CryENGINE 3, Crysis 2 to Feature Full 3D Support

[Marcus Yam]

Yes, I believe it's safe to say that it can run Crysis.

CryENGINE 3, Crysis 2 to Feature Full 3D Support : Read more

 

[nforce4max]

Great we have to get upgrades again to not have a slide show but oh well some if they are lucky enough go ahead and land a second 5970.

 

[dameon51]

Still haven't played the first one... I guess I'll wait until Crysis 2 comes out on xbox, hopefully it will look as good as the first one did on the PC.

 

[shadow187]

Let me guess; because it's a console port, no Dx11?

Fk the systems, man!

 

[dragonsqrrl]

o jeez... so I'm going to build a new computer this year, tricked out with all the latest high end hardware, and it'll just barely be able to run this on high settings (with slide shows to follow at every massive gun fight).

I just hope it doesn't have ridiculously high hardware requirements like the 1st game. Requirements reasonably-priced high end systems have only now just reached, over 2 years after launch. Here's crossing my fingers CryENGINE 3.

 

[steiner666]

This is awesome news. Now that I have the 3d Vision hardware, i just have to wait until Nvidia get around to releasing a GPU that would have a snowball's chance in hell of running any Cryengine in 3D with acceptable FPS.

 

[micky_lund]

so it does play crysis?
they should make this just PC, so consoles can like it or lump it, like we had to do with MW2

 

[Swindez95]

I personally hope CryENGINE3 and Crysis 2 are every bit as advanced as the orginal was. I know most wouldn't and won't agree with this but when developers are able to achieve that level of detail to the point where hardware has to play catch-up instead of how 98% of the computer world is today and the software playing catch up, it brings a smile to my face. Just think, we have all kinds of programs even today that still can only utilize only 2 sometimes more cpu cores and with the newest generation of cpu's just around the corner with hexacore processors, all that processing power will just simply go to waste since no software can fully parallelize itself to take advantage of the increased power. Same strategy for games except we all know very well designed games (crysis for example) simply need all the GPU power they can get.

 

[Transsive]

Considering it will run on the consoles... and in 3d, the requirements will probably be lower than the first one... unless they have something special in store for the PC version.

 

[restatement3dofted]

[citation][nom]dameon51[/nom]Still haven't played the first one... I guess I'll wait until Crysis 2 comes out on xbox, hopefully it will look as good as the first one did on the PC.[/citation]

I laughed so hard when I read that I nearly peed myself. There is not even the slightest prayer that an xbox 360 port of a Crysis game could ever look as good as Crysis did on a PC with hardware to support it. Crysis still hammers anything but top of the line hardware at worthwhile resolutions. The 360 just doesn't have the muscle to match that sort of performance. By necessity, Crysis 2 is going to have to be dumbed down to run smoothly on the 360.

 

[anonymousdude]

I doubt it will be as demanding as the original simply due to the fact that it needs to be developed for consoles. The 3-d on the other hand will most likely cause it to run like the original due to the fact that it requires double the processing power to display.

 

[dragonsqrrl]

[citation][nom]swindez95[/nom]I personally hope CryENGINE3 and Crysis 2 are every bit as advanced as the orginal was. I know most wouldn't and won't agree with this but when developers are able to achieve that level of detail to the point where hardware has to play catch-up instead of how 98% of the computer world is today and the software playing catch up, it brings a smile to my face. Just think, we have all kinds of programs even today that still can only utilize only 2 sometimes more cpu cores and with the newest generation of cpu's just around the corner with hexacore processors, all that processing power will just simply go to waste since no software can fully parallelize itself to take advantage of the increased power. Same strategy for games except we all know very well designed games (crysis for example) simply need all the GPU power they can get.[/citation]
I certainly don't disagree with you. I think the graphical innovations found in Crysis were great for gamers and the industry alike, and I only hope that CryENGINE 3 can follow in its footsteps in that regard.

But at the same time, Crysis and CryENGINE 2 had some problems. It just didn't seem to be a very efficient engine, and didn't scale very well at different graphics settings. While most would agree that Crysis maxed out was the most visually dynamic and beautiful game ever, no computer could run the game at those settings upon its release. And I swear Modern Warfare looked and ran better at max settings +AA then Crysis did at medium settings. It also didn't seem to scale as well as most other high profile games when coupled with faster graphics hardware. I think the performance improvements found in Crysis Warhead was a prime example of what could be, and of the efficiency problems I was referring to. A balance needs to be found, and CryENGINE 3 needs to be a good performing engine that scales well in order to meet the performance efficiency that it's graphics capabilities are sure to demand.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

Crysis 1 was so graphically advanced that the Xbox360 and PS3 could not run it.

Crysis 2 and the CryEngine3 will be available on the consoles so the 360 and PS3 will be able to run it.

Thus, by logical conclusion, Crysis2/Cryengine3 will be toned down and less graphically advanced than Crysis1/Cryengine2.

PC gamers getting shafted once again by game makers who'd rather make retarded console ports.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

[citation][nom]dragonsqrrl[/nom] And I swear Modern Warfare looked and ran better at max settings +AA then Crysis did at medium settings. It also didn't seem to scale as well as most other high profile games when coupled with faster graphics hardware. [/citation]

That point is moot when comparing different games at different graphical settings. TES IV Oblivion at low looked way worse than TES III Morrowind, yet it also ran way worse as well.

 

[pcxt21]

[citation][nom]Bluescreendeath[/nom].PC gamers getting shafted once again by game makers who'd rather make retarded console ports.[/citation]

Well at least we still have DICE, Valve, and Blizzard left. I sincerely hope if we get a crap port that Crysis 2 is the death of Crytek.

 

[Parsian]

[citation][nom]shadow187[/nom]Let me guess; because it's a console port, no Dx11?Fk the systems, man![/citation]

CryEngine 3 supports DX 11 on PC.

[citation][nom]dragonsqrrl[/nom]I certainly don't disagree with you. I think the graphical innovations found in Crysis were great for gamers and the industry alike, and I only hope that CryENGINE 3 can follow in its footsteps in that regard.But at the same time, Crysis and CryENGINE 2 had some problems. It just didn't seem to be a very efficient engine, and didn't scale very well at different graphics settings. While most would agree that Crysis maxed out was the most visually dynamic and beautiful game ever, no computer could run the game at those settings upon its release. And I swear Modern Warfare looked and ran better at max settings +AA then Crysis did at medium settings. It also didn't seem to scale as well as most other high profile games when coupled with faster graphics hardware. I think the performance improvements found in Crysis Warhead was a prime example of what could be, and of the efficiency problems I was referring to. A balance needs to be found, and CryENGINE 3 needs to be a good performing engine that scales well in order to meet the performance efficiency that it's graphics capabilities are sure to demand.[/citation]

COD MW 1 and 2 didnt even touch CryEngine 2. Despite popular belief, Crysis can be run on p4 system.

please check out crymod.com for user created created tweaks and configs to see the capability of the engine (or simply click below and browse previous pages for images)

http://www.crymod.com/thread.php?threadid=42773&threadview=0&hilight=&hilightuser=0&page=167

 

[Parsian]

[citation][nom]Bluescreendeath[/nom]Crysis 1 was so graphically advanced that the Xbox360 and PS3 could not run it. Crysis 2 and the CryEngine3 will be available on the consoles so the 360 and PS3 will be able to run it.Thus, by logical conclusion, Crysis2/Cryengine3 will be toned down and less graphically advanced than Crysis1/Cryengine2.PC gamers getting shafted once again by game makers who'd rather make retarded console ports.[/citation]

Logical fallacy!

just because you can run the engine on lower end system does not mean, they have only created contents for consoles. take a look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEKusqo-l0o

 

[FloKid]

PS3s don't play no Crysis... What are they trying to make Doom2?

 

[Bluescreendeath]

[citation][nom]Parsian[/nom]Logical fallacy!just because you can run the engine on lower end system does not mean, they have only created contents for consoles. take a look at this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEKusqo-l0o[/citation]

Your statement would make sense if the developers had created higher modes of graphical detail for the PC version, not just DX11. This would include a different set of textures, rendering, different HDR, etc...essentially an entirely different version of the game.

Here's a comparison between Crysis 1 and Crysis 2 graphics. Crysis 1 is by far superior.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WJG14uLA3k

 

[Kelavarus]

[citation][nom]dragonsqrrl[/nom]I certainly don't disagree with you. I think the graphical innovations found in Crysis were great for gamers and the industry alike, and I only hope that CryENGINE 3 can follow in its footsteps in that regard.But at the same time, Crysis and CryENGINE 2 had some problems. It just didn't seem to be a very efficient engine, and didn't scale very well at different graphics settings. While most would agree that Crysis maxed out was the most visually dynamic and beautiful game ever, no computer could run the game at those settings upon its release. And I swear Modern Warfare looked and ran better at max settings +AA then Crysis did at medium settings. It also didn't seem to scale as well as most other high profile games when coupled with faster graphics hardware. I think the performance improvements found in Crysis Warhead was a prime example of what could be, and of the efficiency problems I was referring to. A balance needs to be found, and CryENGINE 3 needs to be a good performing engine that scales well in order to meet the performance efficiency that it's graphics capabilities are sure to demand.[/citation]

Except... When was Modern Warfare doing NEAR what Crysis was doing, in terms of lighting and physics and AI calculations, among other things? Umm... Just about never, really. Not to mention LOD, Clouds, FX, etc...

Comparing really any engine to CryEngine won't be apples to apples, because most engines just don't do all the same things at the same time that CryEngine was doing in Crysis.

 

[Parsian]

[citation][nom]Bluescreendeath[/nom]Your statement would make sense if the developers had created higher modes of graphical detail for the PC version, not just DX11. This would include a different set of textures, rendering, different HDR, etc...essentially an entirely different version of the game.Here's a comparison between Crysis 1 and Crysis 2 graphics. Crysis 1 is by far superior.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WJG14uLA3k[/citation]


the video you posted, which i saw long ago, is specifically mentions at the buttom the comparison of the PC CryEngine 2 vs CryEngine 3 running on console only.

if you look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEKusqo-l0o

and the spec of pc that is running this, you will realize that major features of the CryEngine 3 (which is beyond anything from any other developer) is PC exclusive.

 

[dbrooks08]

[citation][nom]shadow187[/nom]Let me guess; because it's a console port, no Dx11?Fk the systems, man![/citation]
The consoles hold back the cutting edge. IF Sony/M$ released a new console i would imagine it would support DX11 or the console equivalent. Then you would see PC games really supporting DX11.
What do consoles use? DX9 or DX10? Neither?

 

[dbrooks08]

[citation][nom]Parsian[/nom]CryEngine 3 supports DX 11 on PC.COD MW 1 and 2 didnt even touch CryEngine 2. Despite popular belief, Crysis can be run on p4 system.please check out crymod.com for user created created tweaks and configs to see the capability of the engine (or simply click below and browse previous pages for images)http://www.crymod.com/thread.php?t [...] 0&page=167[/citation]
Yeah right. Crytek used the PC gamers to establish Crysis. They got hype outta the deal with everyone saying how hard it is to run crysis and how awesome it is. They are going to sell alot of console games. Thats just the industry now; the money isnt in PC gaming.
I miss the old days when anything was better on the PC, but now that 75% of the games are ports we arent showing off our rigs.
I jus got Bad Company 2 and im running some sh*t 8800gt the game runs fine. NO 50+ fps avg but its def holding its own with AAx4 and Highest settings.

 

[dragonsqrrl]

[citation][nom]Bluescreendeath[/nom]That point is moot when comparing different games at different graphical settings. TES IV Oblivion at low looked way worse than TES III Morrowind, yet it also ran way worse as well.[/citation]
If that's true then Oblivion didn't scale as efficiently as Morrowind, which is similar to the argument I was making in my comparison. Although they are different games, it's still very relevant to look at how a certain engine performs 'visually' while rendering, in comparison to another engine. While graphical settings will differ from game to game, and it's true that comparing high or medium settings in two different games 'just' for the sake of frame rate comparisons may be "moot", the basis of my argument was not a frame rate comparison. It was a visual comparison, which I then accentuated by saying that performance was lower in Crysis despite the renderings on screen not looking as nice.

Basically I'm referring to the way the game looks (Texture quality, lighting, environmental effects), and yes, the associated frame rate when rendering. Comparing the visuals in games in this way is an issue that reviews often bring up.

 

[baracubra]

I can't wait! When they did the tech demo of the engine at E3, they showed the same map running simultaneously on the pc and consoles, and the PC version looked far superior...The map and storyline is the same, but the PC version DOES use different textures and extra effects, at least thats what I remember Crytek saying....