Crisis? FarCry Redux?

Crisis? FarCry Redux?

Console Programmer - PS3

Requirements:

* Shipped at least 2 titles for Nintendo GameCube, PS2 or XBOX or simultaneously in a Lead Programmer role
* 5 or more years C++ object oriented experience
* Strong 3D math and graphics background
* Ability and desire to innovate, contribute and polish all aspects of a game
* Experience with next generation cross-platform development
*Experience working with all major aspects of a game engine
* B.S. in Computer Science, Mathematics or equivalent
* Excellent communication, interpersonal, and organizational skills
* Strong verbal and written communication skills.
* Passion for making video games
Pluses:


· Gdb debugging knowledge

· Experience with low-level programming

· Experience with multi-threaded engine design, system design

· Power PC assembler experience

· Linux toolchain experience

Responsibility:

* Development of a Next-Generation GameFramework based on CryEngine 2.0
* Work on various aspects of porting to PS3 and creating solutions to get the utmost out of the PS3
* Cross platform code development
* Create and maintain documentation
* Complete all tasks in a timely manner and to a consistent high quality standard


Sounds promising…:cool:

I always thought EA would be handling possible ports of Crytek games or is the PS3 getting some special love?
 
It's not going to be Crysis, at least according to Crytek and EA - Crysis will never appear on a console; however CryEngine2 games will appear on both XBox360 and PS3.

Also, Ubisoft own the IP for FarCry, so it wouldn't be that either.
 
Never…right!! :LOL:

It will probably be a different game like the the xbox version was different to the PC version. But shure they could do Crysis on consoles but at what cost (graphically/RAM limitations, can they keep the gameplay intact?)?
 
I don't see why not... unless you consider being able to walk around an island aimlessly as "gameplay". They'll certainly need streaming.
 
I don't see why not... unless you consider being able to walk around an island aimlessly as "gameplay". They'll certainly need streaming.

Gameplay can be dependant on effects, draw distance, and more to make the gameplay function as the creator intendended it to be. Of course streamming would be needed but the thing is that in Crysis theres a lot of objects, high res textures visible all at the same time in a frame.

Edit: A rough example would be DOOM3 with and without shadows and how it would affect gameplay.
 
I don't see why not... unless you consider being able to walk around an island aimlessly as "gameplay". They'll certainly need streaming.

I would argue that the ability to roam and explore freely, especially in a game as good looking as Crysis would add massively to the gameplay value.
 
Never…right!! :LOL:

Yes.. Right. What's the joke? Both Crytek and EA have said this. :neutral:

Check out that recent footage and interview video that's doing the rounds. An EA rep clearly says that Crysis will not appear on consoles. Take a look around for various Cervat Yerli interviews... He states more than a few times that Crysis is a PC only title.

Some things work better on a console, others on PC. Why should they have the same games all the time?

CryEngine 2 is going to be usable on 360 and PS3, I wasn't making any snobby PC fanboy post when I said Crysis wasn't coming to consoles. Just repeating what the devs and publisher have stated.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gameplay can be dependant on effects, draw distance, and more to make the gameplay function as the creator intendended it to be. Of course streamming would be needed but the thing is that in Crysis theres a lot of objects, high res textures visible all at the same time in a frame.

Well... exactly. It comes down to what the creator intends. They have never given the intention of doing a straight PC to console port. They have had the idea that the console would have more console-like features such as the Predator mode in FarCry Instincts. They focused on presenting a rather different story. Are they cutting gameplay elements for the game they're making or are they cutting gameplay elements that were used in a different game?

You can look at FC:I as them cutting out the island travel, and they may not be the same areas. But FC:I still had a few very large levels - was it the same? No. The story was different.

Of course, some things are cut clearly, and I don't know why you think they're absolutely crucial to gameplay - Texture resolution. Yes, at the very highest spec'd PC, you'll have those uber resolution textures. On most computers? Doubtful. If they can make those same graphical sacrifices for lower spec'd PCs, why would it make a difference to gameplay if they made those same sacrifices on a console?

(Please don't take my questions as sarcasm... just some things to reflect upon)


I would argue that the ability to roam and explore freely, especially in a game as good looking as Crysis would add massively to the gameplay value.

Well see, IMO, that becomes a tech-demo or a game that falls short of being compared to GTA as far as free-roaming goes. Does it add to the core gameplay and story? That remains to be seen for Crysis.

If they rid the game of level loading and have the entire world progress as you play then they've achieved what John Carmack was aiming for the next Wolfenstein.

I've played FarCry a few times on PC, and not once did I stray far from the core story because I didn't care to free-roam. I wanted the story - walking around is boring to me. Yes, it adds to what you can do. But personally, I have placed zero value in it. Sure it's free-roam like GTA or Crackdown, but you can do more than just walk around and enjoy the scenery in either of those games.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Of course, some things are cut clearly, and I don't know why you think they're absolutely crucial to gameplay - Texture resolution. Yes, at the very highest spec'd PC, you'll have those uber resolution textures. On most computers? Doubtful. If they can make those same graphical sacrifices for lower spec'd PCs, why would it make a difference to gameplay if they made those same sacrifices on a console?

The game still has a minimum requirement of 2GB RAM...
 
I've played FarCry a few times on PC, and not once did I stray far from the core story because I didn't care to free-roam. I wanted the story - walking around is boring to me. Yes, it adds to what you can do. But personally, I have placed zero value in it. Sure it's free-roam like GTA or Crackdown, but you can do more than just walk around and enjoy the scenery in either of those games.

But you see the ability to be able to roam free and explore the surroundings will give you new ideas and ways to finish a mission. This is true to Far Cry.
 
The game still has a minimum requirement of 2GB RAM...

To that I can only defend against with this:

Processor: 2 Ghz Pentium 4 class processor (or x64)
RAM: 1 GB
Hard Drive: 7 GB
Those are part of the official minimum requirements for Halo 2 Vista. Halo 2. Now if I'm not mistaken (or in another dimension :!:), the Xbox has 64MB of RAM in total. Key difference? Operating System... abusive streaming...optimization... They actually got rid of the mip levels and LOD on PC, and the texture sizes haven't changed.

Or if you want... take F.E.A.R.... 1GB requirement + 128MB video card on PC. They seemed to manage a straight port to the X360...


As for the topic... I thought the jobs list was old news. I remember it being discussed months ago with regards to the listing for a PS3 programmer... back when there was that non-English interview (translated on these forums too).
 
Yes.. Right. What's the joke? Both Crytek and EA have said this. :neutral:

I wasn’t taking offense too what you said or debating the fact Crytek/EA ever stated it. I was being a smarta$$ on there “never” statement. Crytek/EA would stand to make more money on Xbox 360 & PS3 ports; than just a forever PC exclusive.
 
I wasn’t taking offense too what you said or debating the fact Crytek/EA ever stated it. I was being a smarta$$ on there “never” statement. Crytek/EA would stand to make more money on Xbox 360 & PS3 ports; than just a forever PC exclusive.

And they'd bloody need to if they fail to pick up the money they spent on R&D for the Engine and the game if nobody licenses it..

This, to me is a means to ensure that they stay afloat by giving console developers the option to license the CryEngine 2.0 which will give them a heck of alot more scope for sustaining a solid cash-flow going forward..

I can't remember where I read an interview with them but they stated that they've been trying to get into engine licensing since they built there first engine for Far Cry.. Problem was it wasn't a very good engine to license and thus as a result, very few did..

Now however they are in a much better position since the engine is a true showcase/spectacle which alot of developer will want to cash in on.. The only problem so far is convincing console developers to jump on board with an engine port thats comparable to the PC counterpart (especially since the console space is definitively where the BIG money is..)

EDIT: from what i've seen the CryEngine 2.0 seems to offer a heck of alot in terms of tools and content creation support besides being a pure rendering beast.. If I were them i'd port the engine to the Wii..
So far the Wii is a *very* rapidly expanding market and i'm very sure if a middleware developer jumped onboard and built a great little solution package for the hardware (it wouldn't even have to be as good as what can be seen on the HD platforms or in the PC space, just good enough to look a good deal better than whats been seen on the platform so far) then they'd make a GREAT deal of money doing it, especially since its generally considered a platform where the developers would prefer to focus there resources more on developing gameplay and interactions over making their games a technology show-piece..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top