Homefront Development Snatched From Crytek, Given to New Studio - Update

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Ultratwinkie:

Charcharo:

Lightknight:
Good, now maybe a competent studio with a decent track record will give it the attention and skill it deserves.

Take a real look at Crytek's history. They are not a studio you want handling any IP that you actually like.

2004: Far Cry 1 (45 and 50 metacritics on ps3/360)
2007-2013: Crysis 1-3 and warhead (the only claim to fame) Famous almost purely due to the graphical demands.

Seriously, let them die (the studio, not the developers). There's no dignity left even. Why people like them is beyond me because aside from 1 IP (which I'm sure other more competent studios could do better) they're garbage. Far Cry which has actually gotten good only did so out of their hands.

Don't let them ruin homefront too. It'd likely just be free to play EA trash.

Far Cry 1 was much better recieved on PC...

And no game that can play like this is poor in my book:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y5KiJt9oxg&list=UUJzNlOaBUctnBpVxdvkZpyw#t=80

ALso, Free to play =/= trash...

Ultratwinkie:

Snip

With all due respect, you can argue Crytek being assholes with Cryengine 3 and Crysis 2, the gameplay being worse even, BUT...

Cryengine 3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cryengine 2.
So what if one did more? The actual ENGINE part is simply better, more efficient, faster.

Sure everything is faster if you cut a lot of it off.

I am sure every next gen game would run faster if we only put 8 bit graphics and 8 bit gameplay on them. After all, its more efficient.

and 8 bit graphics worked for Nintendo. so lets all go back there because its faster.

The fact is them cutting their engine was the biggest mistake ever. Especially with others with more experience on console and more aggressive devs on PC offering more flexible engines with cheaper rates.

Who would use cryengine on a console when console engines have tied and true reputations? With more established user bases? No one. Who would use cryengine after it got nerfed on PC? No one.

and thats why crytek is in the position it is in.

If they stuck with their original plan of expanding and refining rather than culling, they wouldn't be in this position at all. But no, they had to chase the mythical money boasted by activision. As if a single crytek game can beat the entire catalog of activision games PLUS the biggest MMO ever.

Crytek made its own bed by believing in fairy tales.

Aha...

DX11; better physics; more AA types; better structure of the engine; better weather; NO memory leaks (Cryengine 2 :P); better use of Multi core.

Its just superior. So what if it does not show itself off as much?
CryEngine 2 showed us a lot. CryEngine 3 never did show us as much with Crysis 2. Neither that, nor the fact that they unfortunately started making console games changes the fact.
Cryengine 3 > Cryengine 2.

Charcharo:

Ultratwinkie:

Charcharo:

Far Cry 1 was much better recieved on PC...

And no game that can play like this is poor in my book:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y5KiJt9oxg&list=UUJzNlOaBUctnBpVxdvkZpyw#t=80

ALso, Free to play =/= trash...

With all due respect, you can argue Crytek being assholes with Cryengine 3 and Crysis 2, the gameplay being worse even, BUT...

Cryengine 3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cryengine 2.
So what if one did more? The actual ENGINE part is simply better, more efficient, faster.

Sure everything is faster if you cut a lot of it off.

I am sure every next gen game would run faster if we only put 8 bit graphics and 8 bit gameplay on them. After all, its more efficient.

and 8 bit graphics worked for Nintendo. so lets all go back there because its faster.

The fact is them cutting their engine was the biggest mistake ever. Especially with others with more experience on console and more aggressive devs on PC offering more flexible engines with cheaper rates.

Who would use cryengine on a console when console engines have tied and true reputations? With more established user bases? No one. Who would use cryengine after it got nerfed on PC? No one.

and thats why crytek is in the position it is in.

If they stuck with their original plan of expanding and refining rather than culling, they wouldn't be in this position at all. But no, they had to chase the mythical money boasted by activision. As if a single crytek game can beat the entire catalog of activision games PLUS the biggest MMO ever.

Crytek made its own bed by believing in fairy tales.

Aha...

DX11; better physics; more AA types; better structure of the engine; better weather; NO memory leaks (Cryengine 2 :P); better use of Multi core.

Its just superior. So what if it does not show itself off as much?
CryEngine 2 showed us a lot. CryEngine 3 never did show us as much with Crysis 2. Neither that, nor the fact that they unfortunately started making console games changes the fact.
Cryengine 3 > Cryengine 2.

And thats the issue there. Its an engine constrained by consoles.

DX 11? useless for consoles, they use Direct X 9 and OPENGL. Standard on PC.
AA? nonexistent on consoles. standard on PC.
better weather? could have just done that on cryengine 2.
memory leaks are fixable.
Better physics? Compared to what? Crysis 2's physics were highly constrained.
multi core is useless on consoles. again standard on PC.

So the added stuff is already bog standard for PC. And useless for consoles. It was meant to centered around consoles.

So consoles gain nothing from cryengine. and neither does PC. Cryengine 2 was cutting edge when it debuted and did new things. Cryengine 3 is a bad and outdated engine that does nothing new. At least cryengine 2 was appropriate for its platform, cryengine 2 is shitty for any platform.

Ultratwinkie:

Charcharo:

Ultratwinkie:

Sure everything is faster if you cut a lot of it off.

I am sure every next gen game would run faster if we only put 8 bit graphics and 8 bit gameplay on them. After all, its more efficient.

and 8 bit graphics worked for Nintendo. so lets all go back there because its faster.

The fact is them cutting their engine was the biggest mistake ever. Especially with others with more experience on console and more aggressive devs on PC offering more flexible engines with cheaper rates.

Who would use cryengine on a console when console engines have tied and true reputations? With more established user bases? No one. Who would use cryengine after it got nerfed on PC? No one.

and thats why crytek is in the position it is in.

If they stuck with their original plan of expanding and refining rather than culling, they wouldn't be in this position at all. But no, they had to chase the mythical money boasted by activision. As if a single crytek game can beat the entire catalog of activision games PLUS the biggest MMO ever.

Crytek made its own bed by believing in fairy tales.

Aha...

DX11; better physics; more AA types; better structure of the engine; better weather; NO memory leaks (Cryengine 2 :P); better use of Multi core.

Its just superior. So what if it does not show itself off as much?
CryEngine 2 showed us a lot. CryEngine 3 never did show us as much with Crysis 2. Neither that, nor the fact that they unfortunately started making console games changes the fact.
Cryengine 3 > Cryengine 2.

And thats the issue there. Its an engine constrained by consoles.

DX 11? useless for consoles, they use Direct X 9 and OPENGL. Standard on PC.
AA? nonexistent on consoles. standard on PC.
better weather? could have just done that on cryengine 2.
memory leaks are fixable.
Better physics? Compared to what? Crysis 2's physics were highly constrained.
multi core is useless on consoles. again standard on PC.

So the added stuff is already bog standard for PC. And useless for consoles. It was meant to centered around consoles.

So consoles gain nothing from cryengine. and neither does PC. Cryengine 2 was cutting edge when it debuted and did new things. Cryengine 3 is a bad and outdated engine that does nothing new. At least cryengine 2 was appropriate for its platform, cryengine 2 is shitty for any platform.

Except I am not saying that Cryengine 2 is bad, I am saying that from a simple techpoint CryEngine 3 is superior.
If tomorrow I have to make a PC exclusive game, it would be on Cryengine 3. Not 2.
Don't get what else you are arguing

Charcharo:

Ultratwinkie:

Charcharo:

Aha...

DX11; better physics; more AA types; better structure of the engine; better weather; NO memory leaks (Cryengine 2 :P); better use of Multi core.

Its just superior. So what if it does not show itself off as much?
CryEngine 2 showed us a lot. CryEngine 3 never did show us as much with Crysis 2. Neither that, nor the fact that they unfortunately started making console games changes the fact.
Cryengine 3 > Cryengine 2.

And thats the issue there. Its an engine constrained by consoles.

DX 11? useless for consoles, they use Direct X 9 and OPENGL. Standard on PC.
AA? nonexistent on consoles. standard on PC.
better weather? could have just done that on cryengine 2.
memory leaks are fixable.
Better physics? Compared to what? Crysis 2's physics were highly constrained.
multi core is useless on consoles. again standard on PC.

So the added stuff is already bog standard for PC. And useless for consoles. It was meant to centered around consoles.

So consoles gain nothing from cryengine. and neither does PC. Cryengine 2 was cutting edge when it debuted and did new things. Cryengine 3 is a bad and outdated engine that does nothing new. At least cryengine 2 was appropriate for its platform, cryengine 3 is shitty for any platform.

Except I am not saying that Cryengine 2 is bad, I am saying that from a simple techpoint CryEngine 3 is superior.
If tomorrow I have to make a PC exclusive game, it would be on Cryengine 3. Not 2.
Don't get what else you are arguing

If you were making a PC exclusive game, you'd be avoiding cryengine 3 just like all the other indies. Its expensive and outdated.

Sure you can say "oh but we streamlined this" but the fact of the matter streamlining doesn't mean shit. They failed to refine and expand their engine and they paid the price. Anyone can make a simple efficient engine to do basic things but does it have the flexibility to do what indies want?

The answer is no. They nerfed their engine instead of build on it.

Cryenegine 3 is a shitty engine that can't do what it was meant to and fails to go beyond the bog standard. And that's a bad thing in an age where engines constantly improve.

console engines have experience with efficiency. They have fame. Cryengine doesn't have either. It was already a lost battle to take them on. Once they began focusing on trying to win over a locked market, they lost their own market.

Cryengine 2 was a competitive engine. Cryengine 3 isn't.

Ultratwinkie:

Nvidia innovates every year. a lot of companies do. In fact, a lot of their tech is based off Crysis tech. Nvidia did what Crytek could have done.

They could have easily sold their engine to other developers, and gotten the massive cash unreal 4 is getting. But that wasn't cool enough for them.

So now unreal is destroying cryengine, and its all crytek's fault. So now unreal is elevating gaming instead of crytek even when crytek had a huge fucking lead.

They abandoned what they did have for what they could have had. Its like a man quitting his five figure job to try to be a freelance DJ with no prior experience.

You can whine and whine about how gaming is "corrupted" by shrubbery but what Crysis did was a milestone for gaming. All of its advances filtered out into all facets of gaming today. We have physics because of crysis. We have water physics because of crysis. We have efficient foliage because of crysis. We have advanced dynamic lighting because of crysis. It pushed the technology to its limit just like GTA V did for consoles.

Whether you like it or not, what Crysis did was amazing and was good for the industry. Just like Half Life that came before it. Just like XCOM that came before that.

yet when PC pushes boundaries, its suddenly bad. When consoles do the same things that PC did years ago, its suddenly ok.

It also doesn't matter if you found it fun. The game sold like shit. No one bought it. In fact, it struggles to even reach the sales of Crysis 1. It also got lower scores than crysis 1.

Far Cry 1 was cut down for consoles so they can handle it. Do you have any idea how embarrassing it is for next gen consoles (at the time) to not be able to fully handle a 10 year old game? It was a low effort cash grab. They didn't even bother trying.

Far Cry was cut down because far cry was another crysis. It was open world and required you to see long distances. It was meant to showcase their technical ability and by extension improve their reputation in the engine market. It was meant to be big to prove that huge open shooters can work.

so 720p 30 fps and heavy pop in destroys the very reason the game exists. It was meant to be big and rendering everything instead of little bits.

So not only did it fail to fulfill the original goal it had on PC, but it was 10 years too late. The technology had already become standard. It was just a low effort cash grab by lazily porting old games.

Where are those Nvidia games? Surely they'd have the best shrubbery. Anyway I'm not sure they're comparable with each other.

Nope didn't say it was corrupted by shrubbery, just your emphasis on their important was wrong as there are elements much more important. Shrubbery makes a nice frame, the rest is the painting you are actually viewing.

What? Where are you getting this PC bad, console good nonsense from? Where did I ever say such a thing? I think you're letting your views on certain groups dirty your thoughts.

Instincts was a "cutdown" version that ran on the original Xbox. Anyway you are kind of going against yourself there. They put no effort in, yet the hardware is solely to blame and not you know...their no effort. It just doesn't mesh.

I'm sorry but its getting ridiculous now. Have Crytek never created a game? Are they all shrubbery simulators meant to selflessly forward the advancement of graphical effects? Why do you attribute all these grand causes to their videogames?
I suppose Duke Nukem (insert other X game) was also made with the purpose of technical advancement too eh? The purpose of a videogame is to make money, to entertain (to better make money), or for some to simply fill their habit.
Don't think because X feature is created for a game, that the game resolves around it completely.

Rozalia1:

Ultratwinkie:

Nvidia innovates every year. a lot of companies do. In fact, a lot of their tech is based off Crysis tech. Nvidia did what Crytek could have done.

They could have easily sold their engine to other developers, and gotten the massive cash unreal 4 is getting. But that wasn't cool enough for them.

So now unreal is destroying cryengine, and its all crytek's fault. So now unreal is elevating gaming instead of crytek even when crytek had a huge fucking lead.

They abandoned what they did have for what they could have had. Its like a man quitting his five figure job to try to be a freelance DJ with no prior experience.

You can whine and whine about how gaming is "corrupted" by shrubbery but what Crysis did was a milestone for gaming. All of its advances filtered out into all facets of gaming today. We have physics because of crysis. We have water physics because of crysis. We have efficient foliage because of crysis. We have advanced dynamic lighting because of crysis. It pushed the technology to its limit just like GTA V did for consoles.

Whether you like it or not, what Crysis did was amazing and was good for the industry. Just like Half Life that came before it. Just like XCOM that came before that.

yet when PC pushes boundaries, its suddenly bad. When consoles do the same things that PC did years ago, its suddenly ok.

It also doesn't matter if you found it fun. The game sold like shit. No one bought it. In fact, it struggles to even reach the sales of Crysis 1. It also got lower scores than crysis 1.

Far Cry 1 was cut down for consoles so they can handle it. Do you have any idea how embarrassing it is for next gen consoles (at the time) to not be able to fully handle a 10 year old game? It was a low effort cash grab. They didn't even bother trying.

Far Cry was cut down because far cry was another crysis. It was open world and required you to see long distances. It was meant to showcase their technical ability and by extension improve their reputation in the engine market. It was meant to be big to prove that huge open shooters can work.

so 720p 30 fps and heavy pop in destroys the very reason the game exists. It was meant to be big and rendering everything instead of little bits.

So not only did it fail to fulfill the original goal it had on PC, but it was 10 years too late. The technology had already become standard. It was just a low effort cash grab by lazily porting old games.

Where are those Nvidia games? Surely they'd have the best shrubbery. Anyway I'm not sure they're comparable with each other.

Nope didn't say it was corrupted by shrubbery, just your emphasis on their important was wrong as there are elements much more important. Shrubbery makes a nice frame, the rest is the painting you are actually viewing.

What? Where are you getting this PC bad, console good nonsense from? Where did I ever say such a thing? I think you're letting your views on certain groups dirty your thoughts.

Instincts was a "cutdown" version that ran on the original Xbox. Anyway you are kind of going against yourself there. They put no effort in, yet the hardware is solely to blame and not you know...their no effort. It just doesn't mesh.

I'm sorry but its getting ridiculous now. Have Crytek never created a game? Are they all shrubbery simulators meant to selflessly forward the advancement of graphical effects? Why do you attribute all these grand causes to their videogames?
I suppose Duke Nukem (insert other X game) was also made with the purpose of technical advancement too eh? The purpose of a videogame is to make money, to entertain (to better make money), or for some to simply fill their habit.
Don't think because X feature is created for a game, that the game resolves around it completely.

Nvidia has Nvidia gameworks. Its been incorporated into multiple engines. Basiclaly any game with nvidia physx uses patants by Nvidia.

Which is what Crytek should have been doing. Now Nvidia has the market locked down after it took it from crytek.

Companies spend money creating solutions to problesm that devs can't afford to create themselves.

Need lots of foliage for your game without needing lots of power? A company figured it out.
Need physics? figured it out.
Need dynamic lighting? Figured it out.

Crytek sells solutions that other devs buy to implement in their games. Its a very competitive business. You have to refine everything while also creating new solutions.

Their games showcase their hard work and their engines. Just like Half Life 2 showcased Valve's source engine that worked 6 years on.

The game is only 50% of the profit. Since engines are so expensive its is IMPORTANT to sell your engine too. Its just good business. The funds from selling licenses would then fund more R&D and the cycle repeats.

Every company that makes their own engines try to use their games to sell the engine too. Standard practice. Other developers just buy the license.

It is a lot of work, but it pays off big time. Its why Nvidia has so much leverage with devs that they can demand whatever they want, because they own so many solutions.

"I suppose Duke Nukem (insert other X game) was also made with the purpose of technical advancement too eh? The purpose of a videogame is to make money, to entertain (to better make money), or for some to simply fill their habit."

You don't understand because you follow the overly simplistic 1970s mentality when a developer created everything they needed from scratch. That mentality no longer exists.

Making games is not the only industry there. Just like movies is not the only industry there.

movies need camera companies. It needs supporting companies to make it run and make it evolve.

Gaming need technical companies to evolve the medium by selling patented solutions to developer problems. It saves money for the dev and saves time too. Just like console companies need hardware manufacturers to cut down on building factories and designing architecture.

Crytek was a technical company that was meant to sell patent licenses.

Technical companies are very important to the modern video game industry. They do the hard work that other companies are too lazy or cant afford to do.

They were too lazy to cater to console hardware because they jumped ship long after the boat sailed. It didn't help that their hardware was shit by the time they got to the consoles. That's why they wanted next gen consoles so badly.

Its like a 100 year old learning to drive a car for the first time. Its way too late to be learning how to do that.

So instead of learning, they just start cutting until it fits. Its a low effort port compounded by old hardware. Which is directly the opposite of where console devs were going because they bothered to learn.

The gaming industry is much more complex than it used to be. It has spawned supporting industries that help prop up the games.

Ok, so Far Cry 1 on the pc in 2004 and then the Crysis series. Two IPs in a decade that were ever worth nothing.

We're really not justifying their laundry list of other titles they screw up. They're practically a one-horse show and almost no one likes what they've been doing with Crysis lately. Solid games in my opinion but... meh.

Why do people think this makes them a good studio? People take their IPs and make them better. I think that they've got great engine developers and good initial concept people (which may or may not still be there) but every other part of the team is garbage.

Crytek would make a FAR better graphics engine company.

Ultratwinkie:

Charcharo:

Ultratwinkie:

And thats the issue there. Its an engine constrained by consoles.

DX 11? useless for consoles, they use Direct X 9 and OPENGL. Standard on PC.
AA? nonexistent on consoles. standard on PC.
better weather? could have just done that on cryengine 2.
memory leaks are fixable.
Better physics? Compared to what? Crysis 2's physics were highly constrained.
multi core is useless on consoles. again standard on PC.

So the added stuff is already bog standard for PC. And useless for consoles. It was meant to centered around consoles.

So consoles gain nothing from cryengine. and neither does PC. Cryengine 2 was cutting edge when it debuted and did new things. Cryengine 3 is a bad and outdated engine that does nothing new. At least cryengine 2 was appropriate for its platform, cryengine 3 is shitty for any platform.

Except I am not saying that Cryengine 2 is bad, I am saying that from a simple techpoint CryEngine 3 is superior.
If tomorrow I have to make a PC exclusive game, it would be on Cryengine 3. Not 2.
Don't get what else you are arguing

If you were making a PC exclusive game, you'd be avoiding cryengine 3 just like all the other indies. Its expensive and outdated.

Sure you can say "oh but we streamlined this" but the fact of the matter streamlining doesn't mean shit. They failed to refine and expand their engine and they paid the price. Anyone can make a simple efficient engine to do basic things but does it have the flexibility to do what indies want?

The answer is no. They nerfed their engine instead of build on it.

Cryenegine 3 is a shitty engine that can't do what it was meant to and fails to go beyond the bog standard. And that's a bad thing in an age where engines constantly improve.

console engines have experience with efficiency. They have fame. Cryengine doesn't have either. It was already a lost battle to take them on. Once they began focusing on trying to win over a locked market, they lost their own market.

Cryengine 2 was a competitive engine. Cryengine 3 isn't.

Ohh ...

Here it is simple:

1. You say Crysis 1 was great in many ways and its GRAPHICS helped gameplay.
I agree.

2. You say Crysis 1 was the best of the Crysis series.
I partly disagree. Crysis 2 had a better storyline.

3. You say CryEngine 2 (CE 2) was great for it innovated gameplay via its graphics, and it was arrogant and in your face about how powerful it was.
I agree.

4. You say CE 2 is more of a PC engine then CE3.
I agree.

5. You say that CE 2 is better then CE 3.
I disagree. It is MORE ambitious, it was a BIGGER step up then what CE 3 did, but as an actual engine Cryeingine 3 is simply BETTER then CryEngine 2.

Get it now? :P

Man, Deep Silver just keeps ending up with THQ's old properties, don't they? Funny how this ol' world works.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here