Is Crysis max'd out the benchmark for Xbox3 and PS4?

[pjbliverpool]

And this will be butt ugly by the time ps4\xbox 3 comes out.....

I think Crysis is at a level were it will never be made to look butt ugly. It will be exceeded obviously and the next gen consoles will do that with ease but I don't think any game, at least on the next gen consoles will ever make it look ugly. Just dated.

Its like how i'm playing Doom 3: RoE at the moment and thinking it looks pretty good. Thats despite dropping in and out of the demoes for UT3, Crysis and CoD4 all in the same period.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

I don't like the overexposed look of this latest screenshot; but I also believe that the latest build of the game has somehow lost a lot of the dynamic range that made that first image so strikingly realistic. It does happen, tweak something for too long and you loose that tiny bit of unknown factor that was just right in the beginning...

 

[22psi]

i sure hope not... however TV resolutions will still be 1080p for a long time as PC resolutions go up and up.

I would say that the minimum would be crysis level gfx for next gen!

 

[CEO]

Kinda funny what how some people are bashing crysis visuals. crysis delivered. And yes its the minimum bar (mapsize, gfx quality, post processing, audio) what i am expecting from the next xbox/playstation/wii/SEGA whatever (well maybe not nintendo)

 

[Xpuntar]

i sure hope not... however TV resolutions will still be 1080p for a long time as PC resolutions go up and up.

I would say that the minimum would be crysis level gfx for next gen!

'24 monitors are not that small and have a res of 1920x1200. I extremly doubt that we will see effective resolution go way up at the same diagonal. And we have yet to see a "true HD" (1920x1080) '26 TV-LCD for sale.

Net gen console will have at minimum 4GB of ram if not even double of that.

 

[Obakan]

About the old screenshots versus the demo, different scenes that´s all :

cw: There has been some confusion about whether the shaders used in the 'jungle fight' comparison video are the same shaders Crysis retail is running, was that level rendering a whole island while being played? And were the 'advanced' shaders to be released at a later date?

Cevat: The original demo was constructed using DX10, and although we have greatly improved the shaders thru the development process, yes it's basically the same in the final version.

cw: So the visual effects we saw in that particular demo are possible with the release shaders?

Cevat: We assume that you mean the scene with the gattling gun? Yes, everything that was there is in the game, how you enjoy it and experience it is up to you!

 

[Cyan]

I see nothing impossible in Crysis for the PS3 and the Xbox 360. The physics are great but I have Half Life 2 the Orange Box and the physics run great on my X360.

Consoles would have a hard time handling the draw distance of Crysis, because of the lack of RAM but then Crytek could use tessellation, both consoles are great at it. PS3 with the SPUs and the X360 via GPU. It's a no-brainer, imho.

http://ati.amd.com/developer/Eurographics/2007/Tatarchuk-Tessellation(EG2007).pdf

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=45240

Techland, the talented creators of Call of Juarez -the game with the funniest MP, in my view, too bad it's not a popular game and the MP can be laggy sometimes-, are working in a X360 game with similar graphics to Crysis. Not much to envy from it, if you ask me.

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa56/edv_05/vlcsnap-242889.png

Multilayer damage model:

TeamXbox realtime video showing multilayer damage models and true body per vertex deformation, etc:

http://xboxmovies.teamxbox.com/xbox-360/5957/Dead-Island-Multilayer-Damage-Trailer/

 

[Cyan]

Three more pics I couldn't include in the previous post

Techland are also working on Warhound.

 

[Neb]

Haha, you are aware that that game isn't close at all, not when you look closer and it is for both xbox360 and PC. Giving the edge PC has in graphics and perfomance those ss would most likely come from the PC version!

Also there is far more physics work in Crysis like for destructible environment, vegetation, objects, etc. In HL2 it is mostly a few objects at the same time having physics since you dont havethat much to throw around/destroy. Also a single-core A64 3200+ CPU takes HL2 physics at 60fps and over 30fps with morethan 50 bodies flying away (i have had the game myself!).

Platforms: PC (Vista and XP), Xbox 360

Main gallery page for Dead Island from Techland scheduled for both xbox360 and PC. Doesn't look that hot, click on all screenshots, ta!
http://www.deadislandgame.com/community/index.php?go=gallery

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/23847.html

 

[pjbliverpool]

I see nothing impossible in Crysis for the PS3 and the Xbox 360. The physics are great but I have Half Life 2 the Orange Box and the physics run great on my X360.

Consoles would have a hard time handling the draw distance of Crysis, because of the lack of RAM but then Crytek could use tessellation, both consoles are great at it. PS3 with the SPUs and the X360 via GPU. It's a no-brainer, imho.

http://ati.amd.com/developer/Eurographics/2007/Tatarchuk-Tessellation(EG2007).pdf

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=45240

Techland, the talented creators of Call of Juarez -the game with the funniest MP, in my view, too bad it's not a popular game and the MP can be laggy sometimes-, are working in a X360 game with similar graphics to Crysis. Not much to envy from it, if you ask me.TeamXbox realtime video showing multilayer damage models and true body per vertex deformation, etc:

http://xboxmovies.teamxbox.com/xbox-360/5957/Dead-Island-Multilayer-Damage-Trailer/

Come back when thats playable as opposed to a few very carefully selected devshots which may or may not represent the final product.

Seriously, whats the point with all this "I see no reason why the consoles can't match Crysis" stuff?

When a console produces a game that looks as good as Crysis, then we can talk. Until then, its all just wishfull thinking.

And again, tesselation is not magic. It doesn't suddenly triple the capability of a console. Its probably not even that applicable to the geometry in Crysis which is mostly foliage.

 

[cloudscapes]

Cyan, tessellation would not make give-or-take 200mb worth of textures look like tripple that amount. Texture resolution, texture variations, decals and the fillrate that come with them.

Also, both consoles can probably do the same effects as what's in Crysis (except for maybe two or three, I don't know), but can the consoles do them all at the same time? I'd be surprised.

They can port Crysis on these consoles if they wanted to, with the same engine, but it would require drastic texture resolution downgrades, getting rid of a lot of the variation and gettign rid of some of the more expensive effects, or reducing their quality.

Speaking as a level artist, not a programmer.

 

[embargiel]

What Crysis is this generation is like what Far Cry was last generation. Far Cry was released about 2 years and 3 months after Xbox, whereas Crysis was released around 2 years after X360. This generation, PC actually gets to this point faster than last generation in software, but probably about in equal time from hardware perspective

I don't remember, but how much better could the best of PC's in March 2004 run Far Cry compared to current best PC could run Crysis [excluding SLI])? Having said that, I am sure that PS4 and Xbox 3 will be able to best the maxed Crysis in every way imaginable, but I'm sure that not ALL games (especially the early-gen games) in these consoles will look better, kind of like how not all games in PS3 and X360 look better than maxed out Far Cry. We'll see.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

This feeds into a comment I made much earlier, about the 360 early launch being so important. I predicted at the time that the 360 would have approximately a 6 month window where it was simply the best gaming platform available.

It was actually superior to PC gaming. Sure enough, about 6 months later Intel and nVidia introduced products that excelled PC gaming back to the forefront.

This is one of the reasons that helped the 360 gain hold initially and really hurt the PS3 launching later because if the PS3 wants to display 'great graphics' all PC gamers will now laugh at their feeble attempts.

If the PS3 launched when the 360 did, the same would have happened for them. But they failed to meet their target release dates and by the time the system was launched they were already dated compared to what was available on the PC side.

Furthermore, both the 360 and the PS3 suffered tremendously from poor timing in relation to RAM costs. The cost of memory at production seriously limited and continues to limit the ability of either console to keep pace with the PC. The cost of RAM has dropped significantly from the 360 launch and the PS3 launch, yet both consoles are stuck with a limited amount of RAM that was affordable at the time of the design.

If you take a look at any analysis of PC RAM (I'm specifically thinking about SOURCE queries here, but there's probably better data available), the average PC RAM jumped from 512 to 2g in the last year. Both consoles are stuck at 512 (although handled differently which is another problem for the PS3), with no ability to upgrade or improve.

This most certainly does cause a problem when games like Crysis are advertised and they have to say "PC version" in the ads or on the box when you purchase it.

Essentially saying "You can expect your visual experience to be less than this or we would have shown you what it looks like on your system."

PCs are back to being the best gaming platform and they only lost the crown very momentarily when the 360 first launched. This is what happens when you have a closed system VS an expandable system and you are dealing with multi-platform games.

 

[pjbliverpool]

This feeds into a comment I made much earlier, about the 360 early launch being so important. I predicted at the time that the 360 would have approximately a 6 month window where it was simply the best gaming platform available.

It was actually superior to PC gaming. Sure enough, about 6 months later Intel and nVidia introduced products that excelled PC gaming back to the forefront.

This is one of the reasons that helped the 360 gain hold initially and really hurt the PS3 launching later because if the PS3 wants to display 'great graphics' all PC gamers will now laugh at their feeble attempts.

If the PS3 launched when the 360 did, the same would have happened for them. But they failed to meet their target release dates and by the time the system was launched they were already dated compared to what was available on the PC side.

Furthermore, both the 360 and the PS3 suffered tremendously from poor timing in relation to RAM costs. The cost of memory at production seriously limited and continues to limit the ability of either console to keep pace with the PC. The cost of RAM has dropped significantly from the 360 launch and the PS3 launch, yet both consoles are stuck with a limited amount of RAM that was affordable at the time of the design.

If you take a look at any analysis of PC RAM (I'm specifically thinking about SOURCE queries here, but there's probably better data available), the average PC RAM jumped from 512 to 2g in the last year. Both consoles are stuck at 512 (although handled differently which is another problem for the PS3), with no ability to upgrade or improve.

This most certainly does cause a problem when games like Crysis are advertised and they have to say "PC version" in the ads or on the box when you purchase it.

Essentially saying "You can expect your visual experience to be less than this or we would have shown you what it looks like on your system."

PCs are back to being the best gaming platform and they only lost the crown very momentarily when the 360 first launched. This is what happens when you have a closed system VS an expandable system and you are dealing with multi-platform games.

I agree with everything you said but just want to point out that you could actually own a more powerful PC than the Xbox 360 right from the day it was launched. The most powerful PC in existance back then was a 7800GTX-512 SLI system. Obviously the cost/performance ratio was insanely in favour of the 360 though.

 

[Cyan]

Haha, you are aware that that game isn't close at all, not when you look closer and it is for both xbox360 and PC. Giving the edge PC has in graphics and perfomance those ss would most likely come from the PC version!

Also there is far more physics work in Crysis like for destructible environment, vegetation, objects, etc. In HL2 it is mostly a few objects at the same time having physics since you dont havethat much to throw around/destroy. Also a single-core A64 3200+ CPU takes HL2 physics at 60fps and over 30fps with morethan 50 bodies flying away (i have had the game myself!).

Main gallery page for Dead Island from Techland scheduled for both xbox360 and PC. Doesn't look that hot, click on all screenshots, ta!
http://www.deadislandgame.com/community/index.php?go=gallery

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/23847.html

I just said it has not much to envy, but I never did specify that the graphics are equal to Crysis, because it's not true. I’ve yet to see anything else that can really compare. However, in the end I still think it all comes down to what gamers want to play and the gameplay. Crysis -graphics technology aside- is just a new FPS that I'd like to see running on consoles because I'm curious about this game.

As for the links, thanks for sharing (the video doesn't work for me, though). Btw. some random pics I've found from consoles games with decent graphics and a comparison with Crysis:

CRYSIS

DEAD ISLAND

UNCHARTED

OBLIVION (X360)

MASS EFFECT

None of them are Crysis but they look pretty good, especially such an old game like Oblivion (Xbox 360).

Cheers m8

 

[Cyan]

This feeds into a comment I made much earlier, about the 360 early launch being so important. I predicted at the time that the 360 would have approximately a 6 month window where it was simply the best gaming platform available.

It was actually superior to PC gaming. Sure enough, about 6 months later Intel and nVidia introduced products that excelled PC gaming back to the forefront.

This is one of the reasons that helped the 360 gain hold initially and really hurt the PS3 launching later because if the PS3 wants to display 'great graphics' all PC gamers will now laugh at their feeble attempts.

If the PS3 launched when the 360 did, the same would have happened for them. But they failed to meet their target release dates and by the time the system was launched they were already dated compared to what was available on the PC side.

Furthermore, both the 360 and the PS3 suffered tremendously from poor timing in relation to RAM costs. The cost of memory at production seriously limited and continues to limit the ability of either console to keep pace with the PC. The cost of RAM has dropped significantly from the 360 launch and the PS3 launch, yet both consoles are stuck with a limited amount of RAM that was affordable at the time of the design.

If you take a look at any analysis of PC RAM (I'm specifically thinking about SOURCE queries here, but there's probably better data available), the average PC RAM jumped from 512 to 2g in the last year. Both consoles are stuck at 512 (although handled differently which is another problem for the PS3), with no ability to upgrade or improve.

This most certainly does cause a problem when games like Crysis are advertised and they have to say "PC version" in the ads or on the box when you purchase it.

Essentially saying "You can expect your visual experience to be less than this or we would have shown you what it looks like on your system."

PCs are back to being the best gaming platform and they only lost the crown very momentarily when the 360 first launched. This is what happens when you have a closed system VS an expandable system and you are dealing with multi-platform games.

I agree with you that newest consoles only have a small window of fame, but they continue to improve over time. And that's the only thing I agree with you on.

The question is, how many PC games take full advantage of the top end graphic cards.

Another side question: how many xbox 360 games will take advantage of the "baseline" GPU, which is nearly as good as 95% of the PCs can offer at a cheaper price.

It is the standardization that rules this space, the developers don't have to worry about it and they can code for the [high end] only, unlike the PC world with millions of users using a mish mosh of PC hardware.

Imo, no contest at all, console ownage! :smile:

Fanboyism aside, it is going to be very clear 1 to 2 years from now when 60%+ percent of the quality games are console based first and may or may not go PC at all.

 

[Cyan]

I agree with everything you said but just want to point out that you could actually own a more powerful PC than the Xbox 360 right from the day it was launched. The most powerful PC in existance back then was a 7800GTX-512 SLI system. Obviously the cost/performance ratio was insanely in favour of the 360 though.

Consoles have a set standard of hardware specifications for their lifetime, and this was the first generation I really thought consoles attempted to up the ante in a serious way, because while I agree with you that a SLI GPU was more powerful, the PCs of the time didn`t have multicore CPUs running at 3.2 GHz and VMX units to help them, nor GDDR3 memory.

I am merely saying that the "real" new console games won't even hit the shelves for a few years - due to the 5+ year dev cycle for them. Hard not to think that of the blockbuster games in the next years, how many will be PC only? I think the 85% industry-wide console profits will climb to 90% or more with the only real holdouts being Ensemble Studios, Valve, Blizzard....

 

[Neb]

Of course those look good but the thing is Crysis is doing so much more technically and showing it ingame graphically and in gameplay. It all sums up but of course you can still make a game look good with less but still far away.

There is an interview with Cevat and an Nvidia employe guy who confirmed the graphics in those older videos are same in the final game. Apart from that there is a youtube video of someone modding the sp demo level to have the same athmosphere and graphics as the "that what it should look in about 4-5 years in the future" ss! Scene and by artist chosen design!

One interesting point is though draw-distance vs detail at distance, Oblivion looking quite good had horrible detail just a couple of hundred meters ahead.

Draw-distane vs detail, effects, objects, texture detail and so on differes between games depending on how far you can see and how much you can interact with the environment, Crysis delivers them all at the same time.

Cheers!

And how can you forget to put up Far Cry ss!

 

[pjbliverpool]

None of them are Crysis but they look pretty good, especially such an old game like Oblivion (Xbox 360).

Cheers m8

I'm running a heavily enhanced (modded) version of Oblivion which goes way beyond the 360 version and I can promise you, its not even close to Crysis.

 

[pjbliverpool]

The question is, how many PC games take full advantage of the top end graphic cards.

The thing is, they don't need to take *full* advantage to still produce better results. Take a look at most PC-360 games that have launched over the past year. In the majority of cases the PC version offers some sort of graphics enhancement beyond just resolution and image quality. But ven were they don't, resolution and image quality (and framerate) are nothing to be sneezed at.

Another side question: how many xbox 360 games will take advantage of the "baseline" GPU, which is nearly as good as 95% of the PCs can offer at a cheaper price.

Fewer than your would imagine. Otherwise, how would games get better over time? COnsole GPU's are probably almost as poorely utilised as high end PC GPU's when the console first launches. It gets better over time of course but it doesn't happen over night. As I mentioned in the other thread, just looks how many 360 games are using tesselation, tiling and 4xAA.

And comparing on cost probably isn't the best thing right now. With GPU's like the 3850 and low end quad cores available at rock bottom prices, its rarely been cheaper to upgrade to a console beating PC than it is right now and probably never this early in a console generation.