[green.pixel]

Originally Posted by RenegadeRocks

Frankly, Who knows? Who knows what those games would have been if the dev had made them primarily for PCs that can run Crysis like games at High(or Very High). Maybe the crowd simulations, AI behaviours, number of stuff on screen would have been completely different !

Those are pretty big IFs.

You don't have the evidences that could confirm your statements, so debating what would've happened is pointless. You can't change the past, just like you can't change the fact that the C2 will be multiplatfrom now that it's been anounced. We also don't know how the C2 would look like until they release PC and console material from the actual game.

Originally Posted by obonicus

ever since Oblivion they've gimped the PC versions with awkward controls and muddied textures, among other things.

PC version of Oblivion has much better controls due to superiority of m&kb in RPGs. What awkward controls are you talking about ?

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by RenegadeRocks

I don't think its amoot argument. i am talking about PCs tha exist out there with people like you and me. We are playing Crysis , right?

What percentage of the game-playing public have the capabilities to play Crysis at a standard significantly beyond what a highly optimized PS360 engine could do? If you were a dev in the 16 bit era, would you rather create the world's greatest game on 3DO hardware which no-one could afford to run in all it's glory, or a compromised game on on the old 16 bit systems that would actually make you a profit?

Crytrek have said it themselves - there's no market for high-end content. The number of people willing to pay for top-end systems isn't enough to pay for top-end game development. The only way this could work is if there were high-end versions of the games at $200 or more. I dare say Crysis is the last great forray into 'better than now' technology, written to hardware standards that won't be commonplace for years to come. The future is writing game for the markets that are large enough to support them.

[Rangers]

Originally Posted by RenegadeRocks

Frankly, Who knows? Who knows what those games would have been if the dev had made them primarily for PCs that can run Crysis like games at High(or Very High). Maybe the crowd simulations, AI behaviours, number of stuff on screen would have been completely different !

But, it never happened, coz they knew that it has to run the same on the limited capabilities of the consoles too. This might sound hypothetical, but that is the whole POINT.

Would you have agrered that games could look as Ultra realistic as Crysis, had it not been done ?
What if Crytek had limited its tech for consoles, then Crysis would have never been what it is today !

Why do you keep talking about great AI?

Where is great AI in Crysis?

I dont see great AI in any game, just varying degrees of the right kind of unpredictability.. (Gears 1 has the best AI too me, very dynamic in whether the enemies stay back or come at you for melee combat without warning, feels like no other game imo)

[Neb]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

What percentage of the game-playing public have the capabilities to play Crysis at a standard significantly beyond what a highly optimized PS360 engine could do? If you were a dev in the 16 bit era, would you rather create the world's greatest game on 3DO hardware which no-one could afford to run in all it's glory, or a compromised game on on the old 16 bit systems that would actually make you a profit?

I don't think he meant to say top end Quad SLI systems but rather the average of 4770/8800GT class hardware amongst gamers. Ranging from high-end back in 2006 8800GTS to cheap-end in 2008/09 with 4770/8800GT. Whichever vastly more powerful.

[obonicus]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

What percentage of the game-playing public have the capabilities to play Crysis at a standard significantly beyond what a highly optimized PS360 engine could do? If you were a dev in the 16 bit era, would you rather create the world's greatest game on 3DO hardware which no-one could afford to run in all it's glory, or a compromised game on on the old 16 bit systems that would actually make you a profit?

Crytrek have said it themselves - there's no market for high-end content. The number of people willing to pay for top-end systems isn't enough to pay for top-end game development. The only way this could work is if there were high-end versions of the games at $200 or more. I dare say Crysis is the last great forray into 'better than now' technology, written to hardware standards that won't be commonplace for years to come. The future is writing game for the markets that are large enough to support them.

That's all true, but that's not the spirit that much of B3D operates under. Especially not the PC Games subforum. If we were focusing on market, we'd pay a lot more attention to the Wii, but we're mostly technophiles.

[Neb]

Originally Posted by Rangers

Why do you keep talking about great AI?

Where is great AI in Crysis?

I dont see great AI in any game, just varying degrees of the right kind of unpredictability.. (Gears 1 has the best AI too me, very dynamic in whether the enemies stay back or come at you for melee combat without warning, feels like no other game imo)

Neither did he claim that in his post. And being OT but what you hold so high in Gears 1 is found in Crysis in large scale environment and then much more. Of course AI is not flawless but taking into account the size of the environment and that it is dynamic makes it hard to "cover all edges" and despite that it is a showcase for this gen good AI.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_lis...5BE6DAB1AF6035

[RenegadeRocks]

Originally Posted by Rangers

Why do you keep talking about great AI?

Where is great AI in Crysis?

I dont see great AI in any game, just varying degrees of the right kind of unpredictability.. (Gears 1 has the best AI too me, very dynamic in whether the enemies stay back or come at you for melee combat without warning, feels like no other game imo)

I find it very dynamic and the best. But I think it will become subjective then, as Gears AI doesn't impress me at all. In a similar situation, I find Uncharted AI better. But lets not go that way.

The point is that the hardware exists out there on the PCs, to implement AI with more threads working than on the consoles. Just like AC devs said that AI works better on the PS3, rthan X360 due to the Cell.

Apart from that , the gameplay that might arise due to the fact that we have better hardwares, like bigger group behaviours, the possibility of having more enemies on screen alone can change the gameplay direction the game takes. And thats a valid point for me, cause I want the gameplay to evolve with the hardware, not just the visuals!

@Shifty Geezer: I guess there are enough PCs out there, especially since 4850 came out , graphics hardware has become pretty cheaper.

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by RenegadeRocks

@Shifty Geezer: I guess there are enough PCs out there, especially since 4850 came out , graphics hardware has become pretty cheaper.

That depends entirely on how many people upgrade. I dunno. Is there anywhere with install figures for GPUs that'll let us know how big the markets are? I'm guessing, whatever tech is out, those using PCs for mid/high-end gaming (not the Sims or PopCap!) can't be that numerous or else CryTek wouldn't be looking to 50 million consoles to beef their sales instead of a billion PCs.

As a personal example, I'm on a fanless ATi9600 that was a hand-me-down replacement to my Ti4200. I have no incentive to upgrade. As a gamer, the PC proposition isn't attracting me to spend £200+ on upgrade hardware (whole new replacement to my AthlonXP 2500) versus an HD console. So I'm one gamer that is content with the HD consoles. How many other gamers want a console instead of a suitable PC (upgrade)? We know there are 50 million of them, which is a market for Crytek. How does the PC gaming market compare? Has the introduction of new cheap, powerful GPUs imcreased the market size? Ever even. Has there ever been an occassion where a new GPU saw a spike in PC gaming? There may well be, but I don't have any data so don't really know.

[Cheezdoodles]

Originally Posted by obonicus

And Bethesda is a terrible example -- ever since Oblivion they've gimped the PC versions with awkward controls and muddied textures, among other things.

IRC Oblivion textures where higher quality in the PC version.

awkward controls? Only explanation i can find for this is you not being used to mouse + keyboard, nothing awkward about oblivion pc.

[Neb]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

Has the introduction of new cheap, powerful GPUs imcreased the market size? Ever even. Has there ever been an occassion where a new GPU saw a spike in PC gaming? There may well be, but I don't have any data so don't really know.

One could perhaps look at the sales numbers for different types of GPUs since 2006/2005. Same for CPUs although even budget PCs comes with Quads/medium end dual-cores. I'll wager the amount of 8800GTS+ HW is very high...

Also that Zalman still got it's color left?

[obonicus]

Originally Posted by Ostepop

IRC Oblivion textures where higher quality in the PC version.

I played the PC version, never saw the console versions. I do recall ridiculously low-res textures when up close on the PC -- Oblivion was a beautiful game on the PC, from far away. Maybe it's just a lack of artists, but it was fairly unexplicable how muddy and ugly Oblivion textures were.

awkward controls? Only explanation i can find for this is you not being used to mouse + keyboard, nothing awkward about oblivion pc.

C'mon, they ported the console interface over to the PC. You had to install mods to get an inventory screen that wasn't completely stupid. Especially when you compare to built-for-PC games like Morrowind. The console-to-pc port of shame combo is two-part. Part one is lowest-common-denominator graphics, aka 'I can run this at 2160p with 8xAA and 120FPS'. The second part is 'better limit the number of actions to about a dozen (or however many you can fit onto a gamepad) -- and make sure your interface is navigable with the arrow keys'.

[obonicus]

Originally Posted by Nebula

One could perhaps look at the sales numbers for different types of GPUs since 2006/2005. Same for CPUs although even budget PCs comes with Quads/medium end dual-cores. I'll wager the amount of 8800GTS+ HW is very high...

Also that Zalman still got it's color left?

But past that, even if we assume that mid-range machines far outpower consoles (not that preposterous, excluding garbage IGPs) it's fairly irrelevant. Look into Brad Wardell's comments about the size of the PC market -- PCs have never been gigantic (excluding WoW, which is where most of those 8800s will see use, and not much else). What's happened is that PC developers see consoles as a platform that is close enough to PC to allow the games they want to make, and the much larger install-base is downright attractive.

[RenegadeRocks]

and Piracy !

[Neb]

Originally Posted by obonicus

But past that, even if we assume that mid-range machines far outpower consoles (not that preposterous, excluding garbage IGPs) it's fairly irrelevant. Look into Brad Wardell's comments about the size of the PC market -- PCs have never been gigantic (excluding WoW, which is where most of those 8800s will see use, and not much else).

You assume 8800 owners will only play WoW? Thats an insanely ridicolous claim!

And for each person claiming PC gaming isn't large you have another saying the opposite. I wonder what Gabe Newell says.

What's happened is that PC developers see consoles as a platform that is close enough to PC to allow the games they want to make, and the much larger install-base is downright attractive.

Sure but that is not a solid recipe for good sales (hint: KZ2).

[RenegadeRocks]

The PC market still exists , IMO, look at STALKER, Battlefield series, Crysis series, AOE series, The SIms, Bioshock, COD series and the list keeps going on . These games did well on the PCs, some of them only on the PCs.

[Neb]

Originally Posted by RenegadeRocks

The PC market still exists , IMO, look at STALKER, Battlefield series, Crysis series, AOE series, The SIms, Bioshock, COD series and the list keeps going on . These games did well on the PCs, some of them only on the PCs.

Add Witcher etc, no royalty to Sony or MS, lower dev costs. many have made themselves big on the PC market.. like Crytek..

[pjbliverpool]

I don't even know why we are talking about what level of PC is required to exceed the consoles. Whatever level it is, its far more common today than it was when Crysis was originally launched but that didn't stop Crytek then.

Today there are sub $100 GPU's which far exceed consoles, no doubt the install base is lesser than that of the 360/PS3 install base by a large amount but thats not the point is it? The point is that some people expect this unfortunate fact to mean the PC version of Crysis 2 will be compromised.

And no offense to Fran but his earlier comments in this thread seem to confirm that view (i.e. devs would rather not cater to modern menium - high end PC's if that means the content couldn't be seen by console gamers).

Its a downwards spiral that I see no end too. People like shifty are only content with consoles because the devs see no value in leveraging the power of modern PC's because they have a smaller install base. Which in turn reduces the instal base because the PC's advantages are further eroded.

[pjbliverpool]

Originally Posted by Silent_Buddha

I mean consoles can't be worst than a few years old low end PC running a HD 2900 which was able to run Crysis just peachy at 720p, albeit not at Very High, but then back when it launched no PC/Graphics combination could run Crysis at VH.

The HD 2900 far exceeds the graphical capabilities of either console. Which just goes to show how badly the power of PC's is leveraged if you consider that low end!

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by pjbliverpool

I don't even know why we are talking about what level of PC is required to exceed the consoles. Whatever level it is, its far more common today than it was when Crysis was originally launched but that didn't stop Crytek then.

But the muted success of Crysis meant Crytek have changed tack and are now targetting consoles! If the PC, with it's easier development and lack of licensing fees, was that healthy, why would Crytek take up trying to squeeze their games onto the limited consoles?! Cevat Yerli told us why...

“We are suffering currently from the huge piracy that is encompassing Crysis. We seem to lead the charts in piracy by a large margin, a chart leading that is not desirable.

“I believe that’s the core problem of PC Gaming, piracy… PC gamers that pirate games inherently destroy the platform. Similar games on consoles sell factors of 4-5 more. It was a big lesson for us and I believe we won’t have PC exclusives as we did with Crysis in future. We are going to support PC, but not exclusive anymore.”

Whether piracy is to blame or not doesn't affect the choice. The reality is console games sell more. So why target a PC space and pour in resources to make the ulitmate game if you're not going to get sales? Doesn't matter if it's because the hardware install base isn't powerful enough, or if people just pirate instead of buy, it all leads to the same thing - PC exclusives aren't making economic sense for some genres.

[RenegadeRocks]

But SHifty I wasn't talkig about whether the game will sell better on PC, I was saying that if developed only for PC, it would be a better game. Now that it is being made for the consoles too, it will not recieve the same advancements in gameplay, as it might if it was a PC exclusive.

That is the point of discussion here, I guess.

[pjbliverpool]

@ Shifty: Yes, your right. As I said, the install base of PC's capable of exceeding consoles graphically is relatively small.

What i'm saying is that I expect the financial implications of this to result in a compromised game compared to what it would have otherwise been if Crytek had stuck with a PC focussed game like the original. In other words, devs don't care about any PC's with more power than consoles because there are not enough of them - relatively speaking.

Lets not lose sight of the fact though that it doesn't take an unrealistically high end or expensive PC to exceed console capabilities these days though so another game of the originals fidelity would have been well within reach of most PC gamers via only a modest upgrade.

[obonicus]

Originally Posted by Nebula

You assume 8800 owners will only play WoW? Thats an insanely ridicolous claim!

Nope, that's not what I said. What I said was that most PC gamers play WoW. If 8800s are incredibly common, then they're being used for WoW.

And for each person claiming PC gaming isn't large you have another saying the opposite. I wonder what Gabe Newell says.

Except Gabe Newell is releasing games day and date with consoles. Does it really matter what people's theories are when the truth is that devs have moved to console? That probably signals the truth more than anything else.

[Neb]

Originally Posted by obonicus

Nope, that's not what I said. What I said was that most PC gamers play WoW. If 8800s are incredibly common, then they're being used for WoW.

So then what releveance has that to this discussion then? People play different games. People with 8800 also plays retro games.

Except Gabe Newell is releasing games day and date with consoles. Does it really matter what people's theories are when the truth is that devs have moved to console? That probably signals the truth more than anything else.

Moved to multiplatform realeases yes. Same as many former PS3 exclusive devs and 360 exclusive dev houses.

[obonicus]

Originally Posted by Nebula

Add Witcher etc, no royalty to Sony or MS, lower dev costs. many have made themselves big on the PC market.. like Crytek..

Yeah, precisely. Almost any dev of note these days that doesn't hail from Japan has made a name on PC first. That's essentially my point.

The PC market still exists , IMO, look at STALKER, Battlefield series, Crysis series, AOE series, The SIms, Bioshock, COD series and the list keeps going on . These games did well on the PCs, some of them only on the PCs.

Those aren't terribly good examples. Battlefield's last major entry was console-only, unless you include a free-to-play webbrowser game. AoE (assuming you mean Age of) is dead, Microsoft killed Ensemble after the team created a console-only RTS. Bioshock was a FPS made slower, probably for console controls. Crysis... now console also. The only one still focused on PC are Witcher, Sims and STALKER. And Sims, graphically, is meant to run on PCs that are worse than consoles.

Maybe id will surprise me and show the PC versi on of Rage as the far and away superior version.

[obonicus]

Originally Posted by Nebula

So then what releveance has that to this discussion then? People play different games. People with 8800 also plays retro games.

The relevance is that claiming the hardcore PC-gaming 'market' is of a given size just because they're capable of playing more advanced games is invalid. That's usually the metric people use to come up with numbers like '400 million gaming-capable PCs' -- while at the same time PC-only devs migrate further and further to gimped multiplatform development.

Moved to multiplatform realeases yes. Same as many former PS3 exclusive devs and 360 exclusive dev houses.

Which is essentially the problem. It's a downward spiral: how do you justify paying a premium for (highly) superior hardware when your experience is being tailored to match that of console gamers, except maybe with a couple more bells and whistles (when the publisher doesn't relegate the PC port to some 3rd stringer). Unless you're an enthusiast, as clearly you are, you can't.