Feel Like I'm On 42
Member
Pretty sure it's not on Switch version
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Will Crysis 4 set a new benchmark and take the crown for graphics king again ?
- Thread starter TxKnight7
- Start date
Mister Wolf
Member
AeonGaidenRaiden
Member
I dont remember Crysis 2 and 3 being graphical showcases like Crysis 1 was. If anything I remember reading how it was dumbed down for consoles in both gameplay and graphics so that it could be played on all those systems.
diffusionx
Gold Member
If a console version is on the table, then no. The thing about Crysis was that it made ALL hardware at the time look like trash. Like the equivalent would be a 4090 running the game at 25fps on high settings, and it all going down from there.
Crysis 2/3 were both really good looking games but Crytek rewrote the engine and simplified the environs to make the game perform better and get console ports out day one.
Crysis 2/3 were both really good looking games but Crytek rewrote the engine and simplified the environs to make the game perform better and get console ports out day one.
01011001
Banned
the engine and design changes for 2 and 3 were mostly due to the CPU tho.
Graphically 3 is arguably way better than 1. 3 looks ridiculously good for its time on PC at max settings.
I mean the game was such a GPU intensive game that Digital Foundry used it up until very recently to test new GPUs.
graphics are scalable more easily than ever. no game shows that more currently than Fortnite.
that game goes from super low fidelity Smartphones all the way to high end PCs and scales the graphics in absolutely ridiculous ways, all while having 100% feature parity and cross compatibility.
and showcasing a similar level of scalability would also be a great way to advertise their engine's capabilities.
we can't forget that Crytek, like Epic, is licensing their engine to third parties, which in the past had VEERRRRY mixed results... we had complete disasters like that one Sniper Ghost Warrior game (forgot which one it was), and decent ones like Prey... but even that had serious issues on most systems.
so coming out with Cryengine 6 and completely blowing away the audience with the graphical fidelity and scalability should be something Crytek is striving towards.
Last edited:
Kerotan
Member
And this is why the answer is no. Not financially stable.
Ryse 2 would be insane. Look at what they did on an Xbox one in 2013. I am more hyped for that game instead of a new crysis.
I don't think we will have new graphics intensive games anyway. Devs are getting lazier and lazier. They can't even fix shader cache on PC (hint, make them compile on first load)
Devs will always try to do the bare minimum. Look at all the most noticeable advances we had on the past 3 years. All made with devs, not players in mind.
DLSS/FSR: Used to get away with low GPU performance on games that don't even have ray tracing. Hell we even have glorified true motion (DLSS 3) to get fake frames in CPU bound games!
Ray tracing: used to save dev time instead of having to bake shadows, lighting and reflection. Passing the cost to the consumer that now has to buy a GPU with tensor cores (that can't be used for traditional raster)
I don't think we will have new graphics intensive games anyway. Devs are getting lazier and lazier. They can't even fix shader cache on PC (hint, make them compile on first load)
Devs will always try to do the bare minimum. Look at all the most noticeable advances we had on the past 3 years. All made with devs, not players in mind.
DLSS/FSR: Used to get away with low GPU performance on games that don't even have ray tracing. Hell we even have glorified true motion (DLSS 3) to get fake frames in CPU bound games!
Ray tracing: used to save dev time instead of having to bake shadows, lighting and reflection. Passing the cost to the consumer that now has to buy a GPU with tensor cores (that can't be used for traditional raster)
Last edited:
01011001
Banned
Ryse looked great but was a horrendously terrible game.
so staying away from that franchise seems like a good idea
01011001
Banned
so, I assume noone in the thread that wrote similar stuff like that ever played Crysis on the lowest settings before?
because that's the only way a sentence like that makes sense.
Crysis on 360 looks way better than Crysis on the lowest settings on PC. you have rocks and bolders changing LOD quality literally 2m in front of you.
so explain to me how consoles can hold back Crysis 4, when they clearly didn't hold back Crysis 1, given that Crysis 1 looked better on console than it did on many PCs at the time it launched...
really makes you wonder doesn't it?
just like the fact that the lowest spec Graphics Card that can run Crysis, the 6800GT was less powerful than the GPU of the Xbox 360... that was a card that struggled to reach 20fps in the opening sequence in Bioshock at 720p.
or how it's lowest supported CPU is a Pentium 4 with a single core running at 2.8ghz, while the Xbox 360 has a 3 core 6 thread CPU running at 3.2ghz
edit:
that PC is lower spec than the 360 in most regards, and it runs Crysis... FUCKING CRAAAZY!
Last edited:
brian0057
Banned
I don't know how people can look at games like The Callisto Protocol and God of War: Ragnarok and unironically say "it will hold it back".
Callisto makes surface plates look like a mountain range with how linear it is.
Ragnarok is so handholdy you're swear Krato's Axe is just a reskin of Fi from Skward Sword.
Meanwhile, Elden Ring isn't a grapical powerhouse. But it looks nice. And far more important, it's mechanically superb. I'd rather play that than the wallpaper generator hallways that are the other two.
The age when hardware was a barrier for games is long gone. Videogames are simultaneusly getting prettier as they get mechanically worse.
Crysis 4 won't be held back graphically. It will be held back by comformist developers and publishers too scared to try new things,
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
No, those days are over. If anything it’d be poorly optimized thus requiring more powerful hardware.
chromatic9
Member
I doubt it but not sure who is there now or what status. Ryse was a good looking game but also paid by MS.
Was never impressed by Crysis 2/3 but Crysis 3 was a little better. They have such a dingy cross coloured look. Everything good about Crysis graphics/physics, they turned their back on. Heavily disappointing to me was Crysis 2/3. Ryse was very limited, started as a kinect game. Talk about destroying it all since Crysis.
Was never impressed by Crysis 2/3 but Crysis 3 was a little better. They have such a dingy cross coloured look. Everything good about Crysis graphics/physics, they turned their back on. Heavily disappointing to me was Crysis 2/3. Ryse was very limited, started as a kinect game. Talk about destroying it all since Crysis.
Last edited:
Games of Today
Member
Am I the only one who though Crysis 3 looked worse than 2? The game also sucked ass compared to 2.
kvltus lvlzvs
Member
Kind of off topic, but didnt og crysis have a pretty nasty memory leak?
amigastar
Member
I think you are exaggerating. Tell me one PC only game that looks much better to what we have on consoles. FYI i'm a PC only player but i don't think what you say is completely true.
Last edited:
Senua
Gold Member
Just like 2 compared to 1.
Games of Today
Member
Hmm, well sure. But they are also drastically different games where as 3 is essentially the 2nd game just in an overgrown city instead of a normal one.
TxKnight7
Member
No way, just look at the characters/faces and the environments etc in both games huge difference, crysis 2 was longer and a better game maybe more fun, but i love the bow from 3 so much!
They need to combine all things from crysis 1 to 3 in one game and make it open world like the first with adding more things.
TxKnight7
Member
It did even 2 remastered but got fixed.
Last edited: