Crytek Show Off Fly Tech

By Jim Rossignol on March 23rd, 2009 at 10:28 pm.


CryEngine 3 has been unveiled at GDC, and shown off with a new video. Nothing on the new “what you see is what you play” editor (WYSIWYP, clever eh?) or any hard tech facts so far, and sadly the crappy compression of the trailer means the impact is lessened somewhat. But it still looks fractionally more impressive than Crysis, and that’s the main thing. Right? Okay then.

__________________

« | »

, .

102 Comments »

  1. Nick says:

    I’d still have toput it on medium and low.. so meh?

  2. Pags says:

    The forest looked incredible but yeah, the crappy compression meant that the graininess overpowered the awesomeness.

  3. lumpi says:

    Yup, no machine will be able to run it anyway.

  4. Batolemaeus says:

    I fail to be impressed by any Crytec related stuff.

    Mostly because Hl1 is still more fun than Crysis.

  5. the probe says:

    I do like that they rendered something besides a tropical island and a frozen version of said island.

    Although the compression made it look no better than UE3.

  6. Fumarole says:

    Mmm, godrays…

  7. Haggai Elkayam says:

    Meh. Not that different from Crytek 2, or Dunia. Just more of the same.

  8. Steve says:

    Would be alright if they could make a game that isn’t shit.
    I wonder what will ruin their next title halfway through.

  9. Deadpan says:

    “Would be alright if they could make a game that isn’t shit.
    I wonder what will ruin their next title halfway through.”

    At long as they have Psycho the can do no wrong.

  10. Real Horrorshow says:

    Just FYI guys, the main selling point of this engine is it’s compatible with the console machine systems device thingies. It’s not supposed to look like a whole generation ahead. Hopefully it means it’s more scalable.

  11. SpoonySeeker says:

    Crytek epitomizes everything wrong with PC gaming.

    I mean really; how the hell are they still in business?

  12. Nick says:

    Eh, Crysis was pretty damn scaleable actually, just everyone was like omgz must run it at full or my penis is small! Or something and didn’t buy it because of that.

  13. Corion says:

    I think I’d be a lot more impressed if they focused on getting CryEngine2 to run on the low-end PC’s of the future.

    Sure people like graphics – but you know what they like more than graphics? Not having to spend $1000 on a new PC to play a CryEngine3 game.

    How’s about we focus on making a game that looks awesome on onboard graphics chips, similar to what The Conduit is doing for the Wii.

    Making a game run on more computers means more potential customers. More potential customers means more actual customers. More actual customers means more money.

    A game that people can hardly run on low? I’ll pick it up once it’s in the bargain bin, thanks. I guess that saves me money in the long run.

  14. Gap Gen says:

    Yeah, I can’t really tell the difference.

  15. Jezebeau says:

    My PC’s a whole year-and-a-half old now. Guess I’d better give up on the playing next generation games set to “Low” and play Dwarf Fortress instead.

  16. Deuteronomy says:

    Wow all the Valve fellators are out in force tonight. On top of being a graphical powerhouse Crysis is a damn fine game. Can’t wait to see what Crytek does next.

  17. Rosti says:

    As a casual proper-gamer (as opposed to a proper casual-gamer, clearly), I’m more impressed by engines when they run well on the sort of hardware I get to play with. Which is to say, this new engine lark isn’t for me, is it?

    Nice to see all the fancy-ness, mind.

  18. Monchberter says:

    God, some people, when Crysis and Warhead ‘worked’ they were sublime. Unfortunately as some people have mentioned, they fumbled the ball half way through all of their releases and yes some quality control is needed. They need curing of the ‘Bruckheimers’ in my opinion, no, you don’t need to one-up every confrontation in your games, the infinitely flexible jungle combat worked well enough thank you very much.

    CryEngine 3 looks like the attempt to get back in the black, Crysis and Warhead were bloody HUGE productions. Hundreds of staff, ‘boat pushing’ attempts in every area and gameplay that doesn’t exactly pander to the everyman. I’ll keep giving them chances so long as they have the potential to fufil their promise.

  19. Tom says:

    I’ll take Dunia over Cry any day.
    I know the Cry engine is technically more capable but there was just something very solid about the Dunia engine, whereas Cryteks always just felt like a mountain of special fx.
    Art style over technical prowess I guess.
    We’ve yet to see what could be done with Dunia with a different set of assets.

  20. Tom says:

    Wanna add this though – when Crysis’s gameplay worked, it really, really worked. Crytek always seam to get carried away with big show stoppers and the like and forget what made their name: a bunch of grunts with great AI in a tropical, wide open forest… that’s all you need.

  21. Y3k-Bug says:

    An engine that can’t run on anyone’s hardware is not a very good attempt at getting back in the black.

    I am a fan of Crysis Warhead, but the game ran horribly on my box. Its hardly cutting edge, mind. But due to how poorly it ran on my midrange system, I won’t be buying any CryEngine games until the system I have is quite a few years after the release of that game, where I know it’ll get good performance.

    Again, note that I’m a fan of their games. But they make engines that don’t run well on anything but cutting edge tech, and I have zero interest in owning cutting edge tech. So, yeah, I’m not buying their games.

    Oh, and just to get it out there, this is what I ran Crysis Warhead with:

    AMD Athlon64 X2 6000+
    2 GB RAM
    Geforce 8800 GTS 320

  22. Louis says:

    You guys realize that this is PS3/360 footage, right? You realize that this video footage demonstrates nothing that can’t easily be done with CryEngine 2 on a medium-range PC, in Crysis, right?

    The purpose of CryEngine 3 is to make CryEngine 2 more scalable for consoles, while also allowing it to expand for future PC and console hardware…so of course this tech demo isn’t going to show much new.

    SpoonySeeker:
    Crytek epitomizes everything wrong with PC gaming.

    I mean really; how the hell are they still in business?

    Such nonsense. They sell millions of copies of their games, games that are a crapload of fun (the popular cool-kid opinion that they’re “nothing but tech demos” is nonsensical bullshit), and hell, they bought a formerly console-only developer (Free Radical). But of course, you know everything, right? Go tell Cevat Yerli what he’s doing wrong!

  23. I am beginning to understand this comment system says:

    “Crytek Show Off Fly Tech”

    Wow.

  24. Clovis says:

    Did CryEngine 2 actually get used for anything besides Crysis?

  25. DigitalSignalX says:

    check dark messiah of might and magic to see how Source still holds it’s own with crytek, and can run full settings even on older gaming rigs. Crytek’s edge though seems to be scale, you can essentially have your whole title on one map, while source still needs rails to a degree.

  26. subedii says:

    Crysis and especially Warhead were amazing games, and honestly Warhead was probably one of my favourite FPS’s of last year.

    I’m tired of the “tech demo” argument constantly cropping up. You know what? I bought my PC nearlytwo years ago, and it still runs Crysis with everything on either High or V.high, it looks awesome. I’ll admit it was a top range graphics card I was using back then, but today, it’s easily runnable on a what would be called mid price-range gaming PC. You spend maybe £100 on a graphics card, it’ll run swimmingly.

  27. Monchberter says:

    When people complain about their system not running Crysis, ask them what resolution they are using. I’m not running a huge screen but you can max out Crysis and Warhead on a 8800GT and Quad Core 6600 on 1400 x 900 and it still looks beautiful.

    If you can’t run it on current tech then ask yourself why you need a monitor that takes up half a wall. ;)

  28. Down Rodeo says:

    I’m interested as to the outcry over the quality of PC needed to play Crysis. I bought a £40 graphics card which actually runs it fine… Admittedly this is on lowest graphics possible, 800×600 resolution, but still – if my P4 HyperThreading machine with an ATi X1650 can run it stutter-free, and given that my PC is much inferior to many people I know, what’s the issue? Unless my computer is a much more capable gaming rig than I had thought (unlikely methinks, I look at the Steam survey and weep). It’s definitely the processor holding it up now though :).

    As for this video… the compression, as many have said, renders it a bit pants-looking. On the other hand some of the models present, such as the arms present in the last few seconds, are very nice looking. Could just be they’ve bumped up the polygon count though.

    Did anyone get annoyed by the explosions with the funny smoke trails?

  29. Chiablo says:

    I have a “monitor that takes up half a wall” and unfortunately everything outside of native resolution looks like ass, so Crysis will always be unplayable by me. I’d love to see monitor and television manufacturers who’s displays scale well with non-native resolutions.

  30. rocketman71 says:

    Not impressed at all. And Cevat Yerli is still a dick.

    I totally agree with SpoonySeeker. If Crytek isn’t in the PCGA, they should join. And then stop making games from PC. Not that they’ll be missed.

  31. Blather Blob says:

    Clovis: Did CryEngine 2 actually get used for anything besides Crysis?

    Merchants of Brooklyn, last week.

  32. Pags says:

    You’re all a rather thorny bunch tonight.

    Just in case you all missed Real Horrorshow’s comment (because either you didn’t see it or wilfuly ignored it):

    Just FYI guys, the main selling point of this engine is it’s compatible with the console machine systems device thingies. It’s not supposed to look like a whole generation ahead. Hopefully it means it’s more scalable.

  33. A-Scale says:

    A new system, and its displayed in a 400×350 window. That’s sort of like some analogy that deals with maximizing one quality only to be incapable of perceiving said enhancement once it is completed. Ha Ha Ha.

  34. Dorian Cornelius Jasper says:

    Dunno ’bout you guys, but scalable sounds good to me. It would mean that they’re starting to care more about people sitting around the midrange. Also, it’s smart from a business perspective to reach out to consoles.

    Not that I own a this-gen console, mind.

  35. Y3k-Bug says:

    @Down Rodeo Do you REALLY think I’m trying to run a game in 800×600? Really? I’m on a 22” monitor, that simply isn’t going to cut it. Either make an engine that can run on CURRENT hardware, or get outta town.

    @Monchberter I need a monitor that big for work. But lets say I didn’t, every other game out there runs on my native resolution just fine. Yet Crysis, a 2 year old engine, doesn’t.

  36. bhlaab says:

    Y3k, my system is only slightly better than yours in some areas and slightly worse in others and I can run Crysis fine. What you can do to help the process along is to turn down some of the graphics settings.

    Seriously though I am a bit worried. If they’ve managed to do something that looks slightly better than Crysis on the 360, I hope to God that means it can be maxed out on my 8800 with little effort.
    But then again, Grand Theft Auto 4 runs like the balls’ ass on my PC and it isn’t even that great looking, which is cause for concern. Sometimes these engines don’t make the transition from console.

    If this is easier on the hardware than CryEngine 2 I hope they port the first two to the new engine so I can maybe soak in some of that extra eye candy.

  37. Oliver says:

    I have a hard time understanding why people criticise Crysis so much. Somehow even a game as utterly mediocre and flawed as Far Cry 2 gets rated higher. I thought that most of Crysis was fantastic and extremely entertaining.

    Frankly, it seems to me that people were just bitter that their computer couldn’t run the game at maximum details, so they decided that “it was shit anyway, who cares”.

  38. bhlaab says:

    Well also because of its later half it got 8/10s in initial reviews instead of 9/10s like farcry 2, thus proving that crysis was garbage and farcry 2 is at least respectable.

  39. drewski says:

    I haven’t played either Far Cry 2 or Crysis.

    Woo!

  40. Dave says:

    Huh… I have a 22″ widescreen monitor, nothing super fancy. I have the lowest-end Core 2 Duo that exists, but with 4G of RAM and a GeForce 9600 GT. It ran Crysis fine at 1680×1050 with all the fancy stuff turned on, until I got to the part where twelve billion particles were drifting in zero-g. I only had to turn down a couple of options to make it work fine again…

  41. A-Scale says:

    Crysis was the same FPS schlock we’ve been getting for some 10 years. Far Cry 2 was a truly open world with completely different dynamics than appear in most FPSes, along with a very good story, a solid (if hidden) marketing campaign (the journalists blog) and a sort of RPGish weapons/upgrade system.

    Crysis was just shooting in a pretty place, and frankly that has been and can be done better.

    I found infinitely more joy in Crysis in trying to punch a rowboat out to sea and put a turtle in it while evading sharks than I ever did fighting the hokey korean enemies, or the boring, repetitive aliens.

  42. Zyrusticae says:

    I simply cannot agree with all this hate.

    First of all, my 8800GT ran Crysis just fine with all settings on very high, at 1280×768 resolution with 4xAA enabled (or 1680×1050 with no AA). I could easily run it at 1680×1050 with 4x AA enabled on the “high” settings, and I can imagine anyone with a halfway-decent card could run it on medium no problem (and it’s still very pretty then). Especially after being patched and upgrading to the 180.xx series of Forceware drivers, the game’s framerate is rock-solid.

    Secondly, I’ve replayed the game several times at this point, and I [i]still[/i] find fresh ways to approach old situations using different combinations of superpowers and weaponry. Yeah, the corridor sections in the latter half kinda lose sight of the core game’s strength, but they’re still obscenely nice to look at (although I’ll admit I’m a total sucker for eye-candy). The fact that I can replay the game again and again and again and not get bored is amazing. Very few games manage to do that for me. Exploiting the physics, the environment, and the AI with all the superpowers is just grand fun.

    I can, for example, run into a throng of soldiers in speed mode, knocking them all over like bowling pins, and then pick up an explosive barrel and throw it into them, shooting it and watching the ensuing fireworks display. Or I could wander in in stealth mode, quickly uncloak, shoot one guy in the head, then re-cloak and reposition myself and repeat until they’re all dead. Or I can sneak in and find some heavy objects to toss around, go into strength mode, pick it up, toss it into the crowd, run in, grab a soldier by the throat, and then toss him into his comrades, and then shoot the survivors point-blank. Or I can charge in with a vehicle, quickly exit and run off in speed mode, and then shoot the fuel tank in the back to cause some chaos.

    I could go on and on and on and on. Really, it’s not a bad game in the least bit. I fail to understand these lame criticisms being tossed around so haphazardly.

    Oh, and yes, CryEngine 3 is meant to be optimized for PC and consoles. Unsurprisingly, the console version looks vastly inferior to that of the PC. Still, it’s not bad, considering how much open space they have to render and considering how many people still don’t have HDTVs in their homes…

  43. MultiVaC says:

    It looks… worse than CryEngine 2…

  44. cqdemal says:

    It depends on how you play, I guess. Personally, I see Crysis’ first half and most of Warhead as a game that rewards you for being creative. On difficulties below Delta, you are simply challenged to kill enemies in the most creative ways possible. When you go for total efficiency (cloak, headshot, cloak, repeat), it can grow a little boring. However, take cloak out of the picture and things immediately become 100 times more interesting.

    A-Scale: You hate Crysis, but I think your last sentence did nail some of the game’s charms. Crysis revels in randomness of a plan gone wrong, usage of hilarious weapons (turtle, banana, chicken, etc) and overwhelming numerical disadvantage.

    The aliens are crap though.

  45. Y3k-Bug says:

    bhlaab says:

    Y3k, my system is only slightly better than yours in some areas and slightly worse in others and I can run Crysis fine. What you can do to help the process along is to turn down some of the graphics settings.

    I absolutely hear what you’re saying, but it comes down to my point before: there is no reason why I should have to turn down the settings of a 2 year old engine, when there are games that come out now that run perfectly, while all settings are maxed out. That includes Far Cry 2 by the way. I simply make it a point to not purchase games from developers that code engines that far outpace available hardware, in the hopes that poor sales will reflect negatively enough for them to recognize that it is hurting sales.

    Grand Theft Auto 4 runs like the balls’ ass on my PC and it isn’t even that great looking, which is cause for concern. Sometimes these engines don’t make the transition from console.

    They can, its just a matter of whether or not the developer is skilled enough to code it as such, or the publisher is willing to give them the time to figure it out. I refuse to by GTA4 for that reason; its a very poorly coded game, tossed out for PC gamers to hungrily grab up. I don’t mind ports, but don’t give me shovelware ports. Valve manages to code cross-platform games just fine. As does Criterion Games with the Burnout Paradise port. Which was the first PC game they’ve ever coded by the way. And it runs like a dream.

    Long and short of it is, Crytek doesn’t seem to be interesting in spec’ing their engines for the majority of players. As such, I’m not interested playing their products.

  46. Oak says:

    Popular Title in ‘Divergent Opinions’ Controversy

  47. AOLgames. says:

    This video = meh.
    waiting for something more impressive, maybe.

  48. cqdemal says:

    Y3k-Bug: Even Far Cry 2 at its full glory cannot match the visual quality delivered by Crysis’ high settings. Better art design, possibly, but still technically inferior.

    GTA IV performs very well on my PC, so I won’t comment on that issue. Burnout is indeed extremely awesome.

  49. Lord_Mordja says:

    I concur with Zyrusticae on all points. Crysis is awesome because changing difficulties effectively changes sub-genre; easier gives you a more run and gun feel while playing it on Delta forces you to play it like a tactical shooter.

    Also I can run Warhead on a middle of the road laptop on medium just fine.

  50. A-Scale says:

    Y3k-Bug: Even Far Cry 2 at its full glory cannot match the visual quality delivered by Crysis’ high settings. Better art design, possibly, but still technically inferior.

    Technically inferior? Oh come on then, that’s like arguing that a stripper with massive fake breasts is “technically superior” to a normal woman.

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>