Crytek road map has next generation starting in 2012, next engine will be ready

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/08/17/crytek-road-map-has-next-generation-starting-in-2012-next-engin/

Next gen might be coming eariler than some of you think.

I highly doubt it.

Graphics can only get a little bit better.

Than its pretty much mechanics there on out.

So I don’t really care.

Considering the earth will end right at the end of 2012, we won’t get much time to play it anyways…

What that Crytek thinks 2012 is when next gen is going to be? I think people feed into that whole ten year cycle and don’t realize that doesn’t mean they won’t make new consoles earlier than that.

[quote=“JPjuice23”]Graphics can only get a little bit better.

Than its pretty much mechanics there on out.

So I don’t really care.

Considering the earth will end right at the end of 2012, we won’t get much time to play it anyways…[/quote]

People who’ve apparently seen some stuff or know about the tech say expect stuff you see in Cutscenes.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/31331241

Quick Question:

Why does anyone give two shits about Crytek?

I know I don’t…

[quote=“nothere413”]Quick Question:

Why does anyone give two shits about Crytek?

I know I don’t…[/quote]

They make good engines. They impress graphic whores.

But their games have such boring gameplay. :lol

I did say graphic whores. Again some people would really rather prefer companies focus on being pretty than gameplay I don’t understand why but it exists its why people love complaining about the Wii because its not as pretty as the competition.

Really its why some people post those reports about PS3 using X% of its processing power or whatever its because they are hoping its going to look better.

Some Companies are also guilty for relying on graphics Epic games would put their engine on Wii HD. They won’t make or adapt an engine for Wii because well they like to make gamers buy with how pretty their game is.

Graphics have always been part of Epic’s history b/c they want to push forward and not stay in the past. Graphics are apart of the natural evolution of games.

People didn’t just buy Unreal and Gears over the years b/c they look pretty they also bought them b/c they were good games.

But Nintendo knew the risk they were taking when they made the Wii, they were all big on that BLUE OCEAN stuff and trying to EXPAND the market. While Sony and MS were trying to cater to the needs of developers. Sony even flying out it’s own developers to help fix Unreal Engine 3 on PS3. It probably doesn’t even have anything to do with the hardware as Chair Entertainment got Unreal Engine 3 to run on iPhone. UE3 not being on Wii is solely the fault of Nintendo.

[quote=“sbf717”]Graphics have always been part of Epic’s history b/c they want to push forward and not stay in the past. Graphics are apart of the natural evolution of games.

People didn’t just buy Unreal and Gears over the years b/c they look pretty they also bought them b/c they were good games.

But Nintendo knew the risk they were taking when they made the Wii, they were all big on that BLUE OCEAN stuff and trying to EXPAND the market. While Sony and MS were trying to cater to the needs of developers.[/quote]

They were good games but lets face it the first thing people bothered to care about them for at first was the graphics. Either way the point isn’t about Epic the point is about graphics and people’s desire for them which is why Crytech is gearing up for 2012. Also if having better graphics is what caters to the developers then yes Sony and Microsoft did that Nintendo wanted to get away from that shallow thinking however and create games that weren’t mostly about how pretty they are. Its the cost Vs design arguement and yes Nintendo is making it a heck of alot harder for developers by asking them to make games that utilize a different control scheme effectively rather than relying on graphics. As much as you’d like to not admit it PS3 and Xbox 360 are pretty much relying on their graphics that’s essentially whats “Next Gen” about them.

Well no duh most people do recognize the VISUALS that are shown to them in a VISUAL medium like TV shows, movies, or games. Later on they go further and expand on that. And in Epic’s case after the initial showing of let’s say Gears their message was not OMG LOOK AT THIS GAME!! IT’S SO PRETTY there message was all about the GAMEPLAY Cliffy would talk at length about how it wasn’t Halo and it was all about STOP and POP. And most people AFTER talking about how good Gears looked talked at length about it’s GAMEPLAY as well.

And that has been happening OVER and OVER again with games on PS3 and 360. After they talk about how good or bad a game looks they talk at length about it’s gameplay. I hardly ever see people just going on and on about how good a game looks without also talking at length about it’s gameplay.

And Sony and MS did WAY more than just cater to the graphics needs of developers. Sony after many complaints chopped down their OS usage from 101MB to 42 MB, MS has been providing devs with APIs for avatars as well as great support, and tons of other support including marketing. You hardly see Nintendo doing any of that. I’m sure if Nintendo was more open to the needs of developers you would have saw UE3 on Wii.

[quote=“sbf717”]Well no duh most people do recognize the VISUALS that are shown to them in a VISUAL medium like TV shows, movies, or games. Later on they go further and expand on that. And in Epic’s case after the initial showing of let’s say Gears their message was not OMG LOOK AT THIS GAME!! IT’S SO PRETTY there message was all about the GAMEPLAY Cliffy would talk at length about how it wasn’t Halo and it was all about STOP and POP. And most people AFTER talking about how good Gears looked talked at length about it’s GAMEPLAY as well.

And that has been happening OVER and OVER again with games on PS3 and 360. After they talk about how good or bad a game looks they talk at length about it’s gameplay. I hardly ever see people just going on and on about how good a game looks without also talking at length about it’s gameplay.

And Sony and MS did WAY more than just cater to the graphics needs of developers. Sony after many complaints chopped down their OS usage from 101MB to 42 MB, MS has been providing devs with APIs for avatars as well as great support, and tons of other support including marketing. You hardly see Nintendo doing any of that. I’m sure if Nintendo was more open to the needs of developers you would have saw UE3 on Wii.[/quote]

Yes Nintendo is just so horrible thats why they don’t have UE3 oh noes watch out for super evil Nintendo.

Its because Epic couldn’t make money by wowing people with graphics thats the reason UE3 isn’t on Wii. Not like it matters most third parties treat Nintendo pretty poorly anyways and have for quite a while so I don’t see why Nintendo should care. Look at GameCube it had quite a bit of cool stuff going for it and look at what third parties did totally abandon them so I don’t think Nintendo really gives a shit about third party whining anymore.

Looking at most third party efforts on Wii how can Nintendo care? Remember the Capcom 5 on GameCube yeah not to mention Nintendo let them make Zelda on handhelds during that period. Nintendo has let some developers make their large franchises that are almost guaranteed to sell I don’t see how evil that is.

Nintendo is doing smaller devs a favor by not focusing on graphics sure devs that focus on graphics are going to be annoyed but they weren’t supporting Nintendo anyhow.

Ok Barcster, now you’re just being ignorant…

About what? I didn’t agree with SBF Nintendo is an evil greedy corporation? If its about Xbox 360 and PS3 relying on graphics I don’t see why thats somehow a crazy statement either? I don’t think I said relying on graphics somehow makes it a bad game or it had bad game design.

Well Epic has always said they wouldn’t stop someone if they wanted to do it. So I guess you can blame the other hundreds of UE3 licensees for also not putting UE3 on Wii

Its not cost effective. Really though there are bigger problems with how third parties treat Wii and then whine about how Nintendo titles are the only ones that sell.

[quote=“nothere413”]Quick Question:

Why does anyone give two shits about Crytek?

I know I don’t…[/quote]

Thats how I feel.

I have nothing against the Wii.

But that’s last generation graphics.

Its like, whats the point of watching a movie in black and white, when I could watch it in color.

It doesn’t mean I still don’t watch black and white movies, but at the same time, I would like to watch it in color.

I want Wii games to be in HD, it would just look better.

Doesn’t make me, or anyone else, a graphic whore. We just want Nintendo to move forward into the next step of graphics.

[quote=“JPjuice23”]I have nothing against the Wii.

But that’s last generation graphics.

Its like, whats the point of watching a movie in black and white, when I could watch it in color.

It doesn’t mean I still don’t watch black and white movies, but at the same time, I would like to watch it in color.

I want Wii games to be in HD, it would just look better.

Doesn’t make me, or anyone else, a graphic whore. We just want Nintendo to move forward into the next step of graphics.[/quote]

I can clearly see Wii doesn’t have the graphics of a 360 or PS3. Better graphics is just that better graphics it won’t make a game better beyond visuals. I feel as though alot of developers are focusing so much on graphics they are losing sight of what else could make a good game beyond visual flair.

That’s where your wrong.

Visuals do increase the games “fun-ness”, Gameplay is what matters, but graphics is the cherry on top, as well as the chocolate fudge, it adds to the overall experience, alot more than you give it credit for, and therefor, it makes the game more fun. But that may be opinion, but I’m sure alot of people agree with me on this, and why a lot of people say the Wii sucks. (well that’s the only reason that the Wii sucks imo)