CryTek vs. id & Valve

[Sunday]

Finally someone dare to brake that "no comment on competition" silence that is present in what I like to call "engine" pocket of gaming industry:

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=173792

This is what Yerli has to say about valve and id:

Q: How would you compare Crytek to Valve and id? Are you in the same league?

Yerli: I would never dare to say anything about leagues or not. I just know that what we do is, we don't care about competition, we don't react to competition. We have a goal, a vision, and we just move as fast as we can.

But if I look at the strengths and weaknesses, I would say that Valve is business orientated still, but also very creative. We are very technically orientated, but very creative, but we can scale. That means we can utilise what we have in a larger production value environment.

id Software is very specific to tech at this stage, but also can't scale very well because their technology depends largely on John Carmack. So it's like a bottleneck there.

But whether we are in the same league? One thing I'd say is, when we started making games, they were already doing triple-A titles. In fact I was playing around in the mod community for Quake and Unreal.

I think an assessment that's more fair is that, if they hadn't existed, we probably wouldn't exist.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Finally someone dare to brake that "no comment on competition" silence that is present in what I like to call "engine" pocket of gaming industry:

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=173792

This is what Yerli has to say about valve and id:

He pretty much said nothing. I really don't see anything to discuss here in terms of id vs Valve vs Crytek.

 

[swaaye]

Except that if there was no modding going on, there may not be a Crytek. Say, in a console-only world. Obviously id and Epic have been influences for him and the company.

 

[_xxx_]

Crytec is still far away from both Valve and id IMO. They have yet to prove themselves.

 

[ShaidarHaran]

Crytec is still far away from both Valve and id IMO. They have yet to prove themselves.

Cryengine was one of the most technically and visually impressive of its time. The same is true of Cryengine 2. Farcry sold very well on multiple platforms. With all the hype surrounding Crysis, it's sure to do the same.

How have they not proven themselves?

 

[Davros]

who have the sold the engine too ?

 

[_xxx_]

id made a huge revolution with Wolf3d and Doom, then the first real 3D shooter with Q1. I don't know if you were a gamer back then when doom came out, but it was like a hit in the forehead with a 16-ton hammer, totally out of this world for the time. we played Doom MP over 9k modems and spent months with it. Same with Quake, it was like a second coming. And Valve changed the genre with HL, that is just as obvious.

Crytec made one good game with flashy visuals but not more than that. Not to diminish what they did, but it's a completely different ballpark impact-wise.

 

[Sobek]

Ahaha, the memories. I remember trying to keep Doom happily chugging along over our 14.4k modems. Dialling your friends to play a game, who would've thought. I have some very fond memories of multiplayer Duke3d that way...

 

[Skrying]

Depends, which company has meant more to the industry in a historical sense? Or which company means more right now?

In a historical sense I believe id might top it with regards to being (sort of) the first to make a 3D shooter. In all honesty though they didn't revolutionize they evolved, everyone was heading in this direction and many even dispute if id was the first.

Valve has produced the best single player game (IMO, and if you parsed a lot of rating) of all time (twice actually ). They also made it popular to support mods and make them big time and have made gigantic amounts of money from this, but also made people (like me) happy by giving mods a legitimate image in all media and gaming outlets. Not to mention Steam has become a very since delivery platform and has now replaced Xfire for me and made any thoughts of Live on PC a joke.

Crytek came onto the scene and produced a tremendous game and a tremendous visual experience. They've shown that they are very serious about truly advancing what is considered the visual and physics boundaries in games. In today's landscape even after one (and soon two) games Crytek has found themselves as a serious technological force.

I'm not sure why Epic wasn't considered in this, since I think Epic has made the purchased engine truly a popular thing to do. So many games these days use one of their engines (for better or worse). So they must be considered in that sense alone.

In my personal "importance" factor I'd say Valve >> Epic > Crytek > id as of right now. Mainly because id efforts with Doom 3 and the engine were not what I'd consider good and we'll see on the new one before they're but a image of what they used to be.

 

[nAo]

id Software is very specific to tech at this stage, but also can't scale very well because their technology depends largely on John Carmack. So it's like a bottleneck there.

Well..one man keeping up with legions of developers!

 

[LunchBox]

LOL at the Carmack comment.
Pretty ball-sey I must say!

 

[ShaidarHaran]

id made a huge revolution with Wolf3d and Doom, then the first real 3D shooter with Q1. I don't know if you were a gamer back then when doom came out, but it was like a hit in the forehead with a 16-ton hammer, totally out of this world for the time. we played Doom MP over 9k modems and spent months with it. Same with Quake, it was like a second coming. And Valve changed the genre with HL, that is just as obvious.

Crytec made one good game with flashy visuals but not more than that. Not to diminish what they did, but it's a completely different ballpark impact-wise.

You're right. I don't mean to diminish what id and Valve have done, only to say that the only 2 games they have made were/are/will be great visually and technically.

 

[ShaidarHaran]

Ahaha, the memories. I remember trying to keep Doom happily chugging along over our 14.4k modems. Dialling your friends to play a game, who would've thought. I have some very fond memories of multiplayer Duke3d that way...

Ever play the Duke maps in a F.E.A.R. multiplayer server? Holy crap are those fun. Find a server with rustus in the name and chances are you'll be reliving some Duke action in no time.

 

[Sobek]

Ever play the Duke maps in a F.E.A.R. multiplayer server? Holy crap are those fun. Find a server with rustus in the name and chances are you'll be reliving some Duke action in no time.

(sorry for being off topic everyone)

But WHAT?!

I sold my copy of F.E.A.R to a friend damnit!

 

[Skrying]

F.E.A.R. Combat maybe? They released the multiplayer for free.

 

[ShaidarHaran]

(sorry for being off topic everyone)

But WHAT?!

I sold my copy of F.E.A.R to a friend damnit!

as Skyring said, F.E.A.R. combat is free It's one of only two games I have installed on my PC (the other being MS Flight Sim 2004). Go to www.joinfear.com to get your free key & d/l combat (free multiplayer).

 

[NRP]

Wasn't an iD game (Quake?) the first to require a 3d accelerator? That alone is hugely significant, imo.

But it is also a fair point to say that current iD games trail the state of the art in the gameplay department. Which is also arguably true for Valve as well, although to a lesser degree. I realize that offering this opinion will piss off a lot of people, but HL2 struck me as merely an extremely linear affair, where the devs lead you around by the nose and force you to play exactly as they want you too. I'm not sure if EP 1 and 2 change this formula as I haven't played them yet.

On the other hand, both Crysis and the new Far Cry look as if they will present a new open ended gameplay paradigm. It remains to be seen whether these games will be good, but from what I've read so far, I like the direction these new devs are going.

 

[Sobek]

I totally forgot about Combat... I played that when it first came out, but didn't really think much of it at the time. Dual Pistols were all the craze at the time, far too easy to get kills with. I'll definitely grab that tonight and give it a shot

 

[swaaye]

Which is also arguably true for Valve as well, although to a lesser degree. I realize that offering this opinion will piss off a lot of people, but HL2 struck me as merely an extremely linear affair, where the devs lead you around by the nose and force you to play exactly as they want you too. I'm not sure if EP 1 and 2 change this formula as I haven't played them yet.

On the other hand, both Crysis and the new Far Cry look as if they will present a new open ended gameplay paradigm. It remains to be seen whether these games will be good, but from what I've read so far, I like the direction these new devs are going.

I actually had a wordy post saying about the same thing, but I stopped writing it because I just didn't want to incite the riot. Heh. I totally agree with you though. Half Life 2, especially, was disappointing to me because of its intense linearity. Ep1 and 2 play the same way.

Basically the HL games are interactive movies with your only control over things being how you kill the baddies and work the little puzzles. It is a very tight cinematic experience, but I just feel really claustrophobic with the gameplay they make. You are on a very controlled path. They even go so far as to throw guides in with you (Alyx, etc) at times, to drag you along. As if you could get lost with all those doors that don't open. I realize having these guides is supposed to be sidekick-style stuff, but really they are on rails, order you around, and are close to (if not) invulnerable.

It's neat to be at the center of such a tight storyline, but I'm sure glad it's not the only gaming choice out there. Far Cry's environment was really a great way to make the game feel less linear. You have sandbox-like control over how you proceed. You can tackle the situations in hugely different ways. This was really compelling to me. I'm more into exploration of the environment these days than just running and gunning. Big, mysterious jungles have a certain draw over corridor games, which is what HL2 is basically through the entire thing (corridor or "outside").

 

[Skrying]

I love the Half Life series, but I will certainly agree that Half-Life 2, Ep1, and Ep2 are all extremely linear. It's the story telling that sets them apart for me and truly makes me love the games (I'm a sucker for good story telling). I don't think anyone can deny that the games are linear, that's just how they are, some like it and some don't.

This is sort of what I was trying to get at with id though. As a game company they've really fallen behind the times. They've done nothing new at all and they certainly don't excel at anything but graphics. Therefore in todays terms I feel they are a rather unimportant company other than right around their big release comes and people wonder how about the engine more than the game.

I love Crytek because I love Farcry and I think Farcry represents what a great non-linear shooter can be like and I really hope Crysis takes it a step even further. I can't wait for the day when we have that level of combat (engrossing, constant in some ways, intense) in a truly open world such as those in the GTA series (which has boring combat for instance, and of course in third person).

I think Valve and Crytek are pushing the limits, though in completely different ways. id and Epic on the other hand seem to be dinosaurs and stuck in the games of old.