Crytek: No Other Engine Could Handle Crysis 2

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Crytek: No Other Engine Could Handle Crysis 2

image

Crytek's technology could make any other shooter in the market, says Crytek's CEO.

Crytek CEO Cervat Yerli thinks that the engine that he and his company have built for Crysis 2 is pretty special. It's so special, in fact, that Yerli doesn't think that any of his competitors' products is capable of doing everything that it does.

He didn't want to categorically state that the CryEngine 3 was the best engine around, saying that the final word on that score would come from the people who used it. Yerli said that there was room for multiple engines in the market, and he thought that having variety encouraged innovation. He did say, however, that none of the other engines on the market could accommodate Crysis 2, whereas its engine could comfortably handle any of its competitors' games.

He said that Crytek designed engines with efficiency in mind, which was the reason it had been able to do Far Cry and Crysis so quickly with a relatively inexperienced team. He added that the CryEngine 3 in particular was designed to make everyone, from designers to artists to coders, as productive as possible.

Yerli certainly talks big, but as none of his competitors are likely to put his claims about CryEngine 3 to the test, it's almost impossible to definitively say whether he's wrong or right. He's certainly correct on one point, however, which is that it's what other people think about the engine - rather than the people who made it - that really matters.

Crysis 2 comes out for PC, PS3 and Xbox 360 on March 22nd.

Source: CVG

Permalink

I'd believe it.

Screens of Crysis 2 come dangerously close to being indistinguishable from box art, promotional posters, etc. - where even with Crysis 1 you could see aliasing and various other "gamey"/rough visual elements.

Speaking about game engines, it's a shame how most of them only see one game running it before they scrap it and start on the next one. I'm looking at you Red Faction: Guerilla.

Ha, yeah, such a powerful engine! So powerful it can run seemlessly on consoles!...... wait, what?

Crysis doesn't run seemlessly on PC's now. I don't see how this is better if it can run on the the underpowered consoles.

Meh, regardless, I look forward to the game, and the continuation of a "cool", if not "good", story.

Yes, it is the best engine so far.
No other engine could handle such extensive graphics without being very slow - though people think that Crysis had very high performance requirements, the lower levels of graphics weren't like that - it runs on medium on years old (back when Crysis came out) middle-segment graphics card.
Other engines, like Source Engine (used in Half Life and Portal) just wouldn't be able to generate views from Crysis - at least without extensive modifications. And doing so with good performance is just out of their reach.

Well I'd love to have a demo so I could see how it would run on my PC. You know, to see if it is more efficient then the one Crysis used.

Pricks.

I wish these Crytek people would shut up.

Baresark:
Crysis doesn't run seemlessly on PC's now.

Protip: you don't have to try playing on max with a shit tier PC.

I absolutely believe them. Cryengine 3 looks fucking gorgeous, I just hope they're pushing the limits of PC graphics once again with Crysis 2.

You know, I'd love to test their ego here.

However, the game would probably eat my PC for breakfast, despite my PC being specifically built to be a gaming rig.

You suck, Crytek!

And I'm sure no other network could handle a demo. Don't get me wrong, it looks very pretty, but I've seen nothing of the gameplay to make me feel I need to play it. Without trying it first, I'm not buying it.

In other news, this game broke the new Chinese supercomputer.
OT:I believe it though, Crysis was pretty intense on my computer and it's dated now. I think it'd be nice but I'm afraid to see the computer requirements.

ciortas1:

Baresark:
Crysis doesn't run seemlessly on PC's now.

Protip: you don't have to try playing on max with a shit tier PC.

I absolutely believe them. Cryengine 3 looks fucking gorgeous, I just hope they're pushing the limits of PC graphics once again with Crysis 2.

protip - it runs crappy on good PC's, it's not very well optimized, that is my point.

Also, I never said I wasn't looking forward to checking out this game. I just can't stand companies that hype the shit outta their products then we are greeted with a product that cannot live up to those standards.

And, I have to agree, the game looks amazing, but until I play it on a PC or console right in front of me, I am gonna reserve judgement on the game itself. I do look forward to that draw distance on a city scape though.

Alright Crytek. I get it. You are very proud of your new dress and makeup. Now would you please show me something that suggests the actual game will be good?

Crytek's Graphics are a piece of art. :D

I wish Crytek would just actually shut the fuck up about Crysis 2, at least until it's out. All through it's development there's been news posts here about how Crytek is bragging about how their game is going to do this and that, it's better than this game etc etc. First they were bashing Halo and describing Crysis 2 as a "Halo killer" as if that's the FPS to beat these days. Then they were bashing something else (Can't quite recall what that was) Now they are going on about good their engine is and that no other engine could handle Crysis 2.

I know it won't be but i seriously want this game to be a complete flop. Maybe that will make them shut the fuck up and deflate their ego a bit.

Baresark:

ciortas1:

Baresark:
Crysis doesn't run seemlessly on PC's now.

Protip: you don't have to try playing on max with a shit tier PC.

I absolutely believe them. Cryengine 3 looks fucking gorgeous, I just hope they're pushing the limits of PC graphics once again with Crysis 2.

protip - it runs crappy on good PC's, it's not very well optimized, that is my point.

Also, I never said I wasn't looking forward to checking out this game. I just can't stand companies that hype the shit outta their products then we are greeted with a product that cannot live up to those standards.

And, I have to agree, the game looks amazing, but until I play it on a PC or console right in front of me, I am gonna reserve judgement on the game itself. I do look forward to that draw distance on a city scape though.

Stereotype. It was running fluently on my 7600GS card. Now i have GTX260 (quite cheap card right now), it runs on max settings on 1680x1050 (except AA).

Baresark:

ciortas1:

Baresark:
Crysis doesn't run seemlessly on PC's now.

Protip: you don't have to try playing on max with a shit tier PC.

I absolutely believe them. Cryengine 3 looks fucking gorgeous, I just hope they're pushing the limits of PC graphics once again with Crysis 2.

protip - it runs crappy on good PC's, it's not very well optimized, that is my point.

But Crysis isn't running on the CryEngine 3.
It's running on CryEngine 2.

And from everything I've seen on Cry3, it's leaps and bounds more improved then Cry2.
Especially the multi-platform support. Which is just epic.

OT: I hope the game turns out sweet looking and running as the promo material when I try out the MP demo tomorrow.
Maybe we can get more people using it, then.

Thrust:
Crytek's Graphics are a piece of art. :D

And their games are a piece of shit D:

Seriously though, the only thing I enjoyed about their games is how beautiful they are and how hot my pc was getting to deliver those.

The gameplay was quite good and still holds up pretty well today, except for the shitty AI... Also, I hated the final of the first Crysis with a passion, it was a slap to my face with both hands and now they're making the sequel 3 fucking years AFTER the first one?.

I just hope they deliver a demo to test it out. Until then, I'm not slightly interested on playing the thing.

theriddlen:

Baresark:

ciortas1:
Protip: you don't have to try playing on max with a shit tier PC.

I absolutely believe them. Cryengine 3 looks fucking gorgeous, I just hope they're pushing the limits of PC graphics once again with Crysis 2.

protip - it runs crappy on good PC's, it's not very well optimized, that is my point.

Also, I never said I wasn't looking forward to checking out this game. I just can't stand companies that hype the shit outta their products then we are greeted with a product that cannot live up to those standards.

And, I have to agree, the game looks amazing, but until I play it on a PC or console right in front of me, I am gonna reserve judgement on the game itself. I do look forward to that draw distance on a city scape though.

Stereotype. It was running fluently on my 7600GS card. Now i have GTX260 (quite cheap card right now), it runs on max settings on 1680x1050 (except AA).

Everything without the AA. That's the key.

Warhead played a lot smoother by a long shot, so when they throw the words "optimized" around they aren't just throwing stones. I had a 7600GT that wasn't fond of C1 at medium settings, I said screw it and wait for an upgrade. I use a 5850 @ 1920x1200, max all (DX9 of course, DX10 just was NOT a good idea for that engine at the time), and regularly at 2xAA, because my 4gb of system memory dries up when I run it at 4xAA for a prolonged period, heh...

There seems to be a lot of hate going on about Crytek and their egos, I would theorize its from people who have never played any of their games, as if they had they would understand that their attitude is backed up by their track record. Just look at Far Cry and Crysis, they both were well ahead of the competition when released. Crysis is, after 3 years, the best looking game around. Its just a matter of having the hardware to appreciate it (not that I do, I'm working of a 2 GHz laptop). I'm in no way saying that their games are the best (That would be Half life and its kin), but when your studio consistently puts out the best looking games around, you cannot be expected to be humble about it. Who knows, I might be proven wrong, but I seriously doubt it.

theriddlen:
Yes, it is the best engine so far.
No other engine could handle such extensive graphics without being very slow - though people think that Crysis had very high performance requirements, the lower levels of graphics weren't like that - it runs on medium on years old (back when Crysis came out) middle-segment graphics card.
Other engines, like Source Engine (used in Half Life and Portal) just wouldn't be able to generate views from Crysis - at least without extensive modifications. And doing so with good performance is just out of their reach.

Hell, my pc has 3gigs Ram, Windows XP, DX9 and I run Crysis with everything except shadows and motion blur on high. And it looks damn well fantastic. I hate it when people complain that the game requires a super-computer when it doesn't. Also in over 60 hours of play it has only crashed twice, on the same day, because I was using mods.

I personally can't wait for Crysis 2.

Baby Tea:

Baresark:

ciortas1:
Protip: you don't have to try playing on max with a shit tier PC.

I absolutely believe them. Cryengine 3 looks fucking gorgeous, I just hope they're pushing the limits of PC graphics once again with Crysis 2.

protip - it runs crappy on good PC's, it's not very well optimized, that is my point.

But Crysis isn't running on the CryEngine 3.
It's running on CryEngine 2.

And from everything I've seen on Cry3, it's leaps and bounds more improved then Cry2.
Especially the multi-platform support. Which is just epic.

OT: I hope the game turns out sweet looking and running as the promo material when I try out the MP demo tomorrow.
Maybe we can get more people using it, then.

I would love to hear how that demo is from someone first hand. If you can, you should post somewhere and mention how it was.

theriddlen:
Yes, it is the best engine so far.
No other engine could handle such extensive graphics without being very slow - though people think that Crysis had very high performance requirements, the lower levels of graphics weren't like that - it runs on medium on years old (back when Crysis came out) middle-segment graphics card.
Other engines, like Source Engine (used in Half Life and Portal) just wouldn't be able to generate views from Crysis - at least without extensive modifications. And doing so with good performance is just out of their reach.

Take a look at the Dear Esther Mod remake for the Source Engine. All this is in game.

Not quite as good, but definitely capable on the Source Engine.

The engine is the best our there hands down, and ofcourse Far Cry 2 and Crysis are the best looking games, but when you blow your own horn that much it really looks bad.

Sadly Crysis 2 is very clearly copying CoD, which will really just make it another number in the long line of modern FPS-es that people will remember for a week or two.
I wish they would go the same route Unreal engine went and just sell it to every game maker out there, I want to see some proper games being done with it, and if it's really as easy to use it shouldn't be a problem to sell at all.

Mr.K.:
The engine is the best our there hands down, and ofcourse Far Cry 2 and Crysis are the best looking games, but when you blow your own horn that much it really looks bad.

Sadly Crysis 2 is very clearly copying CoD, which will really just make it another number in the long line of modern FPS-es that people will remember for a week or two.
I wish they would go the same route Unreal engine went and just sell it to every game maker out there, I want to see some proper games being done with it, and if it's really as easy to use it shouldn't be a problem to sell at all.

You do know that COD wasent the first fps game ever?

Roboto:

theriddlen:

Baresark:

protip - it runs crappy on good PC's, it's not very well optimized, that is my point.

Also, I never said I wasn't looking forward to checking out this game. I just can't stand companies that hype the shit outta their products then we are greeted with a product that cannot live up to those standards.

And, I have to agree, the game looks amazing, but until I play it on a PC or console right in front of me, I am gonna reserve judgement on the game itself. I do look forward to that draw distance on a city scape though.

Stereotype. It was running fluently on my 7600GS card. Now i have GTX260 (quite cheap card right now), it runs on max settings on 1680x1050 (except AA).

Everything without the AA. That's the key.

Warhead played a lot smoother by a long shot, so when they throw the words "optimized" around they aren't just throwing stones. I had a 7600GT that wasn't fond of C1 at medium settings, I said screw it and wait for an upgrade. I use a 5850 @ 1920x1200, max all (DX9 of course, DX10 just was NOT a good idea for that engine at the time), and regularly at 2xAA, because my 4gb of system memory dries up when I run it at 4xAA for a prolonged period, heh...

Just for the sake of doing it, I installed good old Crysis. I put everything all the way up except AA. My max resolution was 1680x1050. The game doesn't seem to support the max resolution of my monitor. I got a good deal on a monitor with an HDMI port on it, so my max resolution is 1920x1080. I used FRAPS, my computer is running an Nvidia geForce 460 Superclocked with 1 Gb of video memory. I am using a high end i5 with 4 gigs of system memory on a 64 bit Windows 7. The game would only give me 38 FPS. Using technology that wasn't available at the time of it's release, I would have expected to at least be able to run at my monitor refresh rate. While this is obviously very very playable, I would still say the version of CryEngine they used on this is not very optimized. That is my opinion. I don't hate the game, or the developer. I am anxious to try Crysis 2. This does not reflect poorly on Crysis 2 at all. I am just trying to make people understand what I mean when I say it's not optimized. Optimized doesn't mean playable or not playable, it means that it most likely could have been stream lined in some capacity to run better, not that it runs horrible by any stretch of the imagination.

Baresark:

Just for the sake of doing it, I installed good old Crysis. I put everything all the way up except AA. My max resolution was 1680x1050. The game doesn't seem to support the max resolution of my monitor. I got a good deal on a monitor with an HDMI port on it, so my max resolution is 1920x1080. I used FRAPS, my computer is running an Nvidia geForce 460 Superclocked with 1 Gb of video memory. I am using a high end i5 with 4 gigs of system memory on a 64 bit Windows 7. The game would only give me 38 FPS. Using technology that wasn't available at the time of it's release, I would have expected to at least be able to run at my monitor refresh rate. While this is obviously very very playable, I would still say the version of CryEngine they used on this is not very optimized. That is my opinion. I don't hate the game, or the developer. I am anxious to try Crysis 2. This does not reflect poorly on Crysis 2 at all. I am just trying to make people understand what I mean when I say it's not optimized. Optimized doesn't mean playable or not playable, it means that it most likely could have been stream lined in some capacity to run better, not that it runs horrible by any stretch of the imagination.

You have system issues then. There's no reason you should be running frames that low. I've only got a GTX260 Core 216, 4g of RAM and a Core 2 Quad (Q9400 OC'd to 3ghz) and it runs better than that.

gah? It comes out ON MA BIRFDAY!! Yippee!!!

Out of curiosity, does anyone know if Crytek actually makes the money to recoup their gargantuan costs? Astounding graphics don't come cheap. Though, I suppose they can cut some costs by not actually spending more than a day on gameplay. "Get a gun, go shoot things, and they'll shoot you back with futuristic automatic precision" seems to be their entire game philosophy. Not one of them has impressed me much beyond "ooh, this looks pretty". So, yeah, in fairness, sure. Crytek are the only ones who can make Crytek games. Good to know.

Fuck yeah! Graphics are the most important factor in ANY game, BAR NONE!

All games should put their best staff and highest priority on the graphics!!!!!!

Baresark:
Ha, yeah, such a powerful engine! So powerful it can run seemlessly on consoles!...... wait, what?

Crysis doesn't run seemlessly on PC's now. I don't see how this is better if it can run on the the underpowered consoles.

Meh, regardless, I look forward to the game, and the continuation of a "cool", if not "good", story.

The Cryengine 2(and 3) were designed to streamline the existing engine so the less powerful systems could make better use of it (aka consoles).

Soviet Heavy:

theriddlen:
Yes, it is the best engine so far.
No other engine could handle such extensive graphics without being very slow - though people think that Crysis had very high performance requirements, the lower levels of graphics weren't like that - it runs on medium on years old (back when Crysis came out) middle-segment graphics card.
Other engines, like Source Engine (used in Half Life and Portal) just wouldn't be able to generate views from Crysis - at least without extensive modifications. And doing so with good performance is just out of their reach.

Take a look at the Dear Esther Mod remake for the Source Engine. All this is in game.

Not quite as good, but definitely capable on the Source Engine.

///There used to be a long, detailed post, but my browser crashed...

Fun fact: I've had identical conversation on Black Mesa forum before (Cry vs Source, with Dear Esther).

I know about it, this mod looks awesome, but still - i see ton of things (i wrote a long list, damn browser crashed, too angry to write again) that could have been done a lot better in Cry. Note, that i say that Esther is great looking, it's just not as good as CryEngine could do. (some examples: blocky terrain and rocks [except sand], some textures are lower quality and hidden in the dark, lighting is bit unrealistic-espiecially when compared to Crysis one, and the beam of light is quite basic, while Cry can make totally awesome ones.

Baresark:
Ha, yeah, such a powerful engine! So powerful it can run seemlessly on consoles!...... wait, what?

Crysis doesn't run seemlessly on PC's now. I don't see how this is better if it can run on the the underpowered consoles.

Meh, regardless, I look forward to the game, and the continuation of a "cool", if not "good", story.

Well, there's this magic thing they invented a long time ago in a land far away, known only today as "sliders".

Better graphics for better hardware? SLIDE UP! Manageable graphics for lesser hardware? SLIDE DOWN!

(And Crysis runs just fine on PCs now, and has done for ages.)

lostzombies.com:
Fuck yeah! Graphics are the most important factor in ANY game, BAR NONE!

All games should put their best staff and highest priority on the graphics!!!!!!

I love how you're no longer allowed to talk about graphics tech without comments like this.

OT: I can't wait for the CryEngine to be used across the board.

The Unreal Engine is based on older tech that we should be beyond.

I'm tempted to not get Crysis 2 due to the fact that it seems like they are throwing out the story of the first (which was supposed to be a trilogy) and go from the jungle (which was a better environment) to a city, and then forget about their pc fanbase with releasing the demo and beta on 360 and only 360. I guess releasing it there first to test how it will run is fine, but blocking out their fanbase of the first just isn't right imo.

Wow, I think he won the Bullshitter prize this year.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here