Crysis on Consoles - The Facts of the Matter

[RancidLunchmeat]

I dont think absolute numbers indicate to anything. Even games like Silent Hill3 need more main RAM, VRAM and CPU to run as well as on the PS2 on a PC. So probably the fact that consoles are closed boxes and devs spend time to optimise the game based on specific hardware specs unlike on PCs (on which they have to optimize the game to run on "countless" configurations) may actually indicate that the console versions may look very very good without the need of the same PC requirements

I understand that, Nesh.

But even the minimum system specs for Crysis (let alone the recommended specs) are so far above and beyond what the consoles currently have in terms of memory and memory bandwith, I'm left to wonder if the benefits of 'closed box utilization' can really make up that large of a difference.

The memory requirements for the game aren't just slightly greater... they are greater by significant levels of magnitude.

So when Crytek offers that as a reason they aren't looking to port the game to consoles (and as somebody else pointed out, Ubisoft did the port for the Xbox), I've got to see their statements as somewhat reasonable. And other than Swaayne, it appeared that everybody else in this thread was laughing at their comments as absurd.

 

[Skrying]

I dont think absolute numbers indicate to anything. Even games like Silent Hill3 need more main RAM, VRAM and CPU to run as well as on the PS2 on a PC. So probably the fact that consoles are closed boxes and devs spend time to optimise the game based on specific hardware specs unlike on PCs (on which they have to optimize the game to run on "countless" configurations) may actually indicate that the console versions may look very very good without the need of the same PC requirements

True, but it would be mighty impressive to go from a 1.5GB recommended and fit that into a 512MB that's shared or split. That's a lot of work and I think that's why Crytek doesn't want to make "Crysis" for the consoles, instead they'll start a new game for consoles possibly to better use what is available to them.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Will MY X360 store game data on the HDD ? I know my friend's X360 won't.

Someone needs to tell him about smart streaming.


Anyways... we've had this discussion before.

Oblivion streams data from the HDD, so does FM2006 and FM2007

 

[Skrying]

Oblivion streams data from the HDD, so does FM2006 and FM2007

None of which are near Crysis. A lot of game streams, but at some point streaming can not go on forever and may create a bottleneck are reduce the gaming experience (you can't allow very quick travel that would outpace the streaming).

 

[swaaye]

Oblivion doesn't run all that great on 360. Its load times are definitely worse than the PC version, of course dependent on what PC you run it on. It's just another port though. 360 needs its equivalent of RE4.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

As somebody with a decent gaming PC (at the time of its release) and an Xbox, the difference between the two versions of Doom III was immense. Sure, they did a fairly decent job making it look good on the Xbox, but only compared to other Xbox games.. not compared to the same game on a different platform.

So I take it, you're not buying into MS's push for 'Games for Windows' and all that jazz? Why is Crytek spending so much money on Crysis for the PC, if the biggest market is the console market?

Yep Doom 3 on Xbox was clearly inferior to its PC-counterpart, I mainly pointed that out because it was quite late on Xbox's lifecycle when it came out, but ports are always problematic. To be honest I'd be surprised if this games for Windows actually manages to steal much attention away from the consolemarket. As for Crysis on PC, well clearly the PC market is alive and doing well enough to warrant some high profile, high budget games as there is definately demand for them, I just think the money is shifting to console market slowly but steadily and has been doing so for quite some time, of course at the slated Crysis release window the next gen console market is still in it's infancy, so they have a good chance to collect more dollars from the Vista-version.

 

[SugarCoat]

i think you mean windows version. Its not strictly tied to vista, the devs have even gone so far as to say that someone really isnt going to notice a huge visual difference between the game running on DX10 or running on DX9C.

 

[Nesh]

I understand that, Nesh.

But even the minimum system specs for Crysis (let alone the recommended specs) are so far above and beyond what the consoles currently have in terms of memory and memory bandwith, I'm left to wonder if the benefits of 'closed box utilization' can really make up that large of a difference.

The memory requirements for the game aren't just slightly greater... they are greater by significant levels of magnitude.

So when Crytek offers that as a reason they aren't looking to port the game to consoles (and as somebody else pointed out, Ubisoft did the port for the Xbox), I've got to see their statements as somewhat reasonable. And other than Swaayne, it appeared that everybody else in this thread was laughing at their comments as absurd.

Well cant disagree with most points. But except from main ram what other limitations are there? I am asking because I dont know any other details and mostly RAM and VRAM were mentioned in here and as far as I can see the RAM seems to be the limiting factor unless there are other things as well

True, but it would be mighty impressive to go from a 1.5GB recommended and fit that into a 512MB that's shared or split. That's a lot of work and I think that's why Crytek doesn't want to make "Crysis" for the consoles, instead they'll start a new game for consoles possibly to better use what is available to them.

Well similarly Silent Hill3's minimum were:

Pentium III 1 GHz, 156 MB RAM,32 MB video card

Which is around 5 times the main ram of the PS2 and 8 times the VRAM.

Minimum requirements for Crysis are 1GB system plus 256MB of graphics memory. So it seems that it would mostly be an issue of the main RAM.

Indeed I wonder if its possible but who knows? Usually the RAM spec requirements always include other applicatios running simultaneously with the game like the OS. So 1GB may not actually represent what solely the game needs but what the whole system needs in order to be able to run the game safely.

So although a port of Crysis may be very lacking (as always), I believe that a game using an optimised Crysis engine for consoles will show similar stunning results, atleast with a game that doesnt have to show such HUGE detailed draw distances as Crysis

I mean, 360 is just one years old and look what it has achieved with GoW. Unless Epic reached the limits of the 360 so soon (a very first for a console), I think we may be for a treat. I am also curious to see if Guerilla will deliver with *bleeb*lol. If they manage to reach a similar quality then anything's possible

 

[archangelmorph]

So although a port of Crysis may be very lacking (as always), I believe that a game using an optimised Crysis engine for consoles will show similar stunning results, atleast with a game that doesnt have to show such HUGE detailed draw distances as Crysis

I believe that a game using a totally specialised engine built from the ground up around the xbox360/PS3 hardware would probably be much better than any PC-ported engine, optimised or not..

I mean, 360 is just one years old and look what it has achieved with GoW. Unless Epic reached the limits of the 360 so soon (a very first for a console), I think we may be for a treat. I am also curious to see if Guerilla will deliver with *bleeb*lol. If they manage to reach a similar quality then anything's possible

Again I think that considering the Unreal engine 3.0 is portware, I think a bespoke engine built entirely around the abstract archtectures of the individual next gen consoles would fair much better at achieving higher graphics fidelity (fully optimised f course)..

In terms of matching the IQ and performance, I think its more of a case of matching technological features (physically driven world, HDR/GI lighting model, normal mapping etc..) with those performed on DirectX hardware and merely executing such features using an alternative approach specialised to run on the console hardware..

(Don't forget there are many ways to skin a cat..)

 

[Skrying]

Well similarly Silent Hill3's minimum were:

Pentium III 1 GHz, 156 MB RAM,32 MB video card

Which is around 5 times the main ram of the PS2 and 8 times the VRAM.

Minimum requirements for Crysis are 1GB system plus 256MB of graphics memory. So it seems that it would mostly be an issue of the main RAM.

Indeed I wonder if its possible but who knows? Usually the RAM spec requirements always include other applicatios running simultaneously with the game like the OS. So 1GB may not actually represent what solely the game needs but what the whole system needs in order to be able to run the game safely.

So although a port of Crysis may be very lacking (as always), I believe that a game using an optimised Crysis engine for consoles will show similar stunning results, atleast with a game that doesnt have to show such HUGE detailed draw distances as Crysis

I mean, 360 is just one years old and look what it has achieved with GoW. Unless Epic reached the limits of the 360 so soon (a very first for a console), I think we may be for a treat. I am also curious to see if Guerilla will deliver with *bleeb*lol. If they manage to reach a similar quality then anything's possible

Take this into consideration:

Battlefield 2 is not unknown to use upwards of 1GB alone when running at max settings. Why a very unoptimized and terribly coded game, it does at least start to paint a picture of what to expect. When looking at the memory requirements for a video game I take two several points into consideration. These include the default amount of memory a Windows XP install will take up on "average", typically that's around 200MB, I think add 150MB to that to make up for differences and a few other background programs. From there I look at what the game requires and then what its recommended is, I also notice that no game ever runs well on minimum specs.

Taking this points into consideration allows you to expect what the game will run and look like. I would also assume this is what Crytek take looked at with regards to Crysis and you know what, they probably thought to themselves "we'd have to sacrifice some major game changing issues here" and most likely came to the conclusion that Crysis in its form for PC is not a "console" game. This is perfectly exceptable reasoning to me, and it in no way down plays the strengths of either platform.

Crytek unlike a large number of developers seems to care about delivering great games. I'm sorry for the fact that you think them giving console games Crysis in a dumbed down form is okay, because its not. I strongly believe that's what Crytek is thinking and therefore does not want to ruin their record, even if its a only one game on at this point. They want to make quality games that use their respective platforms to the fullest.

I fully expect even better looking games than GOW to come from consoles, I however do not expect Crysis to come out in its PC form for consoles.

 

[Nesh]

Take this into consideration:

Battlefield 2 is not unknown to use upwards of 1GB alone when running at max settings. Why a very unoptimized and terribly coded game, it does at least start to paint a picture of what to expect. When looking at the memory requirements for a video game I take two several points into consideration. These include the default amount of memory a Windows XP install will take up on "average", typically that's around 200MB, I think add 150MB to that to make up for differences and a few other background programs. From there I look at what the game requires and then what its recommended is, I also notice that no game ever runs well on minimum specs.

Taking this points into consideration allows you to expect what the game will run and look like. I would also assume this is what Crytek take looked at with regards to Crysis and you know what, they probably thought to themselves "we'd have to sacrifice some major game changing issues here" and most likely came to the conclusion that Crysis in its form for PC is not a "console" game. This is perfectly exceptable reasoning to me, and it in no way down plays the strengths of either platform.

Crytek unlike a large number of developers seems to care about delivering great games. I'm sorry for the fact that you think them giving console games Crysis in a dumbed down form is okay, because its not. I strongly believe that's what Crytek is thinking and therefore does not want to ruin their record, even if its a only one game on at this point. They want to make quality games that use their respective platforms to the fullest.

I fully expect even better looking games than GOW to come from consoles, I however do not expect Crysis to come out in its PC form for consoles.

Thats not what I implied.
1) I wondered about the possibility of the game running almost as good as the PC counterpart and I dont mean the minimum specs

2) Secondly what I ment to say is that a Crysis engine specifically optimised for the needs and architecture of the consoles and used in other games may give similar "wow" factors to the Crysis game atleast.

 

[Skrying]

So although a port of Crysis may be very lacking (as always), I believe that a game using an optimised Crysis engine for consoles will show similar stunning results, atleast with a game that doesnt have to show such HUGE detailed draw distances as Crysis

Thats not what I implied.
1) I wondered about the possibility of the game running almost as good as the PC counterpart and I dont mean the minimum specs

2) Secondly what I ment to say is that a Crysis engine specifically optimised for the needs and architecture of the consoles and used in other games may give similar "wow" factors to the Crysis game atleast.

Sorry, but you may not have noticed that all of Crysis and Crytek games (Farcry) have relied a large part on their extreme draw distance. You specifically mentioned the possibility of it lacking in this area, which is simply not up to Crytek's standards or else they'd probably release a console version.

One of the achilles heal of consoles will be long draw distance, would practically ruin a game like Crysis.

 

[22psi]

I definitely think it will come but at a later time. Sure, it won't be 100% intact, but will look and run good as well, seeing how Farcry looked on the xbox 1.

 

[Acert93]

Just to toss this out... while Crysis, full features enabled at highest quality will require a top end GPU(s), surely--certainly!--the game will run on a system with, say, a 6600GT class GPU. I would be surprised if they absolutely require SM3.0 as a baseline (possible) but in regards to performance envelope the game absolutely will be able to play (albeit with some quality drop off and features disabled) on midrange and performance GPUs. That IS how the PC market works.

So all the talk of whether Crysis could be on the console... meh. It could be. It won't be on the consoles in the same way it would be on SLI G80s, but who is expecting that? And how many PC owners have those? A couple thousand?

My guess, based on what we have seen, that Crysis at 720p at 30fps could be done. Sure, texture resolution will take a hit, as well as some features that may have to be turned down in quality (e.g. shadow detail) or turned off completely. But this is what 95% of PC users will be doing as well. The consoles do pack the general technology though and both outpace, in regards to graphics technology, gamers with 6600GT and 7600GT class GPUs.

From a business perspective I don't see why EA would not bring it to the consoles. The game will have double the sales on the console side, and dare I say more gamers would get a better graphical experience on a console (7900 class GPU, closed box) than with most gamers have. So if that is Crytek's concern, I don't quite understand it. Now dev time, polish, and focus, I can understand that. I can also understand the game may not be very optimized and unless you have brute force you may have to turn off almost all the eye candy. But seeing games like Haze and what developers have done on older hardware and what is coming on the consoles I am not sure what all the ruckus is about. The game looks great and the consoles cannot compete with SLI G80s in terms of quality, but I don't think that is a reasonable position anyhow.

 

[Skrying]

I highly doubt Crysis will run that well on a 6600GT. There are a number of games hitting the PC market that already push that card to its knee's and then some. Now, I do believe Crysis will probably be an example of a extremely well coded game, I simply do not believe you'll have a very enjoyable experience with a 6600GT. Also, to note the7600GT in a number of areas is greatly faster than a 6600GT.

Also, I've never guessed that the video card/graphics inside the console would be its limiting factor for Crysis, not at all actually. I believe the memory will be the issue.

 

[kyleb]

I definitely think it will come but at a later time. Sure, it won't be 100% intact, but will look and run good as well, seeing how Farcry looked on the xbox 1.

Did you play Far Cry on the Xbox? I'd rate it at about 20% intact.

 

[Nesh]

Sorry, but you may not have noticed that all of Crysis and Crytek games (Farcry) have relied a large part on their extreme draw distance. You specifically mentioned the possibility of it lacking in this area, which is simply not up to Crytek's standards or else they'd probably release a console version.

One of the achilles heal of consoles will be long draw distance, would practically ruin a game like Crysis.

Read carefully what I wrote. I didint say sacrifice the draw distance in the console version of Crysis
Thats why I refered to a different game using the engine optimized on the consoles' abilities in case Crysis cant be ported efficiently.

 

[groper]

Did you play Far Cry on the Xbox? I'd rate it at about 20% intact.

This is your subjective evaluation and it differs alot from the real ratings of this port.
Far cry instics get an average of 87% at gamerankings and for those who trust IGN and Gamespot , they rated this game with 90% and 92% correspondingly.
Last time i cheked , 87% = Great

 

[AlNom]

something tells me he's not talking about ratings... more so what was left after porting from the PC if you include high res textures and the ability to free-roam over a large portion of the island. FC:I was much more linear, the textures looked pretty bad comparatively, but the shader effects were a fair bit nicer.

 

[groper]

something tells me he's not talking about ratings... more so what was left after porting from the PC if you include high res textures and the ability to free-roam over a large portion of the island. FC:I was much more linear, the textures looked pretty bad comparatively, but the shader effects were a fair bit nicer.

Oh , thanks for the elaboration :smile:
I haven't played the xbox version (my first console ever was a X360) but i had heard for low res textures and more linear gameplay too.
But if we want to see the analogies betwen then and now: In order to play FarCry or DOOM3 at 1024x768 with 4xAA and 8XAF and with all shading effects maxed out , you need 768 RAM and a Geforce 6800 -256MB (You can stil use a GF5900 -256MB but you cant get everything maxed out and you will have a bad framerate).
Now , XBOX1 has 64MB memory with a GPU who is a derivative of the Geforce 3.
So We had a 3 generations better gpu and -the most important- 15 times more memory.
This time if we compare with a dx9 High end pc (1MB ram + 512 MB GPU ram) we have only 3 times more memory. I mean the memory difference is not even remotely close to the xbox1 case.