I don't know if you're patronising me or just completely missing my point. Probably the latter.danosaurus said:You've gone a bit off track there, mentioning SoTC - Sure it's a beautiful game but it's far from realistic. We're talking primarily about what you've just rejected in your post "Polygon Pushing Power" at which Cryengine is all about and what the topic at hand is.Arcane Azmadi said:abridged
While I admit that the acceleration rate of pioneering graphics technology has eased up a little in the past 5 years, I must say that you are very wrong in claiming that it has stopped altogether.
Unfortunately if you cannot see this for yourself, I'm not sure what I can offer you apart from screenshots of various games and how graphics have notably improved over said amount of time.
For Example - Have a look at games like the new Prince of Persia, Assassins Creed or STALKER - tell me that the amazing and vast architecture in those games was possible or present 6 years ago?
Or how about a direct comparison - Compare Call Of Duty 2 against Call of Duty 5 (WaW), seriously... if you don't see any difference there, I just.. I... I can't deal!
Yes, this just isn't render-able in real time. Not to mention, if you look closely at the old promo post from the original Crysis that Scrumpmonkey showed us, you'll notice that the artwork is clearly by the same person. Look closely at the way the head is drawn against the background, for example. Notice the smoothness?MaxChaos said:That's just promo art.
It HAS to be just promo art.
You can't promote the tactical gameplay in a game when the last halves of their games HAVE no tactical gameplay. I don't care if there are aliens and mutants, but when they change the game into a super bland, run and gun game, yeah I do care. "I'm hating on Crytek for petty reasons." Having a serious issue with deficient gameplay is a petty reason? That's like saying that Aliens Vs Predator is a universally acclaimed game if you ignore the bad reviews.danosaurus said:Cool rant, Hansel.TOGSolid said:Whoopdee doo, another game from Crytek.
Sure, they're good at coding an engine, but they are absolutely TERRIBLE at making a game with coherent gameplay. Both Far Cry 1 and Crysis suffered from the exact same problem, They started out with a decent enough idea for a game and then completely cocked it all up by removing everything that made the game at least a little fun, and replacing it with one giant you vs weird looking thingies shooter gameplay. Sure Far Cry/Crysis let you have a toy of some sort that did all sorts of neat stuff, and they give you a few opportunities to get creative and try different combinations and ideas, but then they take it all away and replace it with mutants/aliens that you can't do anything to besides just shoot a lot. Crytek has proven that it is incapable of learning from its mistakes, and unless everyone comes back from playing Crysis 2 saying "holy god, they fixed it," then I'm not interested. At the most I'll just use the demo, if there is one, as a benchmarking tool and that's it.
That's very subjective, I personally think Farcry and Crysis were great. Top-notch graphics (obviously), tactical gameplay (heaps of ways to approach all situations) and well, storyline's always a bit standard sci-fi but come on, it's an FPS - not an in-depth adventure//RPG. I think you're hating on Crytek for some pretty petty reasons, they continually push the envelope for certain areas on the market and you're bitching because they don't adhere to your strict 'no-aliens' contingent. That's like getting angry at Tarantino for introducing vampires in Dusk till Dawn, it's Cryteks style... deal with it?
I use WOPR.Wolfram01 said:Well I have to wonder if that's just a CGI video... but considering the first game, who knows. Also, to run a game at that quality of graphics... oh man, no WAY you could play it without a $1000+ super gaming rig lol.
They're worth it. I love the shit out of the 920 my desktop rocks.lacktheknack said:Well, if I had any doubts about getting an i7...