This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Whats happening with Crytek is a perfect example of what happens...

#81Timbo418Posted 7/13/2014 9:48:34 AM
analogman posted...
the zero-g levels was awesome.


Agreed. I came out of that with maybe two shotgun shells and an empty rifle. It was intense. Too bad the game took a nosedive from there.
---
You've met with a terrible fate, haven't you?
#82DividingSolidPosted 7/13/2014 10:28:45 AM
I remember that in Crysis 2 and 3 you couldn't even prone! The CoD games had freaking prone and Crysis 1 had the better lean. Crytek disappointed me with Crysis 2 and to a lesser degree 3 as well.
---
Steam: Gaius Julius Caesar
8 gigs DDR3, Nvidia 660 Ti, i5 3570k
#83leon_trunksPosted 7/13/2014 10:32:09 AM
I think Crytek have the talent to make some of the best AAA games ever made but they just keep hitting the mark with going exclusive and stuff like that. Ryse was so interesting to me, I mean, who doesn't want a game set in ancient Rome? But the fact that it was exclusive to xbone was like a kick in my balls...and maybe Crytek's as well.
#84VoxwikPosted 7/13/2014 10:34:41 AM(edited)
I still suspect PC gaming has gotten bigger because more multi-platform games meant lower hardware required for acceptable (to the average gamer) settings. The fact that most new games could be done on older hardware (except graphics) is a huge thing. Having a console version that must run at lower settings allows the games to run on a far larger selection of gaming computers, and they can make games that look better for the PC versions even if they must aim for the game looking good on console hardware. It's far better than designing a game that only runs well on $250+ graphics cards like in the past, in my opinion.

I feel like my $250 GTX 750 is a far better purchase than my $400ish 6800 Ultra was back in 2004 (single worst purchase I ever made PNY didn't honor the warranty), for less money, comparative to what is available now and then. Granted computers in general are less expensive but I still feel that PC games that can still run on a wide variety of hardware make far more sense then limiting to the niche graphics enthusiast market. Design at a base, and then scale the graphics up from there for those with more powerful machines.

The "powerful PC gamer" niche is not enough to sustain the PC game market and if they made their games only for the most powerful computers they would have done even worse.
#8550inchDLP(Topic Creator)Posted 7/13/2014 10:40:10 AM
Back in 2008 when i talked about PC gaming and Crysis people had no clue about PC gaming but knew about "Crysis". by the time Crysis 3 came out i know more people with gaming PC than consoles. The tides turned and Crytek got off PC just in time to miss the money train IMO.
---
http://www.youtube.com/user/Thereal50inchDLP -contains my Dreamcast project of putting HD vids of each US game up.http://bf4stats.com/xone/LouErina
#86AsucaHayashiPosted 7/13/2014 10:45:54 AM
Design at a base, and then scale the graphics up from there for those with more powerful machines.

pretty sure that's how crysis was designed since i could run it on my P4 3.0... can't remember gpu but it was definitely nowhere near higher end.
---
PC hardware doesn't need to match console hardware in price when PC gamers save literal thousands from the software they buy.
http://i.imgur.com/9Yv0R2Z.jpg
#87TrueGBPosted 7/13/2014 10:47:10 AM
Crytek blames piracy, of course:

Cevat Yerli: It is certainly. We are suffering currently from the huge piracy that is encompassing Crysis. We seem to lead the charts in piracy by a large margin, a chart leading that is not desirable. I believe thatís the core problem of PC Gaming, piracy. To the degree PC Gamers that pirate games inherently destroy the platform. Similar games on consoles sell factors of 4-5 more. It was a big lesson for us and I believe we wont have PC exclusives as we did with Crysis in future. We are going to support PC, but not exclusive anymore.


http://www.pcplay.hr/modules.php?r=23&id=15
---
Future Billionaire
#88AsucaHayashiPosted 7/13/2014 10:51:26 AM
Similar games on consoles sell factors of 4-5 more.

except with crysis 2 and 3... and ryse.

XFD
---
PC hardware doesn't need to match console hardware in price when PC gamers save literal thousands from the software they buy.
http://i.imgur.com/9Yv0R2Z.jpg
#89temgunPosted 7/13/2014 10:53:21 AM
Voxwik posted...
I still suspect PC gaming has gotten bigger because more multi-platform games meant lower hardware required for acceptable (to the average gamer) settings. The fact that most new games could be done on older hardware (except graphics) is a huge thing. Having a console version that must run at lower settings allows the games to run on a far larger selection of gaming computers, and they can make games that look better for the PC versions even if they must aim for the game looking good on console hardware. It's far better than designing a game that only runs well on $250+ graphics cards like in the past, in my opinion.

I feel like my $250 GTX 750 is a far better purchase than my $400ish 6800 Ultra was back in 2004 (single worst purchase I ever made PNY didn't honor the warranty), for less money, comparative to what is available now and then. Granted computers in general are less expensive but I still feel that PC games that can still run on a wide variety of hardware make far more sense then limiting to the niche graphics enthusiast market. Design at a base, and then scale the graphics up from there for those with more powerful machines.

The "powerful PC gamer" niche is not enough to sustain the PC game market and if they made their games only for the most powerful computers they would have done even worse.


I actually agree, and I'm fine by it. That's the reason why we still hear the idiotic claims of "you have to upgrade like every other month!" or "I'm not interested in worrying if I can run games, it's too expensive to constantly upgrade!". Today something like GTX 770 is very affordable compared to something equivalent in price in 2005-2010 and it's far better value too. I'm pretty confident it will also suffice for at least two years.
#90GoraishiPosted 7/13/2014 10:54:13 AM
50inchDLP posted...
When you abandon your fanbase that put you famous. Crysis was THE PC game when it came out and held the graphics crown for more years than just about any game ever. Crysis what a real testament to us PC gamers as it was clearly made with only the PC in mind and did not have any limits in scope because of that. Us Crysis fans were salivating for a new crysis to see another AMAZING cutting edge PC game that had the open world gameplay that made Crysis so great to play. The they announced Crysis 2 would be on consoles as well.................... that's where they screwed up.


You know, I could have forgiven them for this. Companies are in it for money, and consoles are where that is so that they would make the sequel work on consoles I can accept.

What I cant accept was them ****ing on PC players with their absolutely horrible pc version. FoV locked at 60... absolutely unacceptable for a pc game. Inability to bind grenades to an actual key (even just bind grenade select to a key would be fine if not a stand alone key LIKE THE ORIGINAL) and being forced to double tap and briefly hold '2' to select grenades like you're playing on a button starved controller... seriously wtf. Way to crap on your original fan base by not putting even minimal effort into the pc version.

Again, I can live with them 'selling out' and downgrading enough so their stuff plays on consoles because companies are in it to make a profit. I'm happy they are dying because they've shown they don't even think its worth any investment at all to at least put up a facade saying they appreciate their fans by at least putting enough into a pc version to allow what are standard configuration options for pc shooters.