Am I the only one (who can't stand CryEngine games)?

So let me preface this by saying that I'm a bit behind the times here - I've played Far Cry and I'm currently playing the first Crysis. In both experiences, I've really disliked the CryEngine itself. It reminds me of playing the original Medal of Honor and Call of Duty games - MoH felt like I was shooting cardboard cutouts, while CoD felt real - the action felt responsive. CryEngine games have always had that cardboard cutout feeling to me. I recognize how pretty the graphics are, but nothing draws me into the world, neither on a story/emotional level nor, more importantly, on a technical/visceral level. I'll play through Crysis, and probably even play through Far Cry 2 since I already have it on Steam (the Africa thing intrigues me - not a fan of the tropical island settings), but the engine just doesn't do it for me.

Am I the only one who feels this way, or are there other closet CryEngine detractors out there just waiting for a rallying cry?

 

... wait, CoD felt REAL?

The original CryEngine is still eons beyond the modified quake 3 steam-aged engine that call of duty uses.

You DON'T feel drawn to the world? Despite the fact that you have a gigantic sandbox to explore with no scripting (exclude Crysis 2 from here). What could be more engaging than that?

Seems preposterous that you can't appreciate the engine on a technical level... when one of the main criticisms directed at CryEngine games is that they are just showcases for the engine.

 

Haven't tried any of the COD games, so I can't compare the two. The only Cry Engine game I've tried is Crysis Warhead. I found it somewhat boring, but an engine is just an engine, you can make very different games using the same engine.

 

My expectations in 2001 were different from my expectations today, but there was still something about the feedback of your actions that made it feel more real (not to be confused with realistic) than MoH, just as Half Life 2 and FEAR felt more real to me than Far Cry.

The locations may be bigger in CryTek games, but so far I have yet to feel like there is any real difference between going from A to B versus 'exploring' the world with the eventual goal of reaching B. Perhaps it's because the jungle island settings feel so repetitive - sure, you can explore and find another tree, but it's just another tree. If you're lucky enough to find a village off-path, you'll quickly realize it's just another nearly-identical collection of ramshackle sheds with the same debris strewn around (ooh, I can pick up that empty water bottle!) and a couple grenades and assault rifle clips on a desk, and don't try to explore too far - that mountain's too high or that ravine's too wide and deep to cross - too bad. It's still just a series of levels (at least Far Cry and Crysis), if the levels are a bit wider at points and maybe offer both land and water approaches to your target, that doesn't mean that every land and water approach isn't the same as every other land or water approach. Really, Far Cry was at its best when the level design got smaller and more restrictive and linear later in the game.

But it still felt like I was shooting cardboard cutouts. The way I want to describe it is that the edges seem too sharp, almost like everything is edged with black lines like a child's drawing. That's not really the case - it's more a metaphorical verbal explanation of how I feel about the shooter mechanics of the CryEngine games and the original Medal of Honor before them.

 

It sounds like your mixing up the game with the engine. There's no reason you couldn't have a cryengine game that had a very different look and feel to Crysis.

Cryengine doesn't have that many games, but look at Unreal 3 for an analog. You've got a lot of very different games on there: Mass Effect, Mortal Kombat, Dungeon Defenders, Borderlands, the upcoming Bioshock game, Arkham series, and yes, of course, a huge number of generic throw-away first person shooter games that all look, feel, and play more or less the same.

I think a lot of aspects of Crysis fit the mold of throw-away FPS. But the types of games that you *could* make on cryengine are quite diverse.

There aren't that many major Cryengine game releases, and of the few that exist, a huge number of them are Crytek developed.

 

I only particularly liked Crysis 1. The sandbox feeling was interesting, but moreso the open feeling to do things in different ways. I liked being able to break down and level most of the elements on the surface including several houses etc, I didn't feel restricted.

But storywise etc it is indeed very barebones. Crysis 2 is just plain silly, with hollywood style exaggerated, nonsencial story trying to sound deep throwing non related terms at you over and over, and being superbly restricted in terms of physics and destruction. You simply can't go from breaking down a house to not being able to jump through glass just because. Nor not being able to break wooden doors, and so many scripted events...

Anyways, CoD games are simply much faster and action filled. They are not more realistinc nor they feel more real (tho some moments really do) but it's just much more adrenaline filled. It's a good series.

 

While story and gameplay elements of the two CryEngine games I've played bother me or make the games seem sub-par, I really am talking about the engine, or at least its utilization for the little things.

I don't know any other way to describe it than the cardboard cutout thing, saying it feels less responsive - it might have to do with head bob or recoil or the perspective or the gun you're holding or the reaction of the enemy when you shoot him or the fact that so much of the greenery still can't help but feel one-dimensional, but it just feels flat to me. Other games that I've mentioned have, by comparison, felt round.

I know these terms are highly personal - just my verbalization of a series of impressions the antecedents of which I can't actually pinpoint - but it's a flat and round thing, and CryEngine (or maybe just CryTek) games feel flat. Back to the original comparison, the original (2001?) Medal of Honor felt flat, while the first Call of Duty game, released around the same time, felt round. I'm not commenting on later MoH or CoD games, since the only other one I've played was Modern Warfare for half a dozen hours on my friend's XBox and I have a rather poor impression of them based on their ubiquity and regular cookie-cutter replacements.

 

None of this has to do with the engine.

 

Maybe that's my bad, then - I assumed since both of my experiences with games built on the engine were that way, it must be an engine thing. Clearly I don't know much about what a game engine does...

 

I liked all the CryTek games.

But... CryTek games are in my opinion, tech demos. My impression is CryTek invests most of their time on creating engines. and that's what these games do. Probably help recoup some costs, but it's to demonstrate the engine's capabilities. CryEngine 1 failed since it was choked by Ubisoft. But still not bad considering Aion was a success and that runs on CryEngine 1 and still considered one of the best looking MMORPGs. CryEngine 2 was a failure because it was just too demanding. I think Crysis was a curiosity, people wanted to know if it ran on their machines. And it crushed most, and scared off other developers from licensing it. CryTek 3 was better since it's cross-platform and probably the best looking console engine yet. So there are a bunch of games using it and will be using it.

Anyway, I there are few games that are similar to Crysis though and COD definitely nowhere close. This includes the story, the gameplay, and the graphics. I think Crysis topples COD in every way. It's an open sandbox. COD are the most linear games. Crysis has interesting bullet mechanics. Further you are from a target, the less damage it does. Further you are, less accurate. COD, there is no bullet mechanics, just hit detection. Quick scoping says it all, stupid. Crysis has physics. COD has none. A bullet in COD goes through people, paper, thin rock walls and metal, all the same, no difference. But you can't knock down any trees, crates etc. No environmental interactions.

COD story is boring. Oh no, there are terrorists. But don't worry, USA will save the world, because you know, we are so altruistic that way. Not only that, the enemies are boring. Oh no the Russians. Oh no the towel heads (I use that prejudice term because the COD games are ridiculously offensive).

 

Appreciated the first part of your post - the game as a tech demo makes sense to me, even though CryTek games have generally been given good reviews on the gameplay and story elements as well, as far as I've seen. Crysis itself was really the most talked-about gaming benchmark for a couple years before and after its release, the fact that it's a game is largely secondary, but it still got great reviews from critics and players as a game and not just as an engine.

However, I will once again reiterate that I was referring to Call of Duty, as in the World War II shooter that didn't have a number or a subtitle because there was only one Call of Duty when it was released over a decade ago, and I was comparing it to Medal of Honor (same story - the first one) as an example of games from the same era that felt comparatively "round" and "flat". Once again, since the original game and its expansion, I've only played a couple hours of Modern Warfare (CoD 4) and I found it fun and engaging, and it was a fairly new setting for games at the time and done well for general consumption. The fact that the series is now refreshed every eight to twelve months with a new, virtually-identical installment is enough motivation for me to avoid it at all costs now, but I never intended this to be a discussion about Call of Duty or a comparison of any modern Call of Duty games to games built on any CryTek engine.

 

Both Crysis games were fun if you ask me. Like munching popcorn and shooting things with ridiculous special effects. I haven't played any CoD games past the first modern warfare, though I played all the ones before it. They are both fun if you ask me. I have a bunch of the MW games in my backlog from steam sales. I wait for them to get cheap as I couldn't care less about the multiplayer. Can't wait to play those as well.

 

Hmm I'm going to have to disagree. I felt the shooting in Crysis had a very nice feel to it. The rounds feel like they're hitting solid bodies, to me, especially when firing the shotgun.

 

I loved Crysis and Warhead. Just can't get into Crysis 2. It just doesn't have the same feel and the story is crap.

 

I don't remember any story at all in Warhead, maybe I missed that part? All I recall is some cutscene with the protagonist riding inside a helicopter that crashes. Didn't get very far in the game, however, perhaps there is more going on at a later point.

 

I guess the story was thin, but the environment and how it tied in with the original Crysis. Crysis 2 really doesn't feel anything like the original, just another shooter in the city.

 

Far Cry 2 doesn't even use CryEngine. It's also not made by Crytek.

 

Far Cry and Crysis - I have a copy of Far Cry 2 and will probably play it sometime, but it's not in the list.

However, I wasn't aware that Far Cry 2 didn't use CryEngine, so I'll have to see whether or not it has that same feel when I do give it a run.

 

Far cry 2 is no way on par with far cry 1 and 3. I found it quite boring to say the least different but ultimately boring.
Interesting replies. I have to agree with hulawafu77 post.
There is something uniquely different to the crytek engine(s) and games produced around it. I agree though that the games are purely tech demonstrations and there is something artificial about them not in a bad way but certainly different comparing it to say max payne 3, hitman:absolution, metro 2033, sleeping dogs and other titles/engines.

I will say that the options to tweak far cry 3 have been very disappointing. Such a great game and you have to tweak the gamerprofile.xml to get it right? something ain't right...like for eg postFx what is that is it FXAA? if it is then correctly title it as FXAA and not something else.
My favorite titles would still have to be crysis followed closely by far cry 3 and then crysis 2. The other ones far cry 1 and 2 no comparison.

 

CryEngine 1 and CryEngine 2 also aren't the same engine. They just happen to share a name. They might as well be called "Crytek's first engine" and "Crytek's second engine".

 

Certainly, but I would at least assume that CryEngine 2 is essentially the logical technological progression of CryEngine 1. Since the "round" factor is present in games that were released years before CryEngine, I would also guess that CryEngine 2 wouldn't correct the "flatness" of its predecessor. I could be wrong on all counts.

I'll also add that Far Cry felt more "round" as I got more used to the game itself, and Crysis could do the same. It was always behind other games down to the very end, but part of it is partially an issue of getting acclimated to the engine/game's style.

 

They're made by the same company, and one was made before the other, but CryEngine is further from CryEngine 2 than other modern engines.

Without getting into specifics what constitutes a game engine, consider some more examples of games which run on a single engine. Look up Dota 2, and compare that to Half Life 2 or other recent Valve games (all run on the Source engine). Use that as your template to decide whether some particulars of a game are related to the engine or to the game.

 

Another example is how Trendy Ent used the Unreal Engine 3, mostly associated with man shooters to make a third person tower defence game.

 

Totally unrelated but did anyone play black on ps2?

I wish critieron would make another for PC.

The guns felt really powerful and it was just like an action movie. All fun.

Would be good to see it done with Cryengine imo.

 

i know exactly what your coming from - if im assuming correctly (based on your signature specs) your playing at low - medium settings. if this is the case i know how you feel. the engine looks HORRIBLE on those settings. it looks amazing high - max. but like butt low - mid. that being said i didnt enjoy crysis 1 or far cry 2 even after trying them on my new computer, but crysis 2 is AMAZING.