CryEngine 3 tech demo / Crysis 2 stuff

[Singular Intellect]

Perhaps one of the critics of the original Crysis could be bothered to post some comparison textures for evaluation purposes? Especially compared to the other 'superior games' mentioned here? Maybe some map size comparisons too?

For me personally, Crysis was a whole new level of gaming and every other shooter I've tried seems to be playing catchup to it. In many cases, failing even the basics (like customizable control interface setup).

[CaptHawkeye]

Or you could just shut the fuck up, and stop bitching. Sorry man, it turns out a lot of people just realized Crysis ain't all that impressive a game? It was marketed like it was the second coming in shooters, much like Bioshit, and it turns out it did nothing games before it hadn't done already. Its much vaunted appearances and leet polygonz didn't stand up to marginal scrutiny either.

Other shooters "catching up" to Crysis? LOL. Crysis couldn't even figure out how to make non-dumbshit enemies who actually reacted to seeing the player! But hey, you probably think it was totally cool that the Koreans in the game didn't give a shit about the blue glowy effect man strolling right in front of them. Jesus fucking Christ, even Aliens vs. Predator had better AI.

[adam_grif]

Other shooters "catching up" to Crysis? LOL. Crysis couldn't even figure out how to make non-dumbshit enemies who actually reacted to seeing the player!

What is this, I don't even

WHAT?

Did we play the same game? Are you referring to some kind of AI glitch that I just never saw in my two playthroughs? They fucking chase after you whenever they spot you, vehicles spawn and come looking for you, distant AI in boats will come ashore to try to kill you, and so on. I've had the enemies break up into three-pronged flanking maneuvers converging on my last known position. The game turns into Predator 1 whenever you're bouncing around using cloak to pick them off one at a time.

I can appreciate you not liking the game, but can you try not to make shit up in your criticisms? I just checked all the major review sites for the game, only three reviews mentioned the AI at all, two of them praising it (IGN US/AU) and the third (1up) mentioning that occasionally a distant foe won't acknowledge getting hit, something I never saw in my own playthroughs.

Anyway this is getting horribly off topic, since we're supposed to be discussing CryEngine 3, not Crysis 1.

EDIT:

Another tech demo

[CaptHawkeye]

It's not a fucking glitch. It was intentional freaking design. You can literally stand right in front of the AI while cloaked and they won't notice EVEN ON DELTA, the glowy man with the occasional blue distortiony look that was EVER so convenient.

And don't give me the "zomg enemies chase you" shit. Like always they chase you for 10 ft then give up, and don't give a shit when you come back literally 10 seconds later and start bitch slapping guys with garbage lids again. Choppers? Tanks? Re enforcements of any kind? Yeah, more guys in a jeep to cloak snipe. For a game where the reviews couldn't shut the fuck up about the AI it sure isn't impressive. Flanking and basic tactics are not impressive, they've been doing that since Halo.

The AI cheats so blatantly i'm astounded people didn't notice. You're telling me it was ok that a boat from across the fucking map IMMEDIATELY notices your non-camoed ass? The game's AI reacts to the player's camo like a light switch. Thinking on! / Thinking off. All thanks to Nanoman's suit of gameplay convenience.

[Singular Intellect]

Or you could just shut the fuck up, and stop bitching.

Since when is asking for evidence 'bitching'?

Sorry man, it turns out a lot of people just realized Crysis ain't all that impressive a game? It was marketed like it was the second coming in shooters, much like Bioshit, and it turns out it did nothing games before it hadn't done already. Its much vaunted appearances and leet polygonz didn't stand up to marginal scrutiny either.

And this is relevent to my curiousity motivated request for proof about 'poor textures'...how?

Other shooters "catching up" to Crysis? LOL. Crysis couldn't even figure out how to make non-dumbshit enemies who actually reacted to seeing the player! But hey, you probably think it was totally cool that the Koreans in the game didn't give a shit about the blue glowy effect man strolling right in front of them. Jesus fucking Christ, even Aliens vs. Predator had better AI.

It's been mentioned the original Crysis had shitty textures. All I asked for was some actual evidence of this rather than just asserted opinions.

If you think the original Crysis is a steaming pile of shit, all the more power to you. I'm not interested in your subjective opinion. What does interest me is more concrete assertions like 'poor textures', for which I merely asked a more convincing argument than 'because I said so'.

Perhaps Crysis does have poor textures, and if that's the case, it shouldn't be hard to provide a couple of screenshots to confirm this assertion, should it?

I personally never noticed any poor textures; to me the game looked dazzling. So once again, could someone provide a couple of examples to demostrate this poor quality that is being harped on about?

[Stark]

He clearly wasn't talking to you.

And frankly if you can load up the game, walk down the riverbed and look DOWN at one of the big dark grey rocks and not see late 90s texturing, that's not anyone else's fault. SOME of the texture work is good, but the emphasis was on post-processing (bloom, ddof etc). The fact that you think four people talking about the texture work is 'harping' just suggests you're a fucking retard.

Your bizarre claim that it's a good game because it lets you reconfigure the controls is irrelevant.

[adam_grif]

It's not a fucking glitch. It was intentional freaking design. You can literally stand right in front of the AI while cloaked and they won't notice EVEN ON DELTA, the glowy man with the occasional blue distortiony look that was EVER so convenient.

Wank wank wank. Just like Sam Fisher's goggles, or Snake being hilariously easy to see even wearing camo (including the invisibility bonus items), that shit is there for the convenience of the audience alone. It's not "really" there. And this is just trusting your assertion here, I could have sworn I've had people firing at me / noticing I'm there while I was cloaked, even on Normal.

And don't give me the "zomg enemies chase you" shit. Like always they chase you for 10 ft then give up, and don't give a shit when you come back literally 10 seconds later and start bitch slapping guys with garbage lids again. Choppers? Tanks? Re enforcements of any kind? Yeah, more guys in a jeep to cloak snipe. For a game where the reviews couldn't shut the fuck up about the AI it sure isn't impressive. Flanking and basic tactics are not impressive, they've been doing that since Halo.

Right, because the AI in halo follows you around corners, it's the same as the Crysis AI. Nobody said the Crysis AI was ungodly or amazing, just that it isn't awful. It's still above average by today's standards.

The AI cheats so blatantly i'm astounded people didn't notice. You're telling me it was ok that a boat from across the fucking map IMMEDIATELY notices your non-camoed ass? The game's AI reacts to the player's camo like a light switch. Thinking on! / Thinking off. All thanks to Nanoman's suit of gameplay convenience.

Or spotters saw you, or somebody called you in on a radio, or the Koreans have their own HUD tech that spots enemies like you do (not exactly far-fetched considering they have access to the same tech base). It's not hard to justify the behavior, even though I know the devs didn't give it that much thought. This is small potatoes compared to the idiocy in the AI in many of Crysis' contemporaries, and even games today.

And frankly if you can load up the game, walk down the riverbed and look DOWN at one of the big dark grey rocks and not see late 90s texturing, that's not anyone else's fault.

... and if you look down and zoom in on the textures in every other game the same shit happens. That the textures don't have infinite resolution doesn't make them "bad textures", we are weighing it against its peers. Other games have similarly low resolution textures for unimportant things. The foliage in Halo 3 is just as bad, and in MGS4 you get hideous textures any time you look too closely at your camo suit. I agree that MGS4 textures are sharper as a whole package, and quite impressive in their own right. But that doesn't make Crysis textures awful or bad. They're still top tier.

[Stark]

Did I say zoom in? I'm pretty sure I didn't. You just said 'look down'; many of the landscape textures (such as the rocks) are crap. Your invention of some demand for infinite resolution just makes you look like an idiot.

The idea that I should demonstrate the textures, and then have such a response is hilarious.

'This texture is bad'
'ONLY UP CLOSE'
'This texture is bad'
'IT'S ONLY INCIDENTAL'
'This texture is bad'
'IT'S BAD ON DOOM3 TOO OMG'

Seriously.

[adam_grif]

Well, if all it takes is looking down then you'll surely be happy to oblige us with a screenshot of the game running on high/highest for us to take a look at, with the crap textures?

[Stark]

Oh, so you're so much in denial I have to dig up and reinstall a shit game just to shut you up? Your bleating shows that you clearly already know I'm right (hence lying baldly about 'zooming' when you just fucking quoted me NOT SAYING THAT).

Ok, you're right. Everyone who dislikes Crysis' artwork is wrong because none of them have Crysis installed.

[adam_grif]

Five seconds of google searching later, I have some pictures:

First one, they look great Spoiler

Second one, they don't Spoiler

Third one, they look fine Spoiler

Oh, so you're so much in denial I have to dig up and reinstall a shit game just to shut you up? Your bleating shows that you clearly already know I'm right (hence lying baldly about 'zooming' when you just fucking quoted me NOT SAYING THAT).

No, I'm saying that you had to zoom on them with something before they looked crap. This is going based off my memory, so post a screenshot and prove me wrong.

The idea that I should demonstrate the textures, and then have such a response is hilarious.

No, what's hilarious is that you're acting as though proving that some of the rocks have bad texturing is equivelant to the game having "bad textures", even though every game has some bad textures in it. Nobody ever disputed that there were some bad textures in the game. We already know that there are. The problem was when you're saying things like:

By contrast Crysis' textures looked like dogshit at every distance beyond 'far away' and were just covered by effects.

This is patently fucking false, because Crysis was loaded with textures that looked great. If you only meant that "some of the rocks" looked crap at all distances, then clarify.

[Stark]

Seriously? You googled some pictures?

It amuses me that you are now claiming 'the textures' (by which I assume you mean all of them) only look crap if you zoom in. But hey, your memory, right?

And yeah, landscape textures being bad is having 'bad textures'. What would you call it? Having great textures, in that some of them are shit? The goal is to either switch textures quickly like UE3 or keep the crap textures for incidentals like cans etc, not landscape elements (especially in a game where the terrain is such a big part). I guess they figured that under all the post-processing and foliage nobody would notice, and it seems they were right.

But hey, you're some kind of toolbar who thinks another game having bad texturing is relevant, so ... I better clarify, huh? It's actually amusing you post full qual images, because it's relevant to engine quality if the 2048x2048 textures are good and the rest aren't, right? Remember what was said about scalability?

[adam_grif]

Seriously? You googled some pictures?

Installing it on my pc isn't going to do any good seing as how I can barely run it with some things set to medium. Running a 7600 GT sucks.

It amuses me that you are now claiming 'the textures' (by which I assume you mean all of them) only look crap if you zoom in. But hey, your memory, right?

No, specifically the rocks. I don't remember them looking bad when I was playing it on better machines. But memory is fallible, so post a picture to prove me wrong. And I don't mean that in a "nyah nyah you can't do it" way, I just want some fucking verification.

It's actually amusing you post full qual images, because it's relevant to engine quality if the 2048x2048 textures are good and the rest aren't, right? Remember what was said about scalability?

The fuck you talking about? The highest resolution posted was 1200 x 800, which is hardly an unreasonable resolution. If you're going to judge Crysis' textures based on what they look like if you're running it on a dogshit machine (i.e. mine, maybe yours), then you're being pretty dishonest here.

But hey, you're some kind of toolbar who thinks another game having bad texturing is relevant, so

If you're comparing overall texture quality from one game to another, it is significant. If all you mean was that a couple of small rocks on the ground looked shitty, then we have no quarrel in the first place, aside the intense anger my continued existence seems to draw out of people.

[General Zod]

And since people were complaining about screenshot comparisons, here you go:



Before anyone starts whinging about the quality of the screenshot, I used my point & shoot cam to take a picture of my TV playing the first level. If you've got any better ideas for taking PS3 screenshots feel free to share.

[adam_grif]

I have a copy of MGS4 hooked up to a 1080p screen, but I likewise have no way of getting it into a PC save for a camera.

That's not much worse than it looks like in game, except that the colours are off and it's a bit sharper.

[General Zod]

I have a copy of MGS4 hooked up to a 1080p screen, but I likewise have no way of getting it into a PC save for a camera.

That's not much worse than it looks like in game, except that the colours are off and it's a bit sharper.

The game was playing on a 1080p 47" LG set. But the camera itself was a lower end $130 canon 12mp camera. So there's bound to be some quality loss.

[adam_grif]

There's always high quality vids from gametrailers.

And another.

[General Zod]

There's always high quality vids from gametrailers.

And another.

"High quality" "streaming" videos are usually woefully inadequate.

[adam_grif]

You can download them at higher quality then they have up for streaming (720p), although the HQ streaming is quite respectable. More so than photos of the TV anyway

[Zixinus]

Does anybody know who those guys with the blue armor are? They look humans and I thought we were still fighting aliens.
Still, here's hoping that its a fun game.

Oh, and its hilarious how back-and-forth this whole "CRYSIS WAS SHIT!" and "NO, IT WAS FINE!".
Stark actually finding it hilarious that someone didn't use subjective evidence for once and googled some actual images to prove his point.

Crysis was a decent game. My impression is that people expect it to live up to the liar marketing promises or it is shit. Can't it go in-between? That it was a slightly above-average game with some over-hyped but decent technology?

[Stark]

Oh, and its hilarious how back-and-forth this whole "CRYSIS WAS SHIT!" and "NO, IT WAS FINE!".
Stark actually finding it hilarious that someone didn't use subjective evidence for once and googled some actual images to prove his point.

You mean pictures of totally unrelated things are evidence now? Gee, thanks tex! And yes, a game with marketing built on lies is shit and I won't play it. It's called 'integrity'. It helps that the opening of Crysis is fucking boring, but hey, four people saying it sucks is worthless and subjective but you saying it's good with golden mean bullshit is totally fine.

Let's quietly forget that Warhead was such a better game for ditching the suck elements of Crysis (ie the huge but useless levels that forced lower-end assets), that's probably subjective.

ITT we learn that nobody should ever have an opinion on a game they don't currently have installed. So no more talking about MoO2.

[Zixinus]

You mean pictures of totally unrelated things are evidence now?

Yeah, in-game pictures is unrelated to a discussion about texture quality?

And yes, a game with marketing built on lies is shit and I won't play it.

So the game's quality is directly proportional to how much the publisher's marketing lies?

It helps that the opening of Crysis is fucking boring, but hey, four people saying it sucks is worthless and subjective but you saying it's good with golden mean bullshit is totally fine.

So its majority rule now? By that standard, a lot of reviewers say the opposite and that Crysis was the goddamn second coming. And the fans.

Or maybe different people's judgement of the game is colored by their play experience and their expectations? I for one, enjoyed Crysis. Maybe the other four people didn't. I don't care.

Let's quietly forget that Warhead was such a better game for ditching the suck elements of Crysis (ie the huge but useless levels that forced lower-end assets), that's probably subjective.

I didn't mention Warhead.

ITT we learn that nobody should ever have an opinion on a game they don't currently have installed. So no more talking about MoO2.

Who was talking about Master of Orion 2?
Oh, and can I keep you to this rule as well?

[Ford Prefect]

Maybe we could try not to have a really dumb argument with everyone saying really dumb shit? Blah blah blah, some people didn't like Crysis, let's talk about Crysis 2, maybe? Jesus, I only mentioned the original so that I could juxtapose how totally amazing I think the sequel looks.

[adam_grif]

Maybe we could try not to have a really dumb argument with everyone saying really dumb shit?

I'm pretty sure doing that would be a violation of the SD.net prime directive.

[salm]

I think people need to differentiate between the Crysis games and the CryEngines. Just because a game sucked doesn´t mean that the engine it used was crap and vice versa.