and a more free form open world that doesn’t feel like you’re in a container.

Except he didn’t say that. He was criticizing Crysis 2′s 3D because of claims made by Yerli himself, the issue being broken promises. The Far Cry 3 comment had nothing to do with 3D.

The logic is astounding.

Also no-one else will probably care about this, but when Cevat Yerli said that the 3D implementation in Crysis 2 would be on par with Avatar, I like many others believed him. The actuality was the complete opposite and it used the worst possible method of rendering 3D (single 2D image plus depth buffer offset), which would be fine for consoles that couldn’t handle the extra processing power for proper two-camera 3D, but no option was given for PCs to have the real deal.

Anyway, tl;dr, no I won’t be getting Crysis 3 because Farcry 3. Bested at your own game Crytek!

I’ll take your word for it for obvious reasons but I can’t think of any other EA games off the top of my head that have limited installs. If there aren’t any why was Crysis singled out?

but dealing with the urban grid and the skyscrapers of New York City created a closed feeling

is nonsense. It was more than just a feeling.
GTA is on city streets and doesn’t feel closed .
Fluff Steam, gimme a retail disk any day.

exe3: And EA need to remo

Fix’t

People keep saying that yet never give any proof, I just don’t really buy that Crysis wasn’t optimized anymore. Sounds more like people crying that they couldn’t play the game at max settings on cards that just weren’t capable at maxing the game in the first place. The game looks amazing, amazing games usually strain your card. The fact that Crysis is arguably the best looking game ever released still after 5 years says as much.

And Crytek need to remove the limited install DRM. I don’t buy a word they say about being for PC when that archaic cr@p is still infesting ALL of the Crysis games even the steam ones.

lordapophis:
I’m all for pushing our PC’s to the limit, but when they are clearly being wasteful with the resources they have it’s not going to be pretty.

Take in point the Tessellation in Crysis 2, under every map there was water which was heavily tessellated, which in turn made PC’s tank in terms of performance even when staring at a blank wall.

Just hopeful they aren’t that wasteful this time around.

This might be taken a little out of context/tone but allow me to quote myself from MyCrysis forums:

Boy this article got way more attention than it deserved…

Look at ground (730k Tris):
[img]http://i.imgur.com/BJ7HEl.jpg[/img]

Now remove the ground from render to actually display the tessellated ocean (910k Tris):
[img]http://i.imgur.com/uRKpxl.jpg[/img]

Now add the terrain back in and disable ocean rendering… zero difference, because the ocean is NOT rendering when the terrain is occluding it.

The shot that was used in the article was taken right near the coast and the ocean was close enough to the edge of the screen to begin rendering. In which case, yes, it’ll start rendering for the entire area but under most circumstances, this would not happen.

If the author would’ve moved just 2m downwards, the ocean stops rendering as it’s fully off screen and is being occluded by the terrain:

730k Tris
[img]http://i.imgur.com/MCM7ql.jpg[/img]

1070k Tris
[img]http://i.imgur.com/hV3VJl.jpg[/img]

Again, zero difference when disabling ocean.

As for tessellated objects being “too” tessellated, there is a feature most of you probably have heard of that is in most game engines called “LOD”, or level of detail. This is a screenshot of several concrete barriers, the closest one is at it’s highest LOD, the proceeding barriers are just out of range and on their next LOD down. Yes, tessellated objects are very tessellated up close – that’s kind of the point of tessellation. We optimise it through LODing and view distances. You can play around with it yourself with r_TessellationMaxViewDist (default is 30), it’s also smart enough to take the size of the object into consideration too ;)

[img]http://i.imgur.com/k5TDTl.jpg[/img]

spkypwnsuall:
lordapophis,

Agreed to a degree, Crysis 1 was PC intensive due to poor optimization. Its damn pretty, but they needed to optimize it a bit more to get the best from it.

hell yeah, yes crysis looked great…but it was poorly optimized. The warhead expansion seemed to fix the optimisation a bit i thought though.

Agreed to a degree, Crysis 1 was PC intensive due to poor optimization. Its damn pretty, but they needed to optimize it a bit more to get the best from it. Crysis 2 was more optimized, but feels like the graphics took a step back (I had no issues at all running it) and it may have been partially due to the linearity and restrictive nature.

And whilst it would create lots of joy, Crytek is EA’s baby from a long way back, and the only way they can say “We still aim ourselves at Hardcore PC gaming”. They’ll want to use it and say “Origin is for Hardcore PC gamers [despite using 100% CPU on load]”

Off topic, nice CPU, very nice. Makes me want to tweak up my AMD X6 1090T @ 3.2

Take in point the Tessellation in Crysis 2, under every map there was water which was heavily tessellated, which in turn made PC’s tank in terms of performance even when staring at a blank wall.

Just hopeful they aren’t that wasteful this time around.

I would also like the game on Steam where I have all the other Crysis games, but I’m probably clasping at straws here and will end up waiting 12 months or forever for that to happen.

Also, interested to see how heavily threaded the game is, my Core i7 3930K @ 4.8ghz would love to be pushed hard for once.