Crytek Hiring for New AAA Title

[Peter_Brosdahl]

Image: Crytek



Crytek is working on a number of new projects following the release of Crysis Remastered. According to a job posting, one of these is an unannounced AAA title.



Crytek is looking for an Art Director to work on an unannounced AAA title at our Frankfurt, Germany based studio. As Art Director you will be responsible for the visual style, look and feel of the title, as well as managing the art department and ensuring the artistic vision is carried through into the game to the highest quality. You will drive, inspire, and mentor the team in the execution of the visual bar.



It is unknown if this project will be Crysis-related, a sequel for another franchise, or a brand-new intellectual property altogether, but the art director will have major involvement with...

Continue reading...

 

[Grimlakin]

That's the kind of position I would have thought would be integral to whatever ip they have licensed or are creating. Seems to me its fishing for someone to make something cool out of an concept rather than someone having a concept that is cool. Either the art director will be constrained or a driving force of the project.

 

[Dan_D]

I thought Crytek was out of money?

 

[Zarathustra]

Have Crytek actually ever made a good game?

They seem like they have a long history of making excellent tech demos that can really push modern PC hardware, but never anything that is actually fun to play, or that has staying power.

I played through the original Far Cry not that long ago. I understand it was impressive in the graphics department when it was released years ago. That certainly isn't the case anymore. What was left was an excruciatingly dull linear shooter. Later Far Cry games got a little bit more interesting, but those were developed by Ubisoft. Crysis? Same thing right. Able to push PCs to their absolute limits at launch, but utterly forgettable and boring gameplay.

 

[Armenius]

Have Crytek actually ever made a good game?

They seem like they have a long history of making excellent tech demos that can really push modern PC hardware, but never anything that is actually fun to play, or that has staying power.

I played through the original Far Cry not that long ago. I understand it was impressive in the graphics department when it was released years ago. That certainly isn't the case anymore. What was left was an excruciatingly dull linear shooter. Later Far Cry games got a little bit more interesting, but those were developed by Ubisoft. Crysis? Same thing right. Able to push PCs to their absolute limits at launch, but utterly forgettable and boring gameplay.

Crysis is a generally good game. It actually has the sandbox gameplay that allows you to attack an objective in anyway the player wants to. Basically everything the original Far Cry promised but failed to deliver on while still delivering impressive tech and visuals. At the time it was released, people considered Far Cry to be a good game, but it certainly has not withstood the test of time compared with Crysis. The rest of the Crysis trilogy was generally good, in my opinion, but broader opinion seems mixed on the other two games. Rise: Son of Rome has also apparently been getting some more love and attention from the community recently despite being considered a bland game when it was originally released.

 

[Peter_Brosdahl]

Crysis? Same thing right. Able to push PCs to their absolute limits at launch, but utterly forgettable and boring gameplay.

I agree with @Armenius on this one. I've always liked them because I didn't have to go nuts with devloping the skill trees(although they help) and just dig in and play them. Sadly I'd say the 2nd and 3rd have a similar situation as the RE2 and RE3 games where they feel like one is almost DLC of the other. However, combined, a pretty good experience and story. The 1st game, and Warhead do a pretty good job for the first round of story. If you don't want the remaster I strongly recommend getting it from GOG for the 64 bit version. Was testing on my laptop w/ 980m SLI a couple of weeks back and the game plays smoothly. Much better than the 32 bit version thats everywhere else.

 

[Dan_D]

Have Crytek actually ever made a good game?

They seem like they have a long history of making excellent tech demos that can really push modern PC hardware, but never anything that is actually fun to play, or that has staying power.

I played through the original Far Cry not that long ago. I understand it was impressive in the graphics department when it was released years ago. That certainly isn't the case anymore. What was left was an excruciatingly dull linear shooter. Later Far Cry games got a little bit more interesting, but those were developed by Ubisoft. Crysis? Same thing right. Able to push PCs to their absolute limits at launch, but utterly forgettable and boring gameplay.

You really can't judge Crytek's games so many years after the fact. Naturally, the game play and graphics won't be impressive or even interesting by modern standards. That being said, Crytek has a history of developing great engines, interesting concepts and then screwing the pooch in the second half. Far Cry and Crysis were both amazing games during their first halves. Relatively non-linear for their day, these games had gameplay that was ahead of their time. The atmosphere, enemies and the early portions of their respective narratives were great. Then the second halves of each game turn into traditional linear corridor shooters with mutants or alien crap that's tonally different from the early parts of the game.

Having said that, I'll take Crytek's Far Cry over Ubisoft's Far Cry 2. The latter was about as boring, repetitive and uninspired as any of the worst AAA games I've ever played. It was a total snooze fest and the story wasn't exactly an improvement over the original.

When it came out and speaking only of the first half of the game, Crysis allowed some pretty non-linear game play and the ability to approach an enemy camp and use stealth, go in guns blazing or avoid the encampments all together so long as the mission objective didn't require you to enter it. The environments were highly destructible and the game's environment reacted to your actions better than even many modern games do. Gameplay like this we take for granted today, but when Crysis was released we didn't have the open world games of today.

 

[Zarathustra]

You really can't judge Crytek's games so many years after the fact. Naturally, the game play and graphics won't be impressive or even interesting by modern standards. That being said, Crytek has a history of developing great engines, interesting concepts and then screwing the pooch in the second half. Far Cry and Crysis were both amazing games during their first halves. Relatively non-linear for their day, these games had gameplay that was ahead of their time. The atmosphere, enemies and the early portions of their respective narratives were great. Then the second halves of each game turn into traditional linear corridor shooters with mutants or alien crap that's tonally different from the early parts of the game.

Having said that, I'll take Crytek's Far Cry over Ubisoft's Far Cry 2. The latter was about as boring, repetitive and uninspired as any of the worst AAA games I've ever played. It was a total snooze fest and the story wasn't exactly an improvement over the original.

When it came out and speaking only of the first half of the game, Crysis allowed some pretty non-linear game play and the ability to approach an enemy camp and use stealth, go in guns blazing or avoid the encampments all together so long as the mission objective didn't require you to enter it. The environments were highly destructible and the game's environment reacted to your actions better than even many modern games do. Gameplay like this we take for granted today, but when Crysis was released we didn't have the open world games of today.

I disagree. I enjoyed the hell out of Far Cry 2. And I only played it in the last couple of years. It still felt modern and fresh, despite being launched almost 13 years ago now. In many ways I feel it was WAY ahead of its time. The original Far Cry was terrible. I think the only thing it had going for it when it launched in 2004 was that it had impressive graphics for the time, but impressive graphics don't a good game make, especially years later when those impressive graphics aren't that impressive anymore. I'd rather play the original Half Life.

Though I will say this. I initially really loved the Ubisoft Far Cry open world semi-RPG FPS experience, and have played all of them to date, the concept of base conquering is starting to get a little old. I got a free copy of Far Cry 6 with a recent hardware purchase. I really hope they have done something to mix it up, so it won't be more of the same.

The last several games in the series have just been a matter of taking the exact same game, and dropping it in a different geography with characters having different accents. It is really starting to feel stale.

 

[Denpepe]

Imo Crysis 2 was the best one, I like the city setting more then the jungle one, the 3rd one while nice, for me suffered a bit from consolitis, some parts of lvls where pretty big, but also pretty barren, me thinks due to the console limitations.

Never been able to get into farcry, not 1 or 3, don't think I tried any other one.