Crysis 3 aiming to be the PC benchmark that the original Crysis was
By Tim Colwill on December 16, 2012 at 11:33 am
The old joke about “Yes, but will it run Crysis?” seems set to rear its head again with the addition of a “3″: Crytek’s boss Cevat Yerli has been talking to VentureBeat about how he intends for nothing to beat the game for at least two years.
“Crysis 3 on PC is going to be a benchmark experience for at least two years. When I see what’s happening on the PC market, and even what we do. The PC market is not going to grow vastly more before a lot of games catch up.”
“We had the same thing with the first Crysis on PC. When Crysis launched, it was the high-end benchmark for a good three years. I think Crysis 3 is going to do that again.”
Having played in the Alpha recently, the game was certainly impressive — although some optimisation remains. Is your system up to scratch?
Source: VentureBeat
Crysis 3 to launch multiplayer ‘Lost Island’ DLC next week
A return to the spiritual roots of the franchise, says Crytek.
Graphics are “60% of the game”, according to Crytek boss
"Looks like a PS2 game" occurs on 17% of all image-heavy gaming news posts
Crytek CEO frustrated at reception of what he sees as the best game in the series
Console fatigue partly to blame.
You can use the following bbCode
[i], [b], [img], [quote], [url href="http://www.google.com/"]Google[/url]
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
facebook
twitter
google+
rss
in b4 unoptimized console port
are you sure its an unoptimised console port? or are you just spouting nonsense?
Well, It’d be nice if it was the same level of PC stressing but actually optimized, rather than eating your CPU alive just because it can.
Normally I would feel inclined to believe Crytek, but but the beta ran poorly enough on my system that I won’t be ruling out the possibility that they are just trying to cover their asses in case it really does turn out to be an ‘unoptimised console port’.
Same here. The Alpha ran terribly on my system with a Core i7 3930K @ 4.8ghz, 32gb of Ram, 3x Radeon 7970′s.
Mind you… I do run my games at 5760×1080, but hell talk about bringing my system to it’s knees. (Yes crossfire was working with some trickery.)
you cant aim to be a PC benchmark and release to a console
if they really wanted they could easily make it a PC benchmark, just don’t release to console
jonlee,
im sure with the right programmers on board its more than possible.
I don’t really care about fancy graphics if it means that Crysis 3 will just be another poorly disguised corridor shooter a la Crysis 2.
Hmm lets hope the game is worthy of being a benchmark instead of Crytek just trying to make it one
That is a load of crap…
jonlee,
Depends on whether you mean a console port or not.
For me the Alpha ran pretty bad with an i7 950 and 2x6870s in Crossfire even on Low. That was however an Alpha and I know for a fact it takes AMD a while to get proper driver optimization but to me on Highest it just looked about equal to Crysis 2s MP demo. I just truly hope as the rest of you do that the games poor optimization isnt what makes it a benchmark.
theremin,
Yes it was a linear shooter. But I thought it was a damn good one. Totally enjoyed Crysis 2.
To the people complaining about the alpha performance:
1) It’s Alpha
2) You can’t have a game that will be a benchmark for multiple years if people can max it out from day 1. No one was able to max Crysis 1 straight away and when someone could it was an uber multi GPU setup.
Played the alpha, honestly I didn’t think it looked that great and it was certainly (but not surprisingly) unoptimised. On top of that, it further solidified the concept of Crysis 2 and thus us it has become further removed from what made Crysis originally great.
Crytek may wish to once again became the new benchmark of PC gaming, but they fucked up their chance and they’re not going to get another one.
This…
…and this.
Crysis 2 was so far removed from what Crysis was, and Crysis 3 only seems to be continuing that effort. The tone of the game was completely different, the way it played was completely different, hell – even the world it was set in seemed to be completely different. The nature of the aliens completely changed from frozen flying squid to disease-goop bi-pedal… monsters. (They may have been squid inside the suits but they looked more like monsters from the outside).
Anyway, one of the things a lot of outsiders never realised was that “graphics aren’t everything” is something that certainly applied to Crysis, despite “the old joke” – so it doesn’t really matter to fans of the original if it’s a “two year benchmarker” or not. If the gameplay isn’t solid like it was in the original, what’s the point? They pandered to the console crowd and for that Crysis never managed to be anything but a one-game series. Crysis 2 and Crysis 3 are a different series as far as I’m concerned.
Agreed. There’s nothing in common to the original game other than some superficial names and gameplay elements.
I played Crysis 2 and it wasn’t bad, it was just painfully average in a “i’ve seen this a hundred times before’ sort of way. Crytek sold out after two great games and they’re rightfully hated for it.
Did Crysis 2 end up even doing that well? Last I heard sales were disappointing and not up to their unreasonable expectations.
crysis 2 was absolute rubbish, i alt+f4′d when i took a hiding spot because you can hear their radio chatter calling for reinforcements, to then have 6 NPC’s appear in thin air infront of you. Its in a city for godsake, they couldnt make them walk out a door?
Little to no effort went into crysis 2. It could’ve ran so much better too. Their tesselation techniques on SQUARE objects in the world was lazy excuse to add tesselation to the game. That and rendering an ocean under each level for no reason.
Just pure lazyiness. POS.