Developers of UT3 and Crysis are unhappy with PC sales of their games

[Revenicus]

Woe to you Crytek! Crysis has not helped PC gaming, but instead has magnified the flaws of PC game development!

It was supposed to be PC gaming's statement to the world that it was still viable and on top. but what good is the technology if we don't have hardware to drive it properly?

meanwhile the 360 is still churning out great games, ps3 is soon hitting its stride, and developers are becoming more and more wary about investing in PC game development.

the future is bleak, my pc gaming amigos.

 

[g1xx3r]

You dont want a good story? Only eye candy makes you happy?
Thanks for being the reason why gaming sucks.

BioShock had some technical issues, but man what an awesome background, story, environment. And it has hardly a typical shooter. Did you play the same game as the rest of us?

+1..Since when isnt a good story part of what makes a game good..From the demo of Bioshock I was itching to find out what else was down there and couldnt wait for the full version to be released..One of the more memorable storylines to come a long in a while!

 

[Silus]

+1..Since when isnt a good story part of what makes a game good..From the demo of Bioshock I was itching to find out what else was down there and couldnt wait for the full version to be released..One of the more memorable storylines to come a long in a while!

You said it. It's "part" of what makes a good game. But it's not the only thing required to make a good game. Unfortunately for Bioshock, the good story is the only thing that stands out. Gameplay is mediocre. AI is not very good, unlike what was promised. If Bioshock didn't have a good story, the game would be just another corridor shooter, where you shoot everything that moves.

 

[Silus]

You have obviously never Played Bioshock.. It is one the of best Games to come out in years with a great story and the entire game sucks you in to this whole fantasy world for the duration of the game. Its one of the few 5 star games that deserve it.

On the contrary. I obviously did play it. Bioshock's only good point is the story. Ok, the water effects are cool too. Nothing more. If that story didn't exist, Bioshock is yet another shooter that brought nothing new to the genre. The game was even advertised with RPG elements, but that was a flat lie, since we don't even have an inventory system, among other things. The story was good, I already said that much. But in terms of gameplay, the game is just another regular shooter.

 

[g1xx3r]

You said it. It's "part" of what makes a good game. But it's not the only thing required to make a good game. Unfortunately for Bioshock, the good story is the only thing that stands out. Gameplay is mediocre. AI is not very good, unlike what was promised. If Bioshock didn't have a good story, the game would be just another corridor shooter, where you shoot everything that moves.

Well,thats like saying"if Half Life 2 didnt have a good story it would be just another FPS.."I think story,graphics,gameplay,AI controld etc all contribute.But really,with so many FPS on the market,what seperates them other than the story?

 

[ThirtySixBelow]

Well,thats like saying"if Half Life 2 didnt have a good story it would be just another FPS.."I think story,graphics,gameplay,AI controld etc all contribute.But really,with so many FPS on the market,what seperates them other than the story?

gameplay?

 

[Slade]

For gaming to work on the PC it has to excel in these areas.

It must be playable on a wide range of current hardware. Not the easiest task, but if the guy with the mid range lower res system can still get the "gist" of the experience, then it's succeeded.

It has to offer a gameplay experience that is a step ABOVE what the console can deliver, while still delivering Without any incentive to go with the PC version, I'd always go console.

Let's use the Orange Box and Crysis, and Half Life 2 as examples. If I play TF2 on a PC, what do I get over the console? Games with more players involved, slightly improved graphics. The experience of TF2 on PC is a step up over the console version (lag issues, more players) the ability to be a spy on the pc is greatly improved than playing split screen.

If we compare Crysis' release versus Half Life 2's release, the hardware at the time of HL2 worked to give nearly the SAME image quality as the high end parts, just at lower resolutions. Crysis can't say the same. For something that's supposed to scale well, it really hurts the image quality if you try putting a low end system by a high end system.

UT3 has the problem that it doesn't do anything new and probably plays better on a console...

 

[Neuffy]

Your sarcasm detector needs repair. He even ended the sentence with roll-eyes.

Dammit!

But yeah, my sarcasm detector doesn't need repair. I just plain don't have one. Well, thanks for pointing that out.

Perhaps that can be my next upgrade....along with some neural nanonics, thanks.

 

[TwentyFour]

Woe to you Crytek! Crysis has not helped PC gaming, but instead has magnified the flaws of PC game development!.

Really? you're blaming Crytek for actually coming up with a decent PC title? damn them to hell if they dare to make a title that pushes technology! would you much rather have a dumbed down console port with FOV/AA problems and constant crashes?

It was supposed to be PC gaming's statement to the world that it was still viable and on top. but what good is the technology if we don't have hardware to drive it properly?

Did you even play it? Crysis runs smoothly @1440x900 (DX9, Custom CVR) with 2x AA and everything at High (except shadows) on my system. the fact of the matter is, PC Gaming has always been resource intensive; whenever a game comes out that stresses out hardware, everyone goes into panic mode. not like this has happened for the first time either. (quake, fear, oblivion etc) Yes, Crysis does indeed have it's issues (Quad core, SLI support) but for what it's worth, A Core2 Based system with 8800GT/GTS can play it at @1600x1200 at high settings while getting smooth frame rates (Crysis feels smooth at 25-30fps) Just because people can't crank it to Ultra-High-Uber doesn't mean it's badly optimized. yes, it is annoying that it can't be maxed out. but considering the photo realistic visuals it churns out, that is justified. yeah, your 8800GTS/GTXs has let you play every game at Maximum settings for the past 1 year, but times have changed. time to move on! this is PC gaming afterall

meanwhile the 360 is still churning out great games, ps3 is soon hitting its stride, and developers are becoming more and more wary about investing in PC game development.

okay, fine. buy a console and be done with it.

the future is bleak, my pc gaming amigos

Alan Wake
Assassin's Creed
Conan
Spore
Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway
Splinter Cell: Conviction
FarCry 2
Tom Clany's EndWar
S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Clear Sky

I beg to differ

also, the 33k sales for UT3 are wrong. apparently, it sold 5k less copies.
http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/35885/Bleak-Weekly-PC-Sales-Chart

 

[Sent]

Future is not bleak.

Tried UT3 demo, didnt like it. So no buy.
Can't run Crysis on my machine. So no buy.

Probably how it goes for most people so hence low sales? lol

 

[Krenum]

hmm thats odd, who woulda thought making shitty product and duping the populace into believing something that was faulse would bring down sales?

 

[lopoetve]

Did you even play it? Crysis runs smoothly @1440x900 (DX9, Custom CVR) with 2x AA and everything at High (except shadows) on my system. the fact of the matter is, PC Gaming has always been resource intensive; whenever a game comes out that stresses out hardware, everyone goes into panic mode. not like this has happened for the first time either. (quake, fear, oblivion etc) Yes, Crysis does indeed have it's issues (Quad core, SLI support) but for what it's worth, A Core2 Based system with 8800GT/GTS can play it at @1600x1200 at high settings while getting smooth frame rates (Crysis feels smooth at 25-30fps) Just because people can't crank it to Ultra-High-Uber doesn't mean it's badly optimized. yes, it is annoying that it can't be maxed out. but considering the photo realistic visuals it churns out, that is justified. yeah, your 8800GTS/GTXs has let you play every game at Maximum settings for the past 1 year, but times have changed. time to move on! this is PC gaming afterall

]

Your hardware lets you play it at that, sure, but most people (including me, with an 8800GT and BE 5000+) cannot. I can't get it smooth with half the settings on medium, especially in some of the outdoor areas. At least not without a custom config that makes it look like total crap. And by not smooth, I mean I'm getting 5-10 fps in many areas (specifically outside, in wide open areas). It's unplayable. 1600x1200, no aa, no af, shadows on medium, post-process on medium, and one other option on med. The rest on high. It's unplayable. Doesn't improve a whole lot by going to 1152x864 either.

I have no problem with it happening, I'll wait for the next gen or two to finish playing it, but it IS why it sells so poorly: Games that push the tech envelope always sell less copies than those that anyone can play. Or, they have for most of the last 5-6 years... we're not used to it anymore. Gone are the days when every Origin release killed your box, most now expect HL2 like polish and the games running on everything. There's nothing wrong with crysis, they just shouldn't expect it to sell like orange box. That's life.

 

[Netrat33]

Alan Wake
Assassin's Creed
Conan
Spore
Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway
Splinter Cell: Conviction
FarCry 2
Tom Clany's EndWar
S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Clear Sky

And most of those are multiplatform. That's really the only point of this discussion. Stalker however is just an expansion, but it didn't sell that great either.

 

[AMDXP]

"Hey guys, let's not release any AAA titles for 2 years. Then, in a 45 day window, we'll open the floodgates. We can't possibly lose!"

Crysis: I enjoyed Crysis, but I'm in that 5% of PC owners who have a latest-generation card (8800GTS 640, specifically). And even my system crawled, both in the alien ship, and outside, when ice was present. I work with about 12 guys who buy and play a lot of PC games. Most passed on Crysis after the demo, as it was unplayable on their machines. There are 2 of us who have 8800s. Both the 8800 owners, and one last-gen card owner bought Crysis (3 purchases out of 12 of us). I was the only one who didn't regret the purchase.

UT3: I'm the only one who bought it. And I regret the purchase. I've been looking forward to UT3 since I stopped playing UT2K4, the week WoW was released (November 2004). Game-breaking bugs galore, no community to speak of. Rushed out the door, and looks like a poorly ported console game. A few nights ago, during East-coast prime time, there were 12 Warfare servers available. Only 2 had more than a half dozen people, and playable pings. (Edit: Now that I think about it, the fact that I couldn't filter out the other 10 results makes me regret the purchase that much more. It doesn't take much to get a server browser right, but Epic couldn't be bothered. I guess they figured entering a filterable maximum ping would require a keyboard, and heaven forbid they have to support PC features on the PC version of their game!) I exited UT3, and fired up...

Orange Box: TF2 is one of the most fun multiplayer experiences I've had in years. In prime time, even with my server filters on (<100 ping, no empty/full servers listed), there's over 60 servers to choose from. I upgraded my machine in mid-October. Prior to the upgrade, TF2 was quite playable, even on my 4-year-old Radeon 9800 Pro. Screams on the 8800 I've got now. Everyone at work has Orange box. That's 12 copies. 1 for Xbox, 11 for the PC. We've got people playing it on 4-year-old cards, to the latest hardware. Everyone agreed that Episode 2 was a blast. Portal will get you a couple nights of low-impact fun.


I hope that Epic and Crytek don't think that just because they sold poorly that PC gaming is dead. Crysis released a game that was marketed on eye-candy. But that eye-candy was accessable to a tiny percentage of PC owners. Epic rushed a half-finished product out the door, and seems to have take a step backwards in every way from previous releases. They have to know what PC gamers expect in a game, But ignored it.

The thing is, neither of these problems would have been nearly as bad to their bottom line had they not waited until just before Christmas to release their titles. We've had 2 years where AAA titles on the PC were few and far between. 2 years where people would have gladly grabbed up anything offered, warts and all. But when everyone decides to release their games in a 45 day window (Oct 1st to Nov 15th) you're going to face competition.

/agree

Valve or Steam rather now.. Tend to make very nice products in my opinion the Graphics are great and the game-play is too.

Even old CS non-source and Half-life I still believe are up to par with today, but that could just be my fan-boy opinion.



Since 1998/99

BABY!

 

[Spoonmaster]

Agreed, Valve has always offered good games, good support, and good community.

Crysis, I think will sell slowly but will reach a good amount eventually when the hardware catches up. Low res gamers like me can play Crysis at 1440x900 on high/very high just fine and am totally pleased with it.

UT3 was a disappointment though unfortunately. Orange Box, Crysis, CoD4 definately my top pick this year...and Mario Galaxy haha.

 

[Silus]

Well,thats like saying"if Half Life 2 didnt have a good story it would be just another FPS.."I think story,graphics,gameplay,AI controld etc all contribute.But really,with so many FPS on the market,what seperates them other than the story?

I'm shocked you even asked that and as another poster said, gameplay ?!

And I'm not even going to comment on HL2's story... If you consider it good, I don't. HL1 was awesome, both in terms of story and gameplay, but what they did with HL2 was a mess IMO. It was fun in the first few levels. But when you reach the last ones, it's just kill, kill, kill. What made the game unique, were the best graphics at the time and the use of physics, to solve a few problems and that only happened in the first few levels, as I mentioned earlier. Either way, that's gameplay right there, since it did give us a few more options to accomplish our goals, even if HL2 is as linear as they come.

 

[spicey]

Crysis and ut3 don't really have the best innovative multiplayer in the world. To me cod4 really nailed the online gameplay head on. I think epic screwed up once they started to delete our threads in their forums and all that with the same online modes as ut2k4. Nothing new practically. Crysis system requirements really did it i think for sales

You make a very good point, Crysis system requirements are extremely prohibitive for the average PC gamer. Sure I know most [H] forum users here have excellent PCs but I for one know 3 people that simply cannot play Crysis at a decent framerate so they didn't buy the game. In many ways Crytek only have themselves to blame. Value aren't stupid as The Orange Box plays superbly on most systems.

 

[Silus]

You make a very good point, Crysis system requirements are extremely prohibitive for the average PC gamer. Sure I know most [H] forum users here have excellent PCs but I for one know 3 people that simply cannot play Crysis at a decent framerate so they didn't buy the game. In many ways Crytek only have themselves to blame. Value aren't stupid as The Orange Box plays superbly on most systems.

Not this again...
The Orange Box games use the AGING Source Engine. Of course they run "superbly" on current systems and even older systems. What CryEngine 2 offers in terms of graphics fidelity is light years ahead of what the Source Engine can provide. That's comparing Apples to Oranges...it makes no sense...

 

[spicey]

Not this again...
The Orange Box games use the AGING Source Engine. Of course they run "superbly" on current systems and even older systems. What CryEngine 2 offers in terms of graphics fidelity is light years ahead of what the Source Engine can provide. That's comparing Apples to Oranges...it makes no sense...

Silus, you often miss the point. The fact of the matter is Crysis hasn't sold well due to the system requirements, so tough luck Crytek

 

[Monkey God]

Not this again...
The Orange Box games use the AGING Source Engine. Of course they run "superbly" on current systems and even older systems. What CryEngine 2 offers in terms of graphics fidelity is light years ahead of what the Source Engine can provide. That's comparing Apples to Oranges...it makes no sense...

Of course it makes no sense. People can actually buy and eat their apples (source engine) but the oranges are so big you can't even take a bite. People just sit there with a giant orange in their hand giong, WTF? After seeing a bunch of people pay for the oranges and not be able to eat them, alot of us are not going to spend the money. And THEN Crytek has the nerve to bitch about sales? Seriously? Common sense anyone? Where is it?

Making a game people cant play on the latest hardware IS FUCKING STUPID.
How about, make the game, and then release a patch/content update in a year or whatever to handle the latest cards? How about develop the engine so that its flexible enough to do that? Or maybe spend a little more time optimizing it?

Lets not! Lets make something so "awesome" no one can run it, and then cry when no one buys it. STUPID. I cant believe this actually has to be explained to some of you.

 

[Silus]

Silus, you often miss the point. The fact of the matter is Crysis hasn't sold well due to the system requirements, so tough luck Crytek

How did I miss the point ? You said:

Value aren't stupid as The Orange Box plays superbly on most systems

Obviously "Value" is "Valve" and you said this after criticizing Crysis, for running poorly. Are you seriously trying to compare what Crysis offers graphically, to the games in the Orange Box ? Because that was the point right there...

 

[Silus]

Of course it makes no sense. People can actually buy and eat their apples (source engine) but the oranges are so big you can't even take a bite. People just sit there with a giant orange in their hand giong, WTF? After seeing a bunch of people pay for the oranges and not be able to eat them, alot of us are not going to spend the money. And THEN Crytek has the nerve to bitch about sales? Seriously? Common sense anyone? Where is it?

Making a game people cant play on the latest hardware IS FUCKING STUPID.
How about, make the game, and then release a patch/content update in a year or whatever to handle the latest cards? How about develop the engine so that its flexible enough to do that? Or maybe spend a little more time optimizing it?

Lets not! Lets make something so "awesome" no one can run it, and then cry when no one buys it. STUPID. I cant believe this actually has to be explained to some of you.

Although I agree that Crytek shouldn't be complaining about their sales, everything else you said, makes no sense and some of it is actually a lie, like not being to run Crysis on current hardware. That's sensationalism right there...
You can run Crysis in many systems, not just high-end. Also there's the tiny little bit piece of information you and others, keep forgetting: Crysis is the most visually stunning game ever made. Did you really expect to run with everything at max settings @ extremely high resolutions ? If you did, I think you haven't been around tech development long enough...
Software is usually ahead of hardware and it will push the current hardware to its limits and then some. Some games don't break any boundaries, while looking good. Kudos to them, but they didn't really bring anything new have they ? But when games like Oblivion or Crysis are released, these boundaries are crossed and hardware has a hard time keeping up. Still an aging system like mine, is able to run it with acceptable performance / quality levels @ 1024x768.

Again, I believe many of you were spoiled by NVIDIA, that released 8800s that chew everything in their path @ extremely high resolutions. Up until Crysis that is.

 

[Monkey God]

Although I agree that Crytek shouldn't be complaining about their sales, everything else you said, makes no sense and some of it is actually a lie, like not being to run Crysis on current hardware.

[/b]
youre right, I should have clarified that. Even on MEDIUM settings, you get unacceptable framerates (IMHO) 20-30. I personally need 30 or more consistently to feel like its smooth and acceptable.

That's sensationalism right there...
You can run Crysis in many systems, not just high-end. Also there's the tiny little bit piece of information you and others, keep forgetting: Crysis is the most visually stunning game ever made. Did you really expect to run with everything at max settings @ extremely high resolutions ? If you did, I think you haven't been around tech development long enough...

Ive developed software for 15+ years, and in my book, if you write software thats unusable to the average user, and only usable to people with uber hardware or people who think its fun to spend a friday night in moms basement hacking config files, id be out of a job.

Software is usually ahead of hardware and it will push the current hardware to its limits and then some. Some games don't break any boundaries, while looking good. Kudos to them, but they didn't really bring anything new have they ? But when games like Oblivion or Crysis are released, these boundaries are crossed and hardware has a hard time keeping up. Still an aging system like mine, is able to run it with acceptable performance / quality levels @ 1024x768.

1024 X 768? Year 2000 called and wants its resolution back.

Again, I believe many of you were spoiled by NVIDIA, that released 8800s that chew everything in their path @ extremely high resolutions. Up until Crysis that is.

Lets assume you are correct...why would I want to spend money on something I cant run smoothly and enjoy?

 

[SlimyTadpole]

Not this again...
The Orange Box games use the AGING Source Engine. Of course they run "superbly" on current systems and even older systems. What CryEngine 2 offers in terms of graphics fidelity is light years ahead of what the Source Engine can provide. That's comparing Apples to Oranges...it makes no sense...

It makes sense in the context of the discussion we're having. Specifically, why some games sold poorly, and others sold well.
Yes, CryEngine2 is vastly more powerful than Source Engine. But if only a fraction of PC gamers can run Crysis, then it's not going to sell well.

Here's the post you originally repsonded to...

You make a very good point, Crysis system requirements are extremely prohibitive for the average PC gamer. Sure I know most [H] forum users here have excellent PCs but I for one know 3 people that simply cannot play Crysis at a decent framerate so they didn't buy the game. In many ways Crytek only have themselves to blame. Value aren't stupid as The Orange Box plays superbly on most systems.

And that brings us to...

How did I miss the point ? ...
Are you seriously trying to compare what Crysis offers graphically, to the games in the Orange Box ? Because that was the point right there...

Here's how you missed the point: He's not comparing them in terms of graphical potential. He's comparing them practically. Source Engine runs superbly on current systems. CryEngine does not. CryEngine is more powerful, but if it runs like molasses on 90% of the machines out there, then (and here's here's where it gets back to the point of this thread), it's not going to sell well.

 

[Silus]

It makes sense in the context of the discussion we're having. Specifically, why some games sold poorly, and others sold well.

Yes, CryEngine2 is vastly more powerful than Source Engine. But if only a fraction of PC gamers can run Crysis, then it's not going to sell well.

I already said that I agree that Crytek shouldn't be complaining about how sales are for Crysis. In fact, I think that a PC exclusive selling 86k copies in just 15 days, is actually pretty good.

No. You keep missing the point. He's not comparing them graphically. He's comparing them practically. Source Engine runs superbly on current systems. CryEngine does not. CryEngine is more powerful, but if it runs like molasses on 90% of the machines out there, then (and here's here's where it gets back to the point of this thread), it's not going to sell well.

I'll try to explain one more time. BECAUSE CryEngine 2 is more advanced and allows FAR more advanced features, including near photo-realistic graphics, than any other engine out there, it WILL be more demanding than those games based on OLD (Source) engines that run well.

Do you understand the connection between "looking good and running well" and "looking jaw dropping and not running so well" ? That's as practical as I can get...
So Valve is lazy and keeps on using the same old engine in their most recent games and they are praised for how well those games run, to which I ask: Was that so hard to predict ? Old engine on new hardware. Why wouldn't it run well ?
Now Crytek actually shows improvements in physics and graphics and is bashed to hell, because the game doesn't run at extremely high resolutions, with everything set to very high, on current hardware. Do you actually think you're making any sense ?

I guess there's just no point in discussing this anymore. What you want is the impossible. You want the most stunning game ever made, set to the highest settings possible @ high resolutions, to run smoothly on now "old" hardware (over a year old - 8800s - or more - older generations). Have fun trying to get there, because it will never happen. Never did and never will. That's how tech evolves: Software pushes hardware to a point, where hardware needs to be improved. A good analogy, is the weapons / armor dichotomy. A soldier gets bullet-proof armor and someone just develops the armor piercing bullet. It never ends...

 

[Devnull]

They made a UT3?


Unreal->UT->UT2k3->UT2k4->.....->UT3?





edit: How did I forget Unreal 2? Oh yeah- that game sucked.

 

[Silus]

youre right, I should have clarified that. Even on MEDIUM settings, you get unacceptable framerates (IMHO) 20-30. I personally need 30 or more consistently to feel like its smooth and acceptable.

At what resolution exactly ?

Ive developed software for 15+ years, and in my book, if you write software thats unusable to the average user, and only usable to people with uber hardware or people who think its fun to spend a friday night in moms basement hacking config files, id be out of a job.

Then you've been developing software that does NOT depend greatly on the graphics processing power. I'm a software developer myself and even though it's mostly related to telecommunications, I know a lot about game and GPU development. It's definitely not linear as you tried to put it and to know that, you only need to do some research on the subject.

1024 X 768? Year 2000 called and wants its resolution back.

Again, you want to run the most stunning and demanding game ever made at 1920x1200 or 2560x1600 and every setting set to very high, on current aging hardware, with smooth framerate. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds ?

Lets assume you are correct...why would I want to spend money on something I cant run smoothly and enjoy?

Well, this depends greatly on you. For you, it's either "play with everything set to very high at 2560x1600" or "the game sucks, because you can't". There's a huge middle ground, which you are not even exploring. Reducing your res or graphical settings. Shocking development indeed...

 

[Dutch]

Why would developers want to develop for pc though, when console sales are clearly higher, even on games such as these which would traditionally be pc genres? Sure, they can make money off of also releasing something for the pc, but is it enough to justify the additional costs, or the time taken away from improving the other platform(s)?

There are more things to consider than just game sales numbers when it comes to developer revenue.

1. A portion of every console game sold goes right back to Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo.
Maybe the extra $10 a console game costs covers this.

2. Advertising. It costs money for Intel and Nvidia to have their logos in a game. And all those Alienware inserts in almost every popular game sold aren't included for free. This can't be cheap, especially for highly anticipated games.

3. Someone mentioned this before - engine licensing. Crytek will most likely make a substantial amount of money doing this.

4. Mostly theory, but I suspect that Intel, NV, etc would give some money to developers to make games that are "ahead of its time". Taxing software sells hardware.

Everyone always talks about consoles destroying pc games, but as crazy as it sounds, I think world of warcraft was a significant contributor as well. I would be very interested to see some survey results of wow players comparing how many games they bought annually before and after buying wow. I would be willing to bet that almost all of the 10 million or whatever it is are purchasing significantly less games than before, simply because they don't have the time to play them.

Absolutely, when I was heavy into WoW, I didn't buy any other games for almost a year.

 

[lopoetve]

3. Someone mentioned this before - engine licensing. Crytek will most likely make a substantial amount of money doing this.

ar.

that's what they said about Far Cry.

Um...

Where were the far cry engine games?

 

[Dutch]

Woe to you Crytek! Crysis has not helped PC gaming, but instead has magnified the flaws of PC game development! It was supposed to be PC gaming's statement to the world that it was still viable and on top. but what good is the technology if we don't have hardware to drive it properly?

I don't ever recall Crytek or any other press stating that this game would assert its superiority over console games. Crysis on current hardware looks FAR better than anything a current gen console could every hope to do.

meanwhile the 360 is still churning out great games, ps3 is soon hitting its stride, and developers are becoming more and more wary about investing in PC game development. the future is bleak, my pc gaming amigos.

There are still plenty of developers putting out PC-only titles - Far Cry 2 for example. PS3 is struggling because it is hard to develop for - look at how much MGS4 is costing. They have to sell millions of copies to break even!

I, for one, have no concerns about the future of PC gaming. With developers like Crytek, Valve, and Blizzard (just to name a few) on the side of the PC, there will always be a bright future.

 

[sd11]

UT3 sucks! And a lot of UT fans didn't even bother with it thanks to UT2k4.

I don't know what they expected, but the franchise is dead.

 

[Silus]

that's what they said about Far Cry.

Um...

Where were the far cry engine games?

CryEngine 2 on the other hand, has been licensed at least half a dozen times already. Check Crytek's site.

 

[SlimyTadpole]

I'll try to explain one more time. BECAUSE CryEngine 2 is more advanced and allows FAR more advanced features, including near photo-realistic graphics, than any other engine out there, it WILL be more demanding than those games based on OLD (Source) engines that run well.

You don't need to explain that to me. I already understand it. So does every one else here.

Do you understand the connection between "looking good and running well" and "looking jaw dropping and not running so well" ?

Yes, I understand that connection. Why would you even ask that?

So Valve is lazy and keeps on using the same old engine in their most recent games and they are praised for how well those games run

No. They aren't being praised for being lazy. He (the author of the post to which you were originally responding to) is praising them for delivering a good gaming experience using the Source Engine. That's it.

Also, I'm not sure why you feel that because they didn't run out and develop a new engine for Episode 2, they must be lazy. I enjoyed Episode 2, and the engine did a fine job. So far as I'm concerned, that's proof positive that they didn't need to develop a new engine.

, to which I ask: Was that so hard to predict ? Old engine on new hardware. Why wouldn't it run well ?

It's not hard to predict. In fact, it's pretty much inevitable. Tha'ts why Valve deserves praise for using the Source Engine. It runs well on a variety of hardware, and looks good doing it. Not "jaw dropping", but "good".

Now Crytek actually shows improvements in physics and graphics and is bashed to hell, because the game doesn't run at extremely high resolutions, with everything set to very high, on current hardware. Do you actually think you're making any sense ?

Yes, it makes perfect sense, once you wrap your head around one very simple concept: Eye-candy is not the most important factor in making a game. This is a theme that has been running through this thread since page one. No one is bashing Crytek for releasing a powerful graphics engine. We're simply stating that pretty graphics doesn't equate to a good game experience.

I guess there's just no point in discussing this anymore. What you want is the impossible. You want the most stunning game ever made, set to the highest settings possible @ high resolutions, to run smoothly on now "old" hardware (over a year old - 8800s - or more - older generations)

NO! I don't. Why is this concept, which has been repeated so often in this thread, not getting through to you? I want a game that runs smooth, and looks good enough, without having to think about graphics settings for more that 30 seconds, or requireing a cutting edge GPU to play. And yes, the 8800 is cutting edge. It doesn't matter that it's a year old; It's still the latest generation, and with a price tag to match.

 

[Dutch]

We were all anticipating crysis, and ut3 because we thought the multi payer would be amazing...its not...also,..the Screen shots look nothing like the game...but thats another subject

When you get a big mac from McDonald's do you complain to the manager that it doesn't look like it does on the commercials?

That is marketing for you....they cherry pick certain shots and pretty them up in photoshop and drastically increase the resolution. The shots sure weren't taken with PrtScn and cut from Paint, as many people naively believed.

 

[Dutch]

Also, I'm not sure why you feel that because they didn't run out and develop a new engine for Episode 2, they must be lazy. I enjoyed Episode 2, and the Engine did a fine job. So far as I'm concerned, that's proof positive that they didn't need to develop a new engine.

Source engine is showing its age. After CoD4 and Crysis, I thought Ep2 was ugly. Most of the world is static and lifeless. Gameplay is getting stale as well, but just my (unpopular) opinion.

NO! I don't. Why is this concept, which has been repeated so often in this thread, not getting through to you? I want a game that runs smooth, and looks good enough, without having to think about graphics settings for more that 30 seconds, or requireing a cutting edge GPU to play. And yes, the 8800 is cutting edge. It doesn't matter that it's a year old; It's still the latest generation, and with a price tag to match.

Sounds like console gaming would be a better fit for you then.

 

[SlimyTadpole]

Sounds like console gaming would be a better fit for you then.

Why would you say that? I don't own a console, and haven't since the original NES.

In fact, judging by the responses in this thread, and by the sales of the PC games, themselves, it would appear that I'm in the majority of PC gamers.

 

[lopoetve]

CryEngine 2 on the other hand, has been licensed at least half a dozen times already. Check Crytek's site.

i'll believe it when I see it (a game actually out).

 

[Silus]

You don't need to explain that to me. I already understand it. So does every one else here.

Yes, I understand that connection. Why would you even ask that?

No you don't. This is what you said:

No. You keep missing the point. He's not comparing them graphically. He's comparing them practically. Source Engine runs superbly on current systems. CryEngine does not. CryEngine is more powerful, but if it runs like molasses on 90% of the machines out there, then (and here's here's where it gets back to the point of this thread), it's not going to sell well.

You are comparing both engines, when there's nothing to compare. CryEngine 2 is superior to Source Engine therefore, is much more demanding to the hardware. If that's not clear yet, then I give up...

No. They aren't being praised for being lazy. He (the author of the post to which you were originally responding to) is praising them for delivering a good gaming experience using the Source Engine. That's it.

And doesn't Crysis offer an awesome gaming experience ? You only criticize it based on how it performs. Isn't the gameplay better than most of the games out there ?

Also, I'm not sure why you feel that because they didn't run out and develop a new engine for Episode 2, they must be lazy. I enjoyed Episode 2, and the engine did a fine job. So far as I'm concerned, that's proof positive that they didn't need to develop a new engine.

Point was, they've done nothing more than re-use the aging Source Engine, which is what...4-5 years ? You may be fine with it, but that's not innovation. That's being lazy. Valve does produce quality games, but they take so long to get them out, that there's little to no interest left in them. I speak for myself of course.

It's not hard to predict. In fact, it's pretty much inevitable.

Actually, by your own words, it sounded like you were surprised to see an old engine, perform so well, in current hardware, while you were surprised to see a new engine, perform not so good. Shocking indeed...

Yes, it makes perfect sense, once you wrap your head around one very simple concept: Eye-candy is not the most important factor in making a game. This is a theme that has been running through this thread since page one. No one is bashing Crytek for releasing a powerful graphics engine. We're simply stating that pretty graphics doesn't equate to a good game experience.

We are talking about PERFORMANCE. I think you should step out of this thread, because you keep missing the point. We are not evaluating Crysis as a whole. We are talking about how it performs on current hardware and that is related to how it looks. I'll try to make it simple for you:

Just another good looking game = runs well.
The most stunning game ever = doesn't run that good.

NO! I don't. Why is this concept, which has been repeated so often in this thread, not getting through to you? I want a game that runs smooth, and looks good enough, without having to think about graphics settings for more that 30 seconds, or requireing a cutting edge GPU to play. And yes, the 8800 is cutting edge. It doesn't matter that it's a year old; It's still the latest generation, and with a price tag to match.

And you don't have to think about them. You just set them to what your hardware allows and play the game. Crysis with everything @ medium, looks better than most other games, set to their highest. Just enjoy the game and stop complaining about how it performs.

The 8800s are the best cards on the market, but they are only the best, because little to no competition has been given to NVIDIA. This is actually one of longest periods we have had, without a new generation already in the wild.

 

[Dutch]

Why would you say that? I don't own a console, and haven't since the original NES.

In fact, judging by the responses in this thread, and by the sales of the PC games, themselves, it would appear that I'm in the majority of PC gamers.

I say that because it sounds like you desire more of a convenience factor over the cutting edge, which is what console gaming provides. Pop in the disc, and you have playable frame rates and OK graphics. Otherwise, stick to games that you know will run fine on current hardware, or be prepared to lower quality settings and resolution. PC gamers need to be a little more informed for this very reason - otherwise they will be disappointed with the results.

 

[Silus]

i'll believe it when I see it (a game actually out).

A Game engine is not licensed just for games. In fact, one of the licenses for CryEngine 2, was done for educational purposes:

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3162879