Crytek Says It's Getting harder to Wow People With Graphics

WYP

News Guru
Crytek Says It's Getting Increasingly Difficult to Wow People With Graphics and that GPUs are still a long way from 60FPS 4K gaming.

04155633956l.jpg


Read more on Crytek's Graphics here
 
exacly why I havnt bothered getting a 4k monitor. I have 2 gtx 970's clocked super high and Its still a challenge on some games to get 60fps at 2k
 
How about they start wowing people with an engine actually made for games and not for cutscenes?
this is one thing that has bothered me for years, you start the game and it opens with this amazing cut scene and you sit there thinking wow this is it life like games and then the game itself starts and it looks like something out of a cartoon book.

problem is the cut scenes are what sell the game so I cant see it changing any time soon
 
this is one thing that has bothered me for years, you start the game and it opens with this amazing cut scene and you sit there thinking wow this is it life like games and then the game itself starts and it looks like something out of a cartoon book.

problem is the cut scenes are what sell the game so I cant see it changing any time soon

That's not what bothers me. What bothers me is the incredibly awful input at anything less than 100fps.
 
I think the main thing holding it back is console gaming which is years behind PC and holds the majority of the market and till that gap is closed we will never see a revolution in graphics just console ports that sometimes have higher textures and a few extra featrure sets.
 
exacly why I havnt bothered getting a 4k monitor. I have 2 gtx 970's clocked super high and Its still a challenge on some games to get 60fps at 2k

You must be doing something wrong man... I max out everything at 2560 x 1440 with a single R9 290 and a 970 is basically the same speed card at that res... I agree that 4k aint ready yet though
 
I crank everything up as high as possible I like a solid 60fps at all times. Metro 2033 with everything maxed drops down as low as 35 when I run the benchmark with my 2 970's clocked at 1.5ghz and 8ghz memory each. My 2 cards beat both the 290X xfire and 780ti sli in 3mark firestrike with an 18.5k score so they are running ok
 
I crank everything up as high as possible I like a solid 60fps at all times. Metro 2033 with everything maxed drops down as low as 35 when I run the benchmark with my 2 970's clocked at 1.5ghz and 8ghz memory each. My 2 cards beat both the 290X xfire and 780ti sli in 3mark firestrike with an 18.5k score so they are running ok

That's Metro2033. Nothing you can do about it.
 
Yeah when you win the lottery, 2 grand on gpu's alone and you still probably wouldn't have solid 60fps on all games
 
I really wanted 2 x 980's but just couldn't do it and had to grab 2 970's instead.

I think 2k gaming is good enough and not too expensive
 
You cant wow gamers with anything these days. I dont know what it is but God himself could create a game and youd have legions of haters snarling all over the internet. As a gamer for over 30 years I have to admit that we are the biggest bunch of cry baby bitches on the planet. Crysis sucked because it was too demanding, Crysis 2 sucked because it wasnt demanding enough. Mass Effect's ending was garbage so Bioware does something unheard of and comes out with a free DLC that extends the ending sequence and does a very solid job of ending the series but still gets constant hate. Dead Space games got hate because 2 and 3 were different and theyd progressed with a new and better combat, controls and weapons system not to mention improved graphics, music and story. Everybody hated it because 2 and 3 werent exactly like 1. However BF 4 and Modern Warfare get hate because they just rehash the previous game and dont really change or improve anything. Batman Origins, a superb game, had a few bugs, none of which were game breakers, and were all patched within about a week but mention that game to this day and people come out of the wood work to bitch about all the bugs it had.

I dont know why we're so hard to please but I dont see that trend ending anytime soon. Every new game is met with bitching and moaning about something. Even if there's nothing wrong with the game it still sucks because EA is the devil and so yeah.

As for the graphics, I was blown away the first time I played Crysis and I was again blown away when I first played Crysis 3. The first time you come up into New York, I spent a good 15 minutes just wandering around looking at the scenery. I really enjoyed the game too.
 
boiling point road to hell has so many haters. but after the patch it was pretty good to be fair..
the single minded haters are probably the reason it never ended up as a online game like it was always supposed to.

its quite hard to make a game i like i think. but a few have managed it.. so i wouldn't say its impossible to impress gamers any more.
But console ports. really linear game play (all game play has to be some what linniar though or there isnt really an end) Great graphics and 15 hours of game play. or 120 hours of bugs and unplayable/frustrating gaming system will end up with me hating it..

I hated assassins creed because of the combat system of "stand here block and counter" all the guards will wait in line and attack 1 at a time untill you have killed every single one in the city. so i never played any other assassins creed after it.

The big points for me in a game. are length "longevity" atmosphere immersion and then graphics. i do play all my games on the hardest difficulty. and games like resident evil i will play through without saving at all. (if i die 6 hours in. then i have to start again. and i usually dont look at the game for 2-3 days after that happens)

so graphics cant impress??
fine just keep em coming at the best you can make them for 2k. then you can finaly get back to concentrating on the actuall game pack it out with more things. and make it a game worth playing with replay value.
And im sure more people would be happy about that than the initiall Wow look at the rendering on that eye in the FMV! it looks 100% real. because honestly.. I skip cut scenes any way so why bother with them.
 
Never sure if people mean 1080p or 1440p when they say 2k :eek: I think they are trying to say 2560x1440 but they can't see that 1920x1080 is miles closer to 2k... ahh brain, OCD, melt, need ice cream.

Anyway I am always impressed by the mechanical details in games and think there is always more life to put into any scene to improve the 'graphics' rather than the graphics as a 2d still. Looking at the drive shafts and wishbones of race cars in Assetto Corsa reminds me there is still room for everyone to go, I was always disappointed the rope didn't actually go around the wheel in AC4. They are the kind of intricate details I would be looking to add personally to make the environment feel more immersive but it takes developers with incredible integrity to be bothered to go that far. GTA V even on PS3 has a lot of little ambient things that just impress.

JR
 
I must be easy

I find a game that I like and stick with it for a long time. It doesn't have to be completely wazoo for me to like it either.
My favorite of all time is one that was released a long time ago. (UT3)

My grand kids come over and we set up a network game and play it for hours.

Crisis was a game changer when it came out, but I didn't have a system that would play it maxed out anyways.
The graphics in some games (and benchmarks) are astounding to me. (how many of us have sat and wondered how they made that ass look so perfect in the Skydiver bench?)

I'm playing on 1920 X 1080 screens, so I know I'm missing a lot of detail, but I'm happy with what I got.
Compared to the old days of Doom and Wolfenstein, we're doing great!
 
I remember the days of games running on MS DOS where the graphics were total crap but the gameplay was fantastic making a lot of the games real classics.

Now the graphics are fantastic but the gameplay is total crap making the games epic fails.

I would rather have good gameplay than good graphics any day.
 
Back
Top