Next PC shooter to surpass Crysis in graphics/physics?

H

HardLiner

Gawd
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
734
What will be the next PC shooter that will raise the bar in terms of graphics and physics?....besides Crysis 2.
 
Bloody good question!

I'd probably wager it will be either Rage or Doom 4. I can only see id being the ones to knock Crysis off its graphics superiority perch.
 
As of now, none, though Rage is looking awesome.

Crytek learned the hard way, that instead of being praised for pushing technology forward and for having a PC exclusive which was something not seen in a while, they got nothing but moaning about how steep the hardware requirements were, to play the game with all bells and whistles. Even the people with 2-3 year old machines, wanted to run with all details at extreme resolutions, which simply could never happen.

They also saw that the praise goes to companies like Valve and Infinity Ward (for CoD 4 mainly), which all use old and outdated engines (Source engine in case of Valve, so what's the surprise that it runs so well on current machines and consoles ?) or engines that are upgraded versions of more recent game engines, but that provide absolutely no interaction or physics effects (you can't even open a damn door), which obviously makes it extremely simple to run on even old machines (CoD 4 engine).

PC Gaming was about having state of the art tech going forward, pushing the envelope of existing hardware, which made hardware makers release faster products in shorter cycles. Since the praise (by many PC Gamers themselves, so yes they are part of the problem) always seems to go to those that basically just re-use the old and add nothing new, companies like Crytek, in order to remain profitable, have to lower their standards and go for the lowest common denominator: consoles. And that means no more PC exclusives and no more games that push the envelope. Just a port of something done originally for a console...and I can't say I blame them anymore.
 
Crysis commercially failed. Despite selling over 1 million copies Crytek weren't happy. I can't think of anything on the horizon that comes close. Devs are worried about sales due to high systems requirements and cross platform releases are holding things back on the graphics front.

Time to sell that super duper X2 or GTX 295 and downgrade?! :)
 
Last edited:
Rage is being made primarily for the console platform now, so its going to pretty mediocre I bet, it will be a long time before we see another company step up on the PC platform, we may have to wait until the next generation of consoles before we see anything better on the PC.

Makes me wonder what the point of any newer/faster video cards will be...we can ace everything in 1920x1200 at the moment, 2560x1600 is a pretty rare resolution so not a good argument to push faster cards.

This whole abandonment of the PC platform is really lame, its going to have some pretty serious knock on effects in a few years, if the PC games market stagnates then the video hardware industy will start to stagnate. Big problem for Nvidia/AMD, then when the consoles do their 5 yearly begging to Nvidia/AMD for new hardware they're going to be shit out of luck, they'll have to pay loads for new R&D to cover all the years where we would have had advancement.
 
That's what I was thinking,there is absolutely no reason to buy AMD's 5870,5870x2..etc or Nividia's equivalent cards unless I see a game that's worth it.It's been like two years since Crysis came out, I'm surprised another game developer wouldn't try to out do them.

I wonder if Nvidia or AMD would start making there own games.
 
spicey said:
Crysis commercially failed. Despite selling over 1 million copies Crytek weren't happy.
Click to expand...

It failed because they spent $22 million developing a state of the art game engine which they did a pretty poor job of marketing to other developers. How many games are there based on cryengine 2.0? Yeah.....exactly.
 
PrincessFrosty said:
This whole abandonment of the PC platform is really lame, its going to have some pretty serious knock on effects in a few years, if the PC games market stagnates then the video hardware industy will start to stagnate. Big problem for Nvidia/AMD, then when the consoles do their 5 yearly begging to Nvidia/AMD for new hardware they're going to be shit out of luck, they'll have to pay loads for new R&D to cover all the years where we would have had advancement.
Click to expand...

It's lame, but you can blame PC Gamers for that aswell, for the reasons I explained above.
 
spicey said:
Yeah, looks good but arguable Crysis is still superior.

Many don't like the X-ray engine but I think it's one of the best
Click to expand...

I don't think it is the best, but I do like it. I still think the Source engine is the best because of how easy it is to mod, and always runs great, yet still looks ok.
 
defiant007 said:
It failed because they spent $22 million developing a state of the art game engine which they did a pretty poor job of marketing to other developers. How many games are there based on cryengine 2.0? Yeah.....exactly.
Click to expand...

Another problem is that they promised too much - if they were able to do what was promised, gamers would be less likely to whine about HW requirements.

 
PrincessFrosty said:
This whole abandonment of the PC platform is really lame, its going to have some pretty serious knock on effects in a few years, if the PC games market stagnates then the video hardware industy will start to stagnate. Big problem for Nvidia/AMD, then when the consoles do their 5 yearly begging to Nvidia/AMD for new hardware they're going to be shit out of luck, they'll have to pay loads for new R&D to cover all the years where we would have had advancement.
Click to expand...

The ati/amd stagnation is problematic. After all the enthusiast market is not their core product. Integrated graphics / mobile solution and, for nvidia, professional solutions (not just Quadro) are the key profits. Also for Nvidia there is tegra coming, which might also turn to big hit.

Same as with high end CPUs... it's not us, who are driving the market, actually they might be better off without the need of releasing new high end cards every year. More to milk us with name changes, or cosmetic upgrades, and they would still make money elsewhere
 
it's going to be rage :) the things they're doing with texture streaming looks really really interesting both in terms of performance and image quality. It's going to set a new standard in game design (or atleast the way textures are handled)... imo of course :)
 
Is Doom 4 going to go to consoles? I think if id focuses on making it for the PC it could be a benchmark game for new video cards.
 
Everything in Rage looks like clay.

The next Crysis engine will be the only thing to beat itself.

MAYBE Project offset.
 
HardLiner said:
What will be the next PC shooter that will raise the bar in terms of graphics and physics?....besides Crysis 2.
Click to expand...

A game with Good A.I.?

I vote for Project Offset. (if it ever comes out.)
Possibly Doom 4 , if the consoles don't kill it.

It has to be Doom 4, you guys remember when Doom 3 came out? Nothing Graphically could touch it. It was revolutionary. It was a jawdropper, I hope we get that same feeling back with Doom 4, if not, then PC gaming is dead to me.
 
Don't Doom 4 and Rage use the same engine? They're probably the next games with the best chance of suceeding Crysis in terms of graphics/physics.
 
Silus said:
As of now, none, though Rage is looking awesome.

Crytek learned the hard way, that instead of being praised for pushing technology forward and for having a PC exclusive which was something not seen in a while, they got nothing but moaning about how steep the hardware requirements were, to play the game with all bells and whistles. Even the people with 2-3 year old machines, wanted to run with all details at extreme resolutions, which simply could never happen.

They also saw that the praise goes to companies like Valve and Infinity Ward (for CoD 4 mainly), which all use old and outdated engines (Source engine in case of Valve, so what's the surprise that it runs so well on current machines and consoles ?) or engines that are upgraded versions of more recent game engines, but that provide absolutely no interaction or physics effects (you can't even open a damn door), which obviously makes it extremely simple to run on even old machines (CoD 4 engine).

PC Gaming was about having state of the art tech going forward, pushing the envelope of existing hardware, which made hardware makers release faster products in shorter cycles. Since the praise (by many PC Gamers themselves, so yes they are part of the problem) always seems to go to those that basically just re-use the old and add nothing new, companies like Crytek, in order to remain profitable, have to lower their standards and go for the lowest common denominator: consoles. And that means no more PC exclusives and no more games that push the envelope. Just a port of something done originally for a console...and I can't say I blame them anymore.
Click to expand...

well put, i agree with everything you said.
 
defiant007 said:
It failed because they spent $22 million developing a state of the art game engine which they did a pretty poor job of marketing to other developers. How many games are there based on cryengine 2.0? Yeah.....exactly.
Click to expand...

This is an excellent point. While Unreal Tournament 3 might have been a basket of farts, at least Unreal Engine 3 was marketed and licensed to some of the best games in the past 3 years, Bioshock and Mass Effect (as well as their sequels) among them.
 
I don't think much will be able to touch Crysis for a while.

spicey said:
Yeah, looks good but arguable Crysis is still superior.

Many don't like the X-ray engine but I think it's one of the best
Click to expand...

X-Ray looked outdated back in 2005, theres only so much you can do with it.
 
I thought the next Half-Life they will be using a new engine for it...... I maybe wrong on this but I thought that was their plan.
 
Wenty said:
I thought the next Half-Life they will be using a new engine for it...... I maybe wrong on this but I thought that was their plan.
Click to expand...

I don't think so I believe episode 3 will be using source but some how I'm still hoping for a miracle and valve skips episode 3 and pulls out source engine 2 along with half-Life 3.

When you think about it,it has been 5 years since Half-life 2... they must be at the very least building their next engine.
 
Last edited:
I believe they've said that Episode 3 is still the same engine with just more tweaks.

What would be awesome is if Half Life 3—which they have strongly indicated will happen—came out a year or two after Episode 3, with a brand new engine. But knowing Valve, it'll be another two years just for Episode 3 and another 7 for HL3, by which point I better be controlling Gordon Freeman with my mind.
 
doom 4's version of id tech 5 will push gpu's harder than rage's version.
at least that's what Mr Carmack said.
 
Patman08 said:
doom 4's version of id tech 5 will push gpu's harder than rage's version.
at least that's what Mr Carmack said.
Click to expand...

That's right. Rage is targeted for 60fps on consoles (and it looks superb).
Doom 4 is being targeted for 30fps on consoles and they are claiming the quality will be another big jump forward from Rage.
 
spicey said:
Crysis commercially failed. Despite selling over 1 million copies Crytek weren't happy. I can't think of anything on the horizon that comes close. Devs are worried about sales due to high systems requirements and cross platform releases are holding things back on the graphics front.
Click to expand...

Marketing and presentation (perception) were some of the biggest problems in my opinion.
The marketing should have included clear information about the graphics settings so at max settings it has appeal to people with the highest end rigs.
But also claim that it pushes current generation hardware to its maximum.

ie something along the lines of
"For power users and those that want to see what next generation graphics hardware is capable of, we have created power user configurations.
These configurations will keep the game looking as good as the hardware you are using for years ahead!
..."

Presentation in the games configuration settings matters so much, the settings should have been labeled to describe the typical hardware requirements in some fashion, at least for the higher settings.
"Enthusiast" and "Gamer" mean very little.
This way, there would be better understanding and a better perspective when hardly anyone is being able to use max settings at the games release.

As it was, envious rage seemed to take hold as everyone wanted to be able to play at max settings and there were a lot of comments about bad coding which were unfounded.
Crysis is still regularly used in comparisons that show what a PC can achieve, despite the game being released 2 years ago!

Another thing that Crytek should have handled better in house, is optimisation of the game settings and a decent description of what the settings do.
There have been many custom configuration tools made that have a drastic effect on how well the game runs, allowing for much higher quality settings at the same framerate or keeping similar quality and getting higher framerate.
(Granted you are likely to lose something but the gains can be far in excess of what is lost)
I used Cubans Crysis Config with some other custom settings and was very happy running on an 8800GT, it made 1080p 'just' usable to my amazement!

Good optimisation is crucial when making a game that pushes hardware to the limit.
As they didnt do it themselves, they should have fully documented all the settings EDIT: and provided a tool to change them easily.
For this reason some of the backlash about poor performance was justified.

The above follows the premise that negative perception affects sales negatively.
 
Last edited:
defiant007 said:
It failed because they spent $22 million developing a state of the art game engine which they did a pretty poor job of marketing to other developers. How many games are there based on cryengine 2.0? Yeah.....exactly.
Click to expand...

They did anything but fail... they made no shortage of profit off their work. Unless you consider buying another studio a testament to their failure?

spicey said:
Crysis commercially failed. Despite selling over 1 million copies Crytek weren't happy. I can't think of anything on the horizon that comes close. Devs are worried about sales due to high systems requirements and cross platform releases are holding things back on the graphics front.

Time to sell that super duper X2 or GTX 295 and downgrade?! :)
Click to expand...

Um, Crysis sold VERY well for a PC game, over 3 million copies.
 
krameriffic said:
This is an excellent point. While Unreal Tournament 3 might have been a basket of farts, at least Unreal Engine 3 was marketed and licensed to some of the best games in the past 3 years, Bioshock and Mass Effect (as well as their sequels) among them.
Click to expand...

Thanks man, and just to drive home the point, here is a list of all games developed on UE3.0:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unreal_Engine_games

Its quite evident that epic makes a HUGE chunk of their cash from licensing its game engine to third party developers.

Why crytek were unable to do the same just blows my mind because crysis was and still is on the cutting edge in terms of visuals and physics, even 2 years after its release!

It just exemplifies how disingenuous Crytek's complaints are about how crysis didn't sell well. It actually sold really well...however it's failure to generate a substantial profit seems to be more attributable to poor management and marketing decisions when it came to licensing the cryengine.
 
socK said:
They did anything but fail... they made no shortage of profit off their work. Unless you consider buying another studio a testament to their failure?



Um, Crysis sold VERY well for a PC game, over 3 million copies.
Click to expand...

Then please explain to us all why Crytek complained, and still is complaining, that they only made a very modest profit on Crysis (hence justifying their argument that they need to also release crysis 2 on consoles)!? :p
 
defiant007 said:
Then please explain to us all why Crytek complained, and still is complaining, that they only made a very modest profit on Crysis (hence justifying their argument that they need to also release crysis 2 on consoles)!? :p
Click to expand...

because poor crytek being a horrible victim to piracy is a good excuse to allow them to enter the console market where piracy is of no issue at all as well as the grass always being green.
 
Crytek can still pull it off.
The first Cryengine looks awsome, but has steep requirements. The new cryengine theyre working on is not going to look better, but it will have lesser requirements, giving Crytek a chance to pump out millions of games to consolers.
 
socK said:
because poor crytek being a horrible victim to piracy is a good excuse to allow them to enter the console market where piracy is of no issue at all as well as the grass always being green.
Click to expand...

I am not going to say I haven't pirated a game before, but I hope something comes along that shuts down all mainstream forms of piracy. If people want to pirate, then let them use irc, or pay for it via usenet.

Whenever some dullard that can barely use a computer is asking where he can get a "stream" of bruno, you know that piracy has hit it's mainstream peak and will probably soon be toppled in one form or another.
 
Silus said:
As of now, none, though Rage is looking awesome.

Crytek learned the hard way, that instead of being praised for pushing technology forward and for having a PC exclusive which was something not seen in a while, they got nothing but moaning about how steep the hardware requirements were, to play the game with all bells and whistles. Even the people with 2-3 year old machines, wanted to run with all details at extreme resolutions, which simply could never happen.

They also saw that the praise goes to companies like Valve and Infinity Ward (for CoD 4 mainly), which all use old and outdated engines (Source engine in case of Valve, so what's the surprise that it runs so well on current machines and consoles ?) or engines that are upgraded versions of more recent game engines, but that provide absolutely no interaction or physics effects (you can't even open a damn door), which obviously makes it extremely simple to run on even old machines (CoD 4 engine).

PC Gaming was about having state of the art tech going forward, pushing the envelope of existing hardware, which made hardware makers release faster products in shorter cycles. Since the praise (by many PC Gamers themselves, so yes they are part of the problem) always seems to go to those that basically just re-use the old and add nothing new, companies like Crytek, in order to remain profitable, have to lower their standards and go for the lowest common denominator: consoles. And that means no more PC exclusives and no more games that push the envelope. Just a port of something done originally for a console...and I can't say I blame them anymore.
Click to expand...

I know, i hated people who complained that their 6800GT couldn't run crysis at full settings.. like, i played the game on pretty high graphics with my 8800GT at 1280x720 res (projector), I LOVED THE GAME!! the graphics were very nice and i enjoyed it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top