Too true. I think the worst part about the whole Crysis debacle is that it's still sometimes difficult to run it at the highest settings and get more than about 45 frames per second on average at a decent resolution. It's certainly playable like that, but it still costs more than most gamers want to pay and there's no guarantee. I've seen all sorts of weird things happen to that game in bench marks like performance dropping to nothing on multiple systems. It seems more prone than any game I know of to being ruined by a bad driver update, which shouldn't be surprising given those kind of low margins for a frame rate drop.Originally Posted by Hsu
If they would've gone with that from the very beginning, though - a great looking engine that's actually optimized for current hardware, period - they wouldn't have gotten into the position they did. Crytek said that rampant piracy is leading them to never making PC exclusives again, but seriously, you can't blame people. Who wants to blow $50 on a game they won't be able to play well for three years? Not to mention the gameplay itself isn't that great.
I have a lot of beef with Crytek. I wish them well with this new endeavor, but for as much as they try to futureproof their software, they aren't very forward-thinking with regard to their customer base.
I'm all for pushing gaming technology forward, but the better approach probably would have been to implement some of the engines features at the time, then add on to it as time went on the way most companies do to take advantage of new graphics technology. Making a game that's main selling point was looks and ensuring no one can play it at it's best was just plain bad business. Hopefully they see success with this new engine because they certainly push the technological envelope and I like seeing what they bring to the table there.
Reply With Quote