Crytek Says It's Getting Increasingly Difficult to Wow People With Graphics

That isn't true. The PC version of Project Cars at 60 FPS blows away anything being done in DriveClub or Forza Horizon, despite both being very impressive games in their own ways.

But it is true. And then we may talk about The Tomorrow Children or even Bloodborne. There is console games coming on mid end 2012 hardware (they said) that will destroy everything released before in a year or two, you'll see.

But then, everything is just opinion, am I right?
 
But it is true. And then we may talk about The Tomorrow Children or even Bloodborne. There is console games coming on mid end 2012 hardware (they said) that will destroy everything released before in a year or two, you'll see.

But then, everything is just opinion, am I right?
Bloodborne is not actually that impressive from a technical standpoint.
 
Yeah I still contest that FarCry 1 is still the best game Crytek ever made. Played Crysis 2 for the first time this year, what a dull, lifeless game it is. Work on the gameplay, Crytek.
 
Bloodborne is not actually that impressive from a technical standpoint.

That's the thing, it's not, but it still looks a lot better than Dark Soul's 2 PC. Just the way things progress, with PC's mainly getting ports of console games, whilst the consoles have more exclusives to make better use of their specific hardware.
 
Crytek says it's getting increasingly difficult to pay its employees the money they deserve.
A. Paychecks
B. Gameplay
C. None of the above
Looks like Crytek is paying their employees again.
Someone think of the scummy company that freezes payroll.
Crysis III-2: Lightning Diminishing Returns
I don't see how bringing up their gameplay in a talk that's solely about rendering technologies or the time when Crytek didn't pay their employees has any point unless you just want to talk shit about the company regardless of how relevant it is to the discussion. Ryse had some fantastic art direction and environments and we still have some people who weren't impressed. This guy is right. People are getting harder to please.
 
I'm still impressed by good graphics.

Infamous SS did it for me. God of War 3 last gen also did it for me.

Driveclub looks like it's gonna be the same and i can't wait for Uncharted 4...

Art style is something many devs seem to forget, it's not all about realism. Look at some Wii U games, i was damn impressed by Mario 3D world and Mario Kart 8 graphics.
 
That's the thing, it's not, but it still looks a lot better than Dark Soul's 2 PC. Just the way things progress, with PC's mainly getting ports of console games, whilst the consoles have more exclusives to make better use of their specific hardware.

Seriously comparing a last-gen port to a current-gen console exclusive? Wow.
 
I think that means they need to challenge their artists a bit more then. Quit worrying about toad tesselation and make some interesting colorful content instead. Art direction and execution beats graphical bells and whistles for me every time.
 
These days? Not quite.
Next year maybe.
The Order and Uncharted look better than anything I've seen.
Driveclub is the best looking racing game by a good margin. Its 30FPS, but still way ahead of any other racing game.

Driveclub has some pretty impressive stages but Pcars is definitely no slouch either. It could be better but I'm pretty satisfied with it at least. Some clips can be found here.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=448198&page=137

There will be a lot of games with great graphics coming out in the next couple years so the impact of those exclusives is not going to be so big.
 
Seriously comparing a last-gen port to a current-gen console exclusive? Wow.

Talk about missing the point. It is indicative of a bigger issue plaguing PC's, and holding them back from making better use of the more powerful hardware afforded to them, that is console ports themselves. This isn't as much of an issue with consoles as they have so many first party (and third party) exclusives that can better optimise due to the closed platform nature. It's kind of a shame that Crysis 3 is still the main benchmark for PC graphical prowess, when PC hardware has evolved a good degree since the games release.
 
What impresses me most about graphics in any sense is design. Art. Without the design and the art you don't have anything to look at anyway.

Everything from textures, to geometry, shaders, IQ, and framerate merely exist to support the art. Something that a lot of game creators struggling to replicate reality seem to forget, making bland photorealistic games that look ugly in just a few years, when technology improves again.

With the right art, any piece of hardware can produce a pleasing image. In fact, at this point, the hardware for polygon based visuals is so advanced that the main benefit from more powerful hardware is to art styles that are generally realistic - and tipped relatively far towards the "photographic" end of the scale. The other current advantage is games with large and open world designs, since scale does impact granular quality.

Bloodborne for example, looks better than Dark Souls 2 PC largely because it has far, far superior art and visual direction.Though in a purely technical sense, it does seem to use a lighting system more advanced than DS2 (more like the lighting in the DS2 vertical slice).

If it's getting harder to wow and boggle people with raw hardware, it's because those naughty diminishing returns mean that people are used to decent IQ, higher resolutions, 60fps (on PC), and good textures. As has been said many times the dawn of accelerated 3D visuals can't happen twice. The biggest wow moment was at the beginning, and each subsequent wow has been smaller.
 
Talk about missing the point. It is indicative of a bigger issue plaguing PC's, and holding them back from making better use of the more powerful hardware afforded to them, that is console ports themselves. This isn't as much of an issue with consoles as they have so many first party (and third party) exclusives that can better optimise due to the closed platform nature. It's kind of a shame that Crysis 3 is still the main benchmark for PC graphical prowess, when PC hardware has evolved a good degree since the games release.

Star citizen.
 
Honestly, I haven't really been impressed with a game's graphics since Silent Hill 3. Graphics have never been overly important to me to begin with though.
 
Probably because these days the underpowered consoles, at least exclusives wise, are putting out better graphics than PC's.

It has nothing to do with that or with the "master race" bullshit. The exclusives look nice, i'm not denying that, but we are talking about the impact of the graphics. The impact is always bigger to those who have previously played only with last gen consoles or with some ten years old PC. For most PC gamers the graphics improvements are much more gradual and i don't always see why console gamers would lose their mind over some games that are seen as graphically impressive. We definitely aren't going to see real pre-rendered CGI quality during this gen.
 
That's the thing, it's not, but it still looks a lot better than Dark Soul's 2 PC. Just the way things progress, with PC's mainly getting ports of console games, whilst the consoles have more exclusives to make better use of their specific hardware.
That's just how it is *right now*. And Dark Souls 2 on the PC was obviously heavily limited by last gen consoles, even if development was PC-led, just to get that out of the way.

But anyways this will change. Obviously Sony and Microsoft spend a *lot* of money on developing graphically impressive games for their hardware as incentive. PC doesn't have this. But multiplatform development will start to gain ground with exclusives once cross-gen development dies out and 1440p/2160p gaming will become more prominent in the PC scene. It wont take long before PC games start to become quite a bit more impressive.

I know you're going to flaunt this while you can, and that's fine, but don't go thinking its gonna last long. Aging is a bitch.

And the frame rate is bad. But sure it is damn pretty (the clothes, the blood, animations, motion blur...), and at the end of the day it's what matters the most.
I think the art style does it a lot of favors, which definitely is important. But I was not wow'd by it whatsoever. Not compared to everything else coming out. Like, even considering the art style, it was not all that impressive.

Reminds me very much of Demon's Souls, for that matter.
 
Only in IQ, and naturally the frame rate. The lighting engine, weather effects, volumetrics and overall scope still aren't comparable.

I haven't been finding the screens posted in the OT to be very attractive...

ilu2sHMiFa4J9.jpg

especially when compared with the reveal it seems like a bit of a downgrade

 
That's just how it is *right now*. And Dark Souls 2 on the PC was obviously heavily limited by last gen consoles, even if development was PC-led, just to get that out of the way.

But anyways this will change. Obviously Sony and Microsoft spend a *lot* of money on developing graphically impressive games for their hardware as incentive. PC doesn't have this. But multiplatform development will start to gain ground with exclusives once cross-gen development dies out and 1440p/2160p gaming will become more prominent in the PC scene. It wont take long before PC games start to become quite a bit more impressive.

I know you're going to flaunt this while you can, and that's fine, but don't go thinking its gonna last long. Aging is a bitch.

Oh I absolutely agree and mentioned as much above. It's a bit pathetic that this is the case, given how much more expensive PC builds can be, and how much more powerful PC's are compared to these consoles, but a soon as the pendulum swings back again, far heavier in favour of PC's, I'll invest in a new GPU. Hopefully one that isn't just a re-hash of old architecture, but something new.
 
I haven't been finding the screens posted in the OT to be very attractive...

Well, when you pick one of the worst shots possible, that tends to happen. Bare in mind all of these are highly compressed anyway.

Here are some better one's.

iNIpz90anEeeC.jpg


il3rwHP5ofhwH.jpg


ibuD7xqVInkGEa.jpg


A capture from video.

image_driveclub-26466-2662_0005.jpg
 
For a company that is built around making amazing graphics but shallow gameplay maybe they should refocus a little.

Original Crysis wasn't shallow though.


What bothers me a bit more is that he is blaming GPUs for not being able to do 60FPS on 4K screens. There are 2 things wrong with that statement.

1) GPUs can do that now. You just have to manage the scope of your graphics. Ironically if they did that in the first place they wouldn't be in this situation where it is harder to wow people with graphics.
2) The GPU's aren't the problem but the display cables. They can only carry so much information and until DP 1.3 and HDMI 3.0 is finalized games simply can't do 60 FPS on 4K TV or monitor screens.
 
The order 1886, apples to oranges my friend.
What does this mean? On a visual and technical level Star Citizen vastly outdoes The Order. It's simple, they are using the best engine there is, and are designing a game, which on highest settings, will only be playable on high end PCs of 2016. There is no way to compete with this, especially with anything that has been revealed for the PS4 so far.
And at what sacrifices have the Order devs made to achieve such visuals? They made it a letterbox game, and limited the FPS to 30 (for cinematic reasons apparantly)
 
Well, when you pick one of the worst shots possible, that tends to happen. Bare in mind all of these are highly compressed anyway.

Here are some better one's.

..shotsies..

Those aren't that much better than nfs rivals tbh. DC needs to be seen in motion.
 
Crytek obsessed with graphics.

too bad they don't put effort into their gameplay or story.
Crysis 3 was a boring 7 hour game all flash no substance.
 
Oh I absolutely agree and mentioned as much above. It's a bit pathetic that this is the case, given how much more expensive PC builds can be, and how much more powerful PC's are compared to these consoles, but a soon as the pendulum swings back again, far heavier in favour of PC's, I'll invest in a new GPU. Hopefully one that isn't just a re-hash of old architecture, but something new.
Calling it 'pathetic' is kind of ridiculous, c'mon now. There is more to owning a nice-spec'd PC than just being able to play a few bragging rights games. That may matter to some, but I put my power to good use all the time.
 
By eliminating bottlenecks you can see how well each part can perform. If you do not do this then you will never see the maximum capabilities of a part in your system. Saying eliminating bottlenecks is not a fair comparison means you do not understand the science behind doing so.

Ok, so under the best conditions you'll get optimal performance. In the real world how many people are using a $100 GPU with 16GB or ram, and a high dollar CPU? It's not like every schmuck with a $100 GPU is going to be outperforming a PS4.

Edit: Even then I'm perfectly happy with how things are right now. Even on my Wii U I find the games to look great.
 
Original Crysis wasn't shallow though.


What bothers me a bit more is that he is blaming GPUs for not being able to do 60FPS on 4K screens. There are 2 things wrong with that statement.

1) GPUs can do that now. You just have to manage the scope of your graphics. Ironically if they did that in the first place they wouldn't be in this situation where it is harder to wow people with graphics.
2) The GPU's aren't the problem but the display cables. They can only carry so much information and until DP 1.3 and HDMI 3.0 is finalized games simply can't do 60 FPS on 4K TV or monitor screens.

1: It can't be done with decent fidelity.
2: Doubt it, pc gamers can already play in 4K.
 
I should also mention that I finally got to see a 4K TV in action the other week, and while the image was certainly beautiful, I wasn't as impressed as I thought I'd be. Maybe in a videogame setting the difference would be bigger, but just by watching footage of water fountains, flowers, architecture, etc, I wasn't completely bowled over.
 
The constant shitting on Crytek in this forum gets annoying. The quality of their games is also better than people make it out to be.

But of course Crytek is also to blame. Yerli as a CEO is a terrible mouthpiece and should be banned from any kind of PR work. And of course it's not nice to hear about the working conditions there.
 
Woah, you weren't kidding...

PS1: 2MB
PS2: 32MB
PS3: 512MB
PS4: 8GB

I guess Sony will launch PS5 when 128GB RAM is affordable for the consumer lol

It's probably going to be just one big lump of future hi-tech memory that's used for storage, ram and vram. Well maybe not on next gen yet but on PC side, this is going to happen at some point.
 
Bloodborne is not actually that impressive from a technical standpoint.

Back in 2005 it would of been.

Why didn't they ever make something like dark souls or demon's souls? Too ambitious? If they're going to make a fantastic idea like the Souls series, then it wont be all about graphics. You'll get enough to be pleased as a player.

I think that's half the reason Godzilla on PS3 looks the way it does or EDF. They're making a game that wouldn't normally get made and they're not focusing on graphics. That doesn't mean it wasn't about the budget, but they're making a game because the game was a good idea to begin with. People aren't amazed maybe because graphics were the reason they started gaming and they want to be pleased constantly from then on.

There's a ton of open world RPG like Two Worlds and Risen that looked good graphically, but I couldn't enjoy them just because they looked good. I can bet there's a large group out there who play those games based on graphics. I think games can get dated and that decreases some of their enjoyment, but I don't feel that's the case all the time. There's still quite a few games that were made with less graphical feel that still immerse the player or there's something that you can take away from it. If a game just sits there with pretty graphics it can lack every other aspect of what made a great game.

Really dude? I get opinions and all that, but...

They're two completely different games and genres. Look at the genres more than you do graphics. That feels like a huge problem right there. A game set in space is easier because it's dark space with textures. You don't have to focus on nonfictional details all the time.

Skyrim is one game where the graphics help the player become immersed or GTAV. That's probably where this argument is coming from because we expect those games to look good and if there's slight flaw then we attack it like no tomorrow. The game could be well a head of its time too.
 
What does this mean? On a visual and technical level Star Citizen vastly outdoes The Order. It's simple, they are using the best engine there is, and are designing a game, which on highest settings, will only be playable on high end PCs of 2016. There is no way to compete with this, especially with anything that has been revealed for the PS4 so far.
And at what sacrifices have the Order devs made to achieve such visuals? They made it a letterbox game, and limited the FPS to 30 (for cinematic reasons apparantly)

No, both games offer up a visual showcase that is in itself equally as impressive as the other.
Technical merits aside both games will be unequivocally praised as two of the best looking games to date, whether you prefer the look of Star Citizen over the Order is purely subjective being that both games offer up a look and design that is vastly different from the other.
The overall visual look of a game goes far beyond the technical prowess that is presented, and who's not to say that the tech behind the Order isn't just as impressive in what it is setting out to achieve, again both games are representing two totally different visual styles/looks, both of which feature amazing visuals in what the are setting out to be.
 
Top Bottom