You know, the argument of the game having more complex features doesn't always equate to the graphics being worse than other modern engines. Especially since modders can easily turn your statement around and produce something that is just about as good looking as Crysis is graphically.

No. I'm pretty sure the major reason why Skyrim's graphics are being held back from being something like Crysis is because the consoles can't handle something like that. And before you say "Well, consoles are getting Crysis 2", http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WJG14uLA3k.

Point is, the game is being developed with consoles in mind, instead of with both in mind, so something like graphics needs to be toned down so the consoles can handle it without slowing down. And Bethesda is taking their usual stance towards this, that is instead of just cutting the console versions down, they're cutting every version down so their games can be as equal as possible. A stance I don't like, but one that I understand.

I'm fairly certain that if Oblivion was only made for PC, we'd still have some of the features that were cut from it. Like the more advanced Radiant AI that was shown in the demo videos, or the dynamic soft shadows, etc. But nope, most of that had to be cut so the consoles wouldn't choke.



Also, after seeing those pics of that Cryengine project, I'm quite certain that with a couple of modifications, it could very well handle an open world RPG like the Elder Scrolls.

SOMEBODY FUND IT!!! :intergalactic:

Why is everyone on this thread going along with the notion that Skyrim doesn't have AO? I think that the majority of the screenshots show evidence of AO.

Anyone care to go into detail about why they think there is no AO in any other screenshots?

Yes, because they only have one person working on the game and he has to do everything. Bethesda are a big company, Luke, they have a lot of specialized people who are very good at what they do, rather than a few general people. The people who are very good at graphics programming are not the same people creating NPC schedules, nor quests, or items, or dialogue. They may, depending on how specialised people are, be the people implementing the RPG elements and technical background for customisable characters, but that won't take up all their time by any stretch of the imagination.

Making games isn't like Oblivion's facegen - moving the graphics "slider" up does not move the "content" slider down. By giving the quest and content guys more graphics power to play with, they can create better, more varied, content. Crysis looks and plays as it does because that is how Crytek intended it to look and play. The original vision for crysis was no greater in scope, and it did not lose content to make room for decent graphics.

Someone already made a small, open world RPG in the Crysis engine, forget what it was called. Mostly a proof of concept.

I like how people keep comparing games out in the market with screens of a very likely early version of a game,i find it curious how can they think it can be compared.
And ofc keeping in mind that Todd said on the GI podcast that the visual aspect of the game was only getting finalized after all the rest was done,wich considering how many time is left till the release,isn't done yet.

The PC version probably has it, but the PS3 and Xbox 360 don't have much memory to run it.

Really? because I've looked up screens of Crysis on the 360 and compared them to the 360 screens of Skyrim and they look just as good to me. Go ahead, look it up yourself. Don't get a PC screen of Crysis, I can do that myself with my Crysis on full settings, get a 360 screen because that's what you need to compare, two 360 screens together and not Crysis on the PC to Skyrim on the 360.



It is a linear game, not a corridor shooter but still a linear game.

@lukeskyrimmer It is a linear game but it has large open areas to roam through to get to your objective. It's not quite a typical linear game that have small areas that push you along the game but also, Crysis is nowhere near an large open-world to roam in like TES.

You mean Crysis 2, I presume?

If not, then you do realize what you're asking is impossible, right? Crysis was only on the PC, so you can't get an Xbox 360 screen of it.

Besides that, I think even the screens of Crysis 2 on the PS3 look a bit better than Skyrim. Not saying Skyrim isn't good looking, I'm just saying I think the console versions of Crysis 2 look better.

The Stalker games have only full dynamic shadows AFAIK, and they are maybe the most believable games I've played in terms of atmosphere. Some mods added SSAO, but I don't think it added that much to the atmosphere. SSAO is too gimmicky for the resource cost in my opinion. I wouldn't mind having it, but there's a lot of other things I wouldn't mind having either. =)

Wow , big statement as big as is so wrong ...

The are aof play of Crysis is actually 16 sq kms , way bigger than any Bethesda game apart probably Daggerfell , and about the gameplay is not a linear shooter lol ...

Does crysis big open areas consist of several npcs to interact with, vegetation to pick for ingredients, loads of houses and explorable dungeons, wildlife roaming the area freely and so on and so forth?

Oh wait you don't even have to answer that for me because the answer is.....no.

MGE's SSAO shader breathes new life into the game.

If by interact with and pick you mean shoot, then yes. There are also many houses with movable props that are open to the world, and while there are no explorable dungeons per se there are caves.
Crysis was a pseudolinear FPS, it did not try to include such RPG elements - however, being able to pick up objects actually reduces load by removing objects from the game world, picking ingredients is simply a matter of adding an item to your inventory, so on.

NPC scheduling and wildlife AI are both CPU bound tasks, and the graphics have very little to do with the CPU. An open world game with the graphical fidelity of Crysis is more than possible - on PC.

Again what stupid arguments are those I suspect you didn't even play the game and you do not know what you are talking about ...

Crysis Enemies have an exceptional advanced AI interaction with theplayer, you can pick a lot of items you can destroy any building and tres in severall pieces , you can pick up stuff and items , home inside are extremely detailed and you can shot almoust anything , the dungeons as you call them are caves and interiors of buildings that have no loading screens transitions but are part of the same world area you enter and get out of caves continuously without need to load new levels and finally there is lot of Wildlife ...

Please play the game befoure criticizing of what you do not know ... or thing befoure typing ...

Sorry but crysis is not that great of a game. Its not terrible but its not great. Its hardly mentioned in the same sentence as best shooters.

Why do you think crysis is ALWAYS recognized for its GRAPHICS and NEVER its GAMEPLAY? Funny isn't it?

out of arguments it seems you are...

That probably has to do more with how exceptionally good the graphics are than anything the gameplay did. Crysis, while not being a particularly fantastic game, was at least a lot more fun then generic of rehash 12: modern reboot et al, so there's that.

Regardless, the quality of the gameplay has nothing to do with the complexity of what it can handle - which is quite complex indeed. There is no reason that, given sufficient resources, a TES-scale title could not look just like crysis did - and, 4 years after the launch of Crysis, a statement like that should not be contested, nor surprising. "RPG elements" and such have very little to do with the graphics. The ability to place an object in your inventory does not make it more complected, and the addition of more content into a game will not make it harder to render, unless there is simply more stuff in a scene. While I don't expect to see Crysis-level graphics in a living-world RPG like TES until next console generation, with current technology we could do it anyway.

Exactly. I'd much rather have a game be remembered for its gameplay and not its graphics. Unfortunately, crysis will never be that game.

I actually thought the gameplay was top notch. Much better than the failures of FPS's that the CoD series are. And it actually promotes taking things from a tactical approach rather than just run in and blast everyone.

The game isn't bad at all. It's graphics are gorgeous, and it's gameplay is above many other FPSs in the fact that the worlds are open and you can choose your approach to complete objectives. And again, not to mention the tactical aspect of it.

The one reason why it's not remembered as well as say the CoD series is because the console kiddies haven't played it, therefore it doesn't have thousands of people talking about it everyday just because it's popular.

you guys should have a look at the outcast mod for cryengine 2, it has good npc interaction inventory etc. It may not be finished but its looking good.

Wow , big statement as big as is so wrong ...

Oblivion was 3x that size at 41 sq km.

Yeah Oblivion was said to be around 16 square miles.

Thanks for reading the rest of my post.

Gameplay quality is irrelevant to technological superiority.
Crysis was not the best game of all time because Crytek did not know how to make the best game of all time. They made a very fun game, much better than "bestselling" titles. Everything in crysis worked fine, it was not a case of botched implementation to allow further graphical fidelity. How good the game is has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that we could run an open world RPG such as a TES title with crysisesque graphics. Should we? Who knows, but it could be done.

... of which half is behind invisible barriers and not detailed at all if you turn those barriers off.

Really, guys: They have comparable world sizes, and comparable interactive capabilities. Crysis just looks two generations better.

No Cyrodiil was 41 square kilometers. Not sure how big Crysis is.

Crysis can't be fully compared, for these reasons, I think:

- Crysis don't nearly have as many quests
- Crysis don't nearly have as many dungeons
- Crysis don't is made in the shape of a real place. The Crysis island exist in real life. Skyrim is purely fiction, making it a lot harder to do environments, come up with good stuff, and so on.
- Crytek has focused more on graphics. It's well known.
- Crytek has 580 employees. Lots of them working on the Crysis games (I'm sure it's many more than 100 people). Lots of them are focusing on developing technologies, graphics, etc. It's one of their main goals. Bethesda has .... 100 people working on Skyrim?

Crysis was made in 2007 and it still crushes new games in terms of graphics. We can't expect Skyrim to be the same. BUT, we can expect Bethesda to learn from Crytek in terms of graphics.
One of this lessons could very well be SSAO. We KNOW it's not the hardest thing to do thanks to Crytek developing it. I mean, just look at how many SSAO shaders there are for Oblivion & Morrowind!