Crytek: it's getting increasingly hard to wow people with graphics

here's the link, have your say:
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/crytek-says-its-getting-increasingly-difficult-to-/1100-6422746/

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/cr...asingly-hard-to-wow-people-with-graphics.html

 

"We've run out of ideas."

 

Better focus on actual game then.

 

Why don't they reboot TimeSplitters like the fans want?

 

Because it's a good idea.

 

It's Crytek. They need to push new standards otherwise no one is happy. Isnt them who said that 60% game is graphics? lol

 

That's probably because there's nothing new that can be used to improve visuals. We're in a place atm where we can't use real time to do gfx and the simplified alternatives of real time are nowhere near enough and still far too stressful. Look at watch dogs, the game looked horrible compared to what it was promising, even lacking window reflections.

You can impress with top quality textures good gameplay mechanics and high artistic values (and that excludes brown from the color palette)

 

They took a wrong turn in the art direction starting with Warhead. Crysis 3 may have the superior engine under the hood but onscreen in game form its just like a hirez digital popup book as everything just looks so flat and oil painting/concept arty/cartoony.

Crysis 1 is still superior and the correct direction for life like gfx imo. Looking at Far Cry 1 to Crysis 1 is the perfect transition/evolution of "next-gen" graphics, but them from crysis 1 to 3, its just this transition of life likeness to a boring hirez comic book with tessellation.

Other than new graphic features and forms of shadow and particle etc etc, i feel graphics have gone backwards in sense. It all high resolution with hi resolution textures, but then they go and slap some boring post process over it and things just look muddy, bland, washed out and flat.

The performance of some games compared to how they look is not quite right these days.

 

um yeah, you're the OP don't you have anything to say?
baloney post.

 

There is only so much DOF and friggin' blur effects they can slap on screen before we can no longer see anything.

How about no load screens in games, no pop in or visible LOD, better physics and dynamic weather and changing wind directions with rain and grass responding appropriately to it and also to player movements.

Grass and clouds that actually cast shadows on the ground.

If someone told me that if I bought 32gb of ram and video card with 10gb of vram I would be able to enable those seamless effects in games I would do it immediately.

That is far more important to me than 4k, 120fps, 8k textures and all the blur effects in the world.

Seamless integrated game worlds fall under graphics to me because it is what you see and experience, it's hard to discuss graphics when it is defined as the experience between load screens.

 

And I personally prefer the stylized visual look of Crysis 2 and 3 over the first game.
Yes, the first Crysis looks amazing. But, the strong devotion to looking like the real world just looked dull to me. Yes, it's impressive... but it doesn't look creative.

Crysis 2 and 3's (to some 'overly') stylized visual design lead to a more interesting look. It gave the series a sense of personality.

 

They should better balance the performance and make their engine functional.

 

Dont get me wrong, they get there intended artistic direction perfect, but as far as realism goes, Crytek went the wrong direction starting with Warhead.

 

If they made it look like in their tech demos then I dont mind, but some bs in between nah, no wonder they wonder like they do..


EDIT: Crysis3 did look kinda ok, but then they ruin whole game engine with overdone blurring, too much DOF and few extra post processfx.. Imo just because its "popular" doesn't mean it should be used by everyone or at least kept to minimum/suitable.


For example in this presentation Crysis3 looks kinda to cartoony, if it had more harsh "metal lighting" look it would be much better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=JWvgETOo5ek#t=32

 

"On PC, he said, the current generation of high-end GPUs is still far from being able to reach 60 frames-per-second at 4K resolution..."

So thats their only idea of how to wow us with graphics?

How about not wowing us with console-limited graphics and bad PC optimisation for a start?

 

they should have said "its hard to impress people with a average/bad game while it has amazing graphics" if ryse was a cool game by design and used the way it currently looked, people would have been "wow'd"

 

I don`t care about visual 'wow' at all. I want good gameplay backed up with enough gfx. Look at 'Dishonored' and 'Wolfenstain: The new order' - not super level of gfx, but design and gameplay are superb (and style too).

 

Answer. 'The Vanishing of Ethan Carter'.
It's not about technical power... it's about art design and style. Honestly, I was more impressed with Ethan Carter's visuals then I was Crysis 3 or Ryse: Son of Rome's.