Crytek Abandons Crysis

[Silus]

3 million copies, I thought it was 1 million but that was close to launch... wow, and they're still whining about piracy killing their sales as though they made nothing? Stupid Crytek...

Yeah well, they are a money making company after all. When they look at the profits made on consoles, it's obvious they would want more. I just hope that by ending PC exclusivity, they don't start doing console ports like many crappy developers out there. I'm perfectly ok with a game released for various platforms, as long as one platform doesn't interfere with the quality of the game of the other platforms, as was discussed to death in other threads.

 

[Frostex]

Yeah well, they are a money making company after all. When they look at the profits made on consoles, it's obvious they would want more. I just hope that by ending PC exclusivity, they don't start doing console ports like many crappy developers out there. I'm perfectly ok with a game released for various platforms, as long as one platform doesn't interfere with the quality of the game of the other platforms, as was discussed to death in other threads.

I don't believe this is possible, no matter how true the intentions of the developers are. Bioshock developers said they specifically recognised the problems and had different development teams tweaking for each platform, and they still get all the basic stuff wrong like mouse acceleration etc

 

[Silus]

I don't believe this is possible, no matter how true the intentions of the developers are. Bioshock developers said they specifically recognised the problems and had different development teams tweaking for each platform, and they still get all the basic stuff wrong like mouse acceleration etc

Yes, that was what THEY told us (and they "told" us a lot, like the demo not having SecuROM, or that by uninstalling the game, you would get a credit back, etc), but it was obviously not true. 2K Australia did nothing more than use their main SKU, which was the console version and port it to the PC. There was nothing made specifically thinking of the PC and the problems you pointed out are a reflection of this. This much was also true, in the PC demo version, which they said took so long to be released due to "optimizations" for the PC, but the delay was later confirmed to be related with the inclusion of SecuROM in the demo.

As was discussed in other threads, if the game is designed for the higher quality standard platform first, porting that to the lower quality standard platform, will be easier and everyone will be happy.

 

[gobBobo]

As was discussed in other threads, if the game is designed for the higher quality standard platform first, porting that to the lower quality standard platform, will be easier and everyone will be happy.

This may or may not be true. But I tend to think that when you have a product over 3 vastly different platforms, one must first establish a baseline. Their baseline being the LEAST capable platform, and then working from there. The reason being that if they start with the most capable platform, by the time they get to the least capable the game will be too much for it.

It's easier to add to the game for a better platform than it is to remove from the game for a lesser platform.

 

[Silus]

This may or may not be true. But I tend to think that when you have a product over 3 vastly different platforms, one must first establish a baseline. Their baseline being the LEAST capable platform, and then working from there. The reason being that if they start with the most capable platform, by the time they get to the least capable the game will be too much for it.

It's easier to add to the game for a better platform than it is to remove from the game for a lesser platform.

Incorrect, because it's never easier to add stuff for a better platform, than it is to remove stuff from a complete product.

As a developer for a big company, I need to support several different systems. There are some specific functions that are not required for some pf them, but we code for the system that requires the complete functionality first and then just remove some of those functions for the systems that do not require them. It's much easier and efficient, from a product quality point of view, because:

1) There's no lack of functionality in the system that requires it all.

2) Testing for removed features is much easier (i.e. less time consuming) than testing additions.

And the best of all, all customers are happy and will continue to buy our product, which means higher profits for our company.

 

[damonposey]

You have to define 'higher quality standard platform' in your eyes because from game to game that can differ. with crysis, all that is, is graphics. There is no gameplay they could possibly take away from the already simplistic gameplay there, so if anything the console versions might add some features making them the higher quality standard for gameplay.

 

[phide]

How do you figure that? Crytek makes relatively simple shooters, which doesn't really bother me quite frankly, and they likely won't add complexity because it's shipping on consoles (if Warhead does indeed ship on consoles).

Crysis got more 'right' than just graphics if you ask me. If there were a checklist of what die-hard PC gamers want in a PC game, Crysis hits all of them or very nearly all of them.

 

[damonposey]

and that checklist would be...?

if it hit all of the points in this checklist, wouldn't it have gotten more praise?

 

[Monkey God]

I doubt my checklist looks like phides.

for starters:
1) graphics is the most important factor over all else
2) justification for uber hardware just to even run it
3) support abandoned not long after release

 

[mjz_5]

this i like about crysis:

-graphics
-sound (5.1)
-physics
-did i mention graphics.. the night stages looked amazing

 

[Silus]

I doubt my checklist looks like phides.

for starters:
1) graphics is the most important factor over all else
2) justification for uber hardware just to even run it
3) support abandoned not long after release

You are missing phide's point, probably because you didn't read the other thread.

As a PC Game, Crysis is perfect, in everything from menus, customization scripts, high-res textures (when possible) and gameplay options.

Graphics are not the most important factor, but they are part of what creates an immerssive experience and Crysis delivers. Also, you don't need uber hardware to run it. I was able to play it with most medium settings and a few at high, with my 3 year old system.
And even though I didn't like the news about the drop of support for Crysis, Crytek is about to release WarHead - I already supplied a link for that in this thread - which is an Episode/Exp Pack, so not everything is bad.

Seems to me that Crytek is blamed for doing and for not doing something and I find that funny, when other developers pull off worse things, yet get away with it, with little to no complaints...

 

[Monkey God]

you could be right about those other things. I couldn't get it play on med settings with a high end rig, and after 20fps+ and several crashes, I shit canned it.

 

[phide]

if it hit all of the points in this checklist, wouldn't it have gotten more praise?

It got a lot of flack for pushing the visual envelope, essentially, just like id's games have typically done in the past. You heard a great deal of complaining about Doom 3, for instance, even though it was somewhat more accommodating to low-end hardware than Crysis at the time of its release. There was also a ton of bitching about Crysis's storyline and the game trailing off near the end, which is a reasonable complaint, really, but not something that really defines a "bad PC game".

The game sold well in the worldwide market, surpassing EA's own expectations, and has a Metacritic score of 91 -- not exactly something to sneeze at, so it received a great deal of praise. Obviously it was well-received despite the myriad of complaints, many of which tend to be along the lines of "I can't run this game so it sucks". It's a pretty hardcore game that requires a pretty hardcore machine to run, and people have a tendency to really deduct a lot of points for that sort of thing despite it being a generally positive thing for PC gaming and the evolution of PC hardware in general.

The checklist? Good menu system and GUI; a high degree of tweakability and scalability with no locked or disabled cvars (probably the most tweakability of any PC game in recent history, actually); a developer console; functional mouse support (acceleration can be disabled, and is disabled by default if I recall); a B+ widescreen implementation and a configurable FOV. Obviously not everyone is affected by the omission of some of these things, but they're also things that many hardcore/critical PC gamers expect or desire in a PC game and are features that define PC games from their console counterparts. The same sort of things that have landed UT3's ass in the "shitty PC game" category for many when its predecessor -- which was really no different in terms of gameplay -- was tremendously well-received by PC gamers.

 

[damonposey]

The checklist?

Yeah

Good menu system and GUI;

By good menu system and GUI, you mean good for a mouse, easy to get around with it. I haven't heard any complaints about a menu system on a console game with a console controller. The only complaints are from PC gamers playing PC ports of console games that didn't receive proper attention for mouse support on the menus.

So this 'higher standard' is really non-existent in this case. because console GUIs on a console and PC guis on a PC are apples and oranges. and according to both gamers, they are both good.

a high degree of tweakability and scalability with no locked or disabled cvars (probably the most tweakability of any PC game in recent history, actually); a developer console;

Again, tweakability isn't necessarily a 'higher standard'. One of the perceived strengths of PC gaming is tweakability, but it depends on the person whether or not it is indeed a strength. The fact that you don't have to fool around with settings can be considered a strength to many people.

Do you see where I'm going with this? It's all relative. Some of you PC gamers talk about options as if there is a clear best and worst. There isn't. apples and oranges.

The only clear problems are lack of PC support for straight to PC from console ports. THERE I can agree with you.

 

[phide]

By good menu system and GUI, you mean good for a mouse, easy to get around with it...So this 'higher standard' is really non-existent in this case. because console GUIs on a console and PC guis on a PC are apples and oranges. and according to both gamers, they are both good.

Yeah, there's that in addition to having a number of options like settings for mouse speed/acceleration, audio submix levels (independent sliders for effects, VO, music, etc. are a definite plus), AA, AF, visual treatments and so on. Crysis makes it fairly easy by auto-detecting "quality levels" like medium, high, very high and so on and for having typical default settings so most should be able to just jump right in to the game.

As for a "higher standard", no, there are just good conventions on both platforms that have been established over the years. PC games should offer a plethora of options for users to configure the game the way they wish, while console games should generally have a minimal number of options and few or no multi-level menus to reduce complexity and ensure consistency.

Again, tweakability isn't necessarily a 'higher standard'. One of the perceived strengths of PC gaming is tweakability, but it depends on the person whether or not it is indeed a strength. The fact that you don't have to fool around with settings can be considered a strength to many people.

Tweakability (not implying that the game has to be tweaked) is just a PC-specific strength, while general ease-of-use is a console-specific strength. I expect tweakability with my PC games and a very minimal amount of fuss with my console games, but no PC game should specifically require users to fuck around with CFGs and console cvars. Those should always be available as an added bonus or as a mere convenience so users can alter certain aspects to taste.