So the console ports will use voxels, eh? Kind of puts a kabosh on some theories then.
Crysis coming to the PS3?
- Thread starter PSman
- Start date
So the console ports will use voxels, eh? Kind of puts a kabosh on some theories then.
They used voxels, to a degree, in CryEngine 2. Namely for the terrain iirc.
Edit: This is one of the few areas people have had legit concerns about "porting" to the consoles. PC has a lot of bloat and through smart design and asset quality reduction (same stuff used on PCs for midrange and such) you can really fine tune your game. But voxels are mem intensive... but I don't see why they couldn't switch to a more traditional landscape technique in a conversion and get similar end results.
Edit: This is one of the few areas people have had legit concerns about "porting" to the consoles. PC has a lot of bloat and through smart design and asset quality reduction (same stuff used on PCs for midrange and such) you can really fine tune your game. But voxels are mem intensive... but I don't see why they couldn't switch to a more traditional landscape technique in a conversion and get similar end results.
djskribbles
Legend
i think we know that. but this rumor is one step closer to reality. :smile:
I don't think they use the voxel representation for actual rendering.I want to see what they use in place of the memory hungry voxels. Oh, and how downgraded it looks
archangelmorph
Veteran
Exactly what I thought..
I was under the impression that voxels were used in the editor for terrain modification & then once done the terrain would be baked into an appropriate format for efficient rendering..
It wouldn't make sense to render the terrain using voxel in real-time unless you required some for of terrain deformation which i wasn't aware crysis had..?
There is a terrain deformation setting for Crysis but I have not really tested it. Far Cry had true limited terrain deformation that could be enabled.
Technically, there isn't a current console that could run the game at high settings, not to mention Ultra High. Someone who thinks they can has no grasp at the point.Yeh but it would still look betterthan most if not any console game out there even butchered severly. Although the amount of Ai, physics and such maybe create the need to compromise even more on the graphics (CPU workload wise).
Still gameplay wise it is a mather of taste, you find this game boring, I find Resistance incredibly boring aswell as HL2 or Lost Planet etc...
But in general people love the gameplay, many reviewers do to. I wonder though if more people would have loved the gameplay (which does and offers what other "golden" games do all-in-one) if it was only PS3 or only xbox360, eh (you know automatically -40points for game on rival platform, +60 if it is on favorite platform)?
If the game is coming out to the PS3, Crytek should focus on the gameplay, pretty much like iD did with Doom 3 on the Xbox (a game running at 480p and, approximately, Normal settings) when they added such features like a Coop campaign.
The purpose of games is to provide fun and entertainment, and even more than that, some people find in them a temporary escape from the cruel world we inhabit.
But well, that's a different story, gameplay is the key if Crytek wants the game to be any different from the PC version.
The Xbox 1 version only ran at medium because it was a 3-year old platform with 733 mhz Pentium and 64 mb of total RAM. Today's consoles currently have much much more parity in relation to gaming PCs than the previous generation did.
I would think it is almost the same as the last-gen, same differences shown for each year. Although the gap might be smaller it still is significant. The res and framerate aswell as added eye-candy reminds me of the last-gen gaps.
Still a good looking Crysis is certainly possible on consoles. :smile:
Last edited by a moderator:
Thats not quite true. Doom 3 ran fine on a 5800 Ultra. Thats generationally about equiivilent to an 8800GTX today (in comparison to the consoles of the day).
But Since Crysis doesn't run as well on an 8800GTX as Doom 3 did on a 5800 Ultra, the current consoles should have a tougher time with it than the xbox did with Doom 3.
Well you have to consider that the 360 and PS3 are both easily capable of full environment dynamic shadowing and other features that were hard to implement effectively on previous generation consoles, even the Xbox. Sure the current ones would have to scale down, but they can do them easily enough to use them and use them effectively like well equiped PCs. However the previous generation was quickly outclassed by PCs. This generation around, consoles have kept up alot better but then again of course all of these new graphics techniques are feasible in some scalable fashion on all platforms now, even the Wii to a much lesser extent.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it's two things. They've kept up better because for whatever reason the pace of high end card releases has slacked. The 8800GTX (or overclocked variant) is still tops after well more than a year. Normall we would see refreshes every six months and a brand new architecture every year. So that has helped the consoles keep up better somewhat.
But I think another factor is that PC gaming market has fallen off so much that big budget (and by extension, graphically cutting edge) productions exclusive to PC are now few and far between. Really, Crysis is the only one in the last year, maybe two years, or more. If you had a situation where you had many Crysis-like titles being introduced on PC, it would contribute to PC's graphical domination. A real obvious example is Id, normally they would be hard ar work on a big graphically stunning PC only project right now. These days they are working on rage with consoles as the base.
I don't think consoles have kept pace better than last generation. What games clearly showed the PC's graphical dominance over the Xbox at the start of 2004 like Crysis does today?
At this point last generation we didn't even have Farcry yet, nevermind Doom 3 or HL2.
I'd say the scale is roughly the same as last gen at the moment.
At this point last generation we didn't even have Farcry yet, nevermind Doom 3 or HL2.
I'd say the scale is roughly the same as last gen at the moment.
Isn't the whole Crysis thing kind of an unfair comparison though, because the major difference with Crysis is it not targeting a widely possessed hardware platform but a crazy-expensive hardware system. That is, for example, you could create a game that scales up to a gazillion polygons raytraced whatnot on the PC that runs at 2 fps on a Big Rig, 30 fps across a networked rendering cluster of 16 quad-SLI'd PCs. That would be by far and away the best visuals possible on PC and blow the consoles away, but it's an unrealistic spec to expect real people to have. I don't know what PCs needed to run D3 would have cost, so maybe it's not different, but to get the most out of Crysis, comparing consoles to it's best possible quality, you're talking a crazy amount of hardware. My expectation is that back with D3 etc. the relative expense wasn't in the same league. Output resolution was limited, and we didn't have the option of multiple GPUs to target. Thus games were designed to run on a single GPU in a standard PC config.
For comparison, what if someone were to write a console game that allowed hardcore gamers to buy multiple consoles and network them up for distributed processing? If £3000 worth of console hardware produced the greatest looking game ever, would we then say that consoles have visual parity with PCs, or look better than PCs?
Because of this, every reference to PCs versus consoles should always be in the context of a budget. It would be right to say that the best ever games on PC with no regard for hardware cost will look better than the best the consoles have to offer - that's a no brainer. The real question that buyers are interested in is how buying a console version of a game compares with buying a PC version on their PC system which isn't the the best-possible PC spec. So will Crysis on consoles look as good as Crysis on PC in full-on super-expensive-gaming-rig mode? Nope. But will it look about as good as most PC gamers will experience on their PC, and will it be far more economical to buy a console to play less-than-the-best PC experience versus buying a lower-spec'd PC to play the same less-than-the-best PC experience? In my exact case if I were interested in playing Crysis, would have better value from buying a £300 console than getting £300 of upgrades to my Athlon 2500 + Radeon 9600? And if I were to invest in a rig that'll play Crysis to good quality, how much would that benefit the other games I might play versus the consoles? eg. If the consoles can play COD4 at 60 fps, a more powerful PC rig wouldn't benefit me much. You can always shovel on the IQ settings of AF and AA, but that don't count for a huge amount for many people, especially console gamers!
At very high settings you have a point. However IMO Crysis still stands out above other games on only high settings. And thats playable on much cheaper hardware. Soon the 9600GT will be available which should handle Crysis at High/720p no problem. And thats a mid range card! For now, an X3750 or 8800GT will do the job nicely and the're not exacly at the ultra expensive end of the PC market.
Don't forget though that at this point in the last generation, Doom 3 was still months away. Farcry was just on the horizon but that too stressed the most powerful cards available at the time at its maximum settings.
But as I said above, were not talking thousands to get Crysis looking better than other games. High settings are achievable on a $250 8800GT. Considering V.High then your correct but I don't think it needs to be considered when using Crysis as an example of a game that looks better than all other games. True, the difference isn't as stark on High settings but its still fairly obvious. To me at least and thats coming off the back of playing CoD4, Bioshock, Gears, UT3 etc...
I absolutely agree, but we just have to be careful not to exagerate the budget requirements of the PC. Over the long term, a self builder who purchases sensibly won't actually spend much more than a console only gamer.
If your talking about starting from scratch then yes it will be more expensive to go with the PC. But not hugely so. Not when you consider how much of that PC cost was actually specifically to bring it from a "home PC" to a "gaming PC". Considering most people buying a new PC today would go with at least a budget dual core and 1GB of RAM I don;t think the additional cost would be all that great. $300-$350 tops (if buying wisely of course).
Oh I don't know, tell that to all the people who study screenshots comparing the tiniest little details between console versions of a game.
What do you think the reaction would be like if say GTA4 ran at 1080p with 4xAA on the PS3 and only 720p with 2xAA on the 360? I think the internet would explode Its true that some, perhaps even the majority of games show relatively minor improvement though. CoD4 is one of them. But then there are always those games which do show healthy improvements like Lost Planet, Call of Jureaz and Oblivion. Obviously the more time moves forward, the more prevalent those examples will become. Assassins Creed looks like it might be another good example.
At the end of the day though, it draws back to what I said before about the true cost of being a PC gamer compared to a console gamer. It all depends on your situation. For some, console gaming is the clear cheaper alternative however its certainly not impossible, or even that difficult to use the PC as a main gaming platform and have the long term cost balance out pretty well against consoles. If thats the case (as it is for myself) then whether the differences are minor or major doesn't matter too much because i'm getting them for no additional cost. At that point they become a bonus to what really draws me to PC gaming and thats the customisability.
user542745831
Veteran
Don't know for sure, but it seems as if this interview with Cevat Yerli hasn't been mentioned in this thread, yet:
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/10783.html
It's old. But later in the video interview (from around 08:15 min) Cevat Yerli made some interesting statements about future CryEngine 2 licensing and Xbox 360 / PS3 development and so on.
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/10783.html
It's old. But later in the video interview (from around 08:15 min) Cevat Yerli made some interesting statements about future CryEngine 2 licensing and Xbox 360 / PS3 development and so on.
