*Confirmed* Original Crysis Bound for *PS360

Every bit of grass and foliage has gone in that shot

So what? We know the modded PC version on a powerful rig is leaps and bounds above the console version. But then again nobody argued against PC's running games at a much better performance.

So? Why point to the obvious as if its also evidence that the console version is ugly?
 
To be fair, it doesn't take a modded Crysis to have more foliage, the original game does. However that doesn't take away the fact that this could end up one of the best looking games on consoles.
 
It appears to run extremely smooth but that could be an offline rendered mode being shown.

It looks like they are tweaking how the nanosuit works. I like how it works in Crysis 2 so I do wish this was coming to PC as well.
 
It appears to run extremely smooth but that could be an offline rendered mode being shown.

It looks like they are tweaking how the nanosuit works. I like how it works in Crysis 2 so I do wish this was coming to PC as well.
I think its more duo to motion blur, but it does seem to run nicer. Here is todays interview with one of Cryteks lead designers, seems like they made improvements over Crysis 2(.
Firstly we had to reduce the memory used by the assets in the game. We used smart algorithms to compress the used meshes for our geometry, the terrain height maps and terrain textures, the sprites that are used to display our vegetation in the distance and the animations used for our characters.

We also optimized how the memory was used and organized in our engine, which allowed us to increase the Streaming Buffer, which was very essential for making our large levels work.

Many of the effects now showcased in games are done via fullscreen shader passes. For example to convey motion blur, the render information of the whole screen is being processed with algorithms creating the desired effect. We already improved those algorithms in Crysis 2, but further optimized this for the Crysis 1 console version in order to save performance and processing time.

We refined the Occlusion Buffer we use to detect which objects we do not need to render since they would be occluded from other objects that are in front of them and used Reprojection methods to predict where the player might look next in order to avoid objects popping suddenly into place.


https://secure.mycrysis.com/news/community/crysis-1-interview-sten-huebler
 
With a bit of luck, and the apparent marketing success DICE have had with BF3, Crysis 3 will use PC as the lead platform so we don't get a mediocre upgrade 3 months after release.

I know this is the console forum, but the benefit is there for console gamers too. If Crytek can make another 'PC game-changer' (as they put it) the next gen of consoles will reap the rewards of what they've learned.

...and ditch DX9 ffs
 
I think they should put far more emphasis on the business aspects of their next title, instead of the tech side.

There is some noise about Crytek in the game dev community about overtime and salary related issues, which is never a good sign. Remember, Team Bondy has just closed shop with a 4-million seller game because of bad management practices and complete publisher abandonement.
They've downsized the Budapest studio and took the Kinect-based X360 exclusive project from them to Frankfurt. Crysis 2 apparently didn't sell as well as they've hoped for. They have a lot of studios around the world with 600+ employees and some huge operating costs (the hungarian branch rented office space in a very expensive building AFAIK) to maintain.

So, even with their supposed military contracts, it sounds like they aren't in a position to delay Crysis 3 for too long and risk to lose the ~120 million HD console audience we can expect at its release date. I'd expect no more than a 2-year development cycle, and they should also release the Kingdoms title about halfway through.
They are a very, very large enterprise with a lot of monthly costs so they need to make serious money regularly just to maintain the company. They should also do a very serious market research to analyze sales and reviews of C2 and find out what they should change for the sequel.

Dice is actually in a much much better position. Both Bad Company games sold well in recent years and they have a fraction of Crytek's employees to support, and Battlefield 3 is arguably a much better looking and more impressive game overall. The marketing campaign is exemplary as well, and they basically own the PC multiplayer front already. Their release timing is also far better because at this point they can still do both a bleeding edge PC version and relatively similar looking console ports too.

So I don't think that Crysis 3 could just simply follow their formula and expect similar results. If they lead on the highend PCs again then the console ports will be far too inferior and the sales will suffer. Their multiplayer can't yet compete with Battlefield's popularity so even PC sales aren't guaranteed to reach too high. Next gen consoles are still too far out to cash on IMHO, by the time they're released C3 wouldn't be hot enough.
They still need to focus on the current consoles IMHO. Going up against BF3 will be suicidal for the next year at least.
 
I agree on certain points, but they are like that for like 3-4 years? I mean, they were big studio since beginning and yet only had one game that sold well, but only on PC.

They are kind of similar to R*. Great talent, lots of people and bad management. Wondering why did Frankfurt take Ryse? Maybe MS wasn't happy with how Budapest handled the game(btw, they surely are going to get nice playcheck from MS for that exclusive).
 
[DICE's] release timing is also far better because at this point they can still do both a bleeding edge PC version and relatively similar looking console ports too.

If [Crytek] lead on the highend PCs again then the console ports will be far too inferior and the sales will suffer.

I don't understand why you think DICE can have (by your own statement, which I agree with) a better looking game, AND lead on PC and have comparable console versions and Crytek can't. They seem to be showing us right now that they can take Crysis and plop that in a console in a comparable fashion.

All I'm asking for is a Cry Engine 3 Crysis 3 with DX10-11 effects in from the beginning.. done right. Ditch DX9 paths to save some ball-ache. Just scale that back for consoles, as DICE are doing. It shouldn't look that out of place, plus they get the benefit of the gorgeous trailers, just like DICE are.

Regarding marketing, being stable mates at EA should mean something shouldn't it? Aren't budgets coming from them?

I suppose a big factor might actually be piracy. BF on PC caters mainly for the MP crowd, even though they are doing SP too this time around. Crysis on the other hand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree on certain points, but they are like that for like 3-4 years? I mean, they were big studio since beginning and yet only had one game that sold well, but only on PC.

Actually they started to really expanded after the first Crysis game, at about the time they've gotten the military stuff started. Not much of that is public, though, it's hard to find info on that branch (I'd say the Ukranian studio is working on that part as there's been nothing else associated with them, but I might be totally wrong here)
Also, the Budapest studio did the Warhead expansion which sold quite well; and the Korea branch is responsible for War Face or whatever, right?

They are kind of similar to R*. Great talent, lots of people and bad management.

Rockstar has many different studios, some had bad word of mouth but others might be OK. All I've heard about is the Red Dead Redemption team and the Bondi scandal, and both games turned out to be good ones in the end, even if one studio did not survive the stress. But the GTA team seems to be doing fine and who knows how many other studios they have.

Wondering why did Frankfurt take Ryse? Maybe MS wasn't happy with how Budapest handled the game(btw, they surely are going to get nice playcheck from MS for that exclusive).

There's a lot of local gossip about the case but it's impossible to verify, so I don't think it should become public. You'll probably not going to get an answer to this question.
 
I don't understand why you think DICE can have by your own statement (which I agree with) a better looking game, AND lead on PC and have comparable console versions and Crytek can't.

1. Dice has far more console development experience and they're on the bleeding edge in all technology related fields, the kind of optimizations they do to get BF3 working on consoles seems to be very far ahead of everyone else in multiplatform development.

2. Next year's high-end PC will be a bit too far beyond the consoles for a reasonably good looking port. 2013's PC will be an impossible challenge and too late for Crytek's financial bottom line as well. Dice's timing was very good here.

All I'm asking for is a Cry Engine 3 Crysis 3 with DX10-11 effects in from the beginning.
Just scale that back for consoles, as DICE are doing. It shouldn't look that out of place, plus they get the benefit of the gorgeous trailers, just like DICE are.

I still think it's an issue with timing. A complete engine rewrite is too much for this gen and the current one can only take so much in terms of development. The best they can hope for is some tweaks and whatever content they can deliver for a late 2012 release. That's their launch window IMHO, 2013 is too late for the financial aspects, and for next gen console launch titles they should already be re-architecting but then their audience would be far too limited.
If they had a big seller in 2011 they could finance a late 2013 or early 2014 release and build a Cryengine 4. But the timing just isn't right.

BF3 on the other hand will release within two months, it'll look good on every platform, and make enough money to finance another big release in late 2013/early 2014, with something like Bad Company 3 in late 2012.

Regarding marketing, being stable mates at EA should mean something shouldn't it? Aren't budgets coming from them?

Big budgets are granted to big sellers, I'd say, and Crysis 2 didn't really impress as far as I know. Crytek is too big to go on forever without a new release. Even Valve needed TF2 and Portal 2 to support whatever they're doing with Half-life.
 
I remember saying in this thread that they would have to cut back the foliage, seems I was right.

The shot of that area missing just about all of the foliage is on one side of an area that has very dense foliage on the PC version. They might have had to remove most of the foliage in that whole area and just left the bigger things.
 
Big budgets are granted to big sellers, I'd say, and Crysis 2 didn't really impress as far as I know.
Which is why they should go back to their roots?

I dont know. Perhaps they've had their day as the PC tech leaders, just as IDsoft had theirs. Now it's DICE's turn?

I guess it can't last forever. Ideas/passion might not be there any more. If it's not that, what was so great about 2000-2005 that allowed Crytek to up the ante with Farcry and Crysis and not even have to worry about doing well on consoles? Just the size of their company?

Perhaps down-sizing will be good for them.

Do you know if EA has a sharing scheme similar to that we hear about with Sony devs and (I think) Bethesda? I'm imagining a powerhouse of tech sharing between DICE and Crytek could be good for both, and very good for EA.
 
Big budgets are granted to big sellers, I'd say, and Crysis 2 didn't really impress as far as I know. Crytek is too big to go on forever without a new release. Even Valve needed TF2 and Portal 2 to support whatever they're doing with Half-life.

Didn't Cevat say something about games being a side project and their big money stream comes from that military contract and other engine licenses.
Not sure but from the interviews it seemed like Ea really wanted to release crysis 2 now and not some time later.
 
This thread moves too fast for me, so I will just say that after reviewing the console screenshots I don't think it looks very good. Hopefully they can keep the incredible gameplay and destructibility intact, but at least in the alien and carrier levels the graphics were hugely important to the fun factor. Alien level is still the most amazing thing I've seen in a videogame.
 
Nobody needed to play with everything set to V.High. Farcry wasn't that bad either. Yes, on max settings they caned current gen rigs, but they looked amazing too, and gave many people many happy experiences - and finally something to upgrade for.

Regardless, my point was about them not having enough revenue. If they were better off 'making horribly unoptimized crap' then why not do it some more?

In a way though, how else were they going to achieve what they did without being unoptimized compared to years in the future. They introduced a number of never been seen before in games techniques, such as OBM, POM, SSAO, Godrays, Chromatic shift, volumetric clouds, and probably some shadow stuff was new too - i forget.

Of course these techniques are going to be optimized the hell out of in years to come, but at least we had them to enjoy, even if the performance wasn't so great compared to what it would be now. Hindsight is great.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Were they really better off? AFAIK Crysis sold about 1 milion units at full price and the other 2 came in at serious Steam discounts so it's not like they made a lot of money.
 
Back
Top