http://www.computerandvideogames.com/390113/crytek...

lol. What a stick in the mud :)

Crytek couldnt do shit on consoles since day 1 of Crysis 2 with their sub HD nonsense crap, i seen way better games on both consoles than Crytek, its just that they suck as developing games on those platforms. I deleted Crysis 3 beta on Ps3 within minute considering how damn ugly it was.
On PC its a whole different thing, if next gen consoles can have Crysis 3 PC max settings on 1080p as launch titles, or even 720p, then thats something with very high framerate than thats something..

Also, if its not Uncharted, God of War, Last of Us or any game KORNdog isnt interest in period...a new thread is not worthy. Yeah thats a good way of bringing forum section forward.

Anyways, its out in 2 weeks so hopefully its as fun or more fun than Crysis 2. Based on those new videos it sure looks much more open to approach situations than Crysis (2) of Duty.

I was headed to bed, but I gotta say, I may not like the Crysis games, but this is what they accomplished on the Xbox 360. It ran pretty well, too.





If Microsoft or Sony showed something like this in real-time at, say, E3 2006, I think people on forums everywhere would have went nuts, and rightfully so. Yea, the new consoles will have more than enough power to impress, though. Good night! :D

Looka great on such a small size, but anything bigger its laughable.

Also, framerate takes a big hit, especially when turning around.

Dishonored deserves it own thread actually. God of war doesn't.

This however, could have easily been bunched in with the other endless BS next gen talk from optimus. Its practically the same thing since it's less a thread about crysis, more a thread about next gen expectations...hence, should be in the "next gen talk" threads that are currently going on.

It just seems kind of redundant?

I dont see how Dishonored deserves its own thread.

Because it was awesome. Duh.

Right.

I made a Dishonored thread and got ignored pretty much, I don't see you there anymore son.

Very "dishonorable" of him.

Well, I wouldn't say that exactly because I wasn't even blown away by the very Crysis 2 gifs that I linked to. I was just pointing out that, rightfully so, they did some pretty nice things technically that should be respected, and that if shown much earlier in the gen, would have rightfully left a lot of people impressed.

I'm always more impressed by art direction/production value than I am raw technical wizardry. It's precisely why I think Halo 4 looks better than any of the Crysis titles, because I love the art and atmosphere so much, although I fully understand that, technically, Halo 4 is no match. I'm pleased, however, that what makes something like Crysis 3 on pc possible at a purely technical level, will more or less now be a safe technical base for next gen games. They won't all look like Crysis 3, and they don't need to, but I think a fair number of them will easily surpass it solely based on what I will consider to be more appealing art direction and atmosphere. I'm someone who still thinks Final Fantasy VII looks amazing by today's standards, and that Blue Dragon and Lost Odyssey, both, are easily in the top 10 for the best looking games this generation, so I've never been an awfully picky person when it comes to raw graphics, as you can see. If I feel that I'm really connecting and getting drawn into a game's artistic vision or atmosphere, then, to me, that game is beautiful regardless of its technical deficiencies compared to other games. Way too many times people go with the most technically accomplished game, and feel that automatically makes it best looking game, and I don't always agree with that view.

This is how, for example, I think there are Wii games that look much better than a number of 360 or PS3 titles, not because they are technically superior, but because of how well the art direction comes together with everything else that the game is doing technically. Metroid Prime 3 on the Wii, for example, is also one of the best looking games this generation. That's how I view games visually.

Thank you!

I agree with you, Crysis has a shitty art its quite random. I mean you got the badass nanosuit design and the aliens, but it looks totally out of place based on the setting they are in. Looks like something out of Halo or Mass Effect something i prefer any day any time compared to the graphics Crysis has.

IMO games like Gears of War, Killzone, Halo, Mass Effect, Dead Space 2/3...they look way better to me since the art is so strong and unique, and since i like sci fi that doesnt take place on earth in my shooters there it appeals to me more and they can go crazy with the locations.

So no matter how technological advanced Crysis games are, art for me wins the day. I am sick of Crysis games are still on earth since there is nothing more to see that we havent seen already, its boring.

If next gen games are as boring as crysis count me out.

^^ early next gen is never to far from late last gen, just added sparkles to show the strengths but that is it.
Discussing the thread title is like discussing the colour of snow.

Yea, the first one will likely be best of last gen for that dev, only with tons of added sparkles and such. The first game properly developed for next gen will likely be on Crysis 3 level of technical prowess, and those games once they do start making an appearance should be easy to identify.

That was not the case from last gen to this gen.

For example, I remember that somewhere I read that the Brooklyn Bridge from PGR3 had as much polygons as a whole city of PGR2.
I guess we won't see such heaps happen again when PS4 and Nextbox hit the shelves....

But after 8 years of a console cycle this is very disappointing imo. Sure games will look way better, like you said, with added sparkles and such, but the new games will not look like a 8 year gap beeing closed...