I can't see the logic of making the game look marginally better (and it is only marginally) at the expense of 90% of the player base no longer being able to run it. I mean, business guys. Business.

There's more to an engine than pretty graphics. Let's see if the CryEngine cna handle a world as massive as Skyrim, with all the ruleset and objects and NPCs that Skyrim has.

Itkovian

I asked that before and it got completely skimed over.

Doesn't suit the rant maybe...

The graphics in Skyrim aren't far behind that anyways. I don't know what you all are smoking.

Graphics are important as well as gameplay.Only a 5 year old would say otherwise.

You think I would have gotten Skyrim if it had poor graphics?No way(and same goes to a lot of people out there).If a game looks like [censored] why would I bother with gameplay?My eyes are precious,and I don't want it to be ruined by horrible qualities.Or better yet,if people like gameplay more than graphics,you should go back to n64 then.Most games have "fun" gameplay,but horrible graphics.That's what you should play.

And I find it funny how some poeple are really clueless here.Would anyone be able to run a game like Skyrim in Cryengine?Are you crazy?No.

No amount of your "graphics" power would be able to run it as detailed as the videos show.Your whole computer will burn out.So many NPCs,directions,calculations,decisions,it will be an overflow.Maybe in the next 5 years will you able to,but not now.

No ones arguing against increasing the visuals as time goes on and hardware becomes more powerful. But people are pointing out that to get Skyrim to the next level in this generation would not be worth it at the expense of gameplay as Skyrim already looks stunning.

CryEngine 2 = poop. It was a demanding and unoptimized mess that was and is really only good for benchmarking systems. Crysis 1 was a good game, but the engine went too much for a 'wow' factor and put less towards actual functionality. And I'm glad Skyrim will never be made on any version of CryEngine...no matter what game they use it for it always ends up looking way too clean and unrealistic. Just about the only thing it does right is jungle and water.

It's funny to see how few people here know what role an engine plays in a video game

I think the cryengine is a nice one. I never had ANY problems running from farcry1 through the crysis games. But this new creation engine is pretty sturdy too. The game runs like silk and once I turned off anti aliasing I`ll only crash once in a great while while traveling or loading. I couldn`t do that with oblivion or the fallout games.

And what makes you think there can't be good art direction with CryEngine? Do you think so because the game CRYSIS lacks a good art direction? That has nothing to do with the engine.
You don't seem to realize that it's possible to have both an excellent art direction AND good technical qualities simultaneously.
Skyrim's art style combined with a more advanced rendering engine would absatively make it MUCH more visually appealing.

If skyrim were on the cryengine I would not be playing the game. Why? Because my computer isn't that good and working my way through college doesn't leave me much spending money to upgrade my setup.

This is probably the most underrated comment in this thread. I perfectly agree.

Wow that is some terrible FPS!! No, I'd rather Skyrim be beautiful, stable and smooth thanks.

That "My forest" video really doesn't look a whole lot better than skyrim, at least not on my video settings.

amazing graphics and 10 hours of gameplay or 300+ hours of gameplay and decent graphics...

framerate is just BEAUTIFUL on those lol

they put crysis 1 on consoles, idk if it uses cry engine 2 or not but they did, never liked crysis so didnt get either of them

Guarantee you.....wait few months..and some genius modder/programmer will make skyrim look as good as original crysis..

some ambient occlusion, Lightrays, depth of field, HDR, parrallex occlusion pluse some modified shadow rendering + some pc high res textures................... OMGWTF..

doable..


For the time being im playing skyrim very casually so not to rush...i want to actually have content left to play by the time these uber mods come out.

Nah, Frostbite 2 > Crytec whatever...

I'd say it's an ignorant comment.
The art direction isn't linked with the rendering engine and it's absurd to think so.

Then again, content and gameplay are limited by graphical capability, and no one wants to play an ugly game.


Yeah, CeyEngine can support massive maps. There's actually a lot of content and interactivity in the stock Crysis game. You can pick up anything, shoot fruit and it breaks apart, shoot trees and they break where you shoot them, shoot barrels and liquid will pour out of the bullet holes, etc. Crysis probably has more advanced AI than Skyrim, though neither's AI is actually "advanced."


Ah, that's not possible, with acceptable frame-rates. It's possible that the max graphics settings in the game were censured from view because your system couldn't handle them.


That is quite a silly, uninformed post. Engines don't produce AI, and CryEngine 2 already has thousands more things being rendered than are in Skyrim, with "AI constantly running," and there is practically no limit on what size a map you can make in CryEngine and have it run. Your post is pure assumptive ignorance.

Crysis is the perfect example of a game with amazing graphics and garbage gameplay.

Not true. Compared to most shooters that have come out since, Crysis has amazing gameplay. Going back to it and replaying it really shows how gaming has since been extremely casualized and stunted. Crysis is quite a fun game, though most people probably didn't have too much fun with it in 2007 because their systems ran it like a slide show. It's definitely a lot more fun for me now that I can run it almost on top settings with great framerates.

We'll see a graphical boost for our PC games when the consols hit next gen.