CryENGINE 3 ready for PC, PS3 and Xbox 360

HEY

This makes my aging gaming rig cry with tears of knowing it'll get replaced soon. Also its overheating with the thought of Crysis 2.

This isn't good news. This sucks.

Another new engine that will make millions of people's PCs worthless.

Source is the best. Let's just stick with that.

offday, that's what you get for going oem.

You can max out Crysis on a fairly cheap computer these days, stop spouting pure BS.

Being voted down?

Wow the anti PC fanboys are out in full force today.

Crysis on a PS3/360 will probably look like medium settings on the PC version, okay, not that great. It looks great at Very High in DX10 with full motion blur as I finally got the PC hardware to run that.

@Huey2k2

q6600 @ 3.0GHz
9800GX2 OC
8GB 800MHz Ram
Vista 64-Bit

I get anywhere from 15-25 FPS in crysis warhead With all settings maxed out ;_;

as far as the game goes, it's not all what's it's cracked up to be, it's just really pretty

MutoidMan, you watch Zero Punctuation. That guy doesn't even use commas in his speech...

@Huey2k2

q6600 @ 3.6GHz
48501GB OC to 650Mhz
4GB 1066MHz Ram
Vista 32-Bit(I know, I know, But it's all I had at the time I built it and I can't upgrade w/out losing all my stuff!)

I get 20-50FPS(35 avg) @1280*1024 so yeah..

It's already been proven that Crysis runs terribly because it's poorly coded. Crysis Warhead runs great on many machines though and looks just as good. My PC runs it on Enthusiast settings (highest setting) at 30+ fps with zero hickups. I just have a 9800 GTX, a P9500, 4gb DDR3 and a 7200rpm harddrive.

And of course most PC gamers have no idea how to optimize their machine and keep services bare bone for running games nor do they understand what bottlenecks are and that their setup has several flaws in it. That and proper drivers and chipsets help (which is another common problem the typical pc gamer has).

@ Anticrawl

Yea i love amazing people with how high I can run stuff with my old rig. Its perfectly balanced with my internet being the only bottleneck XD, other then that tho I have modded drivers and some registery tweaks. Also I have about 19 processes, with the ability to drop to 14 if i really need power and about 110MB ram used with XP now.

IF your getting 25 FPS with a GX2 and Q6600, there's something wrong going on here.

@ anticrawl

what res you running that at? and dx9 or 10?
And I don't know what you're talking about with running processes being bottlenecks. With Crysis it's nearly always going to be the GFX. If you have a fast dual or quad and 4gb memory it will be your graphic card that makes the framerate dip, not how optimised the rest of your pc is...

I run it at 50+ FPS Completely maxed out.

Core i7 @ 4ghz.
6 gigs of DDR 3 ram
GTX 295 @ 710/1548/1215

Forgot to add that this is at 1920x1200 in DX10 mode.

Killzone looks fantastic don't get me wrong... but it still doesn't look as good as Crysis does completely maxxed out.

I am very very excited to see what they can do with their new engine.

I was referring to consoles though

Ah I misread it. I assume whatever they come out with on consoles will look fantastic at the very least. Crytek is very good at pushing the boundaries of visuals in video games.

Only if someone really takes the time to utilize it, of course. Middleware doesn't account for developer knowhow

You know, for all the people who are foaming at the mouth about Killzone 2's visuals... it really doesn't look that great. I mean, yes, it is nice and the animation especially is quite good, but honestly, after starting Unreal Tournament 3 up again after the Titan Pack came out last week, that game definitely looks way better - and it's from 2007. It's kind of sad to see people marveling about "amazing graphics" when the console running it can barely maintain a consistent 30 fps in the process, and it still doesn't look as good as a year-and-a-half-old PC game.

Big and shiny doesn't equal better graphics. Killzone 2 is 100 million times better looking than that, but you have to actually play it to witness it. Screens/videos don't do it justice.

Graphics are subjective to what your eye sees as being beautiful. My personal opinion is that Killzone 2 is the best looking console game to date. Now, that probably won't last past this year (if that long) because new benchmarks are always set. I'm not sure if I misunderstood but there aren't any frame rate issues in KZ 2. Strangely enough I haven't had any lag in multiplayer either. like none at all ... I would say that Killzone is #1, Gears 2 is #2 and Metal Gear Solid 4 is #3. All of those games have perfect frame rates and are stunning just to look at.

Does anyone know the name of the engine Guerilla built for Killzone 2 and if it's going to be shared internally within Sony or if it's going to be licensed out?

I'm pretty sure God of War 3 is using it and I heard uncharted 2 is using it but I don't have anything to back the uncharted one up though. Might have been some other in house game.

well Uncharted 2 already competes with KZ2 and so does GOW3 so im pretty sure this new engine wont compete with Sony's AAA titles only make the 360's games better looking but not enjoyable

"Crytek is very good at pushing the boundaries of visuals in video games."

Shame they haven't mastered the whole 'pushing the boundary of gameplay'.

Fucking hell, if Crytek put even more aliens in their next I.P. then they're definitely idiots!

-1

-1

The grafx whore in me sais YES, THANK YOU CRYTEK!!! :)

Like Dragod said, Halo 4 with Crysis grafx please!

-1 for Fenix too plzkthxbai

-2?

You do realize that not all of us give a shit about these liitle hearts, right? I'm here to talk games, not worry about being cool and getting hearts.

lol wow, i do great math right there

LOL you fail OSMAN, thats the first time in my life I read -2!

@ F K , you heartless bastard.

Was FEAR 2 really "dumbed down," or was it just so badly designed that it wasn't particularly fun on any platform? The impression I got was just boredom and annoyance, not like I was playing a console game.

Crysis plays quite well with a 360 controller, I don't know why it hasn't been ported over sooner(as in near the launch of the original Crysis), it would be an awesome console game.

I guess they didn't like money.

ihavepants,

It wasn't ported because the Xbox 360 doesn't have the shader power necessary to run the game near High image quality level; the game doesn't look all that great for its hardware demands below High shaders and texture quality (where you get HDR lighting and full res textures). It wasn't until the current crop of cards that one could play it at all High settings around 1920x1080/1920x1200, and if a Geforce 8800 GTX couldn't handle the game at 1280x1024 with all High settings, what possible hope does Xenos have of doing the same thing?


The other settings (except for particles and volumetric quality) are fairly open to debate. For example, Crysis's use of shadows can be pretty resource intensive, but they basically boil down to preference; some people like the sharply defined shadows of Medium (though they're jagged as hell even with AA coming from a character model), others like the slightly lighter yet blurred shadows of High, and others still prefer the realistic shadows of Very High. Some people like pumping up terrain LOD to the absolute max while disabling texture streaming to improve the image quality of mountains, others don't. Some people like using FFT when it comes to the ocean, others prefer the calmer look of it without. Some people like colorgrading and yet others prefer the overall look without it.

Read the original post: March 25th – 27th

Please. Crysis is more than playable on a cheap PC in High Settings. Any Dual-core system with 4gb ram and a 512Mb HD4850 would happily play Crysis in High Settings with no problems, and it's so cheap now. You're train of thought is now 12 months old.