• 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.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Crysis 3 - CryEngine3 Tech Trailer

Punkster_NY

Member
Sep 29, 2011
1,373
0
0
Queens, NY
Look Gaf my first gifs. :D




 

Peterthumpa

Member
May 31, 2009
5,172
73
1,270
THis actually looks like CGI.
If i didnt already believe in the CryEngine id think this was some CGI Target rendering.

I dont think the GTX570s are ready for this....looks like my first real upgrade will be when Crysis 3 drops.


Proprietary?

I'm starting to feel that a big, heavy and massive disappointment will plague GAF once Crysis 3 is released. This is Crysis 2 all over again. Everybody here has to understand that Crysis 3 will also be plagued by consoles being the main platform.

Please, watch this video that came out before Crysis 2, showcasing our beloved CryEngine 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJEL9Kipuw4

Now show me a scene that comes close to the beginning of this trailer in Crysis 2.

The frog scene in this newest trailer is the worst offender, since it won't even make the final game (for obvious reasons) and it's just a bit of tech demo tackled at the end. Yeah, it looks good, but we won't see this level of detail in game, not this time.

Sorry to shatter everybody's dreams.
 

Black_Stride

do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
Mar 31, 2011
5,702
3,252
1,090
I'm starting to feel that a big, heavy and massive disappointment will plague GAF once Crysis 3 is released. This is Crysis 2 all over again. Everybody here has to understand that Crysis 3 will also be plagued by consoles being the main platform.

Please, watch this video that came out before Crysis 2, showcasing our beloved CryEngine 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJEL9Kipuw4

Now show me a scene that comes close to the beginning of this trailer in Crysis 2.

The frog scene in this newest trailer is the worst offender, since it won't even make the final game (for obvious reasons) and it's just a bit of tech demo tackled at the end. Yeah, it looks good, but we won't see this level of detail in game, not this time.

Sorry to shatter everybody's dreams.

Thats a demo for Sandbox for Cinema, which can easily be recreated right now.....heck CE3.4 looks better than pretty much everything that was shown in that demo.
Also, you do know that CryEngine runs buttery smooth on PC now right, as long as the textures are higher on PC then Crytek will have won.
Add in pixel accurate displacement maps and DX11 features(which they have also perfected right now) and your whole console platform statement is mooted.

Did Crysis 2 vanilla look as good as the Sandbox for Cinema demo? No, mainly if not solely because of the different art direction. Crysis DX11 looks vastly better than the Sandbox for Cinema demo.
Trust me alot of us Crydev guys have been begging Crytek to release the Jelena demo they never did.

I love your attempts to rain on my parade, but unfortunately that wont work because, the difference between the Sandbox for Cinema demo and the Crysis 3 Cryengine demo is that this demo is using the art direction of Crysis 3 and large portions of this video are taken directly from Crysis 3.

Is there some "bullshoting" im sure, i bet this was captured at some ridiculous res and downsampled....this is what the game will look like.

P.S The Jelena demo is assets and shit from a cancelled CryTek game which I believe was to be published by EA as such the assets and shit belong to EA....the game was looking awesome:


look Gaf my first gif. :D

Imgur and Minus are your best friends, welcome to NeoGAF
 

Jac_Solar

Member
Jan 27, 2012
2,765
0
0
I posted this at PCgamer but thought I'd also post here -- I'm interested in hearing what other people have to say about this:

I'd guess the lack of games with this tech is most likely due to the quality people would expect from a game with this engine, which requires considerably more work than what is required by "standard", or the usual engines.

IE; For games on pretty much every other engine out there, people don't expect (Or atleast it doesn't get mentioned in most, if not all, professional reviews.) 2k-4k textures and extremely detailed models, minimum, for every plant, tree, leaf, NPC, building; generally every single model/entire universe -- and in the case of models, I'd suspect many engines also use tricks instead of actual models to make up a gameworld.

But I don't know for sure -- I'm just guessing that most developers or publishers, especially the ones who are in it for the money, wouldn't want to work with CryEngine because of the minimum expected, or "required" visual fidelity and consequently the amount of work.

CryEngine games seem to either be FPS games with the typical, limited FPS gameplay (Shoot, move, jump perhaps, grab NPC's and some objects perhaps.), or MMO's that spend a long, long time in development, alpha and beta/chat simulators with an extremely barren world.

The most recent example of a game with an interactive world, gameplay (Sort of.) and loads of content is Skyrim -- but that still suffered from (Seemingly.) engine flaws dating back to the first 3D Elder Scrolls; modelling/meshes. The landscape felt very artificial (Compared to world/terrain in other games.) and out of place in all games, or atleast nowhere near natural.

The basic terrain "mesh" has been, basically, identical throughout the games, and to some extent, the NPC models. Objects with simple shapes looked nice though.

But, as many others have pointed out before, increased quality in graphics requires more work.

The only games that looked "really good" this gen were also limited, short 5-10 hour games -- usually FPS games, but also 3rd person shooters. However, the only difference between the 2 genres is that in one game you "steer" a gun, the other you "steer" the character model and the gun. They are almost always identical in terms of everything else -- gameplay, level design, world design, structure, etc,

So, when developers seemingly struggle to create content heavy games (RPG's; 20+ hour games.) this gen, or even at the start of this gen, will there even be a market for such games the next generation? Would people accept the relatively "very weak" graphics they would have to use to create enough content? Or would they even try to create such a game?

I believe developer teams are either extremely inefficient in structure, or most of the money goes to waste/shady executives, and/or maybe even the atmosphere of a big game project ruins any incentive to do a decent job, and prohibits any form of creative input or atleast the desire to be creative.
 

Sid

Member
May 6, 2012
8,964
0
0
29
Just for fun... the evolution of frogs! :)

nVidia Froggy Demo (2006)
I get what you're stating though i don't think the earlier 2 demos could be compared to this,they were both going for a cartoonish art style rather than hyper realism
 
Jun 1, 2011
22,350
2
0
I'm starting to feel that a big, heavy and massive disappointment will plague GAF once Crysis 3 is released. This is Crysis 2 all over again. Everybody here has to understand that Crysis 3 will also be plagued by consoles being the main platform.

Please, watch this video that came out before Crysis 2, showcasing our beloved CryEngine 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJEL9Kipuw4

Now show me a scene that comes close to the beginning of this trailer in Crysis 2.

The frog scene in this newest trailer is the worst offender, since it won't even make the final game (for obvious reasons) and it's just a bit of tech demo tackled at the end. Yeah, it looks good, but we won't see this level of detail in game, not this time.

Sorry to shatter everybody's dreams.

That's not how this works, that was not a trailer for Crysis 2. What matters here is this list:

Volumetric Fog Shadows
Area Lights
Particle FX Lighting
Real-Time Volumetric Cloud Shadows
Pixel Accurate Displacement Mapping
Tessellated Vegetation
Lens flares
Procedural HDR Flares & Shapes
3rd Gen GI
Water Caustics
Cloth & Vegetation simulation

Half of those are clearly visible in the E3 demo. Naturally, all of them will be on the final game.

Will frogs look like that in the final game? Who cares?
 

Black_Stride

do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
Mar 31, 2011
5,702
3,252
1,090
That's crazy cat lady talk. Minus and Abload is where the fun is, Imgur is just compressionville.

Haha whoops i meant to type abload.de but imgur is a site i use for "nonessential" images so much i automatically typed it.
Hehe.
Minus for life!
 

Black_Stride

do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
Mar 31, 2011
5,702
3,252
1,090
Just that image piques my interest more than the entirety of Crysis 2 did.........

.....

Im actually sad that they cancelled this game.
Just looking at some of the environments they had made this game was going to be awesome.
And for its time different.....i bet people right now would say its a The Last of Us rip-off, in fact i bet EA is kicking themselves in the ass for not jumping on this seeing all the hype around the Last of Us.

Shame really, CryTek needed a none Crysis game to demo the Engine maybe more people would have faith in it....and i imagine if the Jelena game actually worked well, they would have a DX11 version in the works right now and we would all be scorfing at The Last of Us.






 

-SD-

Banned
Aug 7, 2005
5,196
0
0
Abload.de and Minus are your best friends, welcome to NeoGAF
Fixed that for you. imgur is bad because of the recompression i.e. quality loss.

Tip: You need an account for minus. Otherwise the images will be deleted after 30 days.
 

nelsonroyale

Member
Sep 16, 2006
21,980
0
0
Im actually sad that they cancelled this game.
Just looking at some of the environments they had made this game was going to be awesome.
And for its time different.....i bet people right now would say its a The Last of Us rip-off, in fact i bet EA is kicking themselves in the ass for not jumping on this seeing all the hype around the Last of Us.

Shame really, CryTek needed a none Crysis game to demo the Engine maybe more people would have faith in it....and i imagine if the Jelena game actually worked well, they would have a DX11 version in the works right now and we would all be scorfing at The Last of Us.


Yeah it is a shame, but I dont have much faith in the direction crytek are going with their gaming focus given what they have being saying recently.

I doubt we would be scoffing at Last of Us though....at least for the console versions. They are more impressive than Crytek in the console space and I think they have a better track record in actually producing good games. Despite the hoopla that is made here on U3, I think Crysis 2 was a much bigger disappointment. Heres hoping they rectify some of the issues with C3, but I would have prefered them to work on a game like this....
 
Jun 6, 2010
1,594
0
0
You know they are gonna do a "velociraptor" tall grass level with this tech. They just have to.



Velociraptor in quotes because it will probably awesome stalking aliens

Crysis 3 concept art:


Look Gaf my first gifs. :D





The lack of particles receiving light was a huge downgrade from CryEngine 2 to CryEngine 3. It's great to see they've gotten it back now. It wasn't working in the E3 demonstration so it's a fairly new addition.
 

Jac_Solar

Member
Jan 27, 2012
2,765
0
0
You know they are gonna do a "velociraptor" tall grass level with this tech. They just have to.



Velociraptor in quotes because it will probably awesome stalking aliens

While that is cool in itself, imagine how exploration would change with that kind of grass "tech" -- it would radically change exploration in games for the better.

But there aren't a lot of exploration heavy games nowadays. Gothic 3 is still the champion of immersive exploration in a gameworld...

I think I've played most of the open world games, or any game that offered a world that you could explore, and in my opinion Gothic 3 is leagues ahead of every other game in terms of world design and exploration.

Risen 2's world design reminded me a bit about the greatness in Gothic 3, but it fell short cause of the "many islands design", and the lack of freedom -- you couldn't go anywhere, and to get to a new location on an island you'd have to follow paths. There were some openish areas though.

Risen 2 could have been incredible if they had made a coherent gameworld, set on 1 continent -- why did they not do this?

The developers of Risen have some incredible potential when it comes to open world exploration design -- if they had focused on a single gameworld from the start, I'm pretty sure Risen 2 would have been a landmark achievement in the design of open world games.
 

scitek

Member
Aug 23, 2005
17,119
13
1,400
El Paso, TX
twitch.tv
I posted this at PCgamer but thought I'd also post here -- I'm interested in hearing what other people have to say about this:

I'd guess the lack of games with this tech is most likely due to the quality people would expect from a game with this engine, which requires considerably more work than what is required by "standard", or the usual engines.

IE; For games on pretty much every other engine out there, people don't expect (Or atleast it doesn't get mentioned in most, if not all, professional reviews.) 2k-4k textures and extremely detailed models, minimum, for every plant, tree, leaf, NPC, building; generally every single model/entire universe -- and in the case of models, I'd suspect many engines also use tricks instead of actual models to make up a gameworld.

But I don't know for sure -- I'm just guessing that most developers or publishers, especially the ones who are in it for the money, wouldn't want to work with CryEngine because of the minimum expected, or "required" visual fidelity and consequently the amount of work.

CryEngine games seem to either be FPS games with the typical, limited FPS gameplay (Shoot, move, jump perhaps, grab NPC's and some objects perhaps.), or MMO's that spend a long, long time in development, alpha and beta/chat simulators with an extremely barren world.

The most recent example of a game with an interactive world, gameplay (Sort of.) and loads of content is Skyrim -- but that still suffered from (Seemingly.) engine flaws dating back to the first 3D Elder Scrolls; modelling/meshes. The landscape felt very artificial (Compared to world/terrain in other games.) and out of place in all games, or atleast nowhere near natural.

The basic terrain "mesh" has been, basically, identical throughout the games, and to some extent, the NPC models. Objects with simple shapes looked nice though.

But, as many others have pointed out before, increased quality in graphics requires more work.

The only games that looked "really good" this gen were also limited, short 5-10 hour games -- usually FPS games, but also 3rd person shooters. However, the only difference between the 2 genres is that in one game you "steer" a gun, the other you "steer" the character model and the gun. They are almost always identical in terms of everything else -- gameplay, level design, world design, structure, etc,

So, when developers seemingly struggle to create content heavy games (RPG's; 20+ hour games.) this gen, or even at the start of this gen, will there even be a market for such games the next generation? Would people accept the relatively "very weak" graphics they would have to use to create enough content? Or would they even try to create such a game?

I believe developer teams are either extremely inefficient in structure, or most of the money goes to waste/shady executives, and/or maybe even the atmosphere of a big game project ruins any incentive to do a decent job, and prohibits any form of creative input or atleast the desire to be creative.

I think it has more to do with the lack of support Stateside. Epic's located in North Carolina, and if you have a question or need help with something pertaining to their engine, you're at worst three hours behind them. Crytek's in Germany, many hours ahead of many developers on the west coast in the US, so I can see that being at least somewhat of a deterrent. I'd imagine their documentation is fine, but this late into a generation, it really doesn't make sense to learn a brand new engine from scratch. Next gen, though, I think Crytek has a decent shot, especially since developers interested in moving on to UE4 would have to pay a new licensing fee for it.
 

Jac_Solar

Member
Jan 27, 2012
2,765
0
0
I think it has more to do with the lack of support Stateside. Epic's located in North Carolina, and if you have a question or need help with something pertaining to their engine, you're at worst three hours behind them. Crytek's in Germany, many hours ahead of many developers on the west coast in the US, so I can see that being at least somewhat of a deterrent. I'd imagine their documentation is fine, but this late into a generation, it really doesn't make sense to learn a brand new engine from scratch. Next gen, though, I think Crytek has a decent shot, especially since developers interested in moving on to UE4 would have to pay a new licensing fee for it.


Ah yeah, that probably makes a big difference as well. However, I still think the lack of CryEngine games is because of the sheer amount of work the games made in the engine require, compared to other engines -- developers would not get away with any subpar models or textures there, and would get hammered in reviews and by gamers.

As we all know, most Unreal Games are quite linear, and most of them have somewhat high quality textures and modelling but only at the "critical path", or the areas pertaining to the "main" story/the areas that the developers guided you "into and through", the "AAA gameplay river" design concept :p.

Mass Effect 3 is a good example of a recent, long RPG game -- I didn't play through the entire game, but I did play for a few hours.

The locations were either extremely simplistic in design with Playstation 2 type enviroment textures (Side missions, planets, even some critical mission quests I think.), or nicely detailed interior locations. It didn't seem like there were many detailed locations though -- but I'm not sure.

I'm not a huge fan of Mass Effect though -- I played through the first 2 games, and while the concept of the story in the first game is awesome (Reapers.), the narrative, conversations and the structure of the story quickly devolved into the typical common cliches and events that make up most sci-fi stories, games, etc, and made it play like a typical sci-fi shooter that would occasionally remind you that it has an awesome idea for a story.

But, obviously, maintaining the epic nature and universal conflict indicated by the reveal of the Reaper story throughout the game is basically impossible for any medium (Books, movies, games, etc.) -- so, I wouldn't expect them to even try to do that.

I just prefer to play games for the gameplay; stories are considerably better represented in other mediums like books, or occasionally movies.

I'm not saying that stories in games are pointless, cause they do add a lot of worth to most games, but gameplay should come first.
 

dragonelite

Member
Mar 9, 2010
12,131
0
0
I think it has more to do with the lack of support Stateside. Epic's located in North Carolina, and if you have a question or need help with something pertaining to their engine, you're at worst three hours behind them. Crytek's in Germany, many hours ahead of many developers on the west coast in the US, so I can see that being at least somewhat of a deterrent. I'd imagine their documentation is fine, but this late into a generation, it really doesn't make sense to learn a brand new engine from scratch. Next gen, though, I think Crytek has a decent shot, especially since developers interested in moving on to UE4 would have to pay a new licensing fee for it.

Im pretty sure they have a office in the US they even have 2 in asia if im not mistaken.
I know one that makes simulation stuff in CE3 for the army in the US only forgot the name.

Holy shit, HIM? God damn Crytek, you lost something more than a graphic artist, he works with Tomasz Baginski for fuck's sake.
Ooh this is the guy that made that awesome Codename:Kingdoms artwork that made me all hyped now that it is Ryse and what looks like Rome and nothing mystical or fantasy about its a bit meh.
 

Lovely Salsa

Banned
Sep 3, 2007
5,727
0
0
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't cry engine 1 to 2 a downgrade? As the latter was made with consoles in mind

What is cryengine 3 made for? This gen? next gen?
 

Eideka

Banned
Apr 24, 2012
4,232
0
0
The CryEngine 3 is not a downgrade by any means from the CE 2.

According to Crytek the CE3 is already ready for "next-gen".
 

Krauser Kat

Member
Dec 28, 2009
5,474
0
0
35
The Luminous engine demo ran on a GTX 680, the GPU in the PS5 will destroy that, easily. There's no reason PS4 and Xbox 3 won't be able to run that demo at 720p.

lol. They arent getting any where near the beef of a 680. Even in a closed environment. Crysis 3 PC is definitely pushing us out of things the current consoles can dream of doing. We will have to compare it to real next gen stuff (1313, new epic fort zombie game) when they come out.
 

DieH@rd

Banned
Dec 9, 2006
35,045
4
0
So far for PS4 we are predicting quadcore cpu [8threads] with integrated 7850 gpu in a single package.

Closed environment and optimizations will make wonders for such hardware... but this time I think that midrange PCs will catch them up really fast.
 

Eideka

Banned
Apr 24, 2012
4,232
0
0
You seriously believe a console releasing in 2014 will have a weaker GPU than a 680 ? A card released in 2012....


That would be a real shame.
 

RoboPlato

I'd be in the dick
Oct 29, 2006
42,982
0
0
eh, I thought PS4 was rumoured to have 7970 in it?
There's a lot of confusion in the rumors. There may have been a 7970M (the laptop version) in the dev kits at some point, not a 7970. Current rumors are placing it with an underclocked 7850 with some feature customization. Again, that's probably a devkit setup so things can change.
 

Lovely Salsa

Banned
Sep 3, 2007
5,727
0
0
There's a lot of confusion in the rumors. There may have been a 7970M (the laptop version) in the dev kits at some point, not a 7970. Current rumors are placing it with an underclocked 7850 with some feature customization. Again, that's probably a devkit setup so things can change.

That would be lame if it were true considering Sony said they're going with power next gen and the system is expected to release in 2014.

Not to mention it is supposed to last a very long time....
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
Jun 9, 2004
51,621
2,198
2,035
www.eurogamer.net
You seriously believe a console releasing in 2014 will have a weaker GPU than a 680 ? A card released in 2012....


That would be a real shame.
Well, they could easily exceed what we've seen on the PC with a weaker GPU in a console simply due to the closed nature of the platform.

I mean, consider what the PS3 and 360 are still delivering today. Those platforms are using ancient hardware in PC terms yet still manage to deliver fairly impressive looking games.
 

RoboPlato

I'd be in the dick
Oct 29, 2006
42,982
0
0
That would be lame if it were true considering Sony said they're going with power next gen and the system is expected to release in 2014.

Not to mention it is supposed to last a very long time....
Well, a lot of rumors are placing the next Xbox with a significantly weaker GPU than that so, if that pans out to be true, Sony will be going for power in comparison. Console optimization also goes a long way and if they have a GPGPU set up you can get a lot more out of both the CPU and GPU. Still, all this stuff is just rumor so it all comes with a hefty grain of salt.
 

Eideka

Banned
Apr 24, 2012
4,232
0
0
Well, they could easily exceed what we've seen on the PC with a weaker GPU in a console simply due to the closed nature of the platform.

I mean, consider what the PS3 and 360 are still delivering today. Those platforms are using ancient hardware in PC terms yet still manage to deliver fairly impressive looking games.

I don't doubt this, a high-end GPU of 2012 is not needed for them to achieve spectacular visuals, nevertheless I'm expecting something much beefier than a 680 in the Durango/Orbis.
 

-SD-

Banned
Aug 7, 2005
5,196
0
0

DieH@rd

Banned
Dec 9, 2006
35,045
4
0
You seriously believe a console releasing in 2014 will have a weaker GPU than a 680 ? A card released in 2012....


That would be a real shame.

NOBODY is expecting equivalent of gtx680 in nextgen consoles. First of all that card is 28nm [MS and Sony will aim at way more reliable @ 32nm], and secondly even at 28nm it eats ~190watts of power! Xbox 360 and PS3 had 190-210W at launch, and people complained about heat and cooler noises.

The most realistic prediction for PS4 is ~200gflops CPU and 1.8tflops gpu, all in one package that pulls ~150W [add to that ~50-60W for the rest of the system and powerhungry gddr5]. Thats easily 10 times more powerful than PS3.
 

RoboPlato

I'd be in the dick
Oct 29, 2006
42,982
0
0
I don't doubt this, a high-end GPU of 2012 is not needed for them to achieve spectacular visuals, nevertheless I'm expecting something much beefier than a 680 in the Durango/Orbis.
There's no way a card that size, that expensive, and that hot can work in a console. We'll probably get similar results to a 680 but won't have that much horsepower.
 

Lovely Salsa

Banned
Sep 3, 2007
5,727
0
0
There's no way a card that size, that expensive, and that hot can work in a console. We'll probably get similar results to a 680 but won't have that much horsepower.

That expensive? When 360 came out it had a top of the line gpu in it.

Also, its not like they're going to use a real pc gpu and put it inside the console just like that. By 2014, there will be new tech available