Crysis news/info thread

So far its been 40 pages of unfounded predictions.

That's a little harsh though. The game still does look really good and i'll end up getting it... but if its another Far Cry... Crytek will have some fist-shaking to deal with.
 
I'm pretty sure they started working on getting the AI up to par as one of the later things they did.
 
Yeah but fact remains though, making GOOD AI is one of the biggest difficulties facing game devs today, sure you can get AI that APPEARS good via scripting(ALA FEAR where they divided up every map into squares where the AI had a set of options for the square), but I mean real AI that is actually Intelligent and can react dynamically and fluidly to new situations.
 
Yeah but fact remains though, making GOOD AI is one of the biggest difficulties facing game devs today, sure you can get AI that APPEARS good via scripting(ALA FEAR where they divided up every map into squares where the AI had a set of options for the square), but I mean real AI that is actually Intelligent and can react dynamically and fluidly to new situations.

They had it fine with Farcry, It cant get worse only the same or better. So worst comes to worst we will still have some of the best ai.
 
Far Cry AI was shit. :|

When we were playing with it in the editor for a certain mod I was working on it was totally dumb. There was so many flaws and bugs and the outright stupid.
 
Yeah but fact remains though, making GOOD AI is one of the biggest difficulties facing game devs today, sure you can get AI that APPEARS good via scripting(ALA FEAR where they divided up every map into squares where the AI had a set of options for the square), but I mean real AI that is actually Intelligent and can react dynamically and fluidly to new situations.

FEAR's AI was indeed great. From a gamers perspective, I really don't give a shit how its done, just how good it is.

Far Cry's AI definitely had some eccentricities in it (taking cover behind a box only to leave their head totally exposed, not being able to find you easily enough etc..) but I wouldn't go so far as to call it out right bad.
 
I disagree that FEARs AI was 'great', far from it, once you actually figured out how it worked the whole 'great' part totally dissappeared, and it became quite easy to predict AI movement with regularity.

But processing-wise I'd say we're still far off from being able to get a good AI(Artificial INTELLIGENCE). In my opinion, you cant call a small selection of scripted options that a NPC character can take for a "AI", because it isnt truly intelligent. Let me see a game where the AI can actually come up with its own PLANS on the fly and constantly make new plans to adapt to situations and then we can talk, maybe when Eight-core CPUs comes out or something.*Dreams*

In a game with a TRULY good AI, I'd be able to make a map, jump straight into it immediatly, drop in several AI characters, and they'd be able to make a plan to attack me, ambush etc on the spot, not require them to scan the map before starting the map(Ala CSS bots for example).
 
I'm not disagreeing that we have a very, VERY, long way to go with AI; however, I think it's very difficult to come up with an example of a game that does AI as well as FEAR did.
 
FEAR AI is pretty scripted, isn't it? It tells them how to behave.
 
Although if you think about it, scripting is indeed very basic AI. As AI becomes more complex and intelligent, all that's really happening is the AI gets more options for each event, and gets a better way to decide when/where/how to go about performing a given option. Once we get into AIs that have genuine wants and needs and personalities, well, that's nothing but another set of variables that affect which actions are available to the AI, and how likely it is one option will be chosen over another.

We are naught but feedback loops.

</poetic awesomeness>
 
F.E.A.R's AI never failed to surprise me. Their flanking maneuvers where top notch as far as I am concerned. Of course AI can become much better, but F.E.A.R is a good step in the right direction, same with FarCry. And I don't see whats wrong with some predictability in realistic AI.Aren't humans predictable anyways? or in F.E.A.R's case:Super Cool Soldier Clone Humans
 
Looks pretty good. A lot of the lag we saw not too long ago seems to be cured for the most part, except for a few minor hiccups here and there. The AI seemed iffy there, but who knows. I was also quite unimpressed with how the smoke grenade popped. Compared to virtually everything else in the game, it lacked a visual oomph, as well as practical. It seemed to do barely anything.
 
SLOW NET AT LAN CANT WATCH LOADING MAD SLOW!!!!!!!!!!!!


AHHHHH!!!


ahhhhhhhhhahhahah!
 
SLOW NET AT LAN CANT WATCH LOADING MAD SLOW!!!!!!!!!!!!


AHHHHH!!!


ahhhhhhhhhahhahah!

That's t..*disconected* ......... *reconect* oo b... *1b/s*... ad
 
I was just reading over that recent Gamesradar preview, and I noticed this in the last paragraph:

Far Cry let you boat around huge rolling vistas before picking an angle of approach, but Crysis levels are bigger still; the one we played - the third mission of the game - takes two and a half hours to complete.


Two and a half hours?

Now I'm no doctor, but that's a large ****ing game, no? Unless there's only like, four missions, in which case it could potentially be only 9-10 hours, or something like that. However, I'm thinking positive, and I'd like to say there's at least six "missions." That would be nice.
 
I hope it's long.
I was just reading over that recent Gamesradar preview, and I noticed this in the last paragraph:




Two and a half hours?

Now I'm no doctor, but that's a large ****ing game, no? Unless there's only like, four missions, in which case it could potentially be only 9-10 hours, or something like that. However, I'm thinking positive, and I'd like to say there's at least six "missions." That would be nice.
 
I hope it's short. Long just drains quality. I'd have thought Crytek would have learnt from that mistake with Far Cry. 20 levels of the same shitty gameplay? Pass.
 
I hope it's short. Long just drains quality. I'd have thought Crytek would have learnt from that mistake with Far Cry. 20 levels of the same shitty gameplay? Pass.
As long as it's diverse and long. Farcry was great up until they had the monsters.
 
Monsters or no monsters, the gameplay never changed, and even without the monsters it'd have gone to shit in the 6th or so level. I remember Crytek saying something like "Yeah, it's only 12 hours long (Crysis)." And that, to me, is exactly what developers should aim for.

The shorter the game the better you can tune quality.
 
I remember Crytek saying something like "Yeah, it's only 12 hours long (Crysis)."

I concur, although I remember the number 10 in there somewhere. 10-12 maybe.

As for the rest, I would rather have more game for my money than less, but hey.
 
I concur, although I remember the number 10 in there somewhere. 10-12 maybe.

As for the rest, I would rather have more game for my money than less, but hey.
But we have the editor. I plan on making plenty of cool maps and downloading mods and maps from the interwebs.
 
A new video:
http://www.gametrailers.com/umwatcher.php?id=80862
It's nothing you haven't really seen before, but for some reason this video just looked so good. The graphics looked better then ever, I have no idea why, they just do. The gameplay looks nice to, although again nothing you haven't seen before.
 
I really love the graphics. Aside from that though, the video just showed combat; so it seems Crytek have gone for the 'do little more than shoot the bad guys' approach. When will they learn that combat is merely a factor of gameplay? The combat itself looked nice, but overall the direction is fairly mundane.
 
I want to go thru the entire gaming, using mah fists of fury.

Ripping thru walls, jumping like a grasshopper, rolling Humvees over with just a couple punches.

When's the release date?
 
I really love the graphics. Aside from that though, the video just showed combat; so it seems Crytek have gone for the 'do little more than shoot the bad guys' approach. When will they learn that combat is merely a factor of gameplay? The combat itself looked nice, but overall the direction is fairly mundane.

What? If all a game has is awesome combat and no pretension to do other things and fail at it, I'm OK with that. Why judge a game on what it isn't pretending to be? This looks like I could have a lot of fun with it, end of story.
 
The combat vids looked rather stale, the movement and aiming in particular, felt sort of unrealistic and arcade-like.
 
Wow @ the volumetric shafts of sunlight. Just wow.
 
It looks great, no-one can deny that, but the gameplay doesnt exactly look spectacular like all the fanboys that run around claiming that Crysis will be the BEST COMPUTAR GAME EVAR..

This and Alan Wake are probably the most pretty computer games I have seen, but I have a hard time deciding between the two..
 
What? If all a game has is awesome combat and no pretension to do other things and fail at it, I'm OK with that. Why judge a game on what it isn't pretending to be? This looks like I could have a lot of fun with it, end of story.

Way to completely miss the point. It isn't that they aren't pretending to do anything; it's the fact that the design of the gameplay is so utterly mundane in it's execution and that they aren't even bothering. I'm sure there's plenty of fun to have in the combat, I don't deny that, but the fact is that is all the game apparently has going for it. It's a travesty such mundane design is being hailed as 'omg awesome', when the only splendor in there is, arguably, the wonderful graphics.

I mean wtf, you can have fun with it if they actually tried to break away from the 'do little more than shoot enemies'. 'End of story'. Your point is inane.
 
Way to completely miss the point. It isn't that they aren't pretending to do anything; it's the fact that the design of the gameplay is so utterly mundane in it's execution and that they aren't even bothering. I'm sure there's plenty of fun to have in the combat, I don't deny that, but the fact is that is all the game apparently has going for it. It's a travesty such mundane design is being hailed as 'omg awesome', when the only splendor in there is, arguably, the wonderful graphics.

I mean wtf, you can have fun with it if they actually tried to break away from the 'do little more than shoot enemies'. 'End of story'. Your point is inane.

You like to use the word mundane, don't you?
 
Way to completely miss the point. It isn't that they aren't pretending to do anything; it's the fact that the design of the gameplay is so utterly mundane in it's execution and that they aren't even bothering. I'm sure there's plenty of fun to have in the combat, I don't deny that, but the fact is that is all the game apparently has going for it. It's a travesty such mundane design is being hailed as 'omg awesome', when the only splendor in there is, arguably, the wonderful graphics.

I mean wtf, you can have fun with it if they actually tried to break away from the 'do little more than shoot enemies'. 'End of story'. Your point is inane.

I think the ability to scout out your enemy bases and approach them however you want is very fun in itself. Combined with exploration, great graphics, and a potentially good story I won't hesitate to buy it.
 
Those were some nice vids you cant deny it. The graphics are top notch, gameplay will be aswell.
 
Those were some nice vids you cant deny it. The graphics are top notch, gameplay will be aswell.

The videos were alright.

It looks like it'll be fun to play for a couple of hours.
 
Yea, it looks like one of those "Pick up, play for a bit, put down, pick up a couple days later, play some more" games.
 
Back
Top