Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
dirtylarrygb

Crysis Nukes

Recommended Posts

Quote[/b] ]ARMA is a 400sq Sandbox,  Crysis is a next gen Corridor outdoor and indoor game.

It's up to the designers to decide if it's gonna be a corridor game. The Crysis engine is a engine using streams, and we have now seen it can render huge very detailed islands, which feature the level of detail featured on the screens on every part of the island (the forests are quite randomly created if you see the developing editor vids). If the devs wanted crysis to feature big levels of ARMAS scale and sandbox qualities, I'm 100% sure its possible. The Crysis editor actually already is the sandbox (its even called sandbox 2.0...), since you can open it ingame, add in enemies on the fly which use the environment without need of scripting or whatever, you can alter terrain on the fly (voxel technologie) and add any object on the fly and it has no need to compile after every change, u press a button and you're back ingame. On GDC their was talk that it could easily be used to make a flight sim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what a beauty , reminds me of the arma videos thread .

i reckon i could reproduce that nuke effect and tank smashing building in arma.

i wish tools would come out tho , then we can see about the tyre popping shit too instead of the old rusting rubber effect.

anyway give it till 2008 90 % of that will be in arma and that game wont even be out wink_o.gif

ah well back to the LAB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what a beauty , reminds me of the arma videos thread .

i reckon i could reproduce that nuke effect and tank smashing building  in arma.

i wish tools would come out tho , then we can see about the tyre popping shit too instead of the old rusting rubber effect.

anyway give it till 2008 90 % of that will be in arma and that game wont even be out wink_o.gif

ah well back to the LAB.

I dunno man.. its a completely different engine.. i just dont think it would be as spectacular on ArmA as it is in Crysis lol... i also reckon it would really slow down the game...

As much as i love ArmA.. graphically.. i'd say Crysis is superior wink_o.gif and i would go as far to say some of the physics too (looks like a lot more dynamicity)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The physics in ArmA "compared to that video of crytek" are no where near as good.

We still have 20 tonne tanks jumping 4 - 5 feet in the air when driving over an overturned stone wall, soldiers bouncing 1/4 mile in the air when hit with an RPG, and we still can't even step over a 2ft high fence banghead.gif

Looking forward to this coming out smile_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We still have 20 tonne tanks jumping 4 - 5 feet in the air when driving over an overturned stone wall, soldiers bouncing 1/4 mile in the air when hit with an RPG, and we still can't even step over a 2ft high fence banghead.gif

First 2 problems are suppose to be fixed in 1.06 and the 3rd one was already fixed in 1.04 and improved further in 1.05. whistle.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We still have 20 tonne tanks jumping 4 - 5 feet in the air when driving over an overturned stone wall, soldiers bouncing 1/4 mile in the air when hit with an RPG, and we still can't even step over a 2ft high fence  banghead.gif

First 2 problems are suppose to be fixed in 1.06 and the 3rd one was already fixed in 1.04 and improved further in 1.05.  whistle.gif

Points 1 & 2 = Thank god then.

Point 3. Well, I still can't "get over" small fences.

They must have added a "step over" or "jump" key into the controls that I have not seen then, I'll go have a look whistle.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although that looks good and all I don't really think BIS should purchase the engine, reasons being rather obvious, or should be.

They have their own engine, why spend money for an entirerly different engine when you have your own and can further improve it.

Give or take, the Armed Assault/game2 engine is much more capable than you guys seem to think, sure we haven't seen vast displays of physics, or so many think. There are displays but people do not look for them, atleast in a positive way, isntead they look for the negative.

The problem is that we don't know exactly how much is possible, Armed Assault has improved physics in which objects can be destroyed and interact with eachother when in this state, but we cannot test more then that because of the tools, whenever they are out then we will have a better understanding.

Graphics..okay I'm looking at those images and believe it or not Armed Assault can in a way look like that, you just have to adjust the gamma so that things appear darker and richer, believe it or not, it will have the same effect and can make a vast difference.

All in all, sure it may look great..but I don't really think its all its cut out to be, no AI demonstrations, you assume the role of a character that wears a special suit and cannot be killed easily, can wield any weapon and so on, a mainstream game is all I see.

And there is one last thing I'm wondering here...why is this in the "general" section.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not bothered about BI buying this engine, they have theirs and we'll see what they make of game 2, as with a bit of luck some other developer will buy it and create a ArmA style game with it.

The lip sync is very good though in that video, maybe the best I have seen so far.

My younger brother has a top of the range system and GFX card, and on max settings his ArmA does not look as good as that video does, no matter how much he plays with his "gamma" settings.

Anyway, I'd guess it's going to be quite some time before we see any games come out from this engine crazy_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Graphics..okay I'm looking at those images and believe it or not Armed Assault can in a way look like that, you just have to adjust the gamma so that things appear darker and richer, believe it or not, it will have the same effect and can make a vast difference

Well.. I love ArmA but im not naive.

Crysis and Bioshock are the most advanced grafics games that we will play in the next 6 months, we are talking about DX10 renders, with possibilities that only a huge DX10 patch could bring to ArmA engine.

As for physics I wont even coment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's time to let the cat out of the bag wink_o.gif

If any of you want to see the full potential of the CryEngine2, then watch these videos.

After you see them, wishing BIS would use this engine for thier upcoming game 2, may not be wishful thinking after all notworthy.gif

I for one think it could very well be done.

Anyway, please watch these tech demos

Tech Demo One

Tech Demo Two

These files are rather large. The first one weighs in a 150 meg or so. The second one is 64 megs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Graphics..okay I'm looking at those images and believe it or not Armed Assault can in a way look like that, you just have to adjust the gamma so that things appear darker and richer, believe it or not, it will have the same effect and can make a vast difference

Well.. I love ArmA but im not naive.

Crysis and Bioshock are the most advanced grafics games that we will play in the next 6 months, we are talking about DX10 renders, with possibilities that only a huge DX10 patch could bring to ArmA engine.

As for physics I wont even coment.

LOL

That's near enough exactly what I was going to say, but some people on this forum tend to start flaming me to hell and back for typing my views if it isn't in a all things great about ArmA theme.

While I like ArmA, I also have the noggin to know that everything in ArmA has either been done before, or will be done in a game not too far away , and better too, that's just how games go, but some people are a little too die hard when it comes to defending ArmA, even to the point of delirium in some cases.

Wait for the flaming crazy_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what a beauty , reminds me of the arma videos thread .

i reckon i could reproduce that nuke effect and tank smashing building in arma.

i wish tools would come out tho , then we can see about the tyre popping shit too instead of the old rusting rubber effect.

anyway give it till 2008 90 % of that will be in arma and that game wont even be out wink_o.gif

ah well back to the LAB.

I dunno man.. its a completely different engine.. i just dont think it would be as spectacular on ArmA as it is in Crysis lol... i also reckon it would really slow down the game...

As much as i love ArmA.. graphically.. i'd say Crysis is superior wink_o.gif and i would go as far to say some of the physics too (looks like a lot more dynamicity)

Both Crysis and Alan Wake have shown physics that even blow away anything even seen on the new consoles let alone the PC. What isn't known is what sort of CPU or extra Card will you need to run them smoothly.

OF course what is also missing that these may be Dx10 shots, so extra shaders are in play here that ARMA has no access to.

Now if you compared some stills from the video you suddenly notice some areas of the ARMA sandbox ARE as detailed as stuff in Crysis. Crysis can go a bit further as you are making a corridor for someone to stroll down not a world.

You can witness this in Farcry by going somewhere you not supposed to. Suddenly bare island.

And Crysis can render indoor stuff, so thats something ARMA lacks and oblivion cheated with. So gratz to crytek.

It would be nice to be able to add vegitation in the ARMA editor even get a world editor. I am excited about the new crytek editor, thats nice. And I imagine the crytek will make Crysis a fun game. And people who license the engine will also make some really nice games which in general is very good for the PC.

I also imagine by the time crysis arrives, some of the stuff we can see in this video will also be in the ARMA engine thanks to patches and Mods.

I should also note that unless your runnign Vista an 8800 GTX and a Duo Core intel, Crysis is not going to look like that for you! in fact most of the features you can see in that video will be missing with older kit.

I suspect Crysis will arrive this Xmas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL

That's near enough exactly what I was going to say, but some people on this forum tend to start flaming me to hell and back for typing my views if it isn't in a all things great about ArmA theme.

While I like ArmA, I also have the noggin to know that <span style='color:red'>everything in ArmA has either been done before, or will be done in a game not too far away</span>, and better too, that's just how games go, but some people are a little too die hard when it comes to defending ArmA, even to the point of delirium in some cases.

Wait for the flaming crazy_o.gif

Can you back that up? There is no other game up to Arma's scale that im aware of wink_o.gif .

This is history repeating... "Far Cry will have open, free world and better a.i. and better everything than OPF!"

And yet... it sucked, even with the nice graphics biggrin_o.gif .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BIS develops and use own engine ...

i see no point to buy CryEngine2 for huge $

remember there is Game2 project ...

maybe around summer You get chance to beta Crysis ...

CryEngine2 is impressive indeed but still "FAKE" somehow.. does not transmit the real touch (misses something i can't tell)

With that Coment i can't wait for GAME 2 now smile_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL

That's near enough exactly what I was going to say, but some people on this forum tend to start flaming me to hell and back for typing my views if it isn't in a all things great about ArmA theme.

While I like ArmA, I also have the noggin to know that , and better too, that's just how games go, but some people are a little too die hard when it comes to defending ArmA, even to the point of delirium in some cases.

Wait for the flaming  crazy_o.gif

Can you back that up? There is no other game up to Arma's scale that im aware of wink_o.gif .

This is history repeating... "Far Cry will have open, free world and better a.i. and better everything than OPF!"

And yet... it sucked, even with the nice graphics biggrin_o.gif .

Ohh, here we go AGAIN banghead.gif

Heh, what did I say, didn't think it would take too long before someone got their knickers in a twist with me stating what I think will happen, but I didn't think it would be this quick help.gif

What I said was, things have either been done already OR will be done, and better in future games is a simple fact that will happen.

Unless you think games will never progress past what ArmA has done, which I think you are going to be wrong on that score.

And I never mentioned "scale, Island size" I guess is what you are on about, but yet you bring it up again in this thread.

So ok, no other game has ever done ANY of the things ArmA has before, nor will they ever in the future of game development improve on any aspect of anything included in ArmA, and no other game has ever done physics as well nor will they ever be better than ArmA.

As I said before, delerium.

There, happy ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it's the flying bodies from the massive fireballs that the grenades make that looks so overdone, I know it's probably configurable.  But now, comparing ArmA with this engine is plain unfair as it was done after ArmA was on the blocks to come out.  Lets look and see what Game 2 has to offer and compaire against that.

On a side note, I remember the first shots of game 2 and ArmA..  ArmA looked exactly like OFP.  Then all of a sudden ArmA looked like all those shots of Game2.  I wonder if they did so because the necessary jump in quality to remain competative in the market was upped by these newer engines, and they gave us the current Game2 tech so they may work on DX10 stuff? Just a thought, and whets my desire for new info on Game2! tounge2.gif

*back to ArmA MP*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you can really compare the scale of ArmA with alot games that are out right now.

I mean, in ArmA you have a very large area, but it isn't very detailed and except for the battlefield in the area you are in. It's empty.

In other games the area is split up, because not only is it detailed, there are NPCs all over the place doing things.

If you were to put that amount of detail in ArmA and not only simulate a battlefield, but the lives of people and animals all over the island it would be impossible for anyone to play. Unless you were to cut it up into smaller areas and load one at a time while everything else goes on in the background.

I don't think the scale of ArmA is really better or worse, but different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think you can really compare the scale of ArmA with alot games that are out right now.

I mean, in ArmA you have a very large area, but it isn't very detailed and except for the battlefield in the area you are in. It's empty.

In other games the area is split up, because not only is it detailed, there are NPCs all over the place doing things.

If you were to put that amount of detail in ArmA and not only simulate a battlefield, but the lives of people and animals all over the island it would be impossible for anyone to play. Unless you were to cut it up into smaller areas and load one at a time while everything else goes on in the background.

I don't think the scale of ArmA is really better or worse, but different.

Arma is a semi sandbox. A world which you then populate for your needs. The world is always there is just has nothing in it, people, cars etc etc.

GTA does the same thing except complex scripts populate the world as you move around. You could probably with time and effort do the same thing in ARMA. But ARMA is more a MP game complete a single mission right now.

Yes it would be nice if you had a huge populated world. So you log in team up with other people and do missions and as you complete things the world changes. But the effort here is huge.

You only have to look at the RTS mod to see how vcool the arma engine can be. I want to play ARMA RTS more than c and C 3.

The only directly comparable engine is probably the Join operations engines. Joint Op's is 2 years older and ARMA is alot better. Although Joint Op's was stunning for it's time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not here to flame for Crytek or against it... I just find alot of the conversation here alot like the conversations surrounding ArmA about 1 year ago.

All these features, demos, statements mean nothing unless you have a working engine in which you can test against. Screenshots hide animation bugs, AI problems, and physics problems. Videos usually are short and provide a glimpse at what they want you to see and often cleverly avoid common disappointments. I've looked at the features list and a majority of it is graphics related and nothing spectacular... everything graphical on the list seems to be DX10 related which I should remind everyone is available to any developer.

It would be great if it was the engine of our dreams. Believe me, I'd be the first to drop everything into a crytek-engine-using company if it was that good. The truth is usually far from that.

I will quote someone else's signature in one of the crysis forums:

Quote[/b] ]crysis system requirements:

cpu            :it's not invented yet.

gpu           :it's not invented yet.

mainboard :it's not invented yet.

RAM          :it's not invented yet.

Alternatively, I've noticed the almost complete abandonment of BIS of the gaming side of things. No documentation, little support, community-run support, etc.. ArmA development will never reach the same level as this crytek engine. Its funny that the crytek engine sandbox program is alot like the VBS2 videos... the biggest similarity is that us normal users will never touch them. You can only effectively use the sandbox editor if you have the engine or the game it came with supports it.

Additionally, gamers such as yourselves will need a company to purchase, develop for, and distribute a game made with this new crysis engine. To make matters worse, you'd need get the same level of flexibility in terms of mod-making from them.

Maybe I am too pessimistic lately, but I think alot of the traditional hype around a product is usually undeserved - and this would include ArmA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this thread here ended up in the wrong forum...

Moving to offtopic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not here to flame for Crytek or against it... I just find alot of the conversation here alot like the conversations surrounding ArmA about 1 year ago.

All these features, demos, statements mean nothing unless you have a working engine in which you can test against. Screenshots hide animation bugs, AI problems, and physics problems. Videos usually are short and provide a glimpse at what they want you to see and often cleverly avoid common disappointments. I've looked at the features list and a majority of it is graphics related and nothing spectacular... everything graphical on the list seems to be DX10 related which I should remind everyone is available to any developer.

It would be great if it was the engine of our dreams. Believe me, I'd be the first to drop everything into a crytek-engine-using company if it was that good. The truth is usually far from that.

I will quote someone else's signature in one of the crysis forums:

Quote[/b] ]crysis system requirements:

cpu :it's not invented yet.

gpu :it's not invented yet.

mainboard :it's not invented yet.

RAM :it's not invented yet.

Alternatively, I've noticed the almost complete abandonment of BIS of the gaming side of things. No documentation, little support, community-run support, etc.. ArmA development will never reach the same level as this crytek engine. Its funny that the crytek engine sandbox program is alot like the VBS2 videos... the biggest similarity is that us normal users will never touch them. You can only effectively use the sandbox editor if you have the engine or the game it came with supports it.

Additionally, gamers such as yourselves will need a company to purchase, develop for, and distribute a game made with this new crysis engine. To make matters worse, you'd need get the same level of flexibility in terms of mod-making from them.

Maybe I am too pessimistic lately, but I think alot of the traditional hype around a product is usually undeserved - and this would include ArmA.

Crysis:

What annoys me is EA reps say at games shows

"ohh, all the videos you have seen are done on a Intel Core with a 8800". They NEVER mention exact hardware. Or how OC'ed it was. The Alan Wake videos do mention it was a Quad Core Overclocked to 3 GHZ and the 8800 SLi were also overclocked.

The Alan Wake video is just as impressive for view distance, amount of landscape, volume lighting and physics etc. Yet again how much of this is due to DX10 is yet to be seen.

When Far Cry arrived the fastest GPU at the time was the FX 5950, and it could not max the game at high res, and adding AA made a 5950 have a fit. Not until the 6800 card could you attempt to run Far Cry maxed at 1280x1024 or better.

I suspect both Alan Wake and Crysis will be the same, not until the 9800 from nvidia will you be able to go max at high res with aa etc. Because of the physics i suspect the CPU may also be an issue. Supreme Commander is also cuasing this, these game may force a move to Duo core.

ARMA can be maxed on an 8800GTX, but the joke is the Game came out before the 8800 arrived. So is crysis waiting for the next gen GPU's?

The exciting thing as a gamer is these games (ARMA Crysis Alan Wake and Bioshock) are producing photo realistic fun, with awesome FX and Physics etc. We have never had it so good on any system. The PC is jumping far ahead of the consoles (which is so amusing as people say how powerful the PS3 is and it cant Anti Alias to save its life).

I would say that HL2 and Doom3 started the trend but Oblivion came along and made everyone go "wow". At this point barring Battlefield 2, the SIMS and World of Warcraft appear to be what PC gaming is about (If you read sales figures). The consoles stole the PC's thunder for 2 years. And I don't blame games companies for going console crazy as with set hardware it's much easier to make a game and not have 1000x people moaning about performance.

But i will state ARMA has as good GFX as Crysis or Alan Wake in some areas of the game world and some pretty clever FX. The DX10 games just have lots of extra shaders to play with. From what we have seen the one big thing ARMA is missing is decent Physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well i hear that the DirectX creator in the old days have said that vista is not for gaming, since DX10 is vista "only", i think someone here might have the point,

now i am not aginest cryengine2 here but i think BI shouldnt use this engine, they should built themself a new one which can fit the game itself better

cryengine 2 for me is more like a showcase which show what you can be done with DX10, while Arma is pushing current dx9 as far as it could(as like what ofp did with DX8.1)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the biggest improvment I would like to see in ArmA would be greatly improved physics, and probably ragdoll effects too.

I'd love to see soldiers arms and legs go flailing all over the place when hit by a grenade, or thrown against structures or close to a large explosion.

I'll just have to pin my hopes on these being implimented in Game 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well i hear that the DirectX creator in the old days have said that vista is not for gaming, since DX10 is vista "only", i think someone here might have the point,

now i am not aginest cryengine2 here but i think BI shouldnt use this engine, they should built themself a new one which can fit the game itself better

cryengine 2 for me is more like a showcase which show what you can be done with DX10, while Arma is pushing current dx9 as far as it could(as like what ofp did with DX8.1)

Yes it's amazing how some new games have STOPPED mentioning certain firsts since ARMA came out. Many of these firsts in DX10 appear to work in DX9 in ARMA.

Don't want to name names but Amazing how many tech and game play videos have shifted focus on showing stuff ARMA can't do suddenly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We are in fact at the cutting edge of cocking about!"

rgr? rofl.gif

anyway i think the route that develpoers taken when they start working on a new 3d engine is the most important thing here IMO, you could clearly see that both BI and crytek have set their target quite differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×