Crytek: It's Getting Hard To 'Wow' Gamers With Graphics

[mlopinto2k1]

I have seen and played some of the most graphically basic games and have been "wowed"... try focus on realism that isn't based strictly on visual graphics and more on realism based on movements, control, SOUND and storyline. I have been let down time and time again because the entire focus of the game was dumped into visual appeal. The BEST games in my opinion have all the other branches pushed to the developers mental limits in terms of imagination. GET CREATIVE!

 

[MarcCouture]

Instead of focusing on better graphics, may I suggest Crytek port their games to PCs with fully functioning, rebindable keyboard and mouse controls? E.g. Ryse with its ultra lame fixed keyboard setup.

 

[childofthekorn]

I so enjoy my game play stopped by a cut scene story time tale but I guess if your a baby and need that to help you understand things .. no run and gun the only story I need is the one I tell on how I kicked a$$ and fragged you I don't need hand holding or a story in the game just faster rig better weapons and more maps

like I said with quake nothing has yet to compare with it as fart as game play maps and fanbase -nothing but I guess you need 2 hrs of story for a 6hr game that's just soo sad..

I bought a game to play not to sit and screw around with some story time garb that I don't care nothing about cause I want to play and game

I don't know what you're babbling about. Story lines are not always 2 hours of watching cutscenes, pretty much they never are. Try developing a game with no story whatsoever. It is pointless. And you're whole thought is centered toward FPS games.

CS, CS:S, CS:GO, Quake 1-3, BF1942-2142 these games amongst others had little to no cutscenes, had lore but not something you typically had to wait through and focused entirely on combat. You don't NEED story to have good gameplay, and no story will make gameplay better, it'll make the game overall more immersive. Gameplay typically revolves around hwo things interact with each other (I hit button "1" and it brings up my knife, i walk up to a ledge and hit "space" and I climb instead of a generic hop). In the end it comes down to preference. You prefer story with gameplay while Junky prefers just run and gun gameplay. There can definitely be a bridge of gameplay=graphics=story if any company actually spent enough time on it.

 

[childofthekorn]

@alidan: My Xbox One was $400 and what you are saying is buying a $500 GPU so clearly you have no understanding of budget and that I am not going to spend that valuable money for better graphic effects. Secondly, try building a $400 PC with an operating system, mouse, and keyboard that will beat a console. It will not for sure, and while I'm not spending money the next 6 years for hardware upgrades you can watch $3000 of yours go down the drain to new GPUs.

LOLOLOLOL. Typically most people that spend that much on their PC are doing other things, like making money, off that PC as well.

 

[spentshells]

you're whole thought is centered toward FPS games

well ya not them fagg wizards and fairy rpg i'm a looser looser games

Again, this is a bias statement that FPS games are the best.

They are

 

[Inky_Enston]

Game play is a must. However, when it comes to simulators, such as driving, war, flight etc, story is pretty much irrelevant and immersion is vital. Graphic quality and design help tremendously. Shooters too benefit from visuals. It's all very well that a lot of games are great without great visuals, but folk spend a fortune on hardware and since they do, why not use virtual and graphic power to throw you deeper into the story, race and fight!

 

[yumri]

So as we are hitting the height of realism in games why not go back to trying to intergrate a better AI for gameplay instead of just using the basic presupplied ones in the game engines? you could do something new and diffenret and have a dailog AI so the AI adepts to the human player in single person mode i mean, then make more and better AI types, and maybe go back into plot devlopment in games to wow players again through the use of plot in gameplay and of course choice systems.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

So as we are hitting the height of realism in games why not go back to trying to intergrate a better AI for gameplay instead of just using the basic presupplied ones in the game engines? you could do something new and diffenret and have a dailog AI so the AI adepts to the human player in single person mode i mean, then make more and better AI types, and maybe go back into plot devlopment in games to wow players again through the use of plot in gameplay and of course choice systems.

Agree, it's time we drift aside from GPU power and look into more CPU usage.

 

[yumri]

I kinda disagree and say we should put more focus on making AIs inside the games more real and with more branches to them instead of just pure GPU power or pure CPU power but putting that power to use. Using that extra computing power to do a complex AI set up for battles and/or for in game dialog customized to a person in single player and/or customized to a squad / team in mutliplayer would be totally epic for the first few games which get it right of course but ALOT OF R&D WILL BE NEEDED. This is because AI programming has taken a back burnner in gaming logic and just turned into predictable short scripts of IF trees and not that big of IF trees either.
True or at least better combat AIs and/or dialog AIs would be nice to which the dialog AIs are already in production in Europe and Asia thus just asking for a copy might get us far.. Dialog AIs are huge though so for something that most people will just skip over i do not think a dialog AI will be the way to go but a combat AI might be. Adapting to how you / your team / your raid group fights will be cool and make for a challgeing game against the computer just it most likely will not be able to run smoothly on any console and actually use more than just 4 threads on the CPU and maybe actually use OpenACC for games.

 

[Inky_Enston]

We've not gotten remotely close to realism yet. Just better than before, is all that's been achieved. Playability is just as good as before, and that's the problem. Until a new way of making old better arrives, it will only be slightly better graphics with the addition of a new gun, A.I, jump or the ability to have more A.I and players. I truly think graphics are a way forward but until VR is mastered, the ability to make a game play that has not been done before, we'll continue to have more variants of the same, only better looking.

VR can change this, I believe. Like 3D changed everything when platform was all we had.

You can dress a cow in a tuxedo, but it's still just a cow. Yet, altering your perceived reality and perspective as whole, you can bring in new levels and ideas to, what may not even be called gaming, in the near future.

 

[yumri]

@Inky_Enston i disagree with you that we are not close to realism yet.
A functional long list AI for combat would be better than just new types of guns and enviroments also VR will be buggy for a long time as there is no software for making premade code for it as of yet thus you will have games ported to it for a while ie RIFT. When the oculus RIFT actually has a lauched consumer version that is resonably priced and has enough value to it that gamers will want to use it for more than just a " nice cool new thing " then after a few months get bored then maybe 3D worlds in VR will take off but i doubt that is any where close to now.
for now though AIs are here and more complex than the game devs are willing to put to use so as we have 8 thread, 12 thread and 16 thread CPUs why dont they use that extra threading in the game to run a higher version of the AI suit? Project Spark is a great example of how simple the frameworks are that are in the trilpe A games as the game devs do not add on much more than in Project Spark provides ... of course not for free but still the framework is there and it really hasnt been added onto in games in a long time.
AIs need to improve to get that " realism " that you preseve to be missing as without them actaully making it " feel alive " then no matter how good the graphics it will hit the uncanny valley when we go to VR and just feel wrong without the simulated emotional reponses of a good AI controlled NPC to help us through it ... assumeing that graphics are that good with VR anyways as we have hit the uncanny valley with PC gameing just no one wants to go up to the cliff of it in fear that they will fall over into it for to many gamers thus why graphic quailty is takeing a back seat now and amount of objects rendered, shadows and lighting is coming to the for front of where the graphics are going instead.
The last gen and probably the generation of GPUs before that could enter the uncanny valley of graphics to the point that it is almost like it is real so much that the brain tries to match it with stuff that is real in real life but cant becuase it is virtual and makes us feel put off and/or weird when playing the game so instead of trying to progress past that the artistic designers choose to just have more stuff on screen and much better shadows and lighting in games.
30 person matches are kidna the norm on PC multiplayer from what i can tell now in newer games and confuseing and this is because ppl did not want smaller matches like 2v2, 4v4 and 8v8
a ingame device of a " combat assisdent " AI like in Halo series would be neat IF it actually is useful and actually works and isnt just a bugy unuseful mess.

 

[childofthekorn]

Dynamic AI to adjust the AI's response via difficulty and processing power. More movements (lean, subsequent minor leans as seen in the ARMA series amongst other things). Better physics and realistic ballistics that the BF series have slacked on since the release of the 2nd Bad Company. Better driving mechanics with more attentino to detail (heat/fuel/speed/rpm/broken shocks/ etc) Make it happen crytek if you want to please PC gamers. You've got the graphics down now give us the mechanics that gamers deserve.

 

[Inky_Enston]

Photo realism, isn't realistic, as it is. It will take hoofing power to bring true realism to us, with the help of vr. I'm fully aware Oculus and alike are going to be brilliantly utilised for many other things than gaming. The windows desktop, maps, film, tours, teaching etc. Yet, as for gaming, it will be able to rip us out from the 21 year hole we've been in. A.I will be developed for this due to games not being the same as before, in many ways. It'll be more than just shooters that'll change. We're talking almost like the film, Strange Days (james Cameron wrote it) and it's urges and fixes. An emersion that will involve major rewriting of how we use A.I and how we see it.

If Oculus is to be the price they claim upon release, it'll be the price of an reasonable 1080p ips monitor, and as far as other hardware goes, like 4k monitors and cards to compliment them, or a good racing wheel etc, Oculus is setting up to be a better and cheaper buy than most other hardware you'd be investing in.
I agree A.I should be more intelligent, yet I do think graphics and how their used is as important and both need to progress to inspire and compliment the other. I also think simulation is becoming increasingly popular as things look better and feel more real. People want to know what it's like to jump off a cliff, drive or fly, run away from the Terminator, chat up a stunner, play Al Pacino in the shadows of a nightclub, command the galactic empire, virtual bliss etc, if the perspective, story, look and feel are as real as you can get but without disturbing yourself too much. People will pay to experience what they can't afford or achieve in life, be scared without dying, famous without being known etc. When voice recognition is successfully added to this experience and gloves, with A.I responding to all of the above, then we'll be getting close to realism. Maybe a little too close in some cases. Remember, sight (graphics) is one sense. Combine a real feeling of motion, sound, depth, communication, interaction, vocal feedback both ways etc, then your brain tells you the images look better than they actually are due to the senses being overwhelmed and the brain slowly being convinced enough that not only is this new, it's convincingly real.

Current gaming is a blip of what's to come in the next 10 years and in all, hardware will have to be more powerful and will get that way anyway. It is the nature of science. It feeds itself, and there is no limits to it.

 

[yumri]

Photo realism, isn't realistic, as it is. It will take hoofing power to bring realism to us, with the help of vr. I'm fully aware Oculus and alike are going to be brilliantly utilised for many other things than gaming. The windows desktop, maps, film, tours, teaching etc. Yet, as for gaming, it will be able to rip us away from the 21 year hole we've been in. A.I will be developed for this due to games not being the same as before. It'll be more than just shooters that'll change. We're talking almost like the film, Strange Days (james Cameron wrote it) and it's urges and fixes. An emersion that will evolve major rewriting of how we use A.I and how we see it.

If Oculus is to the price they claim upon release, it'll be the price of an reasonable 1080p ips monitor, and as far as other hardware goes, like 4k monitors and cards to compliment them, or a good racing wheel etc, Oculus is setting up to be a better and cheaper buy than most other hardware you'd be investing in.
I agree A.I should be more intelligent, yet I do think graphics and how their used is as important. I also think simulation is becoming increasingly popular as things look better and feel more real. People want to know what it's like to jump off a cliff, drive or fly, run away from the Terminator, chat up a stunner, play Al Pacino in the shadows of a nightclub etc, if the perspective, story, look and feel as real as you can get but without disturbing yourself too much. People will pay to experience what they can't afford, be scared without dying, famous without being known etc

Current gaming is a blip of what's to come in the next 5-10 years!

i think you place to much stock in VR and it will most likely flop like the past 3 times companies have tried to introduce it onto the market. But the oculus rift is getting more traction than they did so hopefully it will have some more uses than just 18 specialized games for that one device like the nintendo whatever did.

 

[Inky_Enston]

Like anything new there will be flops. Yet it's not new as you've said and therefore is more likely to succeed where others have failed. It's all baby steps, even our current cpu's, GPU'S etc are baby steps.

I've edited my last comment and yes, I do put alot of stock into Oculus. Once they've mastered it, they can work on the titles. The hardware needs to come first. I do believe, when it's ready for the consumer it'll be one of the biggest things ever to compliment the pc. From there on, it'll only get better. Oculus 2 will fit better, be lighter etc. They also have far more than 17 titles in the works. Windows itself will utilise it. Not everyone has gone public, just yet. But will do once there's a release date.

 

[yumri]

Like anything new there will be flops. Yet it's not new as you've said and therefore is more likely to succeed where others have failed. It's all baby steps, even our current cpu's, GPU'S etc are baby steps.

I've edited my last comment and yes, I do put alot of stock into Oculus. Once they've mastered it, they can work on the titles. The hardware needs to come first. I do believe, when it's ready for the consumer it'll be one of the biggest things ever to compliment the pc. From there on, it'll only get better. Oculus 2 will fit better, be lighter etc.

I do not think it will be the Oculus Rift but another product inspired as they are takeing way to long with the Oculus Rift is all. In that i do agree with you on it is all baby steps as each generation of CPUs and GPUs are just baby steps but with VR tech it is more of leaps and bounds when it gets a refresh not just baby steps. To that i think is the problem that it isnt just baby steps but leaps and bounds between times of releases of where it is in devlopment while the consumer base is now use to haveing to go through baby steps and not wait for the next leap in technology.
The other main thing wrong with it is controls as the eyes will be covered so you can expenice the full veiw of the game, movie or whatever what you are useing to control it will most likely have to change alot as haveing the standard controls on the keyboard are not going to work to well with it ... maybe with a console controller but not a keyboard to this another technology has come out just it hasnt posted anything about its release name yet but it uses your hands, wrists and forearms as the controller allowing for a much wider range of controls to use for whatever they will implement it into though that control scheme was seeming like they ment it for one of those robotic arm controls instead of just a program that will not be able to have the reactive movement of a human behind it.
They are being tested together and working together well in simple visual enviroments of course.

 

[Inky_Enston]

I agree, it won't be everything, at first. But hopefully it will take off enough to inspire competition, which in turn creates a much better Oculus 2 or whatever is next.

If it succeeds, alot of other hardware and software will follow and compliment it very shortly after. Like 5 minutes after anything successful arrives there's a bundle of aftermarket gear and apps jumping on their wagon.

I think it's all a step in the right direction, regardless of how many failures have been before. We're living in a very digitally aware world now and folk are more likely to warm to such equipment than ever before.

I'm always excited by progress