Evo 5 RS
Edited For Accuracy x
ClioSport.net
Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
Crysis 2 DX11 [PC]
- Thread starter Munson
- Start date
Edited For Accuracy x
Evo 5 RS
aren't we all xD
Christopher
ClioSport Club Member
Z4M
Busted. :dapprove:
I like it though, if I'm honest. It's got it's flaws but all the NPC's have remained extinguished so far.
I like it though, if I'm honest. It's got it's flaws but all the NPC's have remained extinguished so far.
Darren S
ClioSport Club Member
Feck! Downloaded the DX11 patch and the DX11 Tessellation Pack earlier. What a difference!
I FRAP's quite a bit earlier - such a shame that the screenshot below doesn't really show how damn good the surface textures are now..
D.
I FRAP's quite a bit earlier - such a shame that the screenshot below doesn't really show how damn good the surface textures are now..
D.
Christopher
ClioSport Club Member
Z4M
Does it still love motion blur? lol.
Darren S
ClioSport Club Member
Evo 5 RS
I'm calling it now
Crysis 3.0 will be s**t.
Crysis 3.0 will be s**t.
Christopher
ClioSport Club Member
Z4M
Why change a formula that sells? Lol.
Evo 5 RS
I was under the impression it didn't do that well second time round. I played through it again with the DX11 patch, but it's just a pretty rail shooter at the end of it. First ones way better when you get down to it.
What other game do you get to drive through shanty houses
What other game do you get to drive through shanty houses
Darren S
ClioSport Club Member
Nickson
ClioSport Club Member
Christopher
ClioSport Club Member
Z4M
Yup lol.
Awful games.
Awful games.
I'd rather the games got more awful, at least we'll expect less when we come to play it!
Perhaps, just maybe, Crysis 3 will be good! It's hard to imagine I know, but maybe they'll pull their finger out!
Perhaps, just maybe, Crysis 3 will be good! It's hard to imagine I know, but maybe they'll pull their finger out!
Darren S
ClioSport Club Member
Depends which way they go. Ignore it's beauty (which no doubt it will have by the bucketload) - and see what type of game they produce. A Crysis 2 'follow-up' will sell loads and be MUCH easier to produce cross-platform. Stay true to the original game and us PC lot will be in our element. But they won't be able to make that cross-platform unless they massively compromise the scale and scope of the game engine.
Tough call for Crytek. I'd love it if they went balls-out and made it for PCs only with at least 2GB of gfx hardware. The chances of that however, are similar to me being sucked dry by Ms. Beckinsale. Twice.
D.
LY 220 Trophy+IB PH1
EA has confirmed Crysis 3, a sandbox FPS built using the latest CryEngine tech and due out on PC, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 in the spring of 2013.
You play Prophet, who returns to New York in 2047. He finds the city has been encased in a Nanodome created by the corrupt Cell Corporation. The New York City Liberty Dome is now an urban rainforest, packed with overgrown trees, swamplands and rivers.
Inside there are seven “distinct and treacherous” environments, known as the Seven Wonders. Prophet uses a “lethal composite bow”, first seen last week in leaked box art images, an enhanced Nanosuit and alien tech.
Prophet is on a revenge mission after uncovering the truth behind Cell Corporation’s motives for building the quarantined Nanodomes. These were CELL’s covert attempt at a land and technology grab in its quest for global domination. “With Alien Ceph lurking around every corner and human enemies on the attack, nobody is safe in the path of vengeance. Everyone is a target in Prophet’s quest for retribution,” reads the official blurb.
Meanwhile, German developer Crytek announced the Crysis 3 pre-order details. The Hunter Edition grants early access to the new bow weapon and its attachments, plus the Hunter Nanosuit module for use in multiplayer. You’ll also get a bonus XP boost up to level five, a unique bow skin and three exclusive dog tags. Grab the Hunter Edition from Origin.com and select retailers for £49.99.
Other multiplayer unlocks, scattered across the retailer universe:
You play Prophet, who returns to New York in 2047. He finds the city has been encased in a Nanodome created by the corrupt Cell Corporation. The New York City Liberty Dome is now an urban rainforest, packed with overgrown trees, swamplands and rivers.
Inside there are seven “distinct and treacherous” environments, known as the Seven Wonders. Prophet uses a “lethal composite bow”, first seen last week in leaked box art images, an enhanced Nanosuit and alien tech.
Prophet is on a revenge mission after uncovering the truth behind Cell Corporation’s motives for building the quarantined Nanodomes. These were CELL’s covert attempt at a land and technology grab in its quest for global domination. “With Alien Ceph lurking around every corner and human enemies on the attack, nobody is safe in the path of vengeance. Everyone is a target in Prophet’s quest for retribution,” reads the official blurb.
Meanwhile, German developer Crytek announced the Crysis 3 pre-order details. The Hunter Edition grants early access to the new bow weapon and its attachments, plus the Hunter Nanosuit module for use in multiplayer. You’ll also get a bonus XP boost up to level five, a unique bow skin and three exclusive dog tags. Grab the Hunter Edition from Origin.com and select retailers for £49.99.
Other multiplayer unlocks, scattered across the retailer universe:
Stalker Pack: Includes the base game, all Hunter Edition content and the following early multiplayer unlocks: for players who like to stalk their prey from the shadows the Stalker Pack provides early multiplayer access to the deadly semi-auto Jackal shotgun. This powerful, close-range shotgun comes with a unique silencer attachment, custom weapon skin and two exclusive themed in-game dog tags.
Overkill Pack: Includes the base game, all Hunter Edition content and the following early multiplayer unlocks: the Overkill Pack features early multiplayer access to the Typhoon assault weapon and skin. Spewing 500 rounds a second, the Typhoon gives players the ability to go guns blazing to take back the Liberty Dome. Also included are two exclusive Overkill themed in-game dog tags.
Predator Pack: Includes the base game, all the Hunter Edition content and the following early multiplayer unlocks: the Predator Pack delivers early multiplayer access to the Feline submachine gun and exclusive camo. With an extremely fast rate of fire and a 60 round magazine the Feline is highly effective and deadly, at short range.
Overkill Pack: Includes the base game, all Hunter Edition content and the following early multiplayer unlocks: the Overkill Pack features early multiplayer access to the Typhoon assault weapon and skin. Spewing 500 rounds a second, the Typhoon gives players the ability to go guns blazing to take back the Liberty Dome. Also included are two exclusive Overkill themed in-game dog tags.
Predator Pack: Includes the base game, all the Hunter Edition content and the following early multiplayer unlocks: the Predator Pack delivers early multiplayer access to the Feline submachine gun and exclusive camo. With an extremely fast rate of fire and a 60 round magazine the Feline is highly effective and deadly, at short range.
LY 220 Trophy+IB PH1
New images here too:
www.eteknix.com/news/crysis-3-screenshots-revealed/
www.eteknix.com/news/crysis-3-screenshots-revealed/
Evo 5 RS
they're just shots in the SDK taken at like a bazillion resolution. Stupid really
lol at biodomes. Clearly liked how The Last of Us looks then
lol at biodomes. Clearly liked how The Last of Us looks then
Evo 5 RS
It is apparently (going by the press release) now a proper "sandbox game" as such. They managed to port the original game to Xbox so they know it can be done, the question is how big will it really be.
Can't see it personally. I expect something nice as always but there'll be no massive leap forward. I fully expect to see high resolution textures and DX11 support added at a later date from release. As long as it's ported for Xbox you'll be looking at a small sandbox at best.
Darren S
ClioSport Club Member
Unfortunately, I predict you'll be 99.9% correct there. Made worse by the fact that a lot of consolers will have cut their teeth on Crysis 2 and not had the chance to play the original in all its glory. The benchmark for them has been set at Crysis 2 +1 - so if it repeats what they've already had, I doubt they will complain.
Again, it's the same old argument. We had better, more impressive, more expansive games years ago - and increasingly the same formulaic "that will suffice" attitude is becoming mainstream. BF2142 vs BF3 as an example. Rofl.... simply no contest.
As bizarre as it sounds, I simply can't wait for the XBox 720 and PS4 to at least try and bring the playing field up to anywhere near level. Crytek could do a PC only Crysis 3 if they really wanted. But they simply will not risk it.
D.
SharkyUK
ClioSport Club Member
Interestingly, the shift to ever-more advanced and high-fidelity visuals has been/is somewhat of a double-edged sword. (It's something I have been fortunate enough to experience during my time in the games industry, I'm old enough 
to have seen the shift from 2D to 3D to the latest all-singing graphics technology).
The upside is that visuals can look stunning running on modern and current hardware. Whilst I acknowledge that consoles can't compete at the same level as a decent gaming rig, it can be argued that both PC and console are certainly capable of producing a good level of visuals to satisfy the gamer. That's all well and good but there is a downside to this; and this is the fact that (to produce this level of visual splendour) the amount of effort and amount of work needed to produce the assets for a given game has shot through the roof. I daresay the average gamer has no idea what goes into creating the assets that finally end up in a game (and why should they, they are the customer and simply wish for a decent game for their hard-earned!) but I think they'd be surprised if they were to see a typical workflow for a modern day title!
To give some idea of how things have changed, I remember working on a game in the late 1990's. The budget for the game was considerably less than £300k. The core development team consisted of approximately 14 people - around 8 programmers and 6 artists. Programmers were either engine/technology developers (working on the 3D engine, physics, etc.) or gameplay programmers (working on the UI's, the gameplay mechanics, localisation, etc.) The art team consisted of a couple of texture artists, a couple of 3D model builders, an animator, a level designer and a concept artist. And that was all that was needed in terms of that core development team. The required assets for the game were really basic back then - no normal maps, no shader technology, low-poly models, low resolution textures... it was all quite straight forward (ignoring the difficulties of getting things working on what we'd now consider seriously underpowered and ancient hardware!) A large portion of the budget and effort was spent on the programming aspect of the game. More often than not the artists would be waiting for the code monkeys to get something fixed or implemented so that they could see their latest creations up and running in the game world. Code monkeys were God's; they were revered. They wore the daddy-pants! (I'm not biased).
But gradually things changed and we rolled into the 2000's... Game and graphics technology was still quite modest by today's standards but emerging technologies (improved streaming, etc.) meant that games were getting larger; game worlds, environments, levels were getting larger and consequently more 'stuff' was needed to fill that space. It was no big deal - many games were still quite modest in terms of what they could produce visually. Despite having vast areas to 'game' in novel technologies meant that there wasn't a massive increase in terms of the effort required to produce the content for those levels. 3D graphics were still quite basic (by today's standards) and despite getting excited by multi-textured objects and blended textures the effort required to produce them wasn't too bad. A large proportion of the development effort was still with the coders; developing new techniques that allowed vast worlds to be realised - BSP trees, lightmapping, portals, potential visibility sets and so forth. In my experience, around the early 2000's (in terms of the core development team) it wasn't unusual to see a 50/50 in terms of numbers of coders/artists working on a title.
Then boom... suddenly things really started to take off. "Next-gen" had become a buzz word and GPU technology was taking off in a big way. DirectX (and other API's) were maturing nicely and offered a rich feature set for developers to explore. With it came a wealth of new ideas and methods for producing visuals. Normal maps, specular maps, reflection maps, depth buffers, g-buffers, multiple render targets, and the list goes on. Gamers' expectations suddenly ramped up as they saw what was possible with the new technologies. It was also an exciting time for the developers! But then a 'shift' started to take place...
It was found that programming effort for a given title was becoming less when balanced against the requirements for art assets for that game. Admittedly the required coding knowledge was perhaps a little more specialist (in terms of getting to grips with shader technology and optimising engines to work with GPU's) but the amount of effort needed to produce the artwork had skyrocketed. It was no longer simply a case of building a 3D object, creating a diffuse texture set for it, keyframe animating it and then dropping it into a game engine. It had become a WHOLE lot more. Suddenly there was a requirement to produce (as an example) textures for a game object - and then to create additional textures that allowed shader technology to get clever with those textures and thus allow techniques that we now take for granted in today's games. Hmm... not sure that last sentence makes sense(!) so to give an example... A game I worked on in the mid 2000's had a requirement for a 'creature'. The creature was first modelled at a high resolution (with many polygons and high-fidelity textures) and this version was used for media purposes (videos, screenshots) and ALSO to generate normal maps for the game. Then a low-poly version of the creature was generated for in-game and this would take the aforementioned normal map to provide additional 'surface' detail. Then a specular map was generated for the creature; this determined how shiny the creature appeared when light hit it. And then supplementary textures were generated so that special effects could be performed in-game on that creature - e.g. for heat maps, etc. Then came the job of animating and so on and so forth... To cut a long story short (unlike my post) the amount of effort required (human and machine) - as you can see - ramped up considerably. On the game, the core development team consisted of approximately 8 programmers and 20 artists... Suddenly it was the artists that found themselves under pressure as they were required to produce more and more content in an effort to realise their in-game creations wrapped in "next-gen" goodness. As a rough estimate, the dev house I worked for probably saw a 3x increase in effort and manpower required purely for the art side of things!
Due to the length of this post, and the fact I stopped to grab my dinner, I've lost my train of thought now! LOL! But I hope the gist of what I'm trying to say comes through. I think that some of the expansive sandbox games we perhaps were hoping for are as much restricted by available budget/manpower (due to the artistic requirements) as they are by arguably having a console as a lead platform (as opposed to the PC). It's easy to be wow'd by the latest engine tech from Crytek, Epic et al and their respective technologies are no doubt impressive. Heck, they make me w- salivate at times! But a little nod to the art guys is needed sometimes. The lengths they have to go to to produce the assets can be draining and they ultimately determine how the game looks. For all the greatest underlying technology in the world, modern games would just look like sh*te with programmer art throughout...
to have seen the shift from 2D to 3D to the latest all-singing graphics technology).The upside is that visuals can look stunning running on modern and current hardware. Whilst I acknowledge that consoles can't compete at the same level as a decent gaming rig, it can be argued that both PC and console are certainly capable of producing a good level of visuals to satisfy the gamer. That's all well and good but there is a downside to this; and this is the fact that (to produce this level of visual splendour) the amount of effort and amount of work needed to produce the assets for a given game has shot through the roof. I daresay the average gamer has no idea what goes into creating the assets that finally end up in a game (and why should they, they are the customer and simply wish for a decent game for their hard-earned!) but I think they'd be surprised if they were to see a typical workflow for a modern day title!
To give some idea of how things have changed, I remember working on a game in the late 1990's. The budget for the game was considerably less than £300k. The core development team consisted of approximately 14 people - around 8 programmers and 6 artists. Programmers were either engine/technology developers (working on the 3D engine, physics, etc.) or gameplay programmers (working on the UI's, the gameplay mechanics, localisation, etc.) The art team consisted of a couple of texture artists, a couple of 3D model builders, an animator, a level designer and a concept artist. And that was all that was needed in terms of that core development team. The required assets for the game were really basic back then - no normal maps, no shader technology, low-poly models, low resolution textures... it was all quite straight forward (ignoring the difficulties of getting things working on what we'd now consider seriously underpowered and ancient hardware!) A large portion of the budget and effort was spent on the programming aspect of the game. More often than not the artists would be waiting for the code monkeys to get something fixed or implemented so that they could see their latest creations up and running in the game world. Code monkeys were God's; they were revered. They wore the daddy-pants! (I'm not biased).
But gradually things changed and we rolled into the 2000's... Game and graphics technology was still quite modest by today's standards but emerging technologies (improved streaming, etc.) meant that games were getting larger; game worlds, environments, levels were getting larger and consequently more 'stuff' was needed to fill that space. It was no big deal - many games were still quite modest in terms of what they could produce visually. Despite having vast areas to 'game' in novel technologies meant that there wasn't a massive increase in terms of the effort required to produce the content for those levels. 3D graphics were still quite basic (by today's standards) and despite getting excited by multi-textured objects and blended textures the effort required to produce them wasn't too bad. A large proportion of the development effort was still with the coders; developing new techniques that allowed vast worlds to be realised - BSP trees, lightmapping, portals, potential visibility sets and so forth. In my experience, around the early 2000's (in terms of the core development team) it wasn't unusual to see a 50/50 in terms of numbers of coders/artists working on a title.
Then boom... suddenly things really started to take off. "Next-gen" had become a buzz word and GPU technology was taking off in a big way. DirectX (and other API's) were maturing nicely and offered a rich feature set for developers to explore. With it came a wealth of new ideas and methods for producing visuals. Normal maps, specular maps, reflection maps, depth buffers, g-buffers, multiple render targets, and the list goes on. Gamers' expectations suddenly ramped up as they saw what was possible with the new technologies. It was also an exciting time for the developers! But then a 'shift' started to take place...
It was found that programming effort for a given title was becoming less when balanced against the requirements for art assets for that game. Admittedly the required coding knowledge was perhaps a little more specialist (in terms of getting to grips with shader technology and optimising engines to work with GPU's) but the amount of effort needed to produce the artwork had skyrocketed. It was no longer simply a case of building a 3D object, creating a diffuse texture set for it, keyframe animating it and then dropping it into a game engine. It had become a WHOLE lot more. Suddenly there was a requirement to produce (as an example) textures for a game object - and then to create additional textures that allowed shader technology to get clever with those textures and thus allow techniques that we now take for granted in today's games. Hmm... not sure that last sentence makes sense(!) so to give an example... A game I worked on in the mid 2000's had a requirement for a 'creature'. The creature was first modelled at a high resolution (with many polygons and high-fidelity textures) and this version was used for media purposes (videos, screenshots) and ALSO to generate normal maps for the game. Then a low-poly version of the creature was generated for in-game and this would take the aforementioned normal map to provide additional 'surface' detail. Then a specular map was generated for the creature; this determined how shiny the creature appeared when light hit it. And then supplementary textures were generated so that special effects could be performed in-game on that creature - e.g. for heat maps, etc. Then came the job of animating and so on and so forth... To cut a long story short (unlike my post) the amount of effort required (human and machine) - as you can see - ramped up considerably. On the game, the core development team consisted of approximately 8 programmers and 20 artists... Suddenly it was the artists that found themselves under pressure as they were required to produce more and more content in an effort to realise their in-game creations wrapped in "next-gen" goodness.
As a rough estimate, the dev house I worked for probably saw a 3x increase in effort and manpower required purely for the art side of things!Due to the length of this post, and the fact I stopped to grab my dinner, I've lost my train of thought now! LOL! But I hope the gist of what I'm trying to say comes through. I think that some of the expansive sandbox games we perhaps were hoping for are as much restricted by available budget/manpower (due to the artistic requirements) as they are by arguably having a console as a lead platform (as opposed to the PC). It's easy to be wow'd by the latest engine tech from Crytek, Epic et al and their respective technologies are no doubt impressive. Heck, they make me w- salivate at times! But a little nod to the art guys is needed sometimes. The lengths they have to go to to produce the assets can be draining and they ultimately determine how the game looks. For all the greatest underlying technology in the world, modern games would just look like sh*te with programmer art throughout...
Darren S
ClioSport Club Member
^^^ - great post, Andy!
Do you think the balance for artwork and the 'estimation' of the typical gamer started to shift with the likes of the PS1? I say that as an example as I remember many of my PS1 games having very impressive (for the time) - pre-rendered intro videos and sequences that clearly, the in-game couldn't hope to match.
Yet the seed of 'what could be done' was already planted. To Joe Public, they probably couldn't really understand why their little console could produce that start sequence on the TV - yet they couldn't actually play it like that. As a consequence I think there's been a creeping-forward nature in terms of what players want, graphically. And many-a-time it fails because there's a disproportionate slant on the game looking good - rather than actually playing well at all. I'm sure plenty of people on here would argue that Forza 4 is the much better game than GT5 - though clearly the latter does have the graphical edge.
Whiter, brighter, flashier sells. And unfortunately, true genius in terms of game mechanics often gets over-shadowed because A) - it's boring and B) it's boring.
Ultimately, I love to have the bells & whistles enabled on all my games - and the PC platform allows that with ease (and then some). However, I would ALWAYS sacrifice graphical beauty in favour of how a game plays - and the clever mechanics beneath it. Take the 1.2GB patch yesterday that updated The Witcher 2 on my PC. I really should focus a bit more effort into what the devs have pumped into that behemoth of a game. Yet instead, my attention is diverted to the wonderfully simple (and very nostalgic feeling) Legend of Grimrock. It's awesome.
D.
Do you think the balance for artwork and the 'estimation' of the typical gamer started to shift with the likes of the PS1? I say that as an example as I remember many of my PS1 games having very impressive (for the time) - pre-rendered intro videos and sequences that clearly, the in-game couldn't hope to match.
Yet the seed of 'what could be done' was already planted. To Joe Public, they probably couldn't really understand why their little console could produce that start sequence on the TV - yet they couldn't actually play it like that. As a consequence I think there's been a creeping-forward nature in terms of what players want, graphically. And many-a-time it fails because there's a disproportionate slant on the game looking good - rather than actually playing well at all. I'm sure plenty of people on here would argue that Forza 4 is the much better game than GT5 - though clearly the latter does have the graphical edge.
Whiter, brighter, flashier sells. And unfortunately, true genius in terms of game mechanics often gets over-shadowed because A) - it's boring and B) it's boring.
Ultimately, I love to have the bells & whistles enabled on all my games - and the PC platform allows that with ease (and then some). However, I would ALWAYS sacrifice graphical beauty in favour of how a game plays - and the clever mechanics beneath it. Take the 1.2GB patch yesterday that updated The Witcher 2 on my PC. I really should focus a bit more effort into what the devs have pumped into that behemoth of a game. Yet instead, my attention is diverted to the wonderfully simple (and very nostalgic feeling) Legend of Grimrock. It's awesome.
D.
Evo 5 RS
Teaser:
Full reveal on the 24th
Full reveal on the 24th
Last edited by a moderator:
Evo 5 RS
Looks s**t. Crysis 2.5 much.
Darren S
ClioSport Club Member
It does. But hey-ho
D.
D.
Evo 5 RS
Judging it by a trailer. What else are you supposed to do?
Trailer looks s**t but I'm sure the game will be fine.
Just admit it Roy. You loved the second one and it's average. You're in denial lol
Trailer looks s**t but I'm sure the game will be fine.
Just admit it Roy. You loved the second one and it's average. You're in denial lol
SharkyUK
ClioSport Club Member
I think that the introduction of optical media and hardware (CD's and proprietary equivalents) began to shift many gamers' expectations. Whilst it could be argued that 'educated' gamers (who had a grasp as to what was actually possible in terms of real-time state-of-the-art) were able to temper their expectations, it could also be argued that a whole new generation of gamers were simply wow'd by the media rich content that the then new systems were capable of delivering. This naturally led many of that latter group to believe that the visuals evident in the pre-rendered sequences were a sign of things to come in the actual game. And this wasn't necessarily the case. I recall a few games whereby the CD would simply stream video and the game would simply overlay a few sprites over the top. Whilst the video footage was ok-ish quality (for the time) the gameplay experience was woeful! However, it meant that the likes of Philips and those adopting CD-based hardware suddenly had more space to fill/play with and that, importantly, the cost of manufacturing a game was going to get cheaper. It was a heck of a lot cheaper to press a large amount of CD's than to manufacture a Nintendo64 cartridge for example. Interestingly enough, one of the first games I worked on had the N64 as the lead platform but the system had begun to die; the cost of cart manufacture was simply too much. Thinking back I seem to recall that we would have had to sell the game for something like £65-£70 in an attempt to cover costs and make a VERY small amount of profit (if any at all). Such was the decline of the N64 (pretty much for this reason I believe) the lead platform was switched to PC and versions for PS1 and the then new Dreamcast were made. I had an accident when I was given one of the first Dreamcast devkits to play with. Best console made to date in many ways in my opinion...^^^ - great post, Andy!
Do you think the balance for artwork and the 'estimation' of the typical gamer started to shift with the likes of the PS1? I say that as an example as I remember many of my PS1 games having very impressive (for the time) - pre-rendered intro videos and sequences that clearly, the in-game couldn't hope to match.
Yet the seed of 'what could be done' was already planted. To Joe Public, they probably couldn't really understand why their little console could produce that start sequence on the TV - yet they couldn't actually play it like that. As a consequence I think there's been a creeping-forward nature in terms of what players want, graphically. And many-a-time it fails because there's a disproportionate slant on the game looking good - rather than actually playing well at all. I'm sure plenty of people on here would argue that Forza 4 is the much better game than GT5 - though clearly the latter does have the graphical edge.
Whiter, brighter, flashier sells. And unfortunately, true genius in terms of game mechanics often gets over-shadowed because A) - it's boring and B) it's boring.
Ultimately, I love to have the bells & whistles enabled on all my games - and the PC platform allows that with ease (and then some). However, I would ALWAYS sacrifice graphical beauty in favour of how a game plays - and the clever mechanics beneath it. Take the 1.2GB patch yesterday that updated The Witcher 2 on my PC. I really should focus a bit more effort into what the devs have pumped into that behemoth of a game. Yet instead, my attention is diverted to the wonderfully simple (and very nostalgic feeling) Legend of Grimrock. It's awesome.
D.
Anyways, getting back on-topic... a lot of the early PC-CD games were very poor. Many consisted of pre-rendered scenes that would be streamed from CD (if your drive was capable!) or as a 'slideshow'. Gameplay was draped over the top [loosely] and - as mentioned prior - the gameplay exxperience was pretty much non-existent. There were a few exemptions but not many. The new media did mean that the requirement for more detailed and varied content increased and, yes, the balance of power did start to move. Put simply, more art was required. But - interestingly - I didn't personally notice a massive change in the balance during this period of time. In fact, compared to the required efforts of the art teams working on today's cutting-edge titles, the art teams back in the early PC-CD and PS1 days had it quite easy; and you would often find that one artist was multi-disciplined - perhaps being capable of high-poly modelling, lighting, texturing and concept illustration. Things are somewhat different these days. Just take a look at the credits of a modern game and you will often see one individual artist having one specific art-driven function - i.e. texture artist, high-poly modeller, animator, lighting specialist, concept artist, UI artist, and so on.
Like yourself, gameplay is still king as far as I'm concerned. But I want it (the game) to look as good as possible.
Legend of Grimrock?
I don't need to say anything. You've already said it!Apologies for the somewhat non-Crysis related, er, content...
Maybe I'm just easily pleased. TBH I don't by a shooter expecting it to be Skyrim with bullets. I love Crysis and Crysis 2 for what they are. Sure, the sequel was pretty mainstreamed-up in comparison to the original, and didn't have anything LIKE the level of physics as it's predecessor, but for me it was still great fun, and using the nanosuit to its full potential still brings rewards. Aliens, guns, great graphics...
I'll take a slice of Crysis 3
Evo 5 RS
I like the second game, it's just not on par with the original
