What is the Next Generation Game after Crysis?

[johnleeRIP]

Okay,

We have come long long way from the days of DOOM for the PC. DOOM back in 95 was the killer game that ushered gaming into a new era. So was the Quake III Engine of the late 20th century. Post Y2K and 4 years we are treated to the greatness that is MAX PAYNE 2 graphics and realism in gaming... Late 2007 and even throughout 2008 Crysis reigns supreme in the graphics department.

What is on the event horizon? What is next, up forth and coming? How will envelopes be pushed and new boundaries be defined in the future of PC gaming?
Are any such games in the works or being developed right NOW? What do you guys think we will see being delivered 3-5 years from today?

One thing I have noticed, while graphics have jumped leaps and bounds, AI and natural language in gaming has remained at a standstill. We can have players look near lifelike at pass the visual turing test from afar, but they don't come remotely close to mimicking real humans as far as conversations or interactions go. So instead of the flopped physics accelerator cards perhaps we will have bio-neural-net AI gel pack cards soon?





Moved to the appropriate forum. -AnandTech Moderator ShotgunSteven

 

[AccruedExpenditure]

WTF is Crysis and Wrong Forum
-AE

 

[miketheidiot]

max payne 2?

didn't that show up after halflife 2, far cry, etc?

 

[abracadabra1]

Quake II was a bigger hit for me than Quake III. The Q3 engine was very widely used though. I think the H2 engine later became the revolutionary engine of choice. Then again, I've only been a very casual gamer since my Q2 days.

 

[johnleeRIP]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
max payne 2?

didn't that show up after halflife 2, far cry, etc?

MAX PAYNE 2 was released BEFORE HL2 and WAY BEFORE far cry.

I remember it well because I got a brand new state of the art computer
back then near release date JUST to play max payne 2..

At release it was definetly the "crysis" of its day

 

[Gooberlx2]

Doom...THEN Quake III? I'd say Quake I revolutionized things more than either of those when you consider the leap in graphics and multiplayer capabilities (via quakeworld).

Anyway, I see AI and physics being bigger players than graphics in terms of overall improvement...well, I hope so anyway.

 

[Soundmanred]

Max Payne 2 came out in 2003, HL2 and Far Cry came out in 2004.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Doom came out in 1993 (and was already outdated compared to Ultima Underworld), Quake III was no different from Unreal Tournament which came out the same year, and WTF Max Payne 2? Artistically it was a good game but the engine was nothing special for 2003.

 

[Frodolives]

Perhaps Alan Wake, also by Remedy Entertainment (of Max Payne fame).

 

[Zenoth]

The upcoming Red Faction: Guerrilla brings some tremendous improvements in terms of physics and destructible environments. If some of you haven't watched the trailers or the videos about its engine you're definitely missing something. It goes so far that the developers themselves need to have at least basic knowledge of structural building or else their buildings in the game just collapse under their own weight without properly built foundations. It's like watching the current state of the Source engine on steroids.

 

[SunnyD]

Wow, you're missing so many steps in between everything - and Crysis was hardly revolutionary or evolutionary. All it is is a horribly inefficient engine that has no better graphical features than the Unreal Engine or the latest Carmack engine.

 

[pmv]

I don't know what the next landmark game would be, but agree that your past list is a bit odd. MP2 was hardly a landmark title, a minor update on MP1, surely? And Q3?
Surely it'd be more Doom, Quake 1, Unreal (perhaps HL for the storytelling side rather than technical side), and um, then it all gets very hazy and contentious I think.

GTA for pushing the limits of controversy and bad publicity for gaming rather than technical things!

 

[Bateluer]

ID's Rage project?

 

[SexyK]

How do you skip over Quake, which really ushered in the 3d-accelerated era? Which was then followed a couple of years later by Unreal?? Doom to Q3 is skipping a whole lot of revolutionary steps, as others have already noted.

Anyway, hopefully id can pull off another sea change with Rage... we shall see.

 

[DSF]

Originally posted by: johnleeRIP
Okay, DOOM back in 95 was the killer game that ushered gaming into a new era. So was the Quake III Engine of the late 20th century.

"Of the late 20th century" makes it sound like we're in history class learning about computer games from three hundred years ago.

"Back then they had to use Direct3D and OpenGL kids, and their graphics cards typically only had about 512MB of RAM. Can you imagine what it would have been like to live back then?"
*gasps and murmurs from the class*

 

[BassBomb]

Doom3 killed most pc's when it dropped, same with FEAR

 

[Lorne]

What!, No love for Duke Nukem, LOL

512Megs ram, You mean 32Meg.
In 95-98 it was non T&L, Glide or OpenGL since D3D was so slow on ower top of the line 8/16/32meg GFX.

 

[PingSpike]

Duke Nukem was a great game, however its graphics were already outdated before its release. (Which makes me wonder what the obsession with changing graphics engines and the constant delays from 3d realms is all about...since the original was never a graphical heavy hitter to begin with)

We have entered an era of diminished returns in graphics, a trend which will accelerate.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: johnleeRIP
What is on the event horizon?

I think you mean what's on the horizon. Event Horizon is something entirely different.

And I haven't seen any demos or games graphically that impressed me the way the CryEngine2 did when I first saw it early last year, not even from anything at E3. But this is not surprising since Crysis was released just over half a year ago. Those nearly indistinguishable side-by-side images of Crysis screenshots with real photographs still amaze me.

 

[skace]

Seems like we are talking FPS games, in which case this page sums it up way better than anything I could write. Where will the next revolution come from? Who knows. I think any developer would be really lucky to pull off what Id Software did when making Quake 1.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...ons/d/d8/Fpsengine.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F..._person_shooter_engine

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: SunnyD
Wow, you're missing so many steps in between everything - and Crysis was hardly revolutionary or evolutionary. All it is is a horribly inefficient engine that has no better graphical features than the Unreal Engine or the latest Carmack engine.

bullshit. ID Tech 5 maybe, but unreal 3 is not on the same level.

It's not inefficient either. It's just so powerful in its nature that most machines can't handle it all. Do some research.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: SunnyD
Wow, you're missing so many steps in between everything - and Crysis was hardly revolutionary or evolutionary. All it is is a horribly inefficient engine that has no better graphical features than the Unreal Engine or the latest Carmack engine.

bullshit. ID Tech 5 maybe, but unreal 3 is not on the same level. You might not liek the "GAME" but the engine is more UNREAL then the unreal engine.

It's not inefficient either. It's just so powerful in its nature that most machines can't handle it all. Do some research. go check out crymod.com

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: SunnyD
Wow, you're missing so many steps in between everything - and Crysis was hardly revolutionary or evolutionary. All it is is a horribly inefficient engine that has no better graphical features than the Unreal Engine or the latest Carmack engine.

bullshit. ID Tech 5 maybe, but unreal 3 is not on the same level. You might not liek the "GAME" but the engine is more UNREAL then the unreal engine.

It's not inefficient either. It's just so powerful in its nature that most machines can't handle it all. Do some research. go check out crymod.com

On the contrary, it's not powerful at all, otherwise current hardware wouldn't have any problems with it. Rather it IS inefficient, especially when you compare it to engines that Carmack put out - cutting edge at their time, while pushing out premium performance on even mid-range systems of their time.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: SunnyD
Wow, you're missing so many steps in between everything - and Crysis was hardly revolutionary or evolutionary. All it is is a horribly inefficient engine that has no better graphical features than the Unreal Engine or the latest Carmack engine.

bullshit. ID Tech 5 maybe, but unreal 3 is not on the same level. You might not liek the "GAME" but the engine is more UNREAL then the unreal engine.

It's not inefficient either. It's just so powerful in its nature that most machines can't handle it all. Do some research. go check out crymod.com

On the contrary, it's not powerful at all, otherwise current hardware wouldn't have any problems with it. Rather it IS inefficient, especially when you compare it to engines that Carmack put out - cutting edge at their time, while pushing out premium performance on even mid-range systems of their time.

that doesn't make sense dude. Assuming you had an all powerful system that could fully exploit the engine, you'd get more out of the sandbox2 than any other engine out. The power is in its abilities, not how it runs relative to the system its on. They've openly admitted the engine is so over-developed systems today can't exploit it fully.

I'm an ID fan, so hopefully ID5 proves to be better, but I doubt it. The power/efficiency is relative.

 

[lupi]

I don't think I ever picked up payne 2.