Crysis Demo Is Here
Scott Kirwin
Those of you who care probably already know this and have downloaded the 2gb demo released this morning at 7am EST. For those of you who don't... Crysis is the latest video game produced by Crytek, a Hungarian video game shop that released Far Cry in 2004. Far Cry is one of those games that blend story, adrenaline and state-of-the-art computer graphics that transcends the genre. Crysis is the follow up to Far Cry, although there are no connections between the two other than the company that makes them.
So far I've played 6 minutes of the demo - the game's first level (the entire game will be released Nov 16). Whereas Far Cry gave me the feeling that I was some kind of spy or mercenary, Crysis evokes fear along the lines of Doom. It becomes clear very quickly that you are up against an alien intelligence (as well as the North Korean military), one that doesn't seem much affected by your advanced weaponry and body armor.
I'm running the game on a mid-range home-built rig with a nice 20" LCD widescreen monitor, Nvidia 7900gs vid card, and Core2Duo 4300 that should be able to OC but I'm having trouble with my bios - so I ran on stock (1.8ghz) this morning. So far the graphics have been quite impressive; choppy in parts but much smoother than I was expecting. This is a game that some gamers have been building rigs for, but considering the complexity of the game I think that Crytek did a very good job of keeping the minimum specs down.
Video games are not everyone's taste. I grew up with the things and view them as just another form of entertainment; others can't stand them. But if you are the former, and have the bandwidth to handle a 2gb download, you might want to check out this game.
Just don't do it in the dark...
Consider that the software has to stay pretty much the same for the next few years, while our rigs sure as heck won't. The recommended card is an 8800 - which alone costs about as much as my entire upgrade that I did this past June on my gaming box. In 2 years the cost of that 8800 should be around what I paid for the 7900gs ($140).
Just to give you a sense of what my rig can do, I bought 3Dmark06 - and my benches were around 4500 at stock speed for the 4300 (got to improve that). Even with that score the demo has played quite well so far. Granted, it's in the dark and the biggest firefight so far has been with a 2 man NK squad.
On the other hand, I'm downloading the demo at 1800 KB/s. (yes, that's a big B)
I certainly have little time for it most of the time.
But I am rather fascinated by the employment of modern electronic games for use as both conscious and sub-conscious training simulators and for use as tactical simulation scenarios.
I often wonder how much of a sub-conscious psychological effect modern games have on intrinsic skill ratios and executable capabilities. For instance if for some reason a gamer (who played these types of scenarios) were forced to, or needed to, approach a potentially abandoned or potentially occupied unknown building at night, would skills that have been learned in-game reflect upon their method of approach and reconnaissance. (I know training through intentional electronic scenarios affects method of approach, but would commercial venue gaming with fantasy or fictional scenarios linger subconsciously in the mind of the player if they needed to apply in-game skills to real world situations and how would the skill-to-skill compensation/adaptability range affect real world behavior? And would skills learned in-game reflect well on needed approach or execution methods in a real world situation or would in-game skills disadvantage the individual by unrealistic pre-conditioning and thereby limit potential flexibility of situational responses?
Do sub-consciously conditioned electronic game skills enhance and augment, for the average player, sensory and situational awareness, or do they prejudice and hamper internal situational awareness and intuitional and analytical assessment of conditional imperatives?
I'll be durned if I know but I'd like to conduct and assess such a study as I am attempting to develop a new breed of subconsciously impressive simulation games and gaming scenarios (for a wide range of gaming applications; role-play, electronic, computer, alternative reality, etc. - covering everything from vadding to civil defense and disaster response to military, law enforcement and detective applications to professional and vocational capabilities) based upon the TSS model/doctrine of both gaming theory and training simulation.
Anywho I often wonder if the realism of rendered virtual environments might further add to the subconscious impression and thereby heighten instinctive reactions to real world situations and scenarios. It certainly seems logical to me, but I guess much would depend upon overall design per game. I guess what I'm trying to get at is do you guys think most games do a good job of presenting likely beneficial in-game action and reactive behavior choices and methods, that would reflect positively on similar real-world scenarios or do most games simply present basically fantasy type reactions and choices which are really useful only within the gaming environment? I'd like to know your opinions if you'd like to share them and how would you go about adapting or presenting gaming design that might have a beneficial real world application, or a far more beneficial real world application?
I'm not just speaking of "Game Theory" of course, but of game theory and design in relation to parallel real world skill and behavioral development.
Anyway this particular game clip seems to render an impressive set of virtual reality visual cues which could be beneficially applied, given the right in-game environment and objectives, to real world simulation training.
Let me rephrase all of that gobbledygook: Do you think most electronic games do a good job of presenting game situations which might lead you to react well to dangerous (or maybe even opportunistically advantageous) real world situations, or do you think most electronic games are now pretty much useless as far as real world practical value? Do you think they sub-consciously train you to react better to real world situations, or not? (Of course I know most of you are not gonna be fighting aliens of North Korean agents, but some of you might face a mugging, armed robbery, rape attempt, be suspicious of possible terrorist activity at some public venue, encounter what seems to you likely industrial or corporate espionage, having to enter an abandoned building of unknown aspect, fight a fire, face a car-crash, tornado, get accidentally caught in a shoot-out or public riot, etc. Are skills you learn in most games helpful in this respect and do you think most games leave a sub-conscious impression, either good or bad, or not?)
Here's another way of looking at the whole complex of associated ideas. Do most games enhance, either subconsciously or consciously, overall individual survivability skills or assist with general problem solving capabilities in a realistic and pragmatically useful manner, or not?
Scott, Andrew, and Kevin, I'd be particularly interested in your opinions since you seem to have some real and genuine interest and experience with electronic gaming. Though I think Dean games as well.
Of course anyone who wants to answer or comment is welcome to respond if they desire to do so as far as I'm concerned.
If everyone is too busy shooting electrons at some video image, that's cool too. I understand.
I can't seem to find the article, but the other day there was one about how soldiers are adapting very easily to the use of a remote-operated machine gun system mounted on Hummers. Apparently they're so used to similar systems that they instinctively know what to do. I've heard similar stories about Predator "pilots."
At the same time, the unreality can instill bad instincts, too. Auto-respawn and being able to take a machine gun blast without any ill effects beyond lowered hit points are not good preparation for the real world. I'd played video games for years, but had only started shooting a pistol recently. It's, ahem, not the same.
I guess that, as with most things, the trick is to capitalize on the advantages and try to negate the disadvantages.
Extremely practically and well put Hoke.
Do you think that many gamers look upon virtual skill acquisition in the same way, or do they ever even think about it do you suppose?
And of course I have a particular interest in military and law enforcement training applications of useful simulations, but I'm also equally interested in how virtual skills might either make learning of real world skills easier, or might even serve as effective training for certain real world skills, skills which have a broader and more reflexive and flexible everyday use, skills such as security, defensive driving and accident avoidance, escape and evasion, pursuit and tracking, hacking (non-criminal), survival, investigative and intelligence skills, professional skills (concentrated upon both specific professional skill sets and on general professional advantage), monetary, financial, and investment skills, even the practicing of and improvement of other types of skill sets such as mental (problem solving, observation, analysis, inventiveness, genius), psychological (behavioral control, interpersonal interaction, negotiating, command and leadership, intuition, innovation), and spiritual skills (effective prayer, contemplation, focused concentration, meditative, saintly behavior, self-sacrifice, wisdom, compassion and love, and so forth).
So whereas I have nothing against entertainment and diversion I would also like to see games and gaming and game theory employed in useful skill acquisition and training, and even helpful in developing sub-conscious and intrinsic skill sets such as sensitive, precise, and acute intuitive development of sensory and observational, physical, mental, psychological, moral, and spiritual capabilities. I think games should be more than mere escapism, they should also be useful. Entertainment, enjoyment, the pleasant and exciting exercise of the imagination should be one vector of approach, but usefulness and utility and pragmatic benefit should be a concurrent and parallel pursuit and objective.
Anyway those are some of the things I've been thinking about and working on over the past couple of years or so. In my spare time.
Appreciate your thoughts on the matter.
If you have more later then add them in.
If done well, I think games and simulators can be very valuable. However, you need to know what you're getting and what you're not. Let me use pistol shooting as an example.
In a video game, you have several dozen, sometimes even hundred, rounds (in magazines you didn't have to load and don't have to feel the weight of lugging around). Your gun never jams. You have crosshairs that magically appear in the middle of your screen, rather than iron sights (and I've been learning that it takes a lot of regular practice to use iron sights properly). You can score hits from vast distances; some games even have the pistol being a better "sniping" weapon that submachine guns and rifles. Bullets hit instantaneously; there's no need to lead your shots. The noise isn't like that of real shooting (but then, going to the range with earplugs and muffs doesn't give a realistic picture, either).
That's a lot of negatives, right? At the same time, you also learn that you can easily accidentally shoot your teammates, that pistol bullets aren't as powerful as Hollywood makes them seem, and that in general they're not nearly as useful as rifles. In video games I find myself regularly aiming at the ground or the sky so an "accidental discharge" doesn't kill or vitally wound a teammate.
Some programs are better than others. Hand-eye coordination and development of multi-tasking and peripheral vision are much better. I can see how pilots and remote gunners could benefit. It would be harder for infantry, although the ability to manage and coordinate teams of players can be at a level of intensity rarely seen outside of professional sports like football.
I'd like to think that these games have helped me improve my ability to handle multiple problems at once.
Of course I don't want to narrow my game designs and interests only to military and warfare applications, but I think what you are trying to express by example Hoke (correct me if I am wrong) is that I should carefully account for and make as realistic as possible the mechanical aspects of any technical considerations regarding my game design. Which I thick is a good idea of course, it is hard to gain real pragmatic value from anything unless you execute properly, and as realistically as possible through every sequential phase of an operation or function.
And I think Scott that you brought up a good point about complexity of objective and simultaneous multi-tasking. I homeschool my kids and we often have drill exercise about multi-tasking, especially in regards to things like security matters, labwork, design and execution of conducted experiments, safety in weapons handling, athletic training, learning to play an instrument, etc. So it's something I'll think about. Incorporating scenarios which encourage intuitive and technical mastery of both efficient problem solving of complex dilemmas, and the multi-tasking of simultaneous objectives for optimal operational effeminacy and mission success.
Thanks gentlemen.
I'll draw up a general design plan and set of theory parameters/to-be-incorporated objectives based on some of these ideas.
So far I've been working on technical and tactical issues, like Easter Eggs, scene resolution, character interactivity, interface modeling, controller design and control schemes, etc., but this has helped me reconsider some of my strategic considerations for simulation design.
If you think of anything else, especially along the lines of how to make more direct use of game skill sets or functions or capabilities for addressing real world capacities, then throw em out there.
By the way I'm interested in doing the same kind of thing with role playing games and alternative reality games.
By the way Hoke a good friend of mine came by last night and we had an interesting discussion about the Episcopalian church (of which he is a member) and his current situation in many ways seems to parallel your own. What you've been talking about on your site. We even discussed the Prayer Books. Speaking of which it's time for my final ones. I've just written some new ones and wanna try em out.
Night all.
My thoughts, for whatever they are worth...
First, I was surprised that my system kept up with the game fairly well, even with my 22 inch monitor. I had expected it to lag badly or to need to reduce the monitor resolution. But it did OK.
The graphics are really good, but not that much better than Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Both are extremely impressive. I might give Crysis a slight edge, but then again, I would probably have to play them side by side to really decide which was better.
The game play is also very reminiscent of Oblivion, including the frustration with navigating among rocks, buildings or other sharp-edged objects.
Lots of blood, a little gore, shoot everything that moves except for three or four of your comrades who are usually nowhere near you.
I'm not usually a fan of first person shooters, they just seem to devolve into point and shoot exercises where you simply blast away at anything that moves. That's basically what this one did. The enemy army, supposedly North Korean, cursed like drunken American sailors.
It was fun, but I doubt I'll buy the real thing.
The Orange Box is hands down the PC/Xbox must have this year. Portal is great, with a final boss fight/ending that will go down as a classic. TF2 is MP team-based fragging perfected: definitely the FPS I can see myself clocking some fun games here and there well into the future. Episode 2 is, surprisingly, the weakest of the three, but mostly only because it feels like more of the same... though unlike Crysis, that "more of the same" actually translates into more of Valve trying to think of new gameplay experiences to throw at you with mostly old content, which is still a better sort of "more of the same." Though, I didn't like all the scenes where I'm locked in a room listening to characters talk at me: that's cheating, Valve! :)
I was trying to do 1280x1024 to match monitor resolution with everything at 'low'. Maybe I'll just bite the bullet and cut the resolution down and go with blur.
Okay, in games, there are simulatiosn that attempt to be a true to life as knowledge and technology will allow (MS Flight Simulator for example). And there are games that try to be as true to life as possible while being fun.
Yes, power ups and insta heal med packs aren't realistic. But except for America's Army, most First Person Shooters are not sims. They are games.
Still, even games can teach important lessons (my dad was in the army and thy used blind with referee Squad Leader games to teach analysis and tactics to platoon/comapny leaders...I don't know how widespread this was, or if it was the ..errr.. inspired idead of some colonel at his base...lol).
The idea of wargaming in general had been used formally and informally to help train soldiers for generations. Of course some are more realistic than others, but if you have a reasonable expectation, they can be very useful.
As for the game making most modern systems cry, well that seems par for the course. Hardware and Software vendors continue to try to justify the need for high end (and, not coincidently, high margin) parts. Why get an nVidia 8800GTX if no game needs it? Conversely, how can you have great graphics and only need a S3 Virge?
You make a good point of course.
Modern attempts at virtual reality and artificial environmental recreation are still extremely limited (including controller interaction types, controlling schemes, environmental interaction in the game, realism, etc.) and so suffer limitations in what can actually be achieved as far as realistic mimicry and training value. So a lot still has to be improved, not just the nature of the games, but the way games are executed and how targeted objectives are achieved, etc.
And I don't want to create simulations which are not fun (that would be self-defeating as well as a marketing disaster), I do not think entertainment value and practical utility are diametrically opposed objectives, as a matter of fact I think the more fun you make training, as well as the more challenging, the more likely it is to make a useful psychological impression, both conscious and unconscious. So I wouldn't want to create a simulation per se, like a flight simulator (though those are certainly valuable) but a hybrid (A TSS, or you might call it something simply like a Simgame)which trains through game interactions. That is a gamer who sat down to the game with the intention of training some skill set, improving a skill set, or even just getting an introduction to a skill set (though it wouldn't have to be limited to skill sets, but the entire game would be usefully translatable) would derive training value, whereas a gamer who sat down to the same game with the intention of gaming would derive subconscious training value which later they might apply to real life without even consciously knowing from where they derived the necessary skill(s) employed. In either case I want games to function as transferable value-impressors, so that most players would be able to translate game skills more or less directly to the real world and real world problems, so that game skills are transferable to the real world, and real world skills are practicable in-game (sometimes in the field, the game-plot, and sometimes through in-game practice simulation courses or player developed situational applications - I also want to develop a method, which I'm working on currently for the player to interject himself/herself directly into the game as the character - not a created character, but your personal image in the game as the character). In other worlds skills and capabilities should be both translatable and transferable in either direction.
That's a good point as well. I do find it interesting that nearly everyone who has commented on this so far has spoken about shooter/military skills (and I'm also not a fan of games that only concentrate on how many different ways you can shoot a target, that should be one of many potential skills for military or law enforcement applications, and to tell you the truth, even with combatants the time spent in actual firefights compared to everything else done is very small in most careers, just rather more intensely well remembered and interesting) and I understand that given the prominence of such games (it is an arcade mentality) and the fact that they are the most easy to understand skills as having direct and immediately understandable transferable value. But I want to develop games which imprint skill transferability and translatability over a wide range of applications, not just shooter/military, or law enforcement/shooter skills, but medical, professional, athletic, mental, psychological, spiritual skills, etc. These things will take more subtlety because anyone can understand the immediate value of mastering a shooting skill in-game (you target, execute, and if successful kill - there could be no more simple minded process of direct skill application to immediately perceived outcome of desired objective than that, the entire sequence only takes three steps, aim successfully, shoot effectively, kill immediately - it very rarely works out that way in real life by the way, statistically speaking, and games, especially military and law enforcement, would do much better to show the consequences of detailed wounding effects and aftermaths - and the last step, the kill, is even the associated game reward), but other skills would have to be more subtly linked to broader rewards. And yet because it is a game immediate rewards would also have to follow. But because there is no reward quite so enthralling as survival (after all you kill in-game so that the game will not kill you) then other skills (skills other than shooting) would have to be more or less directly linked later in the game to either the players survival, or the survival of others in the gaming environment. People instinctively and intuitively understand survival, or lack of it, and so even with subtle skills you would need plenty of game opportunities to exercise those skills, rewards for successful accomplishment would need to be high and rewarding, and penalties for failure would need to be multi-faceted, not immediately predictable (complex and with one problem likely to branch off into a string of associated or even tertiary potential disasters), and satisfyingly harsh and difficult to overcome once inflicted.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.