the gameplay system to match the feel and control scheme of the first game, I'm out.


You won't be missed...


----------



## xutnubu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELCID777*
> 
> Yeah, the new footage looks amazing. Do you have a direct download of the train yard gameplay? YouTube compresses it to all hell and destroys IQ, but I've seen uncompressed footage of the first gameplay video (the fields) in 1080p and it looked amazing.


1.4GB, uncompressed.

Be blown away.

http://www.gamersyde.com/download_crysis_3_the_train_yard_1080p_-29308_en.html


----------



## di inferi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xutnubu*
> 
> 1.4GB, uncompressed.
> Be blown away.
> http://www.gamersyde.com/download_crysis_3_the_train_yard_1080p_-29308_en.html


Thanks.


----------



## juryben

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xutnubu*
> 
> 1.4GB, uncompressed.
> Be blown away.
> http://www.gamersyde.com/download_crysis_3_the_train_yard_1080p_-29308_en.html


sweet jesus


----------



## newphase

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *My Desired Display Name*
> 
> Just imagine when the quality of gameplay matches the quality of graphics.


Just imagine when the quality of a game OVERALL goes back to the good old days... I cannot believe that peeps spend £30+ on a 6-hour game.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Stop acting so elitist. Believe it or not there are plenty of people who thoroughly enjoyed the game play and graphics in Crysis 2 and are really looking forward to the next one (myself included). Just because YOU didn't like it doesn't make it a bad game...


----------



## Chickenman

Crysis 3 will get thrashed at my house, the hype is working well and I am excite.


----------



## iplayoneasy

I played Crysis 2 the and enjoyed it for the gameplay. As far punishing my computer like the original did back in the day, I don't think so. They Recommend a GTX 680. At 1080p I'm expecting my twin 830 mhz GTX 480's to chew it nicely. Unless they meant that GTX 680 runs it @ 1280x768 @ 30 fps.


----------



## IronWill1991

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *doomlord52*
> 
> You had to put it to max to get the "melt your rig" performance. I dont remember which setting it was, but once tessellation was turned on, your FPS went down the drain.


In Alpha, setting water shader from high to ultra really took my fps down.


----------



## ELCID777

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spacin9guild*
> 
> I played the Alpha. It looks good. Could play a solid 60 fps on high with a single GTX 670 @ 1920 x 1080. Not sure if it's Crysis-blow every computer out of the water graphics.


60 fps with a 670? Impossible if you were running with ALL very high settings. 7970's/680's were averaging around 45 fps with maxed out settings at 1080p, so unless you ran a mix of high and medium settings, I find it hard to believe that you got 60 fps with a 670 in the alpha.


----------



## ELCID777

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xutnubu*
> 
> 1.4GB, uncompressed.
> Be blown away.
> http://www.gamersyde.com/download_crysis_3_the_train_yard_1080p_-29308_en.html


Thanks! Rep for you.


----------



## winniethepwn

The future of PC gaming will probably be in optimization for mid/low range cards... so I doubt anyone will be trying to "top" crysis 3 for many years. It would be foolish to make a game that hardly anyone can appreciate.


----------



## ELCID777

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Stop acting so elitist. Believe it or not there are plenty of people who thoroughly enjoyed the game play and graphics in Crysis 2 and are really looking forward to the next one (myself included). Just because YOU didn't like it doesn't make it a bad game...


Thank you for posting this. I'm getting pretty tired of the constant Crysis 2 bashing. I thoroughly enjoyed Crysis 2, in fact, I enjoyed it more than Crysis 1, which I didn't think was that great of a game, IMO

I'm really looking forward the third installment.


----------



## Assirra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *winniethepwn*
> 
> The future of PC gaming will probably be in optimization for mid/low range cards... so I doubt anyone will be trying to "top" crysis 3 for many years. It would be foolish to make a game that hardly anyone can appreciate.


Well once the new consoles finally come out we should be able to see at least a jump in graphics.


----------



## Chickenman

Looks amazing, hope they don't cut out all the good stuff when it ships like FC3.


----------



## Reqkz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chickenman*
> 
> Looks amazing, hope they don't cut out all the good stuff when it ships like FC3.


They might need to... for the consoles. lol


----------



## dmanstasiu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *winniethepwn*
> 
> The future of PC gaming will probably be in optimization for mid/low range cards... so I doubt anyone will be trying to "top" crysis 3 for many years. It would be foolish to make a game that hardly anyone can appreciate.


lol yeah right. People on OCN are running quad 7970s with 5x 120Hz displays. There will always be guys pushing games to their max and beyond


----------



## mushroomboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dmanstasiu*
> 
> lol yeah right. People on OCN are running quad 7970s with 5x 120Hz displays. There will always be guys pushing games to their max and beyond


When you think about how many games are sold, that is pittens compared to the average mid range card.


----------



## dmanstasiu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mushroomboy*
> 
> When you think about how many games are sold, that is pittens compared to the average mid range card.


Moore's law


----------



## mushroomboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dmanstasiu*
> 
> Moore's law


It's called money. If you can't afford the hardware, you won't get it. More people can afford lesser hardware, it's called demographics.


----------



## spacin9guild

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELCID777*
> 
> 60 fps with a 670? Impossible if you were running with ALL very high settings. 7970's/680's were averaging around 45 fps with maxed out settings at 1080p, so unless you ran a mix of high and medium settings, I find it hard to believe that you got 60 fps with a 670 in the alpha.


I said HIGH settings not maxed. I am very serious about 60 fps. There were dips in the 50s during heavy, heavy fighting. But most times... solid 60 fps. Settings were on high with hi-res textures, not maxed out @ 1080p.


----------



## Willanhanyard

Yeah I have a 480 so yeah

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Swolern

Whoa! I need to look for a good pre-order deal.


----------



## dmanstasiu

$60 ... not available on Steam.


----------



## Swolern

I saw in on GMG for $45 a month or so back. I think its gone by now.


----------



## Tippy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Reqkz*
> 
> They might need to... for the consoles. lol


Nope, consoles are using a different version of the engine which has been taken apart and re-assembled. With Crysis 3 it wasn't as simple as taking the PC version and chopping down all the settings/textures/resolution, even after doing all that it was near impossible to get the game running smoothly. Crytek had to take a different approach


----------



## Swolern

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tippy*
> 
> Nope, consoles are using a different version of the engine which has been taken apart and re-assembled. With Crysis 3 it wasn't as simple as taking the PC version and chopping down all the settings/textures/resolution, even after doing all that it was near impossible to get the game running smoothly. Crytek had to take a different approach


Hmm consoles wont be able to run Crysis 3 even at its most stripped down graphical settings and DX9. That is great news for PC








After the fiasco and backlash of Crysis 2's horrible launch, I believe Crytek are going to make PC owners proud this time around.


----------



## WiL11o6

I have a feeling when it releases, it won't run smoothly on my CF system thanks to AMD. Far Cry 3 is a pretty big title, and I have yet to pick it up because it doesn't have good working CF drivers yet, and it's been a month.


----------



## Tippy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Swolern*
> 
> Hmm consoles wont be able to run Crysis 3 even at its most stripped down graphical settings and DX9. That is great news for PC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After the fiasco and backlash of Crysis 2's horrible launch, I believe Crytek are going to make PC owners proud this time around.


It was Crytek's first lesson with consoles and Crysis, keep that in mind.
I get this is OCN and it's always "good news" when PC's get to stomp on consoles some more, but Crytek don't see it that way. Not anymore. With C3 they're aiming to please everyone regardless of platform.

Believe it or not Crysis 2 ran HORRIBLY on consoles despite everyone yelling "omg console port", dipping as low as 15 fps on XBox 360 quite often and hovering around the 22-28 fps mark which is borderline playable even by console standards. It wasn't all that great even for the console players, the list of issues far out-sizes what happened on PC.

With C3 they're looking to get smoother framerates on consoles and a re-assembled engine will allow them to keep some eye candy.
On PC's basically nothing is held back, in a developer interview he predicted 2.5GB vRAM usage during the really "open" portions of the game. Obviously they'll have to optimize that some more, otherwise most midrange GPU's with ~1-1.5gb vRAM will crap themselves.
Still, that is nuts! Even MaLDo HD (the most insane C2 texture mod) doesn't use up that much unless running triple screen.


----------



## zkalra

I just hope they have tri and quad sli scaling built in. And nVidia supports the game with decent driver support from Day 1.


----------



## TheBlindDeafMute

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tippy*
> 
> It was Crytek's first lesson with consoles and Crysis, keep that in mind.
> I get this is OCN and it's always "good news" when PC's get to stomp on consoles some more, but Crytek don't see it that way. Not anymore. With C3 they're aiming to please everyone regardless of platform.
> Believe it or not Crysis 2 ran HORRIBLY on consoles despite everyone yelling "omg console port", dipping as low as 15 fps on XBox 360 quite often and hovering around the 22-28 fps mark which is borderline playable even by console standards. It wasn't all that great even for the console players, the list of issues far out-sizes what happened on PC.
> With C3 they're looking to get smoother framerates on consoles and a re-assembled engine will allow them to keep some eye candy.
> On PC's basically nothing is held back, in a developer interview he predicted 2.5GB vRAM usage during the really "open" portions of the game. Obviously they'll have to optimize that some more, otherwise most midrange GPU's with ~1-1.5gb vRAM will crap themselves.
> Still, that is nuts! Even MaLDo HD (the most insane C2 texture mod) doesn't use up that much unless running triple screen.


That's why I always laugh when people say not to get the higher GB or vram cards. Its almost always worth it, if anything just to future proof your setup. In Crysis 1 modded, I have seen anywhere from 2.5 - 3.15 gb of vram usage, and that's only on one monitor.


----------



## iEATu

The next nvidia card is going to come with 3 Gb VRAM , so I think it would be more reasonable for us to just adjust the graphics settings.


----------



## kx11

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iEATu*
> 
> The next nvidia card is going to come with 3 Gb VRAM , so I think it would be more reasonable for us to just adjust the graphics settings.


i think it will come with 2.5 gb


----------



## jameschisholm

I thoroughly enjoyed Crysis 1, Warhead and Crysis 2 for both their story and graphical qualities. I can't really think of anything bad to say about them.

I do hope Crytek continue this with Crysis 3, if it does destroy every other game in graphical quality plus stays king of graphics for the next two years and develops the story even further I shall be very pleased.

As a side note i have pre-ordered Crysis 3 Hunter Edition on Amazon.


----------



## jezzer

This probably means they gonna make it that demanding it is going to be unplayable for a few years because the hardware cant run it because its not there yet and because other devs make games that is more up to date.

If they translate that into no one can touch the graphics good for them









I prefer a game that looks good NOW and plays good NOW.

But thats just me.


----------



## dmanstasiu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kx11*
> 
> i think it will come with 2.5 gb


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iEATu*
> 
> The next nvidia card is going to come with 3 Gb VRAM , so I think it would be more reasonable for us to just adjust the graphics settings.


AMD cards are currently shipping out with 3GB of VRAM so nVidia better step their game up


----------



## IronWill1991

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dmanstasiu*
> 
> AMD cards are currently shipping out with 3GB of VRAM so nVidia better step their game up


Why stop at 3GB? There are 4GB GTX 670 and 680.


----------



## dmanstasiu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IronWill1991*
> 
> Why stop at 3GB? There are 4GB GTX 670 and 680.


3GB is the lowest amount of RAM in my GPU's series









670s come with as low as 2GB


----------



## jcde7ago

Better upgrade to a a GTX 790/SLI'd 780s just in case.


----------



## Swolern

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dmanstasiu*
> 
> 3GB is the lowest amount of RAM in my GPU's series
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 670s come with as low as 2GB











Are you turning this into a Nvidia vs AMD thread?


----------



## dmanstasiu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Swolern*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you turning this into a Nvidia vd AMD thread?


Absolutely not, no harsh feelings. Back on topic haha.

I was just stating a fact, let's not get aroused angry.


----------



## Swolern




----------



## iEATu

I just pointed out how Crysis 3 won't kill the memory bandwidth on any new GPUs since AMD cards already have enough memory and nvidia cards are going to have a higher mem interface compared to only 256-bit right now, while the best AMD cards have 384-bit.


----------



## Rains

I'm going to have to find a 6970 and go Crossfire just to run the game


----------



## Mattbag

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rains*
> 
> I'm going to have to find a 6970 and go Crossfire just to run the game


I just ordered a 7970 and I think i'm gonna have to start looking on how i can afford a second considering a single 7970 wont max this game at 1440p


----------



## dmanstasiu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mattbag*
> 
> I just ordered a 7970 and I think i'm gonna have to start looking on how i can afford a second considering a single 7970 wont max this game at 1440p


I got mine for $275 ... in Canada. I'm sure you'll manage


----------



## DCPL

I'm gonna have to SLI my 670's hahaha so worth it though


----------



## Rains

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dmanstasiu*
> 
> I got mine for $275 ... in Canada. I'm sure you'll manage


What? Where? As a fellow member of the Land of Snow and Sorrow, I would love to be in the know!


----------



## dmanstasiu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rains*
> 
> What? Where? As a fellow member of the Land of Snow and Sorrow, I would love to be in the know!


NCIX. $330 plus tax was $370. Minus $30 rebate, $340. Then I sold the AMD bundle for $55







(Just noticed it's more like $295, but whatever)

That being said Futureshop has the 680 on sale tomorrow for $400







( Link )


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

If I do swap out for Team Green I'll be getting dual 680 Lightnings or waiting for the 780 Lightnings...


----------



## Feild Scarecrow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rains*
> 
> What? Where? As a fellow member of the Land of Snow and Sorrow, I would love to be in the know!


It was a great show wasn't it. NCIX is the bomb they are way better than even american new-egg.

OT
As far as I've seen this game actually seems like the $12 extra compared to consoles is earned.


----------



## zkalra

I cannot wait for this game. I don't think I have ever waited so eagerly for a game as much as this one. Well maybe simcity 5....wait they are both coming out in February. Guess feb is going to be a busy month.


----------



## Chris13002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zkalra*
> 
> I cannot wait for this game. I don't think I have ever waited so eagerly for a game as much as this one. Well maybe simcity 5....wait they are both coming out in February. Guess feb is going to be a busy month.


Seeing your system specs, I bet it cannot wait to play this game too...
It better not be another incomplete release like Crysis 2...


----------



## iEATu

Sheesh I'm jelly of those specs zkarla. But why do you have a GTX 680 for PhysX? :O Isn't that way overkill?


----------



## randomizer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iEATu*
> 
> Sheesh I'm jelly of those specs zkarla. But why do you have a GTX 680 for PhysX? :O Isn't that way overkill?


It's probably a leftover card that got replaced by the 690s. Might as well put it to use.


----------



## dph314

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *randomizer*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *iEATu*
> 
> Sheesh I'm jelly of those specs zkarla. But why do you have a GTX 680 for PhysX? :O Isn't that way overkill?
> 
> 
> 
> It's probably a leftover card that got replaced by the 690s. Might as well put it to use.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be funny if he was the only one able to run Crysis 3 maxed @ 60fps?









No, that would not be funny now that I think about it. It would be a dream, because I doubt Crytek would do Crysis 1 all over again, but I got my fingers crossed. Everyone knows that they had fun waiting for the new cards to come out after they bought OG Crysis because it was going to be the first game they threw at it. It's just fun having something like that that you can play and right away feel the reward of spending all that money on your new card(s).

Give me something to look forward to throwing at my 780's Crytek. Please.


----------



## zkalra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *randomizer*
> 
> It's probably a leftover card that got replaced by the 690s. Might as well put it to use.


You nailed it. In fact I have another 680 lying around that I want to sell as I had 2 680s in sli before I bought the 2 690s.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dph314*
> 
> Wouldn't it be funny if he was the only one able to run Crysis 3 maxed @ 60fps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that would not be funny now that I think about it. It would be a dream, because I doubt Crytek would do Crysis 1 all over again, but I got my fingers crossed. Everyone knows that they had fun waiting for the new cards to come out after they bought OG Crysis because it was going to be the first game they threw at it. It's just fun having something like that that you can play and right away feel the reward of spending all that money on your new card(s).
> Give me something to look forward to throwing at my 780's Crytek. Please.


I doubt it. I don't think that would help their image. People would start calling the game un-optimized at the drop of a hat. Plus we know its using the same engine as crysis 2 which is very well optimized.

I just hope they don't pull a borderlands 2/Far Cry 3 and make it overly CPU dependent. Plus nVidia better have proper sli compatibility bits if I am going to be able to reap any benefits of the quad sli.


----------



## dph314

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zkalra*
> 
> I doubt it. I don't think that would help their image. People would start calling the game un-optimized at the drop of a hat. Plus we know its using the same engine as crysis 2 which is very well optimized.
> 
> I just hope they don't pull a borderlands 2/Far Cry 3 and make it overly CPU dependent. Plus nVidia better have proper sli compatibility bits if I am going to be able to reap any benefits of the quad sli.


That's true, yeah. And I hate when a CPU core keeps maxing out and I don't get full usage on my GPUs.

So, just curious since you mentioned the SLI compatibility...do many games work well when you're using both 690's? How often do you actually lose performance, or see no increase in performance, when using both as opposed to one?


----------



## kx11

i wouldn't have any problem if crysis3 is heavy on cpu more than GPU


----------



## dph314

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kx11*
> 
> i wouldn't have any problem if crysis3 is heavy on cpu more than GPU


Having an even load across all cores, no. But I've had my 3930k up to 4.7Ghz for Far Cry 3 and one core still keeps hitting a full load, and I get less than 120fps (framerate cap) while GPU usage is at less 100%, so I can't help but think I'm losing a few frames because of that core maxing out.

Not a big deal really, and it doesn't happen often. Just saying. Like in BF3, quite a load on my CPU sometimes, but it's always evenly spread out across all 6 cores. Now _that_ I don't mind at all


----------



## kx11

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dph314*
> 
> Having an even load across all cores, no. But I've had my 3930k up to 4.7Ghz for Far Cry 3 and one core still keeps hitting a full load, and I get less than 120fps (framerate cap) while GPU usage is at less 100%, so I can't help but think I'm losing a few frames because of that core maxing out.
> Not a big deal really, and it doesn't happen often. Just saying. Like in BF3, quite a load on my CPU sometimes, but it's always evenly spread out across all 6 cores. Now _that_ I don't mind at all


we all know FC3 isn't the most optimized game


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

The last four of us in this thread have the most powerful CPU's available (in the consumer market) and we are still complaining about CPU usage??? Lol, crazy PC gamers!


----------



## dph314

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> The last four of us in this thread have the most powerful CPU's available (in the consumer market) and we are still complaining about CPU usage??? Lol, crazy PC gamers!


Ha, excellent point. Irony at its finest









I just think dev's really have to put more time into coding when a modern-day AAA game gets released and a SNB-E core maxes out at 4.7Ghz. That's just not right









Ah well. Worse things have happened. Don't mean to nit-pick. Just saying


----------



## iEATu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zkalra*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *randomizer*
> 
> It's probably a leftover card that got replaced by the 690s. Might as well put it to use.
> 
> 
> 
> You nailed it. In fact I have another 680 lying around that I want to sell as I had 2 680s in sli before I bought the 2 690s.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *dph314*
> 
> Wouldn't it be funny if he was the only one able to run Crysis 3 maxed @ 60fps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that would not be funny now that I think about it. It would be a dream, because I doubt Crytek would do Crysis 1 all over again, but I got my fingers crossed. Everyone knows that they had fun waiting for the new cards to come out after they bought OG Crysis because it was going to be the first game they threw at it. It's just fun having something like that that you can play and right away feel the reward of spending all that money on your new card(s).
> Give me something to look forward to throwing at my 780's Crytek. Please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt it. I don't think that would help their image. People would start calling the game un-optimized at the drop of a hat. Plus we know its using the same engine as crysis 2 which is very well optimized.
> 
> I just hope they don't pull a borderlands 2/Far Cry 3 and make it overly CPU dependent. Plus nVidia better have proper sli compatibility bits if I am going to be able to reap any benefits of the quad sli.
Click to expand...

A newer version of the engine made for the PC. 3.4 will be used in C3.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> The last four of us in this thread have the most powerful CPU's available (in the consumer market) and we are still complaining about CPU usage??? Lol, crazy PC gamers!


Aw. I'd better leave then.









People would not call the game un-optimized if it still looked amazing compared to any other game with lower graphic settings just to play the game. Or at least I certainly wouldn't. I think it would be awesome if quad SLI would be needed to play the game at max settings and look amazing.


----------



## zkalra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dph314*
> 
> That's true, yeah. And I hate when a CPU core keeps maxing out and I don't get full usage on my GPUs.
> So, just curious since you mentioned the SLI compatibility...do many games work well when you're using both 690's? How often do you actually lose performance, or see no increase in performance, when using both as opposed to one?


Sli compatibility isn't that bad. I don't think I have seen negative scaling so far. Some modern games like sleeping dogs, max payne 3 and even the older metro 2033 have near perfect scaling. Even the witcher 2 has decent scaling. Other games also look better when I enable super sampling in them via NVCPL. E.g. BF3 with 8x transparency anti aliasing is a sight to behold and I get very high GPU usage across all cards. This is despite the fact that scaling isn't all that great yet in frostbite 2.0.


----------



## zkalra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kx11*
> 
> i wouldn't have any problem if crysis3 is heavy on cpu more than GPU


Even on your beast system it wouldn't run very well with maximum settings IF it is CPU dependent. CPUs simply haven't kept pace with development the way GPUs have. And frankly by offloading some key tasks to the GPU Crytek are going to be able to have a more efficient game engine as opposed to cramming all tasks to the CPU cores. Obviously MP is going to be a bit more CPU dependent than SP but really, when did we ever buy a Crysis game for the MP?


----------



## dmanstasiu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> The last four of us in this thread have the most powerful CPU's available (in the consumer market) and we are still complaining about CPU usage??? Lol, crazy PC gamers!


lol and then you find out there are xeons


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

That's what I meant about consumer market. Not counting servers...


----------



## dmanstasiu

I guess I spend too much time with server chips ...

I have 4 opterons sitting on my desk


----------



## dph314

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zkalra*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *dph314*
> 
> That's true, yeah. And I hate when a CPU core keeps maxing out and I don't get full usage on my GPUs.
> So, just curious since you mentioned the SLI compatibility...do many games work well when you're using both 690's? How often do you actually lose performance, or see no increase in performance, when using both as opposed to one?
> 
> 
> 
> Sli compatibility isn't that bad. I don't think I have seen negative scaling so far. Some modern games like sleeping dogs, max payne 3 and even the older metro 2033 have near perfect scaling. Even the witcher 2 has decent scaling. Other games also look better when I enable super sampling in them via NVCPL. E.g. BF3 with 8x transparency anti aliasing is a sight to behold and I get very high GPU usage across all cards. This is despite the fact that scaling isn't all that great yet in frostbite 2.0.
Click to expand...

Man if I had your setup I'd be running Sparse-Grid Super-Sampling in every game the drivers have AA bits for. SGSSAA is also quite a site, you might even like it better. Check it out- http://www.overclock.net/t/1250100/nvidia-sparse-grid-supersampling


----------



## zkalra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dph314*
> 
> Man if I had your setup I'd be running Sparse-Grid Super-Sampling in every game the drivers have AA bits for. SGSSAA is also quite a site, you might even like it better. Check it out- http://www.overclock.net/t/1250100/nvidia-sparse-grid-supersampling


Have given it a go in the past but somehow in the few games I used it I don't think it worked properly. Will give it another go now.


----------



## dph314

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zkalra*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *dph314*
> 
> Man if I had your setup I'd be running Sparse-Grid Super-Sampling in every game the drivers have AA bits for. SGSSAA is also quite a site, you might even like it better. Check it out- http://www.overclock.net/t/1250100/nvidia-sparse-grid-supersampling
> 
> 
> 
> Have given it a go in the past but somehow in the few games I used it I don't think it worked properly. Will give it another go now.
Click to expand...

You followed the guide? If you followed the guide and it didn't work, then there wasn't AA bits for that game. Basically, you have to make sure something besides all zeros is listed in the AA Compatibility row in Inspector for that particular game's profile.

I think there's a link at that thread to a site that lists what to use for some popular games that Nvidia doesn't have native support for (using bits from a similar game made with the same/similar engine), or Google it to see if someone found bits that work well with a particular game


----------



## edo101

Maybe not but its still not gonna be anything spectacular from Crysis 2


----------



## zkalra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dph314*
> 
> You followed the guide? If you followed the guide and it didn't work, then there wasn't AA bits for that game. Basically, you have to make sure something besides all zeros is listed in the AA Compatibility row in Inspector for that particular game's profile.
> I think there's a link at that thread to a site that lists what to use for some popular games that Nvidia doesn't have native support for (using bits from a similar game made with the same/similar engine), or Google it to see if someone found bits that work well with a particular game


I tried it again with a lot of games and it looks good. Though I personally feel that transparency AA also adds a lot to the IQ. Pretty much a toss up for me between the two.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *edo101*
> 
> Maybe not but its still not gonna be anything spectacular from Crysis 2


Crysis 2 was spectacular so any improvement will be welcomed....


----------



## Newbie2009

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Crysis 2 was spectacular so any improvement will be welcomed....


If this looks better than the Crysis 2 Maldo Mod then I'm sold.


----------



## Awieos

The game graphic look awesome but it is not hardware friendly


----------



## 666lbs

In before another Far Cry 3 style bait and switch? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mqnAbRpyqfI#!


----------



## Tippy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *666lbs*
> 
> In before another Far Cry 3 style bait and switch? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mqnAbRpyqfI#!


Crytek =/= Ubisoft.
Two completely different companies with different goals, ideals and different amounts of respect for their consumers.


----------



## randomizer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tippy*
> 
> Crytek =/= Ubisoft.
> Two completely different companies with different goals, ideals and different amounts of respect for their consumers.


I seem to remember Crysis pre-release videos running butter smooth on two X1900XTXs. In the real world...


----------



## 666lbs

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tippy*
> 
> Crytek =/= Ubisoft.
> Two completely different companies with different goals, ideals and different amounts of respect for their consumers.


Sure about that? They released Crysis 2 before the DX11 patch was ready, injected extra layers of triangle polys into the tesselation that didn't change the image fidelity but crippled AMD cards with it enabled, and the game can't be seen as a step forward from the first in the series without significant community modding.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

They still released DX11 as a free upgrade later on which is a lot more than some other studios would do. The tessellation issue was way overblown and I'm sorry but with DX11 and hi-res packs installed, Crysis 2 was and still is a very formidable game graphics-wise....


----------



## ELCID777

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Crysis 2 was and still is a very formidable game graphics-wise....


With MaLDo 4.0 installed, it's far and above anything else out there right now.


----------



## dph314

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELCID777*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Crysis 2 was and still is a very formidable game graphics-wise....
> 
> 
> 
> With MaLDo 4.0 installed, it's far and above anything else out there right now.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It's a mod, sure. But damn it looks great.


----------



## edo101

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Crysis 2 was spectacular so any improvement will be welcomed....


Not to me.


----------



## Awieos

Should have article said nothing will beat minecraft graphic for least .....


----------



## zkalra

If crysis 3 has Crysis 2.0 + maldo hd quality graphics it will already be better than anything else out there. Add in the other effects and it is going to astound us.


----------



## TheBlindDeafMute

Just wanted to share. I'm so excited for this game.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Yep this game is gonna own!


----------



## Chris13002

More episodes out...
I know these are cinematics, but if the real thing looks close to these videos, then i'll be really impressed...


----------



## Qu1ckset

OMG this game needs to come out faster!!!!


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

These Crysis 3 episodes are mental!!!


----------



## ghostrider85

will this game be available on steam?


----------



## Swolern

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ghostrider85*
> 
> will this game be available on steam?


You know EA is going to control this monster title. Its Origin exclusive.


----------



## Tippy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chris13002*
> 
> More episodes out...
> I know these are cinematics, but if the real thing looks close to these videos, then i'll be really impressed...


Lol those videos are NOT cinematic, it's the real deal. Have you seen the 15 minute+ long gameplay footage videos? Or played the alpha? I have, it looked just as good and we weren't even given access to max settings. There is quite a lot of footage from The Fields level in the bow video.

A lot of scenes in 7 Wonders show first-person gameplay footage and I'm 100% certain everything is recorded using the in-game engine (with some tweaks to show Prophet in 3rd person).


----------



## boredgunner

Crytek is probably right. Crysis Warhead is over 4 years old now and is still pretty much unbeaten visually, unless Crysis 2 with the visual updates looks better, and I don't know anything about Warface. But regardless they're all Crytek games, and from what we've seen about Crysis 3, it will once again raise the bar visually. Nothing has raised the bar since Crysis in 2007.

However, that's as far as my positive remarks about Crysis 3 and Crytek extend. Why is everyone so excited for this game? It just looks like yet another generic, mostly linear, shooter with minimal effort put into the game itself just like Crysis 2. All I see here is, "GUNZ!! GRAFIX!!! OMG!!!!" and just over the top excitement for no reason. It's puzzling. Pretty much the only thing people specifically point out is graphics, because that's all it has to offer. If that's the case, sit back and watch 3DMark 11. You'll fall in love!

I'm not interested in a Crysis 2 clone, putting some overgrown moss on the levels doesn't help. Crytek hasn't made an acceptable game since 2008 in my opinion, and Crysis 3 looks like it will continue their awful trend.

Back in 2007, Crytek became one of the first (if not THE first and THE only) developer to make a shooter with a very good single player campaign and multiplayer. Crysis 2 is horrible in both regards, and Crysis 3 looks like it will be the same. Graphics will be unrivaled? Good for you Crytek, but graphics don't make a game.


----------



## y2kcamaross

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> Crytek is probably right. Crysis Warhead is over 4 years old now and is still pretty much unbeaten visually, unless Crysis 2 with the visual updates looks better, and I don't know anything about Warface. But regardless they're all Crytek games, and from what we've seen about Crysis 3, it will once again raise the bar visually. Nothing has raised the bar since Crysis in 2007.
> 
> However, that's as far as my positive remarks about Crysis 3 and Crytek extend. Why is everyone so excited for this game? It just looks like yet another generic, mostly linear, shooter with minimal effort put into the game itself just like Crysis 2. All I see here is, "GUNZ!! GRAFIX!!! OMG!!!!" and just over the top excitement for no reason. It's puzzling. Pretty much the only thing people specifically point out is graphics, because that's all it has to offer. If that's the case, sit back and watch 3DMark 11. You'll fall in love!
> 
> I'm not interested in a Crysis 2 clone, putting some overgrown moss on the levels doesn't help. Crytek hasn't made an acceptable game since 2008 in my opinion, and Crysis 3 looks like it will continue their awful trend.
> 
> Back in 2007, Crytek became one of the first (if not THE first and THE only) developer to make a shooter with a very good single player campaign and multiplayer. Crysis 2 is horrible in both regards, and Crysis 3 looks like it will be the same. Graphics will be unrivaled? Good for you Crytek, but graphics don't make a game.


because you don't like Crysis 2 means no one should like it? I thought crysis 2 was excellent, and its multiplayer destroyed the first crysis until the hackers got out of control


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *y2kcamaross*
> 
> because you don't like Crysis 2 means no one should like it?


No you just misunderstood. I don't see why everyone gets super excited for games they've basically played already. Especially a game of such small caliber.


----------



## cuad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *y2kcamaross*
> 
> crysis 2 was excellent, and its multiplayer destroyed the first crysis


Let's say that Crysis Wars represents the multiplayer for Crysis 1/Warhead. It is nearly the same as Crysis 1 MP, and it is the best multiplayer of all the crysis games. you're just mad 'cause you never learned to strafe jump.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgxm2uxVpn4


----------



## Chris13002

Have to say that i am going to agree with this article after playing the first few missions in this game... The graphics are truly amazing and would recommend this to anyone looking for a game to stress their machine.

The graphics are done right... IMO nothing is overdone such as the lens flare (BF3) and depth of field (Metro 2033)...
Everything from textures, how the grass reacts to wind/deers running through, water effects, lighting, and even how extra hanging cloth on Psycho's outfit reacts to wind and his movements... And they didn't even have to use Physx for that...

Video I made of the second level... simply amazed me while playing through it... I can't say I got the same feeling for BF3 or FarCry 3 when those games came out...


----------



## Artikbot

^Truly beautiful. Even more than the Alpha.

The only recent game that made me think 'Hey those are some good graphics!' is Far Cry 3. But still, first Crysis' were better.


----------

