4 years...:(

[HangTime]

Main reasons:

1) Crysis was ahead of its time. That's not just my view, that's the view of the developer. They deliberately put in features intended to get the most out of computers 2 years down the line.
2) We are limited by the power of current generation consoles, they are 5 years old and so developers will need to ensure their games run on that hardware unless they are PC exclusive (which BF3 isn't).
3) Rate of improvement in graphics hardware has arguably slowed a bit over the last couple of years, that top single gpu cards right now are GTX580/6970 and they are 2010 cards, we are nearly in 2012 now.

Another reason, and one that I'm listing separately because I'm not convinced about it, is that forums are chock full of people saying "gameplay > graphics". So if you are a developer, you focus on making better gameplay not better graphics.

 

[orderoftheflame]

Another reason, and one that I'm listing separately because I'm not convinced about it, is that forums are chock full of people saying "gameplay > graphics". So if you are a developer, you focus on making better gameplay not better graphics.

I can see "gameplay being more important" not being true if you were more PC enthusiast than gamer, and you just want to see how hard you can push your machine, but personally I don't see how anyone that is out to play games would suffer mediocre gameplay for a little bit of shiny.

You can see from how popular gameplay focused indie games have come and the whine that almost every AAA title gets on release that its great gameplay that people want surely?

Personally, I want new ideas and innovative, fun to play games going forward, not just rehashed samey FPS games that look a bit better with each iteration.

 

[LoGaN_TnT]

The main thing about Crysis is that it was the last PC game to be a 100% pure FPS that was build from the ground up. BF3 was about 50/50 dice said them self's it was not a 100% pure PC game.

 

[Substance]

I was playing uncharted 3 on PS3 last night and was amazed at how much they get out of that old hardware, I was more impressed by that than most new PC releases

 

[orderoftheflame]

I was playing uncharted 3 on PS3 last night and was amazed at how much they get out of that old hardware, I was more impressed by that than most new PC releases

I've got to agree actually, I played it when it was out and it's the first game in ages that I sat down and played start to end and loved every minute.

Great gameplay, story and cutscenes, and it certainly doesn't look bad by a long way. Where was it held back from being a great game by the console exactly?

 

[mrchristian]

"well"

does not mean

"it would sell by the bucket load and make them a fortune"

Until that happens they won't bother. There is no point in releasing a console only a few million can afford. Not whilst they are making large profits still from the current consoles.

it doesnt make financial sense.

Most consoles upon release are sold at a loss just to get the hardware into peoples homes... recession or not they are more concerned with the money they can make through software and licensing to 3rd partys ect. than actual profit on the system itself.

 

[Jono8]

I've got to agree actually, I played it when it was out and it's the first game in ages that I sat down and played start to end and loved every minute.

Great gameplay, story and cutscenes, and it certainly doesn't look bad by a long way. Where was it held back from being a great game by the console exactly?

who said it was?

 

[PapaLazaru]

Crysis was ahead of it's time and was a pure SP FPS. Most rigs people own, according to Steam, will still struggle to play it on max. Same goes for BF3.

BF3 is a MP FPS with a SP attached onto the side of it. If anybody bought BF3 for the SP, then more fool them.

The MP graphics on BF3 are unrivalled.

 

[TheOtherOption]

Most consoles upon release are sold at a loss just to get the hardware into peoples homes... recession or not they are more concerned with the money they can make through software and licensing to 3rd partys ect. than actual profit on the system itself.

True, I think Nintendo was the only company to actually make a small profit on each console due to how low tech the Wii is/was compared to the Xbox 360 or PS3 - both of which were as you say just sold at whatever price was deemed necessary to get the consoles out there and then make up the lost revenue through expensive games/accessories

 

[barmyllama]

I think you are being a little pedantic on the interpretation of "well"

The development cycle of new products is broadly set anyway, the billions have already been spent on the R&D of the ps4, and development of the ps5 & 6 has already started.

So after spending all those billions on the latest hardware, they are unlikely to sit on it for 2,3,5,10 years while it becomes obsolete to wait for the west to come out of recession are they, that would not make financial sense either.

I was just querying the assertion that people wouldn't find the money for the ps4, I think they would, the games industry is still very healthy. Plus you have the booming economies in the BRIC countries, many millions of sales there

It's not customers finding the money, it's Sony and Microsoft. I'd like to bet that Sony might just be breaking even on each PS3 they sell now and they certainly can't afford to be loosing money on a new console one for the next 5 years. As well as loosing money on TV's as well, that is unless Apple buy them out, because they probably could afford to launch into the console market at the moment.

 

[v0n]

You can go deeper. It's been exactly 6 years since Half-Life 2: Lost Coast was released. By now, you should see majority of PC games look at least as good with as much frame per second playability, when on a hardware as basic and as old as the one that was able to to run HL2:LC. And yet most of the games struggle to look equally good and provide frame rates that are much poorer on hardware tens of times more powerful than that of 2005.

 

[KNiVES]

No point coding games for all that hardware when they have to fit on 360 and PS3 as well. When the new consoles come around and the games get ported over, that will start a big jump in PC graphics again.

You can go deeper. It's been exactly 6 years since Half-Life 2: Lost Coast was released. By now, you should see majority of PC games look at least as good with as much frame per second playability, when on a hardware as basic and as old as the one that was able to to run HL2:LC. And yet most of the games struggle to look equally good and provide frame rates that are much poorer on hardware tens of times more powerful than that of 2005.

Coincidentially, I was playing the Lost Coast again last week. It actually hasn't aged well at all. The environments are blocky and the animations are stiff. It doesn't hold a candle to the vast majority of games released in the last few years.

 

[arknor]

Furthermore consoles are reaching a peak in tech at the moment,

lolwut?
the xbox gpu is very similar to the radeon 1900/x1950 but shares some similarities with the Radeon HD 2000/3000 Series....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenos_(graphics_chip)
whats amd upto now? 6000 series

face it the xbox gpu is based on 5year old technology and its whats holding back graphics in games

some of you are dreaming if you think crysis/hl2 look as good as modern games i suggest you replay them without mods

 

[v0n]

Coincidentially, I was playing the Lost Coast again last week. It actually hasn't aged well at all. The environments are blocky and the animations are stiff. It doesn't hold a candle to the vast majority of games released in the last few years.

I'm not saying that it does hold the candle to new games, 6 years is a lot of time, 6 years before Lost Coast the Game Of The Year was a Sega Dreamcast title in VGA resolution, but that any game today, should look at least Lost Coast good on min to mid settings, since the hardware can run Lost Coast type of graphics without breaking to sweat. And most of them just don't - in most cases it's no half measures - invest in top, top, top hardware or it won't even look and run as decent as 2005 game on your last years card.

 

[Jono8]

lolwut?
the xbox gpu is very similar to the radeon 1900/x1950 but shares some similarities with the Radeon HD 2000/3000 Series....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenos_(graphics_chip)
whats amd upto now? 6000 series

face it the xbox gpu is based on 5year old technology and its whats holding back graphics in games

some of you are dreaming if you think crysis/hl2 look as good as modern games i suggest you replay them without mods

Crysis still holds up to them easily. As i explained in the OP in that Battlefield 3 carrier/jet mission the graphics look identical!

 

[James J]

crysis is given too much credit at this point, while the raw shader tech and texture detail was impressive, animation and effects have actually moved on a lot, the rag doll was laughable even then.

You have to be kidding. Look at the lip syncing in BF3 and then compare that to crysis 1's...

Basic stuff all left out for fancy graphics. When did we have to suffer a trade off for stuff like that? Crysis 1 is still today a superb game and easily still looks amazing if you run it on the highest settings to get the most out of the engine.

 

[V F]

So, i finally got round to getting Battlefield 3 and started playing the single player campaign. Now don't get me wrong, the graphics are fantastic but when I got to the bit where you are on the aircraft carrier (before getting into the jet)

I thought that was fantastic though I honestly didn't expect it. I was all giddy when the ocean started to appear through the door. It's a shame Danger Zone didn't start when the aircraft catapults went.

My god how great was that the sensation of speed from launch, the gradually glancing around to rolling, to glancing over to your wingman when flying by the aircraft carrier, glancing through the clouds, watching your wingman brake... and so on.

 

[jakspyder]

Crysis was perhaps ahead of its time on release. But what we need is something new ahead of its time now lol. Something even the best desktops cant max out, like crysis was on release That way we can complain about it for the next 4 years until we can max it out.

 

[Limenote]

You have to be kidding. Look at the lip syncing in BF3 and then compare that to crysis 1's...

Basic stuff all left out for fancy graphics. When did we have to suffer a trade off for stuff like that? Crysis 1 is still today a superb game and easily still looks amazing if you run it on the highest settings to get the most out of the engine.

the trade off of less canned lipsync for more relevant animation? im talking real time blending, reactionary motion and weight, battlefield does plenty of subtle things (dry loading for weapons, ripping dog tags, vaulting) look at assassins creed or uncharted for superb animation.

Crysis has great shaders, high poly modeling and huge textures but no I don't think its the most believable realtime motion graphics ever created.

 

[arknor]

You have to be kidding. Look at the lip syncing in BF3 and then compare that to crysis 1's...

Basic stuff all left out for fancy graphics. When did we have to suffer a trade off for stuff like that? Crysis 1 is still today a superb game and easily still looks amazing if you run it on the highest settings to get the most out of the engine.

no they dont... the shaders and lighting in bf3 pees all over crysis

oh wait it looks exactly the same.....