Having a machine that "can run Crysis" was unfortunately like a badge of honour, and the effect still ripples on today. The minimum specs for Crysis were extremely high, and no one had a hope of running it on the high settings required to match the quality of the videos. Faces were detailed, foliage was dense and, most importantly of all, chicken beaks looked authentic. What does it even mean? Is the game not ready or should we just wait three years before playing it? It was ridiculous.Ĭrysis was extremely good looking, you have to give it that. As soon as someone declares that they have built a game that “isn't for the current hardware generation" warning lights should go on. Sure, all the elements were technically present, but never in the particularly bombastic or slick way that Crytek led us to believe. It all looked beautiful, but the reality is that that promised gameplay never really materialised. Marketing images built a hype around Crysis that Crytek couldn't meet "MAXIMUM ARMOUR", bullets crumple against his chest, leaving him to concentrate on destroying an approaching car with a well placed shot. "MAXIMUM STRENGTH", Nomad grabs a guard and effortlessly throws him into his brothers-in-arms, sending them flying. "MAXIMUM STEALTH", Nomad turns completely invisible and starts hunting soldiers, stalking, flitting between them and silently picking them off. "MAXIMUM SPEED" a voice would say as Nomad hurtled through dense jungle, darting between guards too quick for them to even think about reacting. Pre-release we were treated to Nomad strutting his stuff in a plethora of stylised videos. In fact, Crytek were hell bent on extensively showing us how insane it was going to be and the press machine, working over many months, drove expectations ludicorously high. The spiritual successor to Far Cry, Crysis saw us romp through an outlandish Sci-Fi adventure as Nomad - a Delta Force soldier with a super-powered nanosuit.Ĭrysis promised to build on the sandbox shooter premise of the original Far Cry, unleashing you into lusciously rendered sandbox environments to wreak havoc on Korean soldiers woefully unequipped to deal with your super suit.
#Gamebryo engine terrible full#
Whether that's because they missed it, or if it's because they saw it and didn't care to spend time on it.I don't know.Crysis Was TerribleBack in 2007 Crytek released their second full game with an assault of hyperbole and marketing. Basically Fallout 4 has one of the worst (if not the worst) implementations of PBR I've seen in a AAA game this gen.Īdditionally, some of the interiors they make have like literally no ambient occlusion making it look extremely flat with little to no shading, which I assume is because they just don't bake any of the shadowing in the textures. And that just makes it look like shit and undoes any good that comes out of their lighting. What is the main issue is that their PBR pipeline is all wack! The materials in that game just do not look right, wood that is shiny af, metal that's incredibly dull as hell, leather that looks like rubber, cloth that looks like leather, etc etc.
#Gamebryo engine terrible update#
So is it truly that bad of news if they stick with this engine (and update it) for Starfield and TES VI? We also have to keep in mind that TES VI will have photogrammatry and also will be using new animations, which begins with Starfield.Ĭlick to shrink.The lighting is not really the main issue with Fallout 4, it's actually pretty great all things considered, the evidence of this is that when it works it actually looks quite pretty. As for visual improvement, if we go from Oblivion to Fallout 3 we already see a real nice improvement, then on to Skyrim is even bigger and Fallout 4 was significantly better looking. Sticking with this engine means bugs, this engine is known for it but personally I never had all that many issues with bugs. If the engine isn't the problem though, why is everyone frustrated with BGS for sticking with their engine and bringing updated versions of it when it's exactly what other companies do too, apparently? Based on this Starfield has the potential to look miles better than Fallout 4 and 76. The easiest example is UE4 that is based on UE3. Anything can be implemented with enough resources and time.Īny engine you're familiar with right now is based on an older version. "the engine was never the problem, it's the bugs and they can be fixed. At one point the conversation went towards that it's a bummer they are still using Gamebryo/Creation engine for Starfield and likely TES VI as well. The other day on Twitter I was talking to a fellow BGS fan about Starfield and TES VI. I thought this here was the right place to ask such a thing.
0 kommentar(er)
