[Rangers]

Originally Posted by obonicus

Are we really at the point where we take PR statements at face value? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. So tell me, what does 'far better' mean? Does 2x the resolution, 4x the AA and 2x the FPS mean it looks far better?

Are we expecting magic from Crytek? Because otherwise how exactly are we expecting them to get the same game that pushes modern PCs to their limit to run on 4-5-year old tech? Modern PCs have what, 4-16x the total memory the 360 has. Hell, modern graphics cards have twice the memory of the 360. Even if Crytek does create ultra-high-quality textures and models for the PC, they still have to account for vastly inferior machines when designing their game! Other people have already mentioned the loss of scope when going from Crysis to Warhead. The requirements jump from one game to the other isn't nearly as stark as the jump from Warhead to consoles!

Warhead is at least as, if not more system intensive as Crysis..

[obonicus]

Originally Posted by Nebula

Better than loose speculations from random forum users. Atleast this comes from Crytek themselves. You seem to "dig down to much in the hole" that Crysis 2 will suffer majorly by going multiplatform. And repeatedly you ignore the fact that Crysis was playable in low on 2003/04 hardware despite it's scope.

People aren't still talking about Crysis because of how it played on 2003/04 hardware on low. And I even question actual playability, but fine. As to loose speculations, what speculations? It's certainly no speculation that consoles are far less powerful than PCs, is it?

But fine. I'll drop out of this, it's making me more negative than usual, I'm probably just having a reflex reaction to the welling up E3 idiocy. Maybe it'll be the exact same game, at which point I'll be pleasantly surprised, but I'm certainly not keeping my hopes up.

[Rangers]

Originally Posted by pjbliverpool

Seriously though, console gamers are pretty excited about Crysis on the consoles and thats because of all the hype the PC version got. And the PC version only got that hype because of its graphics. This is kind of like an extension of the "halo" effect that top end GPU's give for a company. Not everyone can have them but it creates a positive glow around the lower end of the line. I do have suspicions as to whether Alan Wake could be doing something similar.

Absolutely nailed it.

Graphics are never given enough credit imo..it's almost like graphics is a bad word.

Crytek choose the bold step of targeting the highest end PC hardware..has it paid off for them, despite the piracy ravaged sales of Crysis? I'd say absolutely, they've become one of the top developers in the world, with everybody eagerly awaiting Crysis 2.

If you can create the best graphics in the world, even if you're far from the best actual coders, it's a bit like being the best fighter in the world, or something like that. It's instant renown you cant buy.

[Rangers]

Originally Posted by RenegadeRocks

http://www.eurogamer.cz/videos/crysis-2-e3-teaser

Apparently there's a CRYSIS 2 teaser here ! I haven't watched it yet !

Damn I hate this new trend of "teasers".

The very word "teaser" virtually guarantees the video isnt worth the download. Whatever happened to gameplay footage.

[ultragpu]

Was just wondering, if Crytek said CE3.0 will scale to the next next-gen consoles then surely the engine design isn't compromised by the current gen consoles. I'm saying we'll probably see CE3's real potential with Crysis 3 as a launch title for PS4 or Xbox720.
And in the end, if piracy continues I don't think it'll be wise to release a PC Crysis exclusive even if everyone is paired with a 280gtx.

[Neb]

Originally Posted by obonicus

As to loose speculations, what speculations? It's certainly no speculation that consoles are far less powerful than PCs, is it?

The loose speculations from your side going against what's been said by Crytek recently. The speculation that CE3/Crysis 2 wont push ahead graphics/mechanics on the PC platform.

[pjbliverpool]

Originally Posted by ultragpu

Was just wondering, if Crytek said CE3.0 will scale to the next next-gen consoles then surely the engine design isn't compromised by the current gen consoles. I'm saying we'll probably see CE3's real potential with Crysis 3 as a launch title for PS4 or Xbox720.
And in the end, if piracy continues I don't think it'll be wise to release a PC Crysis exclusive even if everyone is paired with a 280gtx.

Lol, piracy or not, if every PC came equiped with a GTX 280 then the PC gaming market would obliterate the console market many times over.

Obviously, we are talking at least 10 years before every PC (including those sporting intergrated graphics) has the equivilent power to a GTX 280 though and by then we will be well on the way to the PS5 generation.

[FirewalkR]

I fully expect this to look slightly better than Crysis+Warhead with less resources, given all the optimizations. And to look quite better with a monster machine.

[Silent_Buddha]

Originally Posted by obonicus

Why does that matter, though, if the lowest-common denominator doesn't support those features? Simply allowing you to pump up the graphics to 40000xStupid at 32xMSAA is, well, what everyone else is doing. Crytek was the one exception.

Gee considering Crysis was also made to run on relatively low end PC's, does that mean Crysis only used the lowest common denominator of a machine with 1 gig memory and a "256 MB" graphics card? Heck according to their minimum specs for the game it doesn't even have to accelerate 3D. But I'm going to guess they mean DX9 class graphics card with 256 MB of memory.

Yeah, thought so. In which case, why in the world would the relationship of console to PC be any different than the environment that Crysis launched in.

Considering a PC running XP or Vista with only 1 gig of memory and an 8600 GT class graphics card is most definitely at a disadvantage when compared to the current gen consoles.

Add to that the engine used for Crysis was further optimized for Crysis Warhead.

And that the new engine is just expanding on (not redefining) the current engine.

I just see absolutely zero reason for the PC version to be held back by consoles if it wasn't held back by the vast majority of PC's that were out at the time of launch. The vast majority of gaming machines being less powerful than the consoles at the time.

And yet, they STILL didn't hold back the game due to the "lowest common denominator."

As far as I can tell, until something solid comes out that shows PC version of Crysis 2 is going to look worse than Crysis 1, this whole situation is just a case of mass hysteria and people crying, "The sky is falling."

Regards,
SB

[green.pixel]

Originally Posted by obonicus

Modern PCs have what, 4-16x the total memory the 360 has. Hell, modern graphics cards have twice the memory of the 360.

And PC memory has couple of times less BW . Excluding i7 and DDR3, which barely sees any advantages in games over DDR2 since they are not memory-bottlenecked and have been like that since ever.
You can't compare two completely different architectural philosophies like that. Instead, you need to look at console systems as a whole. While with PC, you have hundreds of different HW combinations and developers need to acoount for that.

Originally Posted by Silent_Buddha

As far as I can tell, until something solid comes out that shows PC version of Crysis 2 is going to look worse than Crysis 1, this whole situation is just a case of mass hysteria and people crying, "The sky is falling."

Absolutely agree.

[pjbliverpool]

Originally Posted by m.fox

And PC memory has couple of times less BW . Excluding i7 and DDR3, which barely sees any advantages in games over DDR2 since they are not memory-bottlenecked and have been like that since ever.

So if the CPU isn't memory bandwidth limited in the first place in gaming situations then why mention it at all?

Besiides the 22.4 GB/s memory bandwidth that the Xbox 360's CPU has access too is shared with the GPU so in reality it will usually have much less than that.

[green.pixel]

Originally Posted by pjbliverpool

So if the CPU isn't memory bandwidth limited in the first place in gaming situations then why mention it at all?

Because modern PC GPUs need fast CPUs to serve data for them.
You can't match G80 or R700 with A64 . I mean, you can but you will be heavily bottlenecked compared with C2D/i7/Phenom II.

[Cheezdoodles]

Originally Posted by m.fox

And PC memory has couple of times less BW . Excluding i7 and DDR3, which barely sees any advantages in games over DDR2 since they are not memory-bottlenecked and have been like that since ever.

I dont understand what your trying to say here. PC CPU memory has several times less BW, yes, but they have that for a reason (no need for tons of BW for CPU RAM).

PC GPU RAM has bandwidth that is several times higher than consoles..

[green.pixel]

Originally Posted by Ostepop

I dont understand what your trying to say here. PC CPU memory has several times less BW, yes, but they have that for a reason (no need for tons of BW for CPU RAM).

All I'm saying is that you can't compare vastly different systems "as is".
And yes, I agree that for now there is no need for PC games for massive RAM speed. But in the future, it may change. Also, for some professional applications like Photoshop, 3DS Max etc., it wouldn't hurt to have more bandwith when working with really big files. It's all matter of balance, either you have less fast memory or more "slow" memory. Wish we could have couple of gigs at CPU cache speed.

[I.S.T.]

Originally Posted by pjbliverpool

Lol, piracy or not, if every PC came equiped with a GTX 280 then the PC gaming market would obliterate the console market many times over.

That statement makes no sense whatsoever. What sells the console market is games. Look at the success of the handhelds and the Wii, for pete's sake.

I'm not saying pretty graphics don't play a role in it. They do. But not to the extent you're claiming...

Plus, you forget the headaches of PC gaming. While we're fine with it(I personally love all the platforms...), many people aren't and never will be.

[pjbliverpool]

Originally Posted by I.S.T.

That statement makes no sense whatsoever. What sells the console market is games. Look at the success of the handhelds and the Wii, for pete's sake.

I'm not saying pretty graphics don't play a role in it. They do. But not to the extent you're claiming...

Plus, you forget the headaches of PC gaming. While we're fine with it(I personally love all the platforms...), many people aren't and never will be.

Its not about the graphics, its about developers knowing that 95% of all homes have a standardised gaming platform in them which just happens to be several times more powerful than the most advanced console. Thats massively greater penetration than any single console and probably greater than all consoles combined.

Under those circumstances of course devs would pour their resources into PC development.

And i'm sure given the choice most people would buy a game on PC first if they knew that not only was the game guarenteed to work, but it was going to offer a much smoother and better looking experience to the console alternative (while costing less to boot).

[obonicus]

Originally Posted by pjbliverpool

Its not about the graphics, its about developers knowing that 95% of all homes have a standardised gaming platform in them which just happens to be several times more powerful than the most advanced console. Thats massively greater penetration than any single console and probably greater than all consoles combined.

Under those circumstances of course devs would pour their resources into PC development.

I know I said I'd drop out, and I am of the other argument, but just having the computers doesn't mean there's a market. Excluding the legendary BR-only/Netflix-only PS3/360 owners, people who buy consoles buy them for games. But yeah, if really -every- PC had a... really impressive video card that would translate to a pretty serious market, considering how there's, what, supposedly 400 million game-capable PCs?

[almighty]

CryEngine 3 consoles IS like low-med spec PC, i dont care what Crytec say the game looks like, i've tweaked and played Crysis to death and also watched and seen all the videos of the console footage and its not a shade on the PC CryEngine 2.

Perhaps the only good thing to come out of being released on consoles is the PC version gets all the tweaks and optimizations that were used on the consoles.

I also dont beleive CE3.0 is also built so good that its actually built for PS4 and XB 720, think of what PC's will be pushing then? More important then that think of what other engines will be pushing by then? If Crytec still want to have the best game engine avaialable then they need to make it in a few years time when DX11 is fully up and running and not NOW.

Im happy for consoles owners that they finally get to enjoy Crysis, or some form of it but the PC version got bashed to hell by fanboys argueing its only a tech demo and now the same fanboys and drooling over the console veriosn

If CE3.0 on PC can deliver CE2 visuals with alot more performanc, with proper AA support aswel as the ability to run with POM and AF then in my eyes its a win as there still isn't an engine around that can get close to it.

[Rangers]

So, anybody have an idea when this game might be shown at E3? I really want some gameplay footage preferably not the shakycam kind, but that'd be immensely better than nothing.

Oh and heres some new fun tech talk for you from Yerli

Talking in the wake of the announcement that EA would be publishing Crysis 2, Yerli said that "The interesting thing is we did run a performance analysis on the PS3 devkit, and you know the funny thing is the occupation on all the CPUs, the Cell and the GPUs, is pretty much – the needle is at the limit."

Crytek is known for its technical excellence, and we also quizzed Yerli on his impressions of the differences between the two HD platforms. "I mean essentially the game we run is about the sam," he said. "Probably one’s stronger on the GPU side, one’s stronger on the CPU side, so depending on what you’re doing where, the PS3 does perform here sometimes better, the 360 performs other things better, but overall by the time the game ships it’ll be absolutely the same."

[Neb]

I didn't see their name in the list on the E3 homepage. Maybe they didn't want to steal the show!

[pjbliverpool]

Originally Posted by obonicus

I know I said I'd drop out, and I am of the other argument, but just having the computers doesn't mean there's a market. Excluding the legendary BR-only/Netflix-only PS3/360 owners, people who buy consoles buy them for games. But yeah, if really -every- PC had a... really impressive video card that would translate to a pretty serious market, considering how there's, what, supposedly 400 million game-capable PCs?

Precisely what i'm saying. A market that big that devs could target with the confidence of standardised capabilities and featureset would obliterate the console market in terms of development attractiveness.

Getting the worlds stock of PC's up to high end gaming standards is of course an impossible task though.

[liolio]

PR of the day

[Neb]

So PS3 fully on it's limits +/- CPU/GPU about same as 360. Goes inline with whats been said since years ago. I assume they are taking 360 to it's limits to and I dont doubt they will do the same with PC.

[catisfit]

Originally Posted by liolio

PR of the day

Funnily enough my first response to this thread title was "well it will do them good to learn some efficiency"

[Silent_Buddha]

Originally Posted by Nebula

So PS3 fully on it's limits +/- CPU/GPU about same as 360. Goes inline with whats been said since years ago. I assume they are taking 360 to it's limits to and I dont doubt they will do the same with PC.

Actually I'm wondering if they'll push both to their respective limits or if they'll scale back both so that they display the same on both consoles.

Would be interesting if they did a PC style graphics options menu where you could enable/disable features. Like trading shadows for increased detail in something else. Something I almost always do in a game.

Regards,
SB