leo-j said:
Scoobes said:
They do compared to Crysis 2 (from what we've seen). Think about it carefully, in those 3 games the actual game area is very linear and small (relative to Crysis), they then render the background around it with minimal animations, clever lighting and lower res textures (as you only see them from far away).
In Cryengine 3 most of the visible areas are places you can traverse, meaning they have to stream more textures (or load a lot into memory, which I doubt), and from what we've seen it looks like they have a lot more physics calculations in real-time. Techinically, I'd say Cryengine 3 is the more superior. What the 3 PS3 exclusives you've mentioned do well, is design the visuals around the relatively linear gameplay so they look amazingly impressive. They're very clever in the way they do it, but very little of the effects are in real-time, hence what is rendered, looks magnificent.
|
According to who? The game's mechanics revolve around "linear" gameplay (considering none of the games are that linear to begin with) that does not mean that if you don't move around an area that mean's it's not being rendered at all..
From what you have seen? Crysis 2 is not a sandbox experience, it is not CRYSIS. By your definition GTA IV and FARCRY 2 should be named the biggest games of the generation in graphics, because there scope far surpass that of CRYSIS 2's and the other 3 ps3 exclusives.
|
They are linear, they all do a very good job of masking the linearity. If you read my post you'll see that I didn't say the backgrounds weren't rendered, but they don't need the amount of detail of traversable areas and they can apply a greater level of control to the background.
Take the Neaplese city in Uncharted 2. It looks absolutely stunning (and quite realistic; my parents are from Nepal), but the actual traversable area of the city is relatively small and the massive view distances help to give the impression of non-linearity. This also means that the devs have a greater level of control in how to render the background as you're not going to ever see these areas from close up. They can setup the lighting and effects themselves with no realtime and power heavy effects. I'm not taking anything away from those games, the devs were clever about how they designed their games both visually and level-wise.
In the interview they already said that the areas are going to be like in Crysis, with some large and open and some smaller areas. The vids seemed to show this with large urban areas and jumping from rooftop to rooftop . It's not a sandbox game, but what it does is impressive considering the traversable scale and all the realtime power hungry effects that they have going on. And on a technical level, GTA IV and Far Cry 2 are somewhat impressive in what they managed to acheive (even if they both suck as games :P).
Basically, I don't think you're giving Crytek enough credit for what they're acheiving on the consoles with Cryengine 3.
