Crysis 3 Review: Amazing Graphics, Still a Benchmark Buster, Boring Gameplay 211
MojoKid writes "Let's get one thing clear up front. Crysis 3's graphics are absolutely stunning. Crytek's latest game doesn't raise the bar — it annihilates it. At the highest settings, Crysis blows Battlefield 3 out of the water, makes mincemeat of Max Payne, and makes the original Crysis — itself a graphics powerhouse — look more like the first Call of Duty. Crysis 3 really is that stunning, provided that you've got the graphics card to handle it. Like the first game, this title is capable of bringing even a high-end card to its knees. Everyone who worked in the artistic departments at Crytek, from character animations to texturing, deserves an award. The people who wrote the game's plot, on the other hand, don't. The game's design and some poor pacing decisions completely undermine what should be its greatest selling point. Crysis 3 could've been a great game but it feels like a science experiment. How much poor gameplay will players suffer through in exchange for utterly amazing graphics?"
So, it's for multiplayer, and for benchmarks (Score:3, Insightful)
"There's a unique Hunter Mode, in which most players start off as Cell operatives but transform into Hunters once killed, and an Assault mode in which each player only has one life." Nice to see them catching up to the modding community, snicker snort. What's next, a co-op mode? So it's not a good single player game, and it's not a good multi-player game, how many benchmarkers are out there?
Re: (Score:3)
Hunter Mode sounds like Rocket Arena's Red Rover mode, where if you get fragged you immediately respawn as a member of the opposite team.
1997 is calling, and they want their Quake mod back.
Re: (Score:2)
My dumbass roomie used to be like that. Typical exchange:
Me: This game sucks. It's boring and unoriginal.
Him: Yeah, but did you *SEE* those particle effects on that hangar level?!?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't be surprised if they just start selling the next engine directly to developers and let them make a game out of it. They obviously have the street credibility to pull that off now.
Indeed, all they need to do is wait for some pundit to beg them to do this, and then they can do it without looking like assholes. Instead, they'll look like geniuses.
broken metaphor (Score:5, Funny)
wtf? Now there's no standard to measure games?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but Tetris is so unrealistic...
Re:broken metaphor (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Uh, park it first and you'll find it's much easier to pack.
Re: (Score:3)
Obviously you've never packed a moving truck.
Yeah, but don't you hate when you get it perfectly packed, and all your stuff disappears! That's annoying.
Silly question... (Score:4, Insightful)
How much poor gameplay will players suffer through in exchange for utterly amazing graphics?
People will sit through literally metric shit tonnes of bad game play with poor to mediocre graphics.
I would list examples, but I feel like getting a [citation needed] response instead of listing my overly subjective choices.
Re:Silly question... (Score:5, Funny)
[citation needed]
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
[link]
Re: (Score:2)
[citation needed]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rigs:_Over_the_Road_Racing [wikipedia.org]
Re:Silly question... (Score:5, Funny)
This conversation has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues in subsequent posts.
* The neutrality of this conversation is disputed.
* This conversation may contain improper references to self-published sources.
Re: (Score:2)
Not worth pirating..
I'm sure they'll miss your valuable custom.
How good is it at its best? (Score:4, Insightful)
The original Crysis had some pretty brilliant sections, along with a lot of mediocre, boring or just plain terrible sections. I still haven't beaten the game, but I've played that one hostage-rescue mission a couple dozen times, along with a few of the other good parts. Seriously, if they had just stopped right when you enter the alien ship/base/whatever, it would have been a good (if a bit short) game. As it is, it's a game with levels you'll only play through once.
So, then, how good is Crysis 3 at its best? Does it get back to that wide, open-approach gameplay, where you can plan things out and approach it several different ways? Do you ever get that Predator feeling? Or is it terrible from beginning to end?
The review barely touches on this, mentioning one or two good vehicle sections, but FYI, don't bother with TFA. It's three pages full of no details. It's not a review, it's an executive summary of a review. I'll wait for better reviews and better benchmarks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
First crysis' biggest problem was the fact that they hid a lot of gameplay depth in the game, but there was no easy way to access it. I first played through the game essentially never activating maximum strength, as I didn't like melee. Then I read on what suit modes things actually did and I raged at how little it was explained in game.
Warhead was awesome for me because I actually read up on mechanics before playing it. As a result it was a much better FPS experience then original for me.
Apparently maximum
Re:How good is it at its best? (Score:5, Funny)
Meaning you actually could become a glass cannon...
Well, it looks like it's back to tvtropes [tvtropes.org] for me. There goes the rest of the night.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't difficult. It was It was difficult to discover. These are very different things.
I feel pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a link to an actual graphics demo, instead of just screenshots [youtube.com]. It is impressive and I like it (I especially like the fractal plants that you can zoom in on), but ultimately it still feels like a cartoon, and in that way not any more immersive than Myst.
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking the same thing, screenshot of bald guy looks good, but bald guys have looked good for awhile. Hair and fabric still looks wrong like they have for years. Obviously there's a ways to go yet, and I don't have the sense or education to notice the progress. Maybe if there were side by side images and/or someone was pointing out what I should be looking at.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Do they (properly) manage to do proper subsurface scattering [wikipedia.org] in realtime yet? Or just facsimiles?
That was a huge part of that movie looking less plastic.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The demo linked in that video is quite impressive, and even more so is the performance - it never dipped below 170 fps while rendering at 1080p
Re:I feel pathetic (Score:4, Interesting)
When the CGI portion of frames for movies still take hours to render using a render farm, you know that it'd be impossible to get that kind of quality in real time on a small dinky mid tower. This is especially true if you consider that gamers want sustained 60+fps.
I'm always a bit surprised that games haven't moved to more mathematical models of graphics, i.e. NURBS instead of polygons, procedural textures instead of bitmaps, etc. But then again, most video cards are probably so optimized for the old way that going to mathematical models of computer graphics would probably result in worse performance and quality.
Re:I feel pathetic (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the core problem is simply that aesthetically Crysis 3 is a pretty ugly game, they overuse vignetting a lot and the way they tone map their HDR leads to far to many blacks. It doesn't help that the level design is extremely restrictive, so you never get to see any large open areas like you could back with Crysis 1. All of this makes the game feel quite fake. It essentially tries to imitate the look of summer block busters, not reality. It of course doesn't help that the game takes place in a destroy
Re:I feel pathetic (Score:4, Insightful)
The post-process effects and a generall lack of resolution of sharpness in combination with wrong colors make games look so cartoonish. When I look around on a sunny day I see:
1. sharp objects even far away (in other words, depth of field != blurriness at a distance),
2. *everything* is crystal sharp (even at high resolution game graphics tend to be too blurry due to AA and if you switch minimal AA off you get shimmering artefacts)
3. no matter what people claim, my vision does *not* blur when I turn my head - at least not in the way that "motion blur" effects do,
4.same for objects at high speed, they don't appear to be blurred to me - never ever,
5. bright objects shimmer and whirr much less in reality than in games,
6. environments are less colorful in reality,
7. there is more small movement in reality than even CryEngine can reproduce,
8. HDR is often exaggerated; shadows are less dark in reality and my eyes adapt extremely fast to changes in lighting conditions, so fast that it's usually not noticable (exception: extreme changes like leaving a very dark room into bright sunlight),
9. detail at distance and field of view are much higher in reality than in games
Okay, 7 & 9 are performance issues, but I still sometimes wonder whether perhaps many game devs are vision impaired?
Re: (Score:2)
The post-process effects and a generall lack of resolution of sharpness in combination with wrong colors make games look so cartoonish. When I look around on a sunny day I see:
1. sharp objects even far away (in other words, depth of field != blurriness at a distance),
2. *everything* is crystal sharp (even at high resolution game graphics tend to be too blurry due to AA and if you switch minimal AA off you get shimmering artefacts)
3. no matter what people claim, my vision does *not* blur when I turn my head - at least not in the way that "motion blur" effects do,
4.same for objects at high speed, they don't appear to be blurred to me - never ever
Perhaps a lot of these issues are due to the fact they are simulating a 3D world on a 2D plane? It would likely be different if there was good, glass-less 3D available (at least for DOF issues). The cartoonish quality is still due to lack of processing power and physical models that can be modeled in real time on a single tower.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think that's got a lot to do with the use of HDR, which your eyes naturally don't see. The images look fantastic, but if you were actually standing in a physical world, you'd see things differently.
Close. Your eyes DO see "HDR" contrast range* (up to 10,000,000:1) and brightness, but of course, most monitors can't reproduce that contrast or brightness range (they typically run about 1000:1, more or less...)
So, in HDR games, movies and photography, they sometimes squeeze the wider real-world contrast range into the narrower range of the monitor; with the net effect looking a little odd.
* Think of the brightest sunshine to the deepest black shadow
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like MIDI? That makes me chuckle. I think you've forgotten how bad that actually sounded...
Those OPL-3s where quite the shit back in the day. Now, they are shit, and even crappy wavetables like DirectMusic kicks it's ass.
Heh, lets not forget the Adlib! [youtube.com]
Re:I feel pathetic (Score:5, Informative)
MIDI is not FM synthesis. They aren't even remotely the same thing.
Do you know that your favourite song, movie, game probably uses MIDI? Professional musicians still use it to this day.
Re:I feel pathetic (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I am aware of the difference. Hence my mentioning the OPL-3 synthesis chip.
I know exactly what FM synthesis is. I use it, occasionally - though my preference is additive (and good old fashioned subtractive).
This link is applicable (Score:4, Insightful)
Before the "Crysis was always a tech demo" posts, nope, Crysis 1 wasn't at all. It was a very good game with a slightly weak end 1/3
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2790285&cid=39706557 [slashdot.org]
Crysis 2 however, was an abomination and has scared me off considering Crysis 3.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This link is applicable (Score:5, Interesting)
Certainly agreed on the original Crysis. I thought it was an absolutely awesome game for the most part, which suffered from having two particularly weak sections. First the "floaty" bit in the alien mothership, which would have been great as a quick diversion but ended up going on for far too long. And second the very final mission, on the aircraft carrier. Both, of course, were sections which discarded the game's usual open level design in favour of more traditional "corridor shooter" gameplay. Warhead was all the awesome stuff from the main game, minus the suck (though it was a bit short).
Crysis 2 wasn't great. I didn't absolutely hate it; I'd rank it above most of the other "Modern Warfare" style shooters out there by quite some way. But it certainly wasn't as groundbreaking as the original.
I beat Crysis 3 over the weekend and I think its quality as a game sits about half way between the first two. Aside from a few short sections, it's much less of a corridor shooter than Crysis 2; it's more a sequence of mid-sized areas strung together in sequence. Within those areas, you get a fair degree of freedom, with much less handholding than we had in Crysis 2. There's certainly much more of a stealth focus than in the last game.
In fact, most of the game's penultimate mission (there are 7 in total) is a single huge wide open outdoors area, with three "main" objectives that can be completed in any order you prefer (there's an obvious "first" one to go for, but it's much more finely balanced where you should go next) and a few optional side-missions to find. In other words, it's right out of the original Crysis. It takes maybe an hour to beat and is supremely good. The game then closes down again for its (fairly weak) final mission, but that penultimate mission gives a glimpse at what could have been.
The big problem with Crysis 3 is length. This is a short game. Probably no longer than Warhead, which was advertised and priced as an expansion. It's certainly quite a bit shorter than Crysis 2. It's really noticable that a huge proportion of the game's weapons only show up right near the end of the game, meaning that there's a lot of stuff in there that you barely get a chance to see. It reminds me of shooters from early in the current console generation, like the first Gears of War, where so much of the development time was going on the technology that there wasn't much resource left over to actually provide a decent length campaign. As the generation's gone on and the tech becomes much better known, games have gotten longer again, on average. If you take a slew of recent cross-platform releases; Resident Evil 6, Black Ops 2, Dead Space 3 - these are all significantly longer than other recent installments in their respective series.
It might be available on current generation console hardware, but the PC version of Crysis 3 makes me suspect that what we have here is the first true "next gen" game. These are the sort of visuals I'd be hoping to see from the PS4 and the 360's successor once people have learned the hardware a bit (shouldn't take long with the PS4 given the architecture, hopefully). And once again, the length of the campaign suffers as the focus goes on making the technological jump.
Re: (Score:2)
Crysis 3 is a return to the open world levels of the first game. That, and the change in enemy design and abanding a lot of the characters/vehicles of the first game is why the 2nd was merely an OK corridor type shooter, and paled in comparison to the first one. That they abandoned the scope/scale of the first game int he 2nd, as well as the international conflict part of the story also didnt' help. Replacing the external, real, conflict with north koreans / chinese with a secret shadow group from out of no
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I liked Crysis 1, a great game but it had its problems. I loved Warhead, it was also a great game that fixed most of the original's problems.
I hated the crysis 2, which was yet another dumbed down consolitis-ridden shooter on rails with minimal buttons because "must be able to play on controller".
Crysis 3 is too close to crysis 2 for comfort for me.
Still irrelevant (Score:2, Flamebait)
You could probably get the same stuff done on half the hardware if the engine were properly optimized and things were written closer to machine-code level.
The best review of Crysis I've read (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But I can't buy it on Steam! (Score:2)
I'll just have to wait until they finish with all of their DLC and sell a "kitchen sink" edition for half price. Too bad, 'cause I've got a pair of 4gb GTX 680 video cards and three 2560x1440 monitors just waiting to be worked hard.
Yeah, I'm sure I'll just buy the DVD version eventually but they'd already have my money if they sold it on Steam.
Re: (Score:2)
by then you're a year out from when they can the multiplayer servers.. why the hell do you want it on steam so badly? steam doesn't make the game 'better'. if anything it's an annoyance.
Re: (Score:3)
I consider it the opposite of an annoyance. I don't need to keep track of DVDs to shove in the drive to play a game I've already installed. I get nearly instant purchase satisfaction. Certainly faster than driving half an hour each way to the nearest retail outlet. I can reinstall on a new machine without having to find the disc and key and without worrying about whether I have another activation left.
I really don't understand how you can find that more annoying than dealing with physical media.
Thanks (Score:3)
Just decided to actually do something non-boring with the time.
Chopped Salad (Score:2)
I was 'eh until the helicopter over the vegetation bit. That much geometry changing at once looked great.
But I was unimpressed with Crysis 1/2 gameplay, who's signed up to license the engine so far?
Re: (Score:2)
No manual saves (Score:5, Insightful)
One thing that pisses me off with a lot of modern games such as Crysis 3 (and this also includes Crysis 2) is that they rely entirely on autosaving at checkpoints. No ability to quicksave at any point at all. Autosaves are fine, but the removal of traditional manual save functionality is such a huge step backwards it affects enjoyment for me. This was highly irritating in Crysis 2 because the game likes to highlight various tactics in infiltrating a base (assault, stealth, hybrid approach), but the lack of an ability to make your own saves when desired really screws up the ability to perform stealth properly. Mess it up and you'll find yourself throwing a grenade at your feet in order to force a reload of the last checkpoint, at which point you'll need to start the whole area again. Deus Ex: Human Revolution and Dishonored have the ability to create manual saves at any area (and multiple saves too) and this makes performing stealth far more desirable. You can save several times during your progress and if you stuff up, just reload the last point which might be most of the way through a section, as opposed to a checkpoint which would only occur at the beginning and the end.
But I need not ramble, because graphics do not appeal much anymore on their own if the gameplay is boring. Have them together, great, but graphics are nothing without some meat.
Re:No manual saves (Score:4, Interesting)
I like this. It makes the game more challenging. You can't just safe at your own opportune moment. It changes your playing strategy. If you have a "save anywhere" game, that outright eliminates the need for cautious play.
Re:No manual saves (Score:5, Insightful)
I like this. It makes the game more challenging. You can't just safe at your own opportune moment.
Good for you. Get a game with save anywhere... and don't use it.
For the rest of us, who have actual lives, being forced to replay ten minutes of the game because it wouldn't let us save when we had to deal with something in that real life fscking sucks donkey ass and is one of the reasons why I play less and less games these days.
Re: (Score:2)
And its a pretty good argument too. I don't care how the devs wanted me to enjoy their product - I don't fit the psychological profile of their target demographic. I will choose how best to get value for my money.
Take RTS games. I don't care about the "challenge". I don't care about winning or losing in video games. Too stressful and too much of a mundane grind for something that is supposed to be fun. Instead, I just use them as a domino set - Set em up, knock em down. Accumulate lots of units and save...
Re: (Score:2)
OK, but these are different player attitudes completely. I don't think you argue that online RTS matches should be cleared from cheating, while single player stuff, is just single player stuff. Skipping over boring thing in a single player campaign, or non-competitive multi player campaign should be always available, as saving as well. Add to this, that even in SC2, with the most recent patch, you can take control of any game at any point when watching it in a replay. You download a game played by the "pros
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If you want to play like this though, you can already with a game which features manual saves. Impose that restriction on yourself if you want, but having it imposed for everyone is ridiculous.
You still have to be cautious on a save anywhere game, it's just less frustrating if you fuck up. Moreso, a game with only checkpoints discourages experimentation. If it takes a single mistake to ruin 5 minutes of stealth gameplay and you can't save during that time to make a mistake less annoying, you'll end up gravi
Re: (Score:2)
it's a compeltely artificial/superficial challenge.
it's not related to the game difficulty at all but instead dependent upon an inconvenience factor.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh god, this. 1,000x this. I wish I had mod points for you.
My biggest problem with the checkpoint thing is I can never really tell exactly when the game saved last. Sure they usually have some sort of spinny disk thing or "checkpoint" graphics, but sometimes I miss those depending on how they are designed. And when I'm going to turn off the game I can never remember how long it has been since I last saw one, so I don't know how much of the game I'm gonna have to replay if I shut it off right now.
"Are you
It's the pacing, stupid (Score:2)
Crysis (Score:2)
I agree with TFS. I have about 1000 to 5000 hours of playing Crysis 1-2 behind my belt and the only video games I have ever spent more than 50 hours on in my life is Crysis and The Godfather, Godfather made it with about 200 hours playing time total until I got bored.
Crysis 3 sound great but I am trying to cut down on it ;-)
I thought that was clear... (Score:3)
... when I played the original Far Cry.
Pretty engine, then zzzzzzz.
Haven't touched a cryengine game since then.
Re: (Score:2)
yes, judge an entire family of games based on the very first one rather than each on its own merits.
I'd hate to see how you function in the real world.
"My cup of coffee was rather too strong 18 years ago. So I've never gone to another coffee shop since."
*spoiler* Walktrhough ending (Score:3)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BeZneKBIVI [youtube.com]
"I can take double anything you can!" Gotta love the quality of the dialogues, with lines that you'd expect to hear in some particularly competitive porn movie, rather than in a game about nanotechnological beefcakes vs. north korean aliens.
Not a lot (Score:2)
How much poor gameplay will players suffer through in exchange for utterly amazing graphics?
For my part, not a lot. I think modern computer games (modern movies) are far too focused on "amazing effects" and too little on content; as it is, I still find the old COLOSSAL CAVES (it that old, so it requires all caps) game better than things like WoW. A good game should challenge you, it should stretch your imagination, it should be witty, intelligent, engaging and imaginative.
Here is what I would like to see in a game:
The game universe should be physically plausible - ie, things thrown should follow a
Re: (Score:2)
my only complaint is i just wish games werent so damn short these days!
Re:PC Games? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would anybody bother spending hundreds and hundreds of dollars on fancy PC's just to play games that play better and look just as good on a $200 console?
Mouse + Keyboard controls?
Sometimes a console controller just isn't convenient (or one is too old to get used to it)
Re: (Score:2)
Which reminds me of playing the original Unreal Tournament or Quake III on the DreamCast, with keyboard, mouse, hooked up to a PC monitor and on the LAN/internet with ethernet card add-on.
Some console makers did get it. Others didn't. Sigh.
Re: (Score:2)
its not BS. keyboard/mouse is and always will be superior for any game that can take advantage of them (unless they totally botch the port like Dark Souls ...)
Re: (Score:3)
I was astonished to find that this was a review of a PC game. I honestly had no idea that people still played PC games. Why would anybody bother spending hundreds and hundreds of dollars on fancy PC's just to play games that play better and look just as good on a $200 console? Why would somebody put themselves through that kind of hassle and expense?
First person shooters are simply not fun to play on a console, at least for some people. It slows them down, and for those who have gotten pretty decent at twitch motions with a mouse, it's like having a ball and chain around your right wrist.
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent troll.
Thousands of dollars, thankyouverymuch. And games don't play better or look just as good on a console. There isn't a single console on the market that actually renders HD content. (Well, maybe the WiiU. I haven't checked that one.) They upscale. They can't even do a true 1280x720 and I'm playing at a real 7680x1440. And I don't know how anyone plays FPS games with those little nub-sticks. I can use whatever control system works best for the game I'm playing. Racing wheel, joystick,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Of course, you could always buy a gamepad for $20-50 to your PC... "
That's the real power of PC really...
Re: (Score:2)
I was astonished to find that this was a post from someone who uses slashdot. I honestly had no idea that many slashdot users even bothered with console games. Why would anybody bother spending money on locked down, DRM'd to hell boxes with inferior IO, when they make sufficient money to play FPS on the best platform available: one they probably already have an instance or two of in the house already thanks to the nature of their employment. A few hundred bucks on a video card vs the cost of a games-dedi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"to play games that play better and look just as good on a $200 console?"
Oh you have no idea do you? if it was so comparable how come if they put pc players, and console players in the same multiplayer game, the pc players mop the floor with console player? Hint it has something do to with all the extra resolution, better input devices, and speed/smoothness of the machine. Besides a pc does a lot more than a console, and its easily upgradeable.
Re: (Score:2)
controllers suck, i hate FPS with controllers, there are a few games that are ok, but FPS games realy suck.
graphics are significantly better, when did xbox come out, 1800's? the computer world has far surpassed that shitty piece of hardware
Computers can multitask, i can play a game and switch over to surf the web, switch back to game or whatever
I dont need to deal with Fucking disks, i hate them and they hate me
I am not locked down, modding on pc can make a game so much more interesting after vanilla runs i
Perscription lenses (Score:2)
... and look just as good ...
I think it's time you went out and get your eyes checked. Why not google comparison graphics between console and computer games to see how the creators have to horrendously butcher the console games to make them playable at 30fps. ... yes that's right 30fps is still the target for console games too.
What you end up on a typical console is a short rendering distance, poor AA, often lack of 1080p resolution, ugly hacks to make things like shadows and light rays processable by the horrendously underpowered CPU
Re: (Score:2)
Game X on your console will never ever look or play any better than it does right now. Nothing a game that pushes the envelope and has a laggy/stuttery feel to it. Or dumbed down graphics to avoid that.
Yet on a PC it can not only be made to look better, but play better/smoother as well. At the same time.
Verdict: Just another trying-too-hard-to-be-clever-and-failing-miserably troll. Did you get enough attention yet? No? Class, everyone stare at DogDude, he hasn't had enough attention yet to compensate for wa
Re: (Score:3)
VERY few console games actually run at 1080p whether or not your TV can accommodate that resolution. Among the titles that you'd compare with Crysis 3 for PC, ZERO of them run at 1080p.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're running a PC at 1080 then resolution isn't a strong argument since many/most TVs are 1080p.
Console games, however, are often not. Seriously, check the box next time. Quite a lot of them run at either 720p or 1080i (God of War III, for example, can only run up to 1080i). I've seen some that don't even offer 1080i, although I can't remember which ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Coming soon to a PS4 near you. Probably :(.
Re:Idiots (Score:4, Funny)
If I want to see realistic graphics I would play meatspace aka THE REAL LIFE. Not even Crysis 100 can beat those graphics.
Yeah, I prefer to look at the alien Ceph in real life too. They are far more realistic-looking than the in-game ones.
Re:Idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
Borderlands is a great example where interesting graphics are far more effective than hyper-realistic graphics.
The rotoscoping/cartoon effect in borderlands is used really well, and even though they are low fidelity the styling more than makes up for it. Plus you dont need such a high-end card because high resolutions are less important.
Interesting artistic style and good gameplay/story/humour will always trump eye candy.
Re: (Score:3)
One thing that the cartoon effect in Borderlands (both) does, for me at least, is make the suspension of disbelief much easier.
Sure, it takes you maybe a few minutes in the beginning to get there, but once you're there, you're not yanked out of it, because something sticks out like a sore thumb.
Take Diablo III as an example. Blizzard went out of their way to make some amazing looking cinematics for their cut scenes. But that rips you out of your story and then pushes you back into the usual graphics again a
Re: (Score:2)
I watched some HD Youtube videos of Crysis 3 at max settings. Sure, the graphics are great from an engineering perspective, but artistically? All they seem to have done is made it look as realistic as possible. Where's the imagination?
Also, the article linked mentions the composer deserves an award. Sorry, but all I heard were "music effects" rather than any sort of soundtrack. Maybe I was watching the wrong videos...?
That's the problem. Creating super high resolution graphics is strictly a technical issue. With a little knowledge, anyone can do it. Actually coming up with a compelling/interesting story line requires a lot of creativity, and that is a talent few people have. It's the same reason why movies have a gazillion dollars worth of special effects but the movie sucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
*They not that
Crytek is a german company that makes the cryengine3 then they partner with a bunch of other companies to make games (like ubisoft and far cry)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They already license the engine. Things like the new Mech Warrior game are made on cry engine 3.
Re: (Score:2)
what a thouroughly unclever (yet trying very hard to be) troll.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem was the complete and utter lack of explanation of depth of gameplay. I suffered from it in game 1.
Reality was that you actually had 3 main ways of approaching any problem, and several combinations of these. But it was never told. Instead, the default way was "either cloak and stalk or maximum armour and decent gun". They didn't even tell you that maximum strength let you stabilize the extremely heavy full auto weapons for glass cannon approach, or that you could use maximum speed to play like ni
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Never seen the Quake Wars / Wolfenstein etc. ray-traced games? They basically have to have a lot of machine behind them to replicate even quite old games. And, to be honest, they look not much better.
Sure, the shiny-shiny effects of a chandelier reflecting a million-and-one droplet's reflections looks really nice the first time you stare at it, but to be honest I played through Mirror's Edge the other month and I didn't look at the graphics once. When you do, you realise that actually it's all just cleve
Re: (Score:2)
First part is wrong.
The market crash to which you're referring happened in 1983 and had nothing to do with the platform craze, which happened after 1985 with the advent of the NES.
I agree with everything else. Most platform games eventually became bland and uninspired (Terminator, Robocop or Rambo platform games for NES anyone?)
We're rapidly getting there with modern games. Every so-called AAA game seems to be either an FPS (a COD wannabe, more precisely), an MMORPG, or a 3rd person action RPG. Lame.
That, a