Firewarrior
Newcomer
Proably lazy or DX10 is a good thing but wasnt the E3 Demo running on DX9
???????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????
Are next generation consoles not good enough for Crysis?
- Thread starter ultragpu
- Start date
it was re-tooled to work with D3D
I forget who did the quake4 port, I don't think it was raven, but the only game(AFAIK) Venom Games has ever made/ported was Prey and I think they did a ok job considering they had to rewrite the rederer
Alll right, let's deal with these specific allegations here. What do you mean by full fidelity, full fidelity based on what, the official video showing some choppy framerate? If your eyes get used to it, then the framerate is ok.To Cyaneyes:
Its quite hilarious to se you call him fanb*oy considering he IS right in his statement and there ARE several benchmarks out there as proof of the ti4600 being faster at rendering graphics. And to compare the xbox (700Mhz P3 (cut L2 cache size if memory serves) and 64MB of RAM) against a PC with same memory and similar CPU is also wrong considering that the OS needs RAM and CPU cycles.
Neverthless I hardly believe that Crysis can be done at full fidelity on the next-gen consoles. 512MB to hold all data and streamming cant be enough for a game like this which has to hold much data constant due to draw distance and detail. But then Crytek devs had already said that full fidelity is not possible on the consoles but they will have to downgrade the graphics.
Full fidelity = PC version
Enough.
Full fidelity Crysis running on my home 1,6 GHz 1 GB RAM laptop, DX-something GPU, on a Windows 95 P100 + 32 MB RAM PC? What about a 4.0GHz Quadcore AMD or Pentium with 2GB RAM + Crossfire DX10 GPUs?
Please, read MasterDisaster posts in this thread, each and every one of them, and tell me (with arguments and an example) that you don't arrive at the same conclusion. He is right in his conclusion that you disagree.
He is talking about specialized hardware vs open hardware that does almost everything, masters nothing. I hardly think it is fair comparing a middle of the road PC with a top of the line ultimate freak gaming PC -my 3rd example-.
In your opinion, it is unfair comparing a humble Xbox with a PC. Let me point you out that your comment is nothing but wrong, since a XTS is not a Quadcore 4.0 GHz, 4 GB RAM with 512 MB DX10 Crossfire GPUs, while in fact X360 could run Crysis at a decent framerate, with sharp graphics and all that jazz.
The term "full fidelity" is an abstract concept, given the fact that the primary developer platform is a PC. X360 would do fine, more than that, I am sure Crysis on the XTS would look, play, and run GREAT, if Crytek put some work in it, and pointing out that that would have taken the game completely out of its rhythm and tone just to appease the PC ******s that wanted to see the game running only on their beloved platform is not funny, to say the least.
To bring statistics in this discussion, you have to compare similiar or almost similiar events, and a next-gen console and a PC are hardly similiar. Infact, they are very different. It would be like saying that a car is better than a boat to go from Europe to USA cause it's generally faster. Yes, a car is generally faster, but if it tries to cross the ocean it would sink...
Comparing a PC game ported to console like the vast majority of the events you talk about is completely irrelevant in this thread in my opinion.
Arctic Permafrost
Banned
I think it is more of a problem for PS3 than the X360 and its much more evolutioned technology (API, GPU-centric arquitecture).
Im guessing an RSX equivilent GPU on the PC would not be suffieicient to run Crysis at an acceptable framerate with max details even sticking only with SM3 level effects.
The closed box nature of a console and lack of overhead is certanly going to help out in the CPU/memory department but I don't see it doing all that much in the GPU department, especially compared to a DX10 PC with the vastly reduced overhead.
The just leaves Cell to help RSX not only get to the same level as the SM3 PC version but also incorporate the DX10 effects.
Crysis will probably stress high end DX10 PC's at max settings when it launches, such PC's pack significantly greater power to what is available in any console. I don't see them pulling that off so easily even with the closed box advantage. Note im talking about a perfect conversion here. Im sure a slightely scaled back conversion is entirley possible, in fact relatively easy.
Its also possible the consoles will get better looking games in their lifetimes but it will be through better art direction and more efficient graphical techniques, not through dare I say it... "untapped potentials"
Its also possible the consoles will get better looking games in their lifetimes but it will be through better art direction and more efficient graphical techniques, not through dare I say it... "untapped potentials"
I think the point being is that there is more than 1 way to skin a cat.
e.g. a PC may have up to 2GB of system memory and 512MB of video memory and a fast HDD.
Now lets envision a memory contrained game.
A console with 512MB of memory and a slow HDD/optical drive is NOT going to be able to go the "Full Monte". Scaled back, yes, but full monte, no.
But that, of course, is not really the question. It is quite simple to envision console engines/games that could suck on a PC.
A simple example is all the 360 games using MSAA and ROp based HDR (fp format and filtering and blending in hardware) and other framebuffer effects. Obviously the hardware deficiencies in regards to this and the performance are well documented.
Now your reply SHOULD be, "Well, you can do HDR in shaders. Just see Ninja Theory and and their NAO32 method". Problem solved: True HDR effects and MSAA. Everyone is happy.
But if we are contrained to 1-to-1 mapping then it is an endless debate. Further, who is to judge that one tradeoff is more/less important?
Maybe Crysis-PC has better texture resolution and with a Crossfire setup far superior SM3.0 performance over RSX. Ok, but maybe the PS3 version will have better cloth interaction, waves, animation, and destructable objects (trees, buildings).
As Fran pointed out already, porting from one platform to another always has some hurdles. If it is a straight port, yes, the receiving system will be lesser. If it is a tradeoffs port where stuff is added (e.g. Far Cry Xbox 360 has absolutely stunning water/waves, far exceeding the PC version), where the power of the target platform is used, then it becomes less clear.
As a gamer who primarily games on the PC I see no reason to dump on the consoles. Case in point: Xenos/RSX will be the standard minimum spec for 3 or 4 years.
Just as little NV2A was able to push Doom 3, HL2, Far Cry, CoR, etc on a mere 64MB of system memory 3 and 4 GPU generations AFTER its launch, RSX and Xenos will be doing the same (and probably better in some ways compared to the Xbox1 because lessons have been learned and API development/features are slowing).
Programming a GPU on a console is not just about having less overhead for each draw call, a closed system let you do things that you could not do at all on a PC, though D3D10 will help to close this gap (besides faster draw calls it enables the GPU to re-cast/interpret data..)
Marco
http://gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=20224
looks like it's doable after all. maybe "crysis predator, instinct"?
looks like it's doable after all. maybe "crysis predator, instinct"?
But they shouldn't have to gut the features to get it to run on the PS3 and X360, so I don't see how it addresses the issue at all.
No.
WTF kind of comment is that?Weren`t there rules that prohibited giving one-liner answers?(for all but Dave, Rys and the guys
). No what? Coming to the topic at hand, I think that the issue is not about gutting or not gutting anything, it`s about choices. Is Crysis percieved quality achievable on next-gen consoles?Most probably yes. Is simply crash-porting Crysis as it is to the consoles a good, feasible idea?Most certainly not. So, my understanding is that a PC Crysis ported crappily/hastily/without proper research is not doable on next-gen consoles(at least from the devs viewpoint), but a console targeted one yes. Just my 2 cents.
it's coming
Well, probably, but for now, this comment is interesting:
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=68462
MasterDisaster
Regular
this is far more than interesting, it's simply the truth from who knows something about.
the pc have the lead when we are talking of hardwre specs, but a console is another different world, as Marco (nAo) says, in the console there're things that are simply not possible on pc.
As Always can be interesting to look back in history, when the last gen of console came out (2001), the best PC games was seriuos sam, Red Faction, Max Payne, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Tribes 2, Undying, Operation FlashPoint: Cold War Crisis (crisis, the story repeat itself
)all of this games ran in a superior hardware specs pc, a lot of people claim that ps2 and xbox can't run this kind of detail and graphics (we all remember that they calls the xbox a middle-low spec pc)
then came today and tell how this games looks, compared to Black, Splinter Cell 4, Chronicles of Riddick, Half Life 2, Doom3, Ninja Gaiden Black etc etc that runs in this middle-low specs 2001 PC called Xbox1
can we learn a lesson from the past? yes, we can
I strongly believe that console titles in 2007 and 2008 will exceed by a good margin what we see in Crysis today
And who likes the PC gaming have not to be afraid or ungry for this, this is how developing a closed box, works
with pc you'll see improvement because of the evolution of hardware, in console because of the evolution of knowledge of the hardware.
there is really something more to say?
the Naughtydog's project is INCREDIBLE!!!But it's it is completely disappeared !
When we will see something of new ?
Similar threads
