[360, PS3] Crysis 2
- Thread starter ultragpu
- Start date
RenegadeRocks
Legend
WHAT ?!?!?! I hope the PC Crysis improves, not suffers due to this decision 
WHAT ?!?!?! I hope the PC Crysis improves, not suffers due to this decision
Even if it does I still think it can go around as long as the artwork is strong. Obviously not a true replecement but modders/tweakers can do the rest. Though I expect the scope to be more limited than previous Crysis games.
Why? They said they were making their engine ready for the Xbox 720 and PS4...etc.
Because it's added work that most of the game's console audience will never see? Unless they intend to relaunch the game when those consoles are released.
It's just a mather for them to enble the HQ version effects/tech on the PC version implemented in CE3 and targeted for next-gen consoles. It's there, it's just to put it into use.
Yeah but the same could be said for other cross platform games. In general though, most cross platform releases have only minor or zero improvements over the console versions (outside of IQ). Add to that the fuss the PC community kicked up over Crysis's high system requirements and i'm feeling very unoptimistic that this will be anything more than a console port with higher res textures and other such minor tweaks.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
As far as I can tell Crysis future will still be developed first on PC. Which means...
Easiest case is that console version would be the equivalent of say Crysis Medium settings. While PC would still have the option of Very High settings.
Hell, there's no reason a direct port to console from the PC version (simultaneous developement even) wouldn't just be Crysis Low/Medium/whatever settings. And setting that on PC would give you the exact same graphical experience as console.
All while maintaining all the other graphical settings such as High/Very High/whatever...
I'm not sure what's up with all the hysteria over this. It isn't as if PC games for the past decade haven't come with graphics settings to allow for playing the game on budget PCs which are generally far less capable than consoles.
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.
It's as if all the people crying about the "sky is falling" expect whatever graphics are in the console version to be the equivalent of Very High settings for PC. And that just isn't going to happen.
Regards,
SB
Easiest case is that console version would be the equivalent of say Crysis Medium settings. While PC would still have the option of Very High settings.
Hell, there's no reason a direct port to console from the PC version (simultaneous developement even) wouldn't just be Crysis Low/Medium/whatever settings. And setting that on PC would give you the exact same graphical experience as console.
All while maintaining all the other graphical settings such as High/Very High/whatever...
I'm not sure what's up with all the hysteria over this. It isn't as if PC games for the past decade haven't come with graphics settings to allow for playing the game on budget PCs which are generally far less capable than consoles.
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.
It's as if all the people crying about the "sky is falling" expect whatever graphics are in the console version to be the equivalent of Very High settings for PC. And that just isn't going to happen.
Regards,
SB
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, for instance, I could see all the fancy shaders being applied, extra-high detail. Anything that's code-based, sure, it won't be worse than Crysis. But, for instance, would they necessarily create textures in mega-ultra-high resolution? Would they actually include super-high-poly models or just what the console can handle?
Maybe Crytek will, out of respect for PC gamers. But given how other historically PC-centric dev houses haven't really done that, I'm doubtful.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
You mean like Bethesda?
Regards,
SB
I was thinking Epic, but sure, Bethesda. Hell, Volition made one of the best games ever in Freespace 2 and Saint's Row 2 PC port was probably the worst PC port of 2008 (okay, it wasn't handled by them, but still).
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Well, so far most of the companies you mentioned, other than Bethesda have transitioned to a mostly console oriented dev.
Epic being somewhat different in that they are actively making an engine for all platforms. Although their game efforts are concentrated on Consoles now to maximize profit for effort expended it appears.
Bethesda still does primary work on PC with ports to console. And thus the PC efforts still look better. Although considering they don't (yet) release simultaneously, they had time to polish up the console ports to spiff them up a bit with the added time to optimize things.
I suppose there's always that chance that Crytek could follow Epics lead and devolve to a primarily a multiplatform engine maker and focusing their actual game efforts solely on console with ports to PC.
Hard to tell on that, but I've always had the feeling that Crytek were more interested in pushing the envolope and so it's my opinion they will still focus on PC (with their game efforts) and then port to console.
If that turns out to be the case. I remember reading blurbs from some devs mentioning it's easier to create high quality resources and downgrade them rather than the other way around.
So personally, I still don't see how things would end up being worse than if they concentrated on PC only. Assuming they expanded their resources to deal with multi-engine developement rather than just take on more work per person.
Then again, I wasn't expecting Epic to virtually abandon PC developement (for games).
It's be interesting to see how Crytek and ID's efforts turn out. Since they are the next major FPS devs to go multiplatform.
Will they still bother with significant investment in the PC space? Or like Epic will they focus more on consoles and only continue engine developement on PC?
Regards,
SB
RenegadeRocks
Legend
I am thinking more on "SCOPE" of the game. After playing Crysis, I was like, " How bigger the world will be next time, around?" "How many more enemies on screen together?"" What new gameplay will emerge from such huge ultra-realistic environments?"
THOSE things, I think, will get completely compromised.
Hell, I think, even Warhead had compromised on those, just to make sure it runs on Medium PCs ! Warhead was more of linear HL2 sequences than the open world playground battles of Crysis !
I had thought that Crytek will create a new IP for consoles,more of the scope that the present consoles can handle, of course will be ported to PCs too, but Crysis series would continue on the PCs!
THOSE things, I think, will get completely compromised.
Hell, I think, even Warhead had compromised on those, just to make sure it runs on Medium PCs
! Warhead was more of linear HL2 sequences than the open world playground battles of Crysis !I had thought that Crytek will create a new IP for consoles,more of the scope that the present consoles can handle, of course will be ported to PCs too, but Crysis series would continue on the PCs!
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Exactly, I am thinking more on "SCOPE" of the game. After playing Crysis, I was like, " How bigger the world will be next time, around?" "How many more enemies on screen together?"" What new gameplay will emerge from such huge ultra-realistic environments?"
THOSE things, I think, will get completely compromised.
Hell, I think, even Warhead had compromised on those, just to make sure it runs on Medium PCS
Why would you think that? Were Oblivion or Fallout 3's scope compromised? Sacred 2's? Does GTA IV feel small when played on PC?
Graphics, texture detail, geometry complexity (world and object) are obviously going to be constrained by resources, but I see no reason that the scope would have to be.
There's no reason that additional resources couldn't be intelligently streamed in as with the above mentioned games.
I'm sure ID's Rage will be similarly constrained due to being on consoles also? Oh wait, what's that? It also will intelligently stream in additional data as needed.
Regards,
SB
RenegadeRocks
Legend
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 !
Last edited by a moderator:
Looking better isn't the question. Of course the PC efforts look better. You're running on far superior hardware. Crysis came out in 2007 and still we don't have games that look better, because everything else has been a console port! And Bethesda is a terrible example -- ever since Oblivion they've gimped the PC versions with awkward controls and muddied textures, among other things.
Similar threads
