Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

CryENGINE 3 Updated, Crysis 3 Announced

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the still-won't-run-crysis dept.

PlayStation (Games) 60

zacharye writes "The next-generation Xbox and PlayStation consoles currently being developed by Microsoft and Sony will make the disparity between console and mobile gaming even more vast, adding more fluid animation support and a number of additional enhancements that will make video games more realistic than ever. But even when confined to the capabilities present in today's home consoles, new video game engines show us just how amazing gaming will be moving forward. Ctytek, the lab behind the popular Crysis franchise, recently released the CryENGINE 3 SDK 3.4.0 DX11 update for developers, along with a quick reel to highlight some of the engine's capabilities." Crysis 3 has also been officially confirmed. They're aiming for a Spring 2013 release date, and the game will be set within a dome in New York City that contains an 'urban rainforest.'

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Prophet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39703501)

He axed himself at the beginning of the game to let Alcatraz drive the Nanosuit...he's back?

Re:Prophet? (4, Funny)

Jamu (852752) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703711)

Yeah. The story went something like this:

1. Alcatraz survives destroyed sub
2. Alcatraz gets nanosuit
3. ...
4. Prophet!

Re:Prophet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39704097)

Accidentally modded Overrated instead of Funny -- posting to undo

Re:Prophet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39705899)

Uh, try again.

Re:Prophet? (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 2 years ago | (#39709047)

And just in case you haven't played the game, this is exactly what happens.

Re:Prophet? (4, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#39704183)

He axed himself at the beginning of the game to let Alcatraz drive the Nanosuit...he's back?

Yes. And this's personal!

Crysis 2 was a huge letdown (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39703513)

I hope they make it up with Crysis 3

A Game Now? (4, Funny)

deweyhewson (1323623) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703517)

Hey, maybe now they can actually make a game, instead of a glorified tech demo (Crysis) or an interactive movie (Crysis 2)...

Re:A Game Now? (1)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703623)

I actually quite enjoyed Crysis. Crysis 2, however, had none (or very little) of the freedom that I enjoyed in Crysis. I played Crysis through twice: once as basically an assault character who took fairly direct routes, and the second time as a sniper who travelled stealthily and for the most part didn't stick to the established/expected route at all. I don't think that would be possible in Crysis 2 -- it all seemed much, much more linear (and I didn't even bother finishing the game).

Re:A Game Now? (4, Insightful)

ledow (319597) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703625)

When the video shows off nothing but graphical effects, it's unlikely.

Seriously, at some point, the oceans will be as realistic as they can be, the HDR will be spot on, the reflections won't affect performance, the model detail will be high enough for ANYTHING.

Then, what will they do? All their old games will look like junk, and have no redeeming feature beyond their graphics. And, maybe, finally, we can get back to making *games*. You know, things with plots, gameplay, a point, freedom, etc. Sound hit that point a long while ago - you know, I don't think there's much more you *can* do to improve upon a game that has proper 3D sound with real-time effects - so games don't even mention it any more whereas ten or fifteen years ago stereo, or 3D sound, was something to boast about.

As it is, the gaming scenes are currently dominated by rehashes of old-school games that are playable, open, and fun (hell, Minecraft pales in comparison to something like Hunter on the Amiga, etc.). While crap like this sinks billions into graphics and engine development that will eventually stop recouping its costs.

I'm just hoping, beyond hope, that if HL2:Ep3 ever does appear, it will show something NEW. I don't care about graphics - I want something I can play on my laptop. I want something that's *fun* to play and engaging. HL2 managed that. I literally played it through in one hit and then later went back to play through all the released episodes again in one long session (with, I think, only one or two breaks in gameplay - and NOT to play another game).

Seriously, developers, what are you going to do when EVERYONE can play games with ALL this crap in them? It's not as far in the future as you seem to think. And just what will you do then?

Re:A Game Now? (1)

NoSleepDemon (1521253) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703967)

I imagine they'll move right on to AI, perhaps dedicating free GPU cycles to crunching particularly fiendish path finding routines or to create more realistic behaviour. The problem of AI in video-games is still something that has a long way to go, and is nowhere near as 'solved' as graphics is. For example, modern video games often use a waypoint system for AI path finding, going so far as to create 'hint nodes' which tell the AI what they should be doing at a particular node, or what a particular node is intended for (such as sniping, finding cover, or a regrouping). Such a system is static by nature, and doesn't lend itself well to constantly evolving situations. It looks like one of the updates in the new CryEngine (going purely by the video) is path finding meshes that adapt to the environment, so rather than placing lots of individual nodes that are linked together, one places a mesh over the ground that acts as a guide.

Another area they might expand in is the simulation of a true virtual world, not just a slice of the world with all the terrain geometry intact. Such a simulation would require a vast amount of processing power to enable interactions between its inhabitants, and would also require some ingenious streaming technology (id Software's Rage is a step in the right direction... apparently... as long as you have a solid state HDD) to display a large world seemlessly. This goes doubley for a dynamic world that lets you affect it in physical ways, such as terraforming landscape. One of my pet projects is rendering large chunks of terrain on the GPU, and a big problem I ran into is making the terrain dynamic. In my case you can't even terraform it, simply finding a way to dynamically and accurately light a huge chunk of terrain is a headache. If anyone knows how, please let me know!

So there are certainly interesting avenues to explore in the name or realism, even within the realm of graphics, you just need to think 'larger', rather than 'prettier' :)

Re:A Game Now? (4, Insightful)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#39705069)

Uh... some companies will continue to make game engines, others will make games?

Camera companies, whatever will you do when all your cameras can do colour, high res, steady camed shots with the minimum of glare?

Crytek is a technology and tools company, that makes a game on the side to show off what can be done with their tools, to some degree gamebryo. Epic does something similar, as does gamebase (gamebryo aka Oblivion, Fallout 3, Fallout NV, Civ4, WAR). You can argue on the quality of the games they produce, but the products they have are technology projects. Don't think for a moment that the content creation side of things isn't hugely important. How quickly you can generate worlds, water, ground, buildings etc depends very much on the quality and usability of the tools. And I don't just mean procedurally generate, although that too, I mean that you're building all of these level design tools for a bunch of artists and non- programmers (and not computer scientists, not engineers, they are tradeschool level people) who actually build most of the game. Making it so they can actually use the tools, understand what they do etc is a big challenge. Crytek (and Epic) both work collaboratively with their own teams and anyone they licence too to improve the tools, but ultimately the first title produced is being made while the tools are being made. Game engines since DX9 have gotten to the point that that isn't a huge problem. But they're still building tools primarily around workflow, build integrity, management etc.

All of the development happening is happening to support people who actually make games.

Seriously, developers, what are you going to do when EVERYONE can play games with ALL this crap in them? It's not as far in the future as you seem to think. And just what will you do then?

Dance for joy? Focus on actually making games and not fighting a technology battle with deciding what features we cut based on what percentage of the market will support whatever we're doing. Tell stories. Build worlds. That's the whole point. Go play Skyim. This comment will still be here after you've played a while. Say 80 hours worth. That's what we're trying to do. Build the tools that make an experience believable, and grandiose. Oblivion and Morrowind (elderscrolls 4 and 3 respectively) had great technology for their time, but compared to skyrim, they look like student projects. Now that you've played skyrim for 80 or so hours you'll also realize how far we have to go in actually building worlds. As cool as it is to see a horse that has a fur mane that waves around, or armour that has fur protruding out of it, swords that look like real metal, animals that look sort of like real animals, there's a long, long way to go. People like you will have said the same thing 10 years ago, and on one hand, you're kind of right. Since directx 9 and the ability to make arbitrary 3D worlds there's a lot less pressure on graphics, and a lot more on building the world. On the other hand, if you wanted to make a game today at the quality of morrowind (directx 8) or oblivion (still directx 9 with skyrim) you would be compared to skyrim, and found very much wanting. If you *can* do the graphics, whether that is weather, bricks, lizard men, or whatever, the better it looks the more believable it can be, the better the experience for the player. The easier it is to build those worlds, the more we'll make them. But even from the day we can produce photorealistic images in real time on desktop hardware (and we are no where near that) we will still have work to do, to make the content creation easier, to make more exotic objects and materials and optical physics effects. And as people below have talked about, there's a lot more to games than just visual quality, there's animation, sound, AI etc. And some of those problems are a lot farther away than photorealistic images. But a lot of them don't play as nice with videos either.

Caveat: I'm not sure how skyrim looks on a dx9 only card, as I've only run it on ATI 5800 series and Nvidia 500 and 600 cards, nor do I know how it works on consoles. It certainly can be a hell of a lot better on a GTX 680 than an ati 5850, but there is certainly room to grow beyond those.

Re:A Game Now? (1)

captjc (453680) | more than 2 years ago | (#39705167)

The idea is, right now were are fast coming to that point. Actually, I can't wait for the day where graphics really are good enough. You mentioned sound, that after fully immersive sound was available, the industry moved on. Right now, graphics are the easiest way to say "my game is better than yours". Once we get to the point of practical real-time photo-realism is achievable on a console or bargain bin laptop and there is no real graphical difference between a Michael Bay film and the latest EA release, then the industry will move on to something new. AI, truly open worlds, story and gameplay will probably become the new baseline of what can be achieved.

Until then, you can either upgrade to a new laptop, or play indy games that can't afford to focus on graphics. You are not the target market for EA, Activision, and the other major game publishers.

Re:A Game Now? (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | more than 2 years ago | (#39710921)

Seriously, at some point, the oceans will be as realistic as they can be, the HDR will be spot on, the reflections won't affect performance, the model detail will be high enough for ANYTHING.

You think this is limited to games?

A novice director put together a trilogy of movies back at a time of limited special effects, always thinking that his other trilogy couldn't be made as he envisaged it, because he didn't have the technology. Finally the time came when the tech was available and we ended up with Jar Jar.

Another director got his hands on absolute state of the art 3D movie making technology and decided to remake Pocahontas.

Don't blame the people developing the technology, blame the directors who get their hands on it.

I wouldn't count on it (-1, Flamebait)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703649)

Crytek has sucked at games from day one.

--Farcry was a tech demo that didn't run well on any hardware out at the time that featured a massive world that would be good for free roaming except the gameplay didn't allow it. It was a reasonable sneaky-shooty up until it became a monster game and really sucked.

--Crysis was a tech demo that didn't run well on any hardware out at the time that featured a massive world that would be good for free roaming except the gameplay didn't allow it. It was a reasonable sneaky-shooty up until it became a monster game and really sucked. Oh and it's last level was just about the worst thing ever.

--Crysis Warhead was just Crysis, with a different main character. Same island, same basic story, same engine, same shit.

--Crysis 2 was a step back technologically since Crytek decided the reason they were "only" selling a millionish copies of their game was because of evil PC pirates, and not because their game sucked or because it required, as Yahtzee put it "A hypothetical future computer from space." It ran well but was a bog standard rail shooter, giving up any pretense of free roaming. Ran fine on account of having to be reduced to run on consoles.

So I wouldn't hold out a lot of hope for Crysis 3. Crytek likes making tech demos for an engine that looks good simply by requiring a stupid amount of power. They don't even appear to understand what their engine or level design is good at (meaning actual free roaming games).

Re:I wouldn't count on it (1)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703983)

Missed one: Farcry 2, which IMHO was a very good game.

One problem there (3, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39704069)

That wasn't a Crytek game. It was made by Ubisoft Montreal. So completely different dev team, writers, and so on, hence totally different gameplay. The engine was based on Cryengine, but heavily modified.

So their games are good only when someone else develops them :).

Re:One problem there (1)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#39704131)

And here I was wondering why it was so much better than the others, never thought it had a different dev company. Ok I stand corrected.

Re:I wouldn't count on it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39704087)

Quoting wikipedia:
"Far Cry 2 is an open world first-person shooter developed by Ubisoft Montreal and published by Ubisoft."

Re:I wouldn't count on it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39704215)

No. Farcry 2 was developed and published by Ubisoft, not Crytek.

Nobody cares about the gameplay. Bring it on! (2)

master_p (608214) | more than 2 years ago | (#39704825)

Far Cry and Crysis were amazing virtual environments. I played both just to experience the graphics. There are tons of games out there with superior gameplay, so let this be a demo that is so immersive you can feel the sea breeze or smell the dirt fresh from rain...

Re:Nobody cares about the gameplay. Bring it on! (3, Funny)

voidphoenix (710468) | more than 2 years ago | (#39707961)

I love the smell of napalm in the morning... oh wait, that's my vid card melting!

Re:I wouldn't count on it (1)

anss123 (985305) | more than 2 years ago | (#39707757)

Crytek has sucked at games from day one.

That is of course a matter of opinion.

I remember buying COD 4 Modern Warfare full price. It had excellent reviews, hugely popular, but the game itself sucked so much. Just a bunch of obvious triggers that spawned or stopped spawning enemies. How can anyone like that? Oh well.

Then I got Crysis. It was oodles of fun, and when I finished it I got FarCry... and it was even better. Crysis 2 was a bit of a letdown but was still much more enjoyable than Modern Warfare 3 (a gift). FarCry 2 wasn't good at all, but turns out it was made by someone else.

So Crysis 3 is a day 1 for me.

Re:A Game Now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39703657)

Nonsense. Crysis 1 is one of the best FPS games I have ever played, and I've played just about all of them. Amazing graphics (even on the console ports), wide-open levels + suit powers that encourage experimentation and flexibility, very sharp shooting mechanics, really good enemy AI, plenty of variety (perhaps even to it's detriment towards the end, though I liked it) and one of the best "hard modes" out there. The game really is excellent and doesn't deserve the tech demo tag it's gotten. I don't even know why it's gotten it.

Re:A Game Now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39704079)

The AI wasn't really all that great.

The game just cheated and gave the AI completely unrealistic, godlike echolocation, psychic bullet trajectory intuition, and the ability to see you from miles away through dense foliage.

Of course, this is because your character is imbued with even more godlike powers and without the above the game would be boring.. But the AI really was not all that smart.

Re:A Game Now? (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703739)

I found Far Cry rather boring and quit it half-way. Crysis on the other hand was a great and fun game. Warhead was even better. Crysis 2 was a huge letdown after Warhead.

Just because you don't like the gameplay doesn't mean that others don't like it either. Suit and its powers was a fairly novel concept and allowed for truly multi-faceted approach. And mind you, my system ran Crysis and Warhead just fine at release, just not at max settings. Plot wasn't terrible for a pseudo sci-fi themed shooter either, the aliens actually felt like they really hated you and wanted you dead.

Re:A Game Now? (1)

Fri13 (963421) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703911)

Crysis 1 was good game to the point where player was placed to drive a tank and at least on point when aliens came to picture, game was lost its all last possibilities.

Why it is so hard to make a games like Crysis with human enemies? Why there needs to be some fancy aliens or mutants what to shoot?

Re:A Game Now? (1)

rioki (1328185) | more than 2 years ago | (#39708629)

Well yes, marketing said that they needed a way to show off the non natural material effects...

Re:A Game Now? (2)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#39704625)

Nice to see i'm not the only one sick of this. How many games have you played lately that could be described like this "The graphics were great but the game sucked"? Games, especially FPS, have been stuck in "Halo Mode" for too damned long. Hell they even took a big shit on DNF by making duke just another 2 weapon Halo clone.

Give us something cool dammit! Smart AI like the first Far Cry, funny story and cool weapons (kitty bomb anyone?) like No One Lives Forever I&II, cool damage models like in Soldier Of Fortune I&II, hell even randomized level design like in Nosferatu!

Looking over my PC while there are a ton of new games there are several old ones that I keep coming back to, the ones listed above along with Sacred and Divine Divinity (for my Diablo hack and slash fix),Freelancer and Freespace (for my Star Wars pilot fix) and the FPS listed above along with F.E.A.R, Blood (tons of humor and 80s horror references) and Redneck Rampage (who don't like having a titty gun and dynamite arrows?) simply because i'm so damned sick of "Call Of Honor: Halo Of Killzone Edition, now with extra expensive DLC"...its just boring, its boring, levels are all straight lines, they suck. How sad is it that games like DN3D and Redneck have more expansive levels with things to do than a modern shooter?

BTW for those sick of the same old Halo crap you might want to check out Good Old Games [] for some classic gaming goodness. All DRM free, they always seem to be having a sale, and many will run on Linux as well. When you are bored to tears with the crap that has been coming out lately give GOG a spin, show the devs there that having great games DRM free is the right strategy.

No, you're certainly not alone (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 2 years ago | (#39708893)

I suspect there are quite a few of us out there who are sick of this, and I completely agree with pretty much everything you wrote.

I used to be a keen gamer. I have far more disposable income now, in my 30s, than I had say ten years ago when I would buy the big name titles, and I would happily spend some of it on good games today. However, I haven't bought a new AAA title in several years, for a few simple but almost universally applicable reasons:

1. If your game is so buggy that there's no guarantee that I will even be able to play it without frequent crashes, never mind actually complete it, I'm not going to start it. (That covers 100% of AAA titles I bought in the last year or two that I still bothered. There was nothing about my PCs that was in any way unusual or eccentric for a gaming machine of their respective generations, many of the bugs were widely reported, and quite a few were never fixed.)

2. If your game comes with software that acts like malware, even in the name of fighting piracy or getting rid of cheaters, I'm not going to install it on my PC any more than I would voluntarily install a virus or trojan horse. (And if you don't give me a cast-iron, no-nonsense statement of exactly what shady things you do, I'm going to assume your game includes malware these days. 100% of the AAA titles I didn't buy around the time I gave up would have failed on this criterion alone.)

3. If your game is incomplete, I'm not going to bother. A serious expansion pack at a fair price a few months after release is absolutely fine. That's a time-honoured way to extend the enjoyment of a good game and increase the returns for people who make good games, and I have no problem with any of that. Likewise, encouraging a modding community or giving away the odd extra freebie is all fine and good. These things all build on the original game and make it more worthwhile for everyone. But having different content available on day one depending on nothing but where you bought the game, or using paid-for DLC to fill in gaps in the main storyline or even adding DLC ads into the actual game, that's frankly just insulting.

4. Somewhat connected to point 1, I got fed up of the upgrade treadmill, having to retire an insanely powerful computer every year or two and replace it with the new shiny just to run a couple of new games. The time required to reinstall all the other stuff I use (particularly since I work from home and used the same PC for freelance work for a while) is prohibitive.

5. I like single-player games, which I can enjoy at my own pace and in my own time. Not everything has to be a multiplayer something-or-other in an endless open world.

And of course, the most important of all:

6. If your gameplay sucks, no amount of shiny and surround sound will save it. My favourite games from the moderately recent past are things like the Baldur's Gate series and Deus Ex. The kind of immersion you get in a deep, well-scripted storyline and somewhat open world mechanics are always going to beat any procedurally generated world with procedurally generated encounters and just a light dusting of actual human thought behind the story (I'm looking at you, Oblivion). My favourite FPS of all time, for both single player and multipler, is still Quake. My favourite RTS is still Total Annihilation, though Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance would have stolen the title if it hadn't been so damned buggy.

The sad thing is, it seems like there have been at least a few games in recent years that are in the spirit of the originals and obviously with better production values as well, but every time I see one all the DLC and malware and other such silliness just puts me off it. For this reason, I have also recently signed up for GOG. I have high hopes for the Baldur's Gate update, too, not just for being a BG remake, but because I'm hoping it will show that a team who actually seem to care more about making a good RPG that is fun to play than about assuming all gamers are out to screw everyone can be a commercial success, and thus can go on to make original games with the same approach. I have money burning a hole in my wallet for anyone who does that.

Incidentally, we do actually buy quite a lot of games in my household even today. It's just that now, it's the other members of the family who are doing it. They're buying things like puzzle games from PopCap [] , because those are actually, y'know, fun and stuff.

Re:No, you're certainly not alone (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#39733815)

I agree with everything you wrote 100% EXCEPT the upgrade treadmill part as i'm still gaming just fine on an HD4850 i bought nearly 2 years ago for a whole $50. while i did recently upgrade to a 6 core simply because tiger was unloading Thubans cheap the quad I had originally is going strong with my youngest and with another HD4850 and 4Gb of RAM frankly everything just flies. if anything the consoles being so old has held back PC gaming so other than the occasional Crysis style tech demo pretending to be a game most games run quite well on seriously old hardware.

But you are right that the FPS genre has been stagnate as of late, that is why when the big Steam Xmas sale came around i ended up loading up on either older games or non FPS titles like Just Cause II (biggest sandbox I've ever seen and some crazy fun) or C&C 4. Hell the only FPS I ended up buying was the FEAR II set for $5 (so I wouldn't have to dig out my discs) and the most excellent Riddick: Dark Athena. if you haven't tried Riddick and Escape From butcher bay you really should, its the only game I've seen in ages where the stealth is really tense.

I don't know about you but if I see even one more damned two gun halo ripoff set in a warzone or even worse WWII I think I'm gonna barf. what is sad is that even though there were hundreds of guns used in WWII by all sides you know EXACTLY what guns you are gonna get...follow along with me, BAR, M1,MP40, K98, 45 ACP, Bazooka, and if there are Brits the Sten. Give me a sticky bomb! or a PIAT, or napalm or something! Its become like those damned football games, its just the same shit with a little bit of graphical purty and a new number stamped on the box. That's why i end up going back to games like Blood, Redneck, and NOLF, as at least i get something cool like a kitty bomb or voodoo doll or titty gun! Its all linear corridors and AI that makes Forrest Gump look like a PHD and boring guns. When i play i want to have FUN not check items off a standard FPS checklist...yawn.

BTW if you haven't played them Blood and Redneck Rampage are some great classic gaming. Blood sends up every cheesy horror movie while giving you kick ass weapons while Redneck has you blasting trailer parks with a buzzsaw gun and dynamite crossbows while jamming to Mojo Nixon. What is sad is that both of those have HUGE levels with tons to explore and do while every modern FPS has you walk in a straight line, duck, shoot baddies, walk in a straight line some more...yawn.

Re:A Game Now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39711541)

The last FPS games that dared to innovate a bit with gameplay mechanics were Left 4 Dead and ZenoClash IMO. Most of the more "pure" FPS shooters are "been there, done that".
When game designers put a good concept first, and use tech to build the concept, the result shines, even with not-so-good graphics. When game designers put tech first and build a concept around it, usually sucks as a game.
Big games industry is going the Hollywood way: lots of smoke and mirrors, shiny, explosive visual FX and absurd budgets for creators with shallow ideas, while the small teams are doing all the creative, risky and well founded ideas.

Re:A Game Now? (5, Interesting)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 2 years ago | (#39706557)

How this frankly stupid post god mod'd +3 insightful is beyond me, I guess I'll spend 10 damn minutes giving you a response that you don't deserve.

First off Crysis 1 is no where near a tech demo, if anything the only thing which could make one think that is the fairly poorly told story throughout the game. That being said, at least Crysis 1 had a good story concept, whereas Crysis 2 CLEARLY outlined to me just how bad they are at story and storytelling. Sometimes it's best to have an idea and then let the user to fill the gaps. (Think Doom, Half Life 1)

Then we come to the gameplay, the suit offered a huge variety of playstyles, from stealth hunt and kill to just typical run and gun action fighting from a standard FPS. Furthermore on higher difficulties the gameplay quality simply ramped up, the combat became even more interesting as stealth was near forced on the player as well as dynamic playstyles.

The ability to modify your guns was refreshing and fun, I loved putting a mid range scope on the basic gun, choosing burst or single fire mode and setting maximum strength (less recoil, more accurate, more damage) then I could mid range snipe my targets, without the limitation of the sniper ammo in the 'proper' sniper rifle. Some however prefferred to sneak up invisible, then run in, hit maximum strength and just choke the guys out and discard them (as seen in the introduction movie)

Many people dislike the open world playstyle, I myself find it can be a bit daunting but the best part of Crysis was it a "linear" open world game, you had some freedom but it was guided, allowing you to not get too far off the beaten track and keeping you in the action and on the story. If anything the pacing was _excellent_ it felt a lot like a movie to be honest, quiet, action scenes, story, quiet - more action and so on - you walked from site to site for the action and it was never more than 15 minutes without a major event.
Yes, the graphics were exceptional, this does not make the game a tech demo, a tech demo is Quake 3 (and I loved id software and I still do) but that game is the true definition of a tech demo, no single player at all, basic multiplayer levels - just shiny graphics. Crysis did exceptionally more than this.

I won't even go in to how bad Crysis 2 is, there's too much dissapointment regarding that game. They took away most of the good stuff and added only bad things. I am still annoyed I paid good money for it. (for a start the mouse input code is flat out broken as default, requiring console tweaks, the 'suit menu' which was intuitive, clever and useful in the first game is somehow tweaked to simply be less responsive and frankly broken - and again, now that they are trying to tell a story? ouch - it'd be better if they just went back to a basic concept and let us fill in the blanks)

In conclusion, you're completely and utterly wrong about Crysis, there's also still a large community of fans and mods for the original. If anything Crysis 2 is the definition of 'selling out' and catering to the masses. Good for the bottom dollar but they definitely lost me as a customer.

Re:A Game Now? (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 2 years ago | (#39709079)

I agree with everything you said but I will say the suit was a hell of a lot better in Crysis 2.

Re:A Game Now? (1)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 2 years ago | (#39709273)

The suit features I guess could be (personally I found no major difference with the skills) but the intuitive and fluid radial menu was utterly abortioned in Crysis 2, despite the same basic functionality (hold down button, move mouse, release) something simply went /wrong/ maybe it was timing of the window appearing or timing of the window closing - but it simply was broken and no where near as fluid

random mix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39703521)

crisis meets uncharted jungle levels meets the simpsons movie? what?

Re:random mix (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703597)

crisis meets uncharted jungle levels meets the simpsons movie? what?

Just hope they don't have Pauley Shore doing the voice acting.

Re:random mix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39704017)

Dont diss the weassel BUUUUUUUUDEEEEEEEE.

Why bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39703593)

We all know you guys just make games for consoles now and do a half-assed port to PC.

Important question ... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39703681)

Will it run Crysis? Wait a second...

Mobil gaming is still ganing on the consoles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39703685)

"consoles currently being developed by Microsoft and Sony will make the disparity between console and mobile gaming even more vast"

When you see how fast smartphones, and tablets are moving today.
And next generation consoles are no more then rumors with no spec.
And that consoles do not get spec opgrades for 10 years when they come out.

Then I will say that mobil gaming is ganing on consoles. and can be a big rival. Special if you start to plug it in to you TV (wireless or with wire) to play

Re:Mobil gaming is still ganing on the consoles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39703873)

Form factor, power, and heat limitations will keep smartphones and tablets well behind consoles for a lot longer than people seem to want to believe. I mean, the Tegra3 and whatever the name is of the chip in the new iPad currently represent the latest and greatest in mobile graphics. Both have been criticized for using too much power, and while they're both nice chips for what they are, they're also both miles and miles behind what's in the XBox360 and PS3, both of which are now 5 years old.

Re:Mobil gaming is still ganing on the consoles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39704227)

I'm waiting for something like Thunderbolt bus to become common in mobile devices.

You could have a dock station with better GPU, extra storage and input devices, and tablet/smartphone that uses technology like Nvidia's Optimus to seamlessly switch GPUs when docked.

YouTube link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39703687) []

Make sure you're watching in 720p.

Beautiful, but missing something. (1)

Milharis (2523940) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703727)

The quality, definition, and everything, and implementation is getting better each time, but I've always felt something is lacking to make it truly like reality.

I don't know what is is, because it's beautiful, and almost every details are here, but it does not look true.
Maybe it's because it's too good, ie it is lacking the defaults which make reality what it is?

Horribly supported console FPS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39703915)

This FPS on console was the worst FPS I've ever played in terms of support. Crysis 2 had so many bugs that simply have never been fixed. I will never buy another Crysis game on console again. I'm sure you PC players love it, but console players really got the shaft.

Re:Horribly supported console FPS (1)

goose-incarnated (1145029) | more than 2 years ago | (#39708003)

This FPS on console was the worst FPS I've ever played in terms of support. Crysis 2 had so many bugs that simply have never been fixed. I will never buy another Crysis game on console again. I'm sure you PC players love it, but console players really got the shaft.

I thought you'd be used to it by now ;)

Oh, good! (4, Funny)

Shoten (260439) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703917)

I was finally able to build a machine that could run the original at full'll be nice to have a game that can't possibly be played with current hardware again.

Re:Oh, good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39704343)

Notice it mentioned CONSOLE; not PC. Because they dont' give a shit, anymore.

2 is still broken, but they are coming out with 3? (2)

Minion of Eris (1574569) | more than 2 years ago | (#39703971)

There is a long standing bug with Crysis 2 1.9 patch (the one you need for DX 11 and HD add-on content), that breaks the ability to load saved games. This is particularly true for folks using Windows 7 64 bit. Am I the only one that finds it a little shady that they gave up support of 2 in less than a year, never fixed the broken patch, and now expect people to pay another $50-60 for part 3?

Re:2 is still broken, but they are coming out with (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#39704211)

Fixing bugs won't earn them any more money. (their probable reasoning for not supporting a product that is no longer selling)

Not fixing bugs though will cost them future sales.

Re:2 is still broken, but they are coming out with (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39704927)

It's called waving, the game industry has a term for ignoring bugs you know, and this behaviour is perfectly normal.

A game for the future (1)

milbournosphere (1273186) | more than 2 years ago | (#39704373)

Finally, a game so future-proof that nobody will be able to play it at its full frame-rate for at least five years.

The article's numbers are off by a factor of 4. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39705331)

The A5X's GPU is rated at 7.2 Gflops PER CORE at 200mhz, but it has 4 of them not just one.

Nobody seems to have put the pieces together yet (4, Insightful)

Leo Sasquatch (977162) | more than 2 years ago | (#39705389)

Loads of games have done bits of it. Just Cause 2 has a huge set of islands and total free-roaming anywhere within the map. Fuel has some insane amount of terrain (just wiki'd - 5,560 square miles!) because it does it with procedural generation. Red Faction has had destroyable terrain since the first game. Hydrophobia Prophecy modelled water physics correctly, because so much of the game involves using it to solve problems. Crysis did beautiful-looking foliage. Soldier of Fortune did hit location.

But so many games still can't be arsed to do it right, so things in the environment aren't things, they're lumps of terrain with a picture skin. Cars on which you can't shoot out the tyres. Or the windscreen. NPCs your gun won't shoot at, or won't hurt if you do. Glass that doesn't break, wood that doesn't burn, and magic invisible walls at the edge of the world. Or in the case of the Battlefield games, a magic invisible line with artillery insta-death just 5 seconds away if you dare to cross it.

Ramping up the triangle count just doesn't cut it any more. Yes, the face in the video is very clever - what happens when I shoot it? The water's lovely - does it make ripples when I walk through it, or splash when I jump up and down? The AI might well react to my presence - how will it react to a 9mm to the kneecap? Or a fire? Or a rocket going off 10 feet away? Are NPC soldiers all inhuman combat robots, totally unafraid of death, and 100% combat effective until their last hit point is gone?

Because, you know, I've played Doom. A super-shiny version of the exact same gameplay no longer appeals. I know there were restrictions on game design caused by having less memory for the game than my current CPU has cache. All the right things have been done at least once. Now could someone just please do them all together?

Re:Nobody seems to have put the pieces together ye (1)

DanielRavenNest (107550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39707727)

CryEngine 3 does do water interaction:

"User interaction with surface will generate waves propagation" from []

And surface type collisions (like object falls into water) generate a particle effect according to a spreadsheet. Water is already set up as a standard collision type, but you can make custom ones.

Also boolean destructibles (damage subracts from the object shape): []

Of course, just because the features are in the game engine does not mean they actually get used come game development time. There is a limit to how much time they can spend making one game, so that limits what goes into it.

Re:Nobody seems to have put the pieces together ye (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39707823)

Open world != good game
Destructable tables != good game.

Just because you can destroy something in a game doesn't make it good. There is a reason videogames are you know, videogames.

Wait for it ... (1)

killdashnine (651759) | more than 2 years ago | (#39706667)

Oh, and you'll probably be able to play this on OnLive too ... but of course they're now probably too busy with cloud-based Windows Desktops.

Competition for Unreal Engine (1)

locopuyo (1433631) | more than 2 years ago | (#39708081)

It is nice to see some good competition for the Unreal Engine, although I think UE has the edge over CryENGINE. And when it comes to performance, the Grand Canyon. But it is really great to see multiple amazing engines people can make games for for free and distribute for free, or even sell for minimal licensing fees. These engines are aspiring game developers' dreams come true.

NavMesh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39708257)

Is it just me or does the the "Dynamic AI Navigation" look like a direct ripoff of ReCasts NavMeshes? []
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?