Bethesda's epic sci-fi RPG is here, and it's a big one. From shipbuilding to exploring the surface of Mars, our thoughts so far.
Starfield Review... In Progress
The first trailer for Grand Theft Auto 6 is finally here.
Grand Theft Auto 6 Trailer
We take an in-depth look at Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora and tell you why it should be heavily on your radar!
Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora - a Deep-Dive into its Potential
Range-wise, the ROG Rapture GT6 is phenomenal, and it's ideal for all gaming and non-gaming-related tasks.
ASUS ROG Rapture GT6 WiFi 6 Mesh System Review
Post by Steve Farrelly @ 04:43pm 27/08/12 | 17 Comments
In an interview with AusGamers, Crytek boss and general tech-head, Cevat Yerli, promised that while the game will look good on the consoles, it will revive the old "can it run Crysis?" question for PC.

"Honestly, we will push the PC to its limit... to its boundaries," Cevat enthused. "The idea is that PCs will be next-gen gaming, consoles will be current-gen maximising it. We can’t deliver next-gen perse on current-gen; we already did that with Crysis 2, you know. So it’s going to be maximising the current generation on consoles, and giving you a glimpse of next-gen -- or what it means in a visual, and a simulation, and a richness of a world -- on a PC.

"We will definitely make sure that Crysis 3 will resurrect the question again “Can it run Crysis 3?” and we will melt PCs down," he said with a laugh.

The rest of our video interview (and transcript) talks about Crysis 3 level-design, dedicated servers for multiplayer and more.

Click here for the full video interview feature.

video interviewausgamerscrysis 3multiplayerpccevat yerli
Buy now from Green Man Gaming Only GBP£14.99!
(compare all prices)

Latest Comments
Posted 05:02pm 27/8/12
my pc will eat crysis 3 and s*** rainbows.
Posted 05:31pm 27/8/12
Great interview Steve, some nice questions in there.

Really appreciate Cervat & Rasmus' responses - they seem to explain everything properly and genuinely seem to be happy to answer them rather than just try to get it out of the way.
Posted 05:39pm 27/8/12
for a game to use ALL the system resources that are available these days is a pretty big call.

You can get what? 16gb of ram, a 2gb gpu and a 4gb quad core something for next to nothing

Crysis would have to be f***** special to max that s*** out
Posted 05:42pm 27/8/12
I am not totally convinced with what he is saying. Just because something takes a lot of power to run on a PC doesn't mean it is better. It can just mean poor code or just brute force throwing polys at the screen. I would argue that while the engine does look pretty, the quality of light in the Unreal 4 engine seems better, and the engine seems more refined and usable. The MechWarrior online game uses the Crytek 3 engine, and it is not really pretty at all. Some of the way shadows are handled is laughable.
I suppose it all depends on what you are looking for when you judge quality. There is a LOT of foliage and stuff going on, but pure quality of light, global illumination, reflections and refractions is a different matter. I am a 3D artist in arch vis, so light quality and realism is a focus in my industry. I would say the Crysis engine isn't winning when compared to Unreal 4, or the amazing Square Enix luminous engine.
Posted 05:47pm 27/8/12
i spent 2000 upgrading my pc to play this and it f*****g sucks - future everyone who buys this
Steve Farrelly
Posted 06:11pm 27/8/12
ChaosDreamer, the Mech Warrior example can hardly be the fault of CryEngine 3. At the end of the day, the tools, power and tech are there, but it's up to the developer using the engine to fully utilise them. A lot of Unreal Engine 3 (and soon to be 4) games barely make use of Epic's tools to artistic value. Having seen Crysis 3 up close and personal, I think they'll deliver a visual benchmark and then some, but no other devs might be able to reach the same plateau - Crytek just know their own tech. Same with a lot of the EA teams playing with Frostbite 2.0, they're not even close to tapping into its power in the same way DICE can...
Posted 07:50pm 27/8/12
the problem for me with Crysis 2 and maybe Crysis 3 is not that it didn't 'melt my pc' but that it strayed away from its origins. The SP was consolized in that the levels were not as open ended and the suit mechanics were changed to work with a gamepad. The MP was made to play like COD, whereas I was probably one of few that really enjoyed the MP in the orignial. It tried to take on different games rather then forge its own path forward, which is disappointing as I really enjoyed the original.
Posted 07:59pm 27/8/12
I too will laugh at crysis, and my PC will mealy have slightly louder fans as they turn on, or spin a little faster
Posted 08:42pm 27/8/12
@ kettels


I just finished playing through Crysis 2 on my PC and f*** my tits it was awful. The story and gameplay were absolutely tedious. F*** all this BS that Cevat is spinning, unless Crysis 3 is at least as ENJOYABLE as Crysis 1 then who really gives a s*** if it melts my PC.

The engine with Crysis 2 did look quite good though, and UE4 is looking really truly AMAZING with its voxel based GI lighting that is visually so close to ray-tracing, just forget about it. Here's me hoping they can do something with Crysis 3 to make to be worth all this hype and not just another tired sequel.
Posted 10:07pm 27/8/12
As long as it melts my PC because it's skull-f*****gly amazing and not because of it being poorly coded, like Crysis 1...
Posted 11:36pm 27/8/12
Meh, all these game devs talking about how their game will redefine the genre and blow our minds. I swear we hear a similar thing from COD developers each year yet they have been same same for years now.

I think many of us would rather have had s***tier crysis 2 graphics if the actual game was much better. I dont even try to max the graphics when i boot up new release games. I guess what my system can handle, play for a while and ensure im getting a smooth framerate and then im happy. I honestly CBF taking the time needed to carefully tweak graphic settings and maximise the game's performance cause i find many games get boring quick. I happily played thru rage despite its numerous graphical glitches because i enjoyed the shooter gameplay and happily overlooked the flawed visuals. And then there's minecraft, terraria and many other indie games where visuals dont even matter to me.
Posted 04:56am 28/8/12
for a game to use ALL the system resources that are available these days is a pretty big call. You can get what? 16gb of ram, a 2gb gpu and a 4gb quad core something for next to nothing Crysis would have to be f***** special to max that s*** out

Posted 11:34am 28/8/12
Lets hope it doesnt melt PCs quite as much as the original Crysis
Posted 12:37pm 28/8/12
I generally like the fact that the Crytek people are fairly open and honest. I hate the fact developers like DICE are so secretive and can never admit fault, basically displaying a contempt for the consumer.

Personally I loved the first Crysis and I was ready to hate Crysis 2 but ended up liking it. It's compacted, but it's still so far beyond COD and BF3 in SP level design. Although speaking to friends who played it, I think there's an issue of. If you want, you can just play it straight through like a COD, guns blazing ect. How much more you get out of it, depends purely on your play style.

I don't get the complaints with the story. It's not hard to follow at all, personally I think the game was lots of fun, very polished and one of the better FPS SP games of recent years. I do kind of thing people unfairly hate on it. I've played it through three times, never got bored. I did get a Crysis experience playing it. But then as I said, it's basically if you want to or not. Game doesn't force it. I personally like running around, exploring, on the harder skill levels ect. I was a big Crysis fan. Probably played it through at least once a year since release.

On PC. Aren't PC's already next gen? What's this hint of next gen? Isn't everything we've seen basically suggested high end PCs are currently more powerful than next gen consoles? I know other things go into consoles so there isn't a direct comparison.. Why isn't this truly next gen? Unless it's being limited by console?

Anyway I look forward to this. Hopefully MP is better than C2 and isn't a soft blurred version of SP graphics this time. I like the fact it was asked about dedicated servers in Aus.
Posted 12:44pm 28/8/12
I agree with you DeadlyDav0. When I play a 3D twitch shooter I am looking for smooth frame-rates and response. And it is pretty clear Carmack is pushing that also. Hopefully id can get some prettier graphics in their too though :)
@Steve Farrelly yeah it does come down to the team and artists producing the game. But if their business is creating an engine (lets face it Crysis is just their marketing tool for their engine) then it should be created in such a way that it is relatively easy to get great visuals and smooth game-play from a team. Basically, what he is saying is that they can't even get smooth framerates on the current gen of tech. If the creators of the engine can't implement that, how can any outside developer using their engine hope to get smooth gameplay and decent graphics. That is why I am using MechWarrior as an example, because they seem to struggling as outsiders using Crytek's engine.
Posted 02:09pm 28/8/12
Crysis 2 ran incredibly smooth and looked great on fairly low end hardware.

ChaosDreamer, you're missing the point that not every developer wants to or aims to deliver the best graphics the engine can deliver. The more detailed the meshes, the better the textures, the more effects, shaders and filters used. The more time and the more money it takes.
Posted 09:50pm 31/8/12
Yep, that sounds about right. The Crysis games have always been the bench mark for upgrading my PC.
Commenting has been locked for this item.