That would be really sweet. I still have found memories of that game. With all the modern technologies (graphics, phisics) it would shine!I think they should do a remake of Trespasser Jurassic Park. I'm a bit burned out on the megasuit super military dude theme.
I'm wondering what'll come next in the Crysis saga. Has Crytek even said anything about a followup to C2, or do they want to do other projects first now?
Dont they have that medieval game coming up? Anyway its kinda straying off topic.
Indeed, it is.Gameplay-wise, it is still charm and challenging.
Apparently the engine was designed primarily with CPU rendering in mind and a few of their techniques were quite incompatible with 3D cards back then. In the end they hacked together a hybrid CPU and 3D accelerator mode. Sounds quirky to me.I confidently tried to force full-time 8xSSAA , but for some reason I got lot's of stutters -- guess too heavy for my GTX570 even in this title, so I scaled back to 32xCSAA.
Lots of shots comparing the PC version at lowest detail setting to the console version - direct from Crytek. It seems the game even at it's lowest setting is still a fair bit ahead of the console versions. Perhaps I haven't been giving Crytek enough credit lately.
pierre-yves_donzallaz_tiago_sousa_lighting_in_crysis_2_gdc_europe_2011.pptx
Yyy? We know that since the release.
Show me your mouse hand.
http://forum.beyond3d.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=473&stc=1&d=1316369338
It's never been clear, at least not to me that there were significant differences between the PC version on the lowerst detail settings and the console versions. In fact I had always assumed that the PC version on low (actually called high in the game menu's) was at best equivilent to the console versions.
However these screens show that even on the lowest detail there are signifcant graphical advantages to the PC version.
Makes you wonder how fast Crysis VH would had run on the PCs would it had C3 code....