Crytek will most likely go bankrupt if their engine doesn't catch by next gen

[Mr Puggsly]

Pemalite said:

Mr Puggsly said:

If Crysis ever got a remaster, they would obviously make a lot of tweaks to make it perform better on modern computer much like Dark Souls. But they would likely just port it to their current engine. Far Cry 3 and Sleeping Dogs look significantly better on PC even though there are console ports. So I don't buy the argument supporting consoles cripples PC potential.

We've only seen Crysis 1 on CryEngine 3 via 7th gen consoles. It not really a reflection of that could have possibly looked on PC. Also, EA owns Crysis. Crytek only does what EA allows with Crysis.

Well. The PC has almost infinite amounts of memory from a development standpoint in comparison to consoles, that does have an effect on a games world, the PC simply has the baseline to have larger, more impressive worlds.
CPU's being orders-of-magnitude faster also has a stupidly big effect on simulation quality, A.I and so on, but we don't see any of this.

And that is before we touch on the topic of visuals.

Fact is, the consoles keep the visual/simulation quality baseline low, because developers need to build games with those platforms in mind.

Back when games were made for PC first, games were bloody impressive. Morrowind, Crysis, FarCry, Doom, Half Life, Quake, Unreal Tournament... Are all such examples.
Today if the developer doesn't put the effort in, then the PC version is really no different from the console release, complete with 30fps caps/720P limits... And that is some real bullshittery there.
Which ultimately is the crux of the issue in my eyes. PC gamers expect more.

Crysis 1 as in the original PC release was simply impossible for the 7th gen consoles to handle.
That statement has never changed.

CryEngine 3 is far more console memory-optimized, it relies far more heavily on streaming assets to make better use of limited memory pools, this means "cells" are smaller and assets will generally be simpler/lower quality and popin more prevalent.

And despite all that, the framerate, resolution, shadowing, texturing, lighting, foliage detail and density... Were all left much to be desired anyway.

In my opinion... Crytek should go back to it's roots and start doing what they were renowned for, being a PC-centric Developer. Shit. It worked for Blizzard.

Generally speaking, PC games just aren't designed the way you're speaking. There are baselines on PC as well, because they want games to function well on many PCs. In the DF video they discuss sacrifices made in the original PC release of Crysis so it would be less resources intensive. Also, I'm suggesting a game could be designed solely around PC specs and still be scaled back for consoles. Hence, gameplay can be (mostly) intact even with lower quality visuals.

People argue Crysis 2 was linear for consoles. But the open world of Crysis 1 seemed to translate pretty well on console. Not 100% the same, but for the most part its the same game.

I agree Crysis 2 was designed to function well on consoles and it appears they were treated as lead platforms. This also meant Crysis 2 worked better with dated specs. However, the game is also a product of its time in game design. EA and Crytek were likely motivated to make it a more linear experience given that style of campaign was doing really well at the time. Yet the environments of Crysis 2 were still much more open than the typical FPS game. I believe Crysis 2 was trying to find a middle ground of open and linear.

Crysis 1 was built for high end PCs of the time, but due to poor optimization does not function great on modern PCs. As you suggested its well beyond the capabilities of 7th gen consoles (primarily in visuals). Yet they still managed to pump out a good port for consoles of that same era. We saw this with Witcher 2 as well, that was a game people just assumed couldn't work on consoles. Its mostly visual tweaks that make these games functional on console specs. Battlefield 3/4 also come to mind, built to take advantage of PC but tweaked for consoles.

PC games you named either had good console ports eventually or the console specs of the time just were very different from PC. Games like Doom and Quake were way ahead of consoles at the time. Morrowind had a good port. Unreal Tournament on consoles seemed to struggle with lack of RAM, especially on Dreamcast. The OG Xbox was getting good ports of games designed for PC.

Blizzard builds games for low end PCs. Are you gonna blame 7th gen consoles for Diablo 3 playing well on low end PCs?

Anywho, developers design games in mind for cheap specs (PC or console) because that's what the average consumer will buy. So your arguments of limitless potential on PC don't matter, developers don't focus solely on high end rigs. SOME developers do focus on high end machines, but there are valid argument why they don't.

Last edited by Mr Puggsly - on 23 June 2018