Crysis on Consoles - The Facts of the Matter
- Thread starter "Nerve-Damage"
- Start date
Yeah, the Xbox1 version of FC is a lot different than the PC version. Completely different engine. It looks good for an Xbox game, but it is quite different from the PC version. The Xbox 360 version is from the Xbox lineage (presumably due to gameplay considerations) and just enhances stuff and adds the rolling waves.
If Crysis cannot run well on a 6600GT, with features disabled and quality reduced, Crytek has made a substantial error in regards assessing the PC marketbase.
I don't play every new game, but do you have some examples? There is a 6600GT in the 2nd computer in my home office and it is capable of running everything I have tossed at it. Sure, games like FEAR require a more modest resolution and taking the gas off some of the features and quality settings (hello medium and low!) but that they all run well enough
Typically gamers with such cards expect to turn down the quality, but get the core gameplay experience. I don't see why Crysis would be much different.
Maybe not, but that would be a mistake by Crytek. The 6600GT has a significant install base and is a pretty fair representation of gamers with a solid backbone in regards to performance and features. If you literally need a GPU from 2006 or 2007 or a high end 2005 GPU (X1800, 7800) Crytek will be alienating a major component of the PC market.
Even FarCry didn't do that. And in general that isn't how PC games work. Games like Doom 3, HL2, FarCry, and so forth all have played well on older hardware--as long as you turn down some settings. Of course those games with settings turned down looked better than say, Serious Sam and BF:V. So it is all relative.
Definately, it even outpaces the 6800GT routinely. But the point was mid-range retail products. 6600GT was the staple until the 7600GT surpassed it. The 7600GT is fairly new though with a small install base, so targetting a 2006 mid range performance GPU for Q1 2007 game is very, very risky.
Memory can be resolved though. First, a 7600GT may have 128MB to 256MB of video memory. Very few PC gamers have 512MB GPUs, so in regards to what we have seen in Crysis, Crytek MUST have designed the game to run properly on 256MB and even 128MB of video memory.
Of course system memory will be an issue, but it is worth noting the OS hog plus the games often store duplicate info in the Video memory and in the System memory.
Assuming Crysis will require 1GB of system memory (plus 128MB of Video memory, but we can ignore that for the most part) there are a number of ways to take short cuts. First is you won't have a couple hundred MBs of OS. The next is reducing quality. Texture resolution can be dropped significantly. The Console versions would only be 720p anyhow, and in many cases 480p. You can also scale back on mesh detail. Both of these options will be available on the PC side--as all good PC games do. The closed environment and some developer twidling should be able to find the right balance here and to cut significant space.
The other is both consoles have multicore CPUs which can be dedicated to compression and decompression. e.g. Many console games will dedicate resources to sound decompression. You cannot rely on this on the PC as many PCs are still single core, but that is an area to save some space (as well as cutting the audio fidelity). You can also set a more aggressive LOD (which I am sure lower end PCs will do anyhow) to account for system memory footprint and streaming. PC games will have to do some streaming.
So cutting down the texture detail, mesh detail, audio detail and add hardware decompression, tweaked LOD and a optical streaming engine are all things that can be implimented--and the first three will already be available to PC gamers--and in most cases will be used because few of us have SLI G80s.
I guess this is my question: What is fundamentally being accomplished in Crysis that cannot be done on the consoles that CAN be done on the average gaming PC.
Average gaming PC would probably be AMD Athlon64 3500+ (or X2 varient), 7600GT, and 1GB of system memory. And I would say that is being very generous based on what the Steam stats show and what members of the clan I play with have.
If it is a memory footprint issue, console devs have all sorts of solutions for that issue. Some are quality reduction, but some leverage the advantages of a closed system to do more with less, and others are just blatant misuse of resources in PCs in general which make the comparison a little uneven to begin with.
IMO, all the Crytek posturing is nothing more than marketing. Further, I think it also may be setting themselves up for a big pay day: They have set Crysis up as "undoable" on the consoles--it is that great. Now... gasp... one of these days Crysis will be announced for ONE of the consoles, and Crytek will announce, "Console A, we have found, is more powerful than we ever imagined with Technology ABC, and what we thought could ONLY be done on a super computer can also be done on this console. BUY THIS COSOLE!"
They have set themselves up as having a game requiring killer performance with killer graphics. It will be a MAJOR PR win for Sony or MS if they can snag an exclusive. In this regards Yuri and Crytek have set themselves up for a potentially HUGE payday. Perception is power, and the perception is Crysis is too demanding for the consoles. If it can "only" be on Console A, the perception will be that because Console A can run Crysis due to features ABC (see: mode7!), that this is another bullet that Console A is the better console.
Great PR move, and I think this along with their stance to focus on the PC version have set Crytek up, and EA, for a potentially significant payday from a console maker. Mark my words, IF they go console exclusive to one or the other, all the fans will be using it as proof that their console is best.
Acert you totally ruined your own argument from my standpoint. You talked about reducing tons of quality there. I'm sorry, but I strongly do not believe such reductions are what Crytek would want. And therefore they'll possibly make a separate or greatly tweaked game instead, and not release Crysis as it is on the PC.
Tons of quality from the average PC version?
Also, I never said they wouldn't need to lower the quality for the geeked out SLI G80s max features / max quality. I always said they wouldn't be able to do that, so I didn't ruin my own arguement
But the question remains, the bulk of Crytek customers have mid range PCs. What can a 3500+/7600GT/1GB system do, fundamentally, that the PS3 or Xbox 360 cannot do?
If Crytek wasn't about lowering the quality, they wouldn't allow PCs lower the settings below a level. Likewise they would require DX10 and midrange 2007 GPUs or better.
I absolutely expect PS3 and Xbox 360 games in the next 18 months to look BETTER than Crysis does on such a system. As for technology, a number of developers on both sides of the fence (nAo and Fran if I remember right) have not seen anything in the Crysis videos not accomplishable on the consoles.
As for the reductions, I am inclined to believe the consoles would have better textures and poly detail than a 128MB mid range GPU. Would you disagree with this?
Based on Far Cry, I doubt they would release the PC verson on the console anyhow. They seem averse to such, probably due to some marketing group touting how PC FPS do poorly on consoles etc.
You're using a weird target here. First, I would not consider from a mid-range PC to be that amazing looking, nor would the quality be one that would be on the level as other games that'll be out at the time. Simply put I believe that Crysis level features and graphics (though maybe not draw distance and scope) is perfectly possible and within the consoles reach. I fully expect that near the end of life of the consoles that there will be a large number of games that look better than Crysis.
I do not however believe that they'll use the same draw distance nor with the same LOD that Crysis will exhibit on a high end PC that you can buy right now. That to me is the target, its not a mid-range computer system, which is apparently what you view as the target.
Your comments about locking the PC are rather ridiculous as well. The goal on the PC is for a wide range of options that are under the users control. Crytek will not however use the visual quality on lower end machines as the judge for the graphics in Crysis. That's a user option and one of the fundamental differences of why I'm a PC gamer and dislike consoles.
On a console though if the visuals were not the same as a high end system (to a certain point, using a high end system from now) then I would assume there'd be a bit of negative feedback.
I also find it ironic how you mention people who themselves would have marketing value into saying what they said. But.....
I do not however believe that they'll use the same draw distance nor with the same LOD that Crysis will exhibit on a high end PC that you can buy right now. That to me is the target, its not a mid-range computer system, which is apparently what you view as the target.
Your comments about locking the PC are rather ridiculous as well. The goal on the PC is for a wide range of options that are under the users control. Crytek will not however use the visual quality on lower end machines as the judge for the graphics in Crysis. That's a user option and one of the fundamental differences of why I'm a PC gamer and dislike consoles.
On a console though if the visuals were not the same as a high end system (to a certain point, using a high end system from now) then I would assume there'd be a bit of negative feedback.
I also find it ironic how you mention people who themselves would have marketing value into saying what they said. But.....
Great post although I think the referece to SLI G80's is going a bit far. Surely single G80's would be just as relevant from both a performance and features standing.
i.e. I would expect the game can be fully DX10 maxed out with 16x FSAA and 16x AF at 720p even on a 8800GTS and still average 30fps or above.
On Predator or the original Instincts as I find it hard to believe with the original. I mean, was anything better? I saw a scene for scene comparison when the game first released and the difference was night and day, analogous to a PS1 vs PS2 game.
Sorry, what I meant to say was "better use". They used screen effects more often in general - bloom, underwater (this was a nice touch considering previous games), pred mode (when you're jumping around like a maniac or trying to imitate speedy gonzalez). And it wasn't that the bloom was tacked on like the HDR mode on PC. The game felt more polished in the way graphics effects were used.
I have both Far Cry games on my Xbox and will say both look quite nice. Perhaps most impressive is the totally solid framerate. There is nothing not to like about them IMO, other than perhaps the challenge of console controls. For what the hardware is, the games are truly impressive efforts.
Honestly I also think Doom3 RoE is pretty decent as well. I would rather play it on the console, on my couch and on the big TV, than on the PC. Even if the graphics are not all there. It still looks good enough and the lighting/shadowing effects are all there. But, heh, I haven't played it much cuz, well, it's so boring.
Honestly I also think Doom3 RoE is pretty decent as well. I would rather play it on the console, on my couch and on the big TV, than on the PC. Even if the graphics are not all there. It still looks good enough and the lighting/shadowing effects are all there. But, heh, I haven't played it much cuz, well, it's so boring.
BINGO!!!!!!!!
Acert is dead on with this assumption. This is a prime reason why we are seeing some of the responses about the engine not making it to consoles.
In the last 3 years, what's been the best selling PC game (sans WOW and the likes?)
In the last 3 years, what's been the best selling Console game?
Seems like a missed opportunity on making MILLIONS of more dollars. That is unless they are positioning themselves exactly as Acert outlined. Well put.
The question was never if the Cry 2 engine would make it to consoles, it will. The question is if Crysis in its PC form will make it to consoles. VERY different.
If you are rich
or....there isnt a conspiracy and between the huge draw distances and massive levels the engine simply cant be ported to a console without hefty modification. You and his assumption seem to be going to opposite sides of the extreme. Theres people saying it cant ever be done, then theres you two saying it can be done but they're saving it for some huge PR and money (conspiracy), then theres people like me who simply read their comments as being
'if we modify the engine specially for the hardware we can bring it to consoles'.
Crytek has never struck me as a boastful company or even one to brag and this does not read like bragging at all but a blatent truth and blunt answer. Then its the fanbase of console X that are pulling answers blindly out of their hats trying to make up a reason why it must be true.
Q: Will Crysis come to consoles?
A: Currently the engine we've created cannoto run as well as we'd want it to on any console, they just dont have enough power to run the engine in its current form.
Does that read better for you? Because thats all they said.
Nothing is impossible, you dont need some huge right-up to simply say that. They got Farcry working on the Wii and last gen consoles didnt they? I'm sure we'll see some form of Crysis on these consoles too, even the Wii. It may take some time, but thats just what happens.
What's that supposed to mean??
That when it hits the consoles it won't be able to be at 2500x1900 resolution with 32x AA and AF??
As it stands now, if you want to take into account the way Crysis 'should' be played at max settings, then thats a small margin of computers it will be played on.
If/When released on a console, they will be able to maintain many of those settings. My guess is that more people on consoles would get a more 'realistic' experience of the game that Crytek wanted, then the entire time of the game being released on its PC counterpart.
Like other posters have said, you will be able to play Crysis on any PC that meets the min requirement.
Which would you rather have?
Crysis on a PC with your 2 year old PC with settings at med-low on a moderate resolution?
or...
Crysis on a console with settings as med-above average at 720p.
I can't see them being able to do anything on the PC they can't do on the 360, or PS3 for that matter. If anything, just toneing some of the things down.
So the answer to your question...Yes.
Just a matter of time.
P.S. In response to SugarCoat, if we are only worrying about Draw Distance, there are ways around that. And sure we may not be getting the 100% copy of the PC engine, BUT, I can't see many other features other then that, the 360/PS3 couldn't perform.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the biggest problem they'd have by using a straight port would actually be a lack of memory and the speed of the disc causing rampent zone loading because the maps are so huge where the computer will be seamless. Actually this seems like a pretty obvious problem of the consoles to me.
I think the best current example of what you're trying to describe is 'Enter doom 3 engine game here' on console or on PC. In every instance the PC version has been better in regards to delivering smooth performance and better visuals on reasonable hardware (1 gig memory, modern low-high end processor and a 200-$300 graphics card).
You can bring up costs as well of the computer required to play at equal or better settings then a next gen console all you like, but dont forget you're going to be arguing the additional price point of the HDTV as well to make the game look as good as it should on the PS3 or Xbox360. Without that HDTV, in most cases, the games look like crap. Believe it or not a huge percent of people dont have HDTVs yet either by choice or they simply dont care.
I think the best current example of what you're trying to describe is 'Enter doom 3 engine game here' on console or on PC. In every instance the PC version has been better in regards to delivering smooth performance and better visuals on reasonable hardware (1 gig memory, modern low-high end processor and a 200-$300 graphics card).
You can bring up costs as well of the computer required to play at equal or better settings then a next gen console all you like, but dont forget you're going to be arguing the additional price point of the HDTV as well to make the game look as good as it should on the PS3 or Xbox360. Without that HDTV, in most cases, the games look like crap. Believe it or not a huge percent of people dont have HDTVs yet either by choice or they simply dont care.
Draw distance. Its possibly the most important part of Crysis' graphics if you were to ask me. I will not be playing the game on a super duper computer, nor will I be playing it with everything maxed........ except draw distance.
That is a key issue the consoles will have. The amount of memory and limitations from reading memory from the disks play a key role. "There are ways" around it, but those ways quickly bring you back to points of mid-range gaming PC, not something Crytek wants to do.
That is a key issue the consoles will have. The amount of memory and limitations from reading memory from the disks play a key role. "There are ways" around it, but those ways quickly bring you back to points of mid-range gaming PC, not something Crytek wants to do.
That statement is highly debatable. While draw distance may be important to you, it doesn't mean its a make or break feature on the possibility of a console version of Crysis.
Can you clarify this statement? This statement seems to indicate that Crytek has some sort of issue with catering to the non-highend crowd.
Last edited by a moderator:
So if the draw distance become 2/3 of what it is for the PC (remember, you tend to not have such abilities like adjusting the settings) then that does not hold back a game such as Crysis? I'm sorry, but draw distance in such games actually can have a great effect on gameplay.
No it does not. I would say Crytek wants to deliver a product that is great and at its highest possible quality. Maybe, just maybe they feel it would not be so in its current form on consoles.
