shacklesmcgee
Member
How long do you think it takes for someone to make a game? UE4 has been out, for non license holders, since March 2014
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Gamestar.de: The vultures are circling over Crytek [Up3: Eurogamer/Kotaku jump in]
- Thread starter DieH@rd
- Start date
How long do you think it takes for someone to make a game? UE4 has been out, for non license holders, since March 2014
I thought GungHo was a Korean company. Isn't Ragnarok Online a korean game?
Gravity, one of their subsidiaries, is Korean.
GungHo themselves is a Japanese company: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GungHo_Online_Entertainment
2 years. They are 2 years late.
BlazeBreak
Member
Yeah, it feels like they've definitely been chasing an audience. And they've probably been stretching themselves too thin. Apart from whatever franchises they've bought up, haven't they opened another 2-3 studios in the past ~two years? All of a sudden it kinda felt like they went from "the guys who made Crysis" to some huge operation with their hands in everything.
Epic Games and id Software are both in very comfortable positions with a huge company that lets them work indepent, but makes sure they have financial backing if necessary. So, it seems to have paid off for them.
Triggerhappytel
Member
I've always thought that too. I wonder how much they sold Far Cry for. Probably assumed that they didn't need FC as Crysis would be massive (particularly with the funding and backing of EA), and yet Crysis was if anything a bit too niche in aiming for the very top tier of PC gamers, while FC2 came out the year after on every platform and quickly sold over 5 million copies.
Yeah unless they're desperate enough (at which point they're done anyways) to hand over an original IP like that, it would be a very foolish idea.
There's a reason Insomniac demanded they own the rights to their own IP (Sunset Overdrive)
Freedom = $1.05
Banned
Far Cry 1 was a fantastic game until it the mutants started popping up. you take that back!
It must hurt but to be fair, Far Cry current success is nothing but Ubisoft evolving the series with interesting ideas, FC2 and FC3 are more imaginative than anything Crytec ever did.
I say it again, cool tech is cool, but it can only take you so far. You need interesting ideas, good gameplay, compelling stories... etc..
AgentOtaku
Member
Eh, I wouldn't say that. Remember the GIANT leap from OG Far Cry to Crysis?
I'll say that I dug the demo of Homefront2 at e3 and would LOVE a legitimately good successor to IO's Freedom Fighters.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Someone said earlier in the thread that a new Timesplitters could have all the ingredients to be something really big.
But instead they went for a new Homefront. Time will tell how that works out.
But instead they went for a new Homefront. Time will tell how that works out.
Gotta say I had ZERO interest in hl2 or the original but with all this I'm rooting for them now. Don't want to see another company go under.
SwiftDeath
Member
Homefront 2 looks decent thus far. A lot yet to be seen and more importantly played though.
I just mean that franchise has some poor luck associated with it. Not that I'm suggesting causality of course
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
Such a shame Crytek is facing tough times, as they're a great studio. Crysis 3 sounded like a misstep with a super short campaign, and afaik multiplayer that doesn't have a large following. Like the new Wolfenstein the focus should've been entirely on delivering a great single player game.
Not sure what the deal is with Ryse's ip ownership, but I hope they figure work it out, because I'd love a sequel.
What are the chances of Microsoft buying Crytek? They'd fit in very well, and would give them a powerhouse team to bring back Jet Force Gemini, or do a new Perfect Dark.
Not sure what the deal is with Ryse's ip ownership, but I hope they figure work it out, because I'd love a sequel.
What are the chances of Microsoft buying Crytek? They'd fit in very well, and would give them a powerhouse team to bring back Jet Force Gemini, or do a new Perfect Dark.
Small. As the OP says, waiting for them to fail is a lot cheaper.
Leyasu
Banned
I really enjoyed crysis's call of halo multiplayer.. But it was severely let down but the way that it changed the host after every game... so most of the time it was a laggy mess. But stick a sequels multiplayer on azure, with the same set-up as titanfall, and I would be all over it.
as for ryse... I really enjoyed it. It was probably one of the best brawlers that I have played. This has potential, not to the mention the thought of a full co-op campaign makes me want a sequel. This needs to happen.
Yeah microsoft should by them, they would get the tech and a few I.Ps that I think have potential..
Steverulez
Member
Microsoft won't buy Crytek for the same reason they didn't buy Bioware or Epic (or at least invest in Epic like Tencent did).
Far too much cost for a lot of stuff they don't want. MS at the price paid didn't need Bioware outside of Mass Effect IP, that team and possibly Jade Empire which was still a multi team studio, not to mention Pandemic. For Epic, which is very similar, they would have been paying a hefty sum for an engine that was almost worthless once they had that investment (i'd argue they could have done stuff with Chair and Epic Poland but realistically they only needed the main Gears team inside Epic).
Microsoft have no need for the cost of buying CryEngine (exclusively), Homefront, Crysis, Hunt etc IPs, or any of their associated studios which would significantly inflate the price.
I do see a situation occurring where Microsoft buy the Ryse IP and hire some of the key people in a new studio to make a sequel though. If Crytek can't carry on the IP either in funding or existence then MS will want to snap it up. I think that they will try and get the IP and give Crytek the chance to make a sequel personally unless the situation gets to a point where they literally can't, in which case, as I said, hire key people and make a new one.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
Crytek owns Homefront? If so I didn't know it. I hope it does well for them, I'll probably pick it up.
If worst came to worst and the ips went up for sale, I'd hope Microsoft would be smart enough to grab Ryse as well as some of the talent behind the game.
If worst came to worst and the ips went up for sale, I'd hope Microsoft would be smart enough to grab Ryse as well as some of the talent behind the game.
Steverulez
Member
They were making it for THQ when they went bust, in the auction they got it for $500k, not a bad deal imo, new one looks good.
Steverulez
Member
I don't think Crytek were going for the same sort of game as DmC and the like (not played DmC but I did play 4 and I assume they're the same type of game) otherwise it would have been very different...
Really hope this happens. Ryse was surprisingly fun and I loved the presentation. With more enemy and combat variety it could be great.
Of course they weren't trying to replicate the specific DmC approach to action, but it was deifnitely a classical action combat game with a structured combat system ala DmC or Batman or God of War or whatever action game you have in mind. The similarities are rather striking in structure, just not in terms of the mechanics.
But that goes without saying - if it played the same as some of these other action games in the genre, it wouldn't actually suck then. Every time I read a comment about Ryse not sucking I still almost say a little audible 'what?' Definition of a wonked out launch game with all the problems that entails.
Steverulez
Member
We'll have to agree to disagree on the sucking bit. Personally I hated DMC4 and NGS (and didn't enjoy GOW3 either, I did complete all three of the games I listed), not saying they're bad games but I really didn't enjoy playing them at all.
I loved Ryse, I really hope they don't change it to something it isn't if they do make a sequel.
marlowesghost
Member
Far cry 2 or 3 were hardly more interesting than the original far cry. You could argue that the setting and tone of 2 was interesting but 3 was a narrative disaster and had one well scripted bad guy in a sea of obvious infantile tropes. Far cry one is as interesting as Crysis, the first one, the good one, that allowed for open ended encounters across a large area with destruction and interactivity. You are right tho, they have become a 'cool tech' company, but theyou were broader at the beginning with their chances.
I'm talking in a lot of threads about Ryse recently because I just finished it, and here I go again. I do not wan't to sound rude, and if I do I apologise.
In no way or on the very planet we are living now, was the combat good. Crytek, or the team that might end up making it, need to change it a lot. The blood, guts and bloody animations idea was good albeit common, but the mundane execution of it all killed it. Somewhere they went wrong and I think they know it too.
Amirox said what I wanted to say when I read some of the comments here, "what?" Is pretty descriptive. I can understand if some liked it as an ok game, but statements like "One of the best brawlers" is a bit far fetched based on what Crytek brought to the table compared to best brawlers out there. People should step back a bit from the game, take a deep breath and try to look at the problems objectively.
I think giving someone else a go at it might give it the polish it needs, so not all hope is lost.
ChiefofCitadelSecurity
Member
Steverulez
Member
Well, you seem to be telling it wasn't good, but I liked it and so did others surely its a personal thing rather than deciding the combat wasn't good? I enjoyed the hacking and slashing with a sword and blocking with a shield then doing the executions. Its not the deepest mechanic in the world but it doesn't need to be. I'm not crazy enough to think it doesn't need some improvements, there are obvious improvements they can make to the game as with any game from especially the original release to the first sequel: more enemy variety, different weapons etc but really, I liked it for what it was, I don't want it to turn into just another game of the same type.
I liked it enough to play it through probably 3 times if not a bit more to finish getting the achievements, I wouldnt change the combat significantly at all. I put a ton of time into multiplayer as well.
I'd really rather the team that did the sequel looked at what needed improving (I think they would almost certainly change the time period of future games) and just try and improve on what was there. Looking around, at the OT and other things I've seen (not from the reviews..!) it seems a lot of people liked it for what it was as well.
I think that Ryse just isn't a series for you personally, which is fine, I do understand some of the criticism that it gets, but I also thought it was great. The presentation of the game, graphically it was great - ran fine as well (long loading times aside), great production values.
I can only speak for myself of course, but thats how I see it. I'd be disappointed if a sequel changed things up significantly I think.
It's not that far from reality. Just like a person in RL, AAA games too have only one first impression and beauty certainly has a huge influence on both's.
plasmawave
Banned
China is going to end up owning everything in the world.
No need to be sceptical anymore, kotakus article has been ready for quite a while but due to Crytek asking them not to post it because it was just rumour, a few employees decided to speak out.
http://kotaku.com/sources-crytek-not-paying-staff-on-time-ryse-sequel-d-1594967505
I don't know how to say this without being a bit condescending, but there is subjective values to combat, and objective values - such as how deep a system goes, how one can exploit it, how much skill it requires to master. Ninja Gaiden Sigma and DMC4 both have combat systems so many hundreds of times more refined and deep than Ryse than the only logical conclusion is that it is something else you value in the package to put it beyond those in your assessment.
I mean you can tell this even by the size of the competitive communities that spawned around these games: DMC4 is deep enough that people are still vying for high scores and finding new ways to exploit the system, and people still play DMC3 to this day and find new elegant ways to expand their score multipliers. That will never happen for Ryse, because it's simply too shallow. For a combat game, that's the unforgivable sin. For me, the sole redeeming quality of Ryse is its production values, and maybe that's it. Or maybe you prefer simpler combat that doesn't require you to juggle a lot of systems, and that's OK too. I don't know. But one thing is beyond dispute: Ryse isn't even as deep as Batman Arkham Asylum.
"Depth" is not actually a quality indicator, as I hope this is clear in the post - for me and most fans of the genre, however, that's where the meat is. Without it, I'm not sure what there is to get out of a combat system. So when I say I am curious to know what you get out of it other than depth of its combat system, I really am genuine.
rokkerkory
Member
Sucks for the employees. Bad mgmt it seems.
Steverulez
Member
Well, ive already said its not the deepest combat system, but ive already said how much I liked the same and specifically its combat system. If it was intending to be like the other games it would be very different, specifically much faster, put more enemies on-screen and have more epic bosses, I would guess not to mention multiple weapons which all have different playstyles, I doubt a Ryse sequel would have done the final one.
For the combat system, I think the use of the shield and defending against several enemies one at a time then attacking them and managing them is quite rewarding (especially on the highest difficulty), striking them, getting the executions and hitting them which is only particularly rewarding because of the way he execute them. Maybe im just a sadist and enjoy watching Marius tear apart Barbarians in a gruesome manner? (I can also see how incredibly boring that sounds...)
Its cinematic which is shown by the executions and the different powers etc which you can use, its a cinematic showcase and I think thats very obvious in how it plays. Where I put the most of my time into is the multiplayer which was cool with the evolving arenas which changes things up, environmental executions and playing co-op with a friend is fun.
Im not trying to convince you its deep, but I think its different enough, just because its an "action game" and he has a sword doesnt mean its really the same, especially as it is slower too which is where I think that you would probably not find out it so satisfying, I dont think it ever tried to come across as deep or meaty in combat as other games. I cant say ive played enough of Batman recently to compare to that either though im not discounting it.
If you went into Ryse expecting it to compete with the likes of the games you mentioned then I think thats perhaps what you didnt enjoy so much. Maybe it was Microsofts marketing (or the original Ryse on 360 which I cant remember what it looked like) but I think we're steering in the same direction that its not deep but differ on how much we liked or disliked it, which we will never agree on.
There are obvious improvements to be made in a sequel which now looks unlikely too but still, I doubt any of them if made would particularly change the game sufficiently enough to be more like other games you enjoy.
Does anybody know how crytek lost the far cry IP ? as far as I know they developed FC1 (Great for it's time) and was published by Ubi ,but since then the games were made by ubi Montreal. Was some sort of deal reached between Ubi and Crytek or was Far Cry always a Ubi IP and they asked crytek to develop it ?
Metal Gear?!
Member
Crytek probably never owned it, Ubisoft most likely always had the IP as a result of them publishing the first game.
Ubi even made the console ports of Far Cry without Crytek.
This would lead to them going with EA Partners for the Crysis series.
Triggerhappytel
Member
It did belong to Crytek initially. After the first game Crytek quickly signed a deal with EA to make Crysis, and Ubi continued to license Far Cry under which they made Instincts and Predator. Ubi then bought the IP and released Vengeance, and then made proper sequels starting with FC2. Buying a version of the CryEngine must have also been part of the deal too, as the Dunia engine (used in FC2 & 3) is based on a heavily advanced version of the CryEngine. I imagine Crytek sold the rights as they were certain they were onto something even bigger with Crysis, but obviously the opposite happened and after a strong first game, Crysis' popularity declined while FC has gone from strength to strength.
Does not even compare to DmC in any form.
Ryse is a solid game with strengths in story(setting) and graphics. The combat is fun and challenging on higher difficulties - I enjoyed it throughout. I really hope we get a Ryse 2 in one form or another ... sad news all around.
1st Course
Member
And now it's Develop turn
http://www.develop-online.net/news/crytek-uk-staff-not-paid-full-wages-since-april/0194556
http://www.develop-online.net/news/crytek-uk-staff-not-paid-full-wages-since-april/0194556
Sodding_Gamer
Member
When Crytek announced their Free to play vision I had a tiny feeling it wasn't going to go down well.
Hope all the employees find jobs elsewhere though.
Hope all the employees find jobs elsewhere though.
Dictator93
Member
Declining to talk on the matter.
Sigh....
Sigh....