Lugaru 2 - Scope vs. Release Date
I think the idea with Crytek games is that they don't really care about games, but they enjoy high-end graphics programming "Future-proofing" a game makes sense if you are making a MMORPG or something, but I doubt anyone will still be playing Crysis in a year even, let alone three or four.GaGrin wrote:If you read most of the stuff about FarCry and Crysis they made it quite clear that High and Ultra-high were NOT for normal gaming machines, but for the absoulate top-end, and for future-proofing the games respectivally. The idea with the Crytek games is that they still look good 3-4 years later because you can still turn the detail up.
I'm glad everyone is positive about your choice to make a smaller Lugaru sequel first.
I'm definitively up for more of the kick-ass Lugaru gameplay!
I've played the Crysis demo, and I can only run it on low/medium, so it looks fairly "meh".
But that doesn't really matter; I think it''s fun.
I mean, picking up enemies and tossing 'em through walls, shooting down palm trees,
stalking around like a Predator, what's not to like? ...Does this make me a horrible person?
I'm definitively up for more of the kick-ass Lugaru gameplay!
I've played the Crysis demo, and I can only run it on low/medium, so it looks fairly "meh".
But that doesn't really matter; I think it''s fun.
I mean, picking up enemies and tossing 'em through walls, shooting down palm trees,
stalking around like a Predator, what's not to like? ...Does this make me a horrible person?
Re: Lugaru 2 - Scope vs. Release Date
Ahem. :pDavid wrote:Therefore I am considering making a new game that is like an updated version of Lugaru 1 in the new engine
(and a different storyline), and then working on a more open-ended Lugaru game later.
-
- Gramps
- Posts: 6942
- Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:59 am
Yeah man Far Cry was pretty awesome. I enjoyed it a lot, and you didn't really need a powerful PC to run it but it still looked pretty sweet graphically. I think the AI in general was very good, and the game had longevity....I mean it was LONG. But the story was kinda cheesey, as were the mutant primates.
Crysis LOOKS fun, but they were focusing on graphics a lot.
Crysis LOOKS fun, but they were focusing on graphics a lot.
-
- Posts: 197
- Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 3:57 pm
- Location: Mac universe
- Contact:
-
- official Wolfire heckler
- Posts: 2193
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 11:19 pm
- Location: Hamburg City
- Contact:
It's a good thing that story wasn't the selling point thenRenegade_Turner wrote:But the story was kinda cheesey, as were the mutant primates.
Even multiplayer was fun, at least over LAN. I had awesome sessions with a bunch of friends. Our preferred level was the one with the tiny isles in the ocean, where there's one hangar with an RPG-launcher on one isle and a watchtower on the other. Small maps are awesome.
Crysis is a bit extreme on the graphics side, it doesn't run on my machine although it handles simple shaders up to PS3.0 pretty well. The game isn't scaleable at all. But that was to be expected; I don't care anymore, I bought a 360 so that I don't have to worry about upgrading my PC after all and it works so far.
Here's hoping you've got multiple render paths, David, so that cheap people like me still can enjoy L2 with a reasonable framerate.
I like what David said about targeting mid-range computers, it's smart to make a game that is made to work well on most everyone's computers so that people can actually play your game the way it was meant to be played. When you target super high end machines you have to make it really scalable for people to actually play it. But at low detail Crysis looks bad compared to games designed for medium range computers and played at high settings.
I don't think a game has any reason to be "future proof." People continue to play games like Starcraft and Resident Evil 4 because they are fun games, not because the graphics are so good they can compete with present games.
CoD4 has awesome graphics and they aren't future proofed, they'll work on most computers and never jump in frame rate.
I don't think a game has any reason to be "future proof." People continue to play games like Starcraft and Resident Evil 4 because they are fun games, not because the graphics are so good they can compete with present games.
CoD4 has awesome graphics and they aren't future proofed, they'll work on most computers and never jump in frame rate.
I think the engine should be based on what people can actually play the game on, like Valve's Source engine. They update the Source engine with new blur and HDR effects, so it stays within what people can play it on while still looking good.
Crysis isn't selling as well as they hoped because of the system requirements, so I don't think someone else could make a better game people will be willing to play on low settings using the same graphic intensive engine.
Crysis isn't selling as well as they hoped because of the system requirements, so I don't think someone else could make a better game people will be willing to play on low settings using the same graphic intensive engine.
-
- Gramps
- Posts: 6942
- Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:59 am