Good point.
Crysis on Consoles - The Facts of the Matter
- Thread starter "Nerve-Damage"
- Start date
Good point.
archangelmorph
Veteran
I don't get what some people are trying to say?
Are you trying to imply that crytek won't bring the game to consoles unless they can garuantee G80/DirectX 10 level IQ??
I think such a proposition is rather stupid if you ask me..
Think about this logically and from a business perspective (which in the end is what Crytek is.. A business..)..:
Crytek Producer: Ok so if we spend x amount of money developing a port to consoles.. what are the implications..?
Crytek Developer: Well on the bright side we will be able to reuse alot of the exisiting codebase and only spend x amount of time doing the optimisations to get the game running at an acceptable framerate.. The down side is we lose IQ which drops the game's visual appeal to below that of what Bungie is doing wid Halo 3..
Crytek Producer: But will we still see the returns?
Crytek Developer: Oh yeah of course.. The majority of gamers won't care too much as long as all the HDR, bloom and normal mapping (standard SM3.0 effects) is there people wont care too much about the game not looking "astounding"..
Crytek Producer: So the alternative is to spend x + x amount and do a rebuild of the entire tech around the console.. Is this feasible..?
Crytek Developer: Yeah it's feasible although we'd have to spend and extensive amount of time optimising and unless we re-write everything we may never achieve the same IQ were getting on DirectX 10 h/w.. But don't expect to see any greater returns from doing this over the alternative..
Crytek: Great! so it's settled! we're outsourcing!!
[I think that sounds about reasonable..]
Are you trying to imply that crytek won't bring the game to consoles unless they can garuantee G80/DirectX 10 level IQ??
I think such a proposition is rather stupid if you ask me..
Think about this logically and from a business perspective (which in the end is what Crytek is.. A business..)..:
Crytek Producer: Ok so if we spend x amount of money developing a port to consoles.. what are the implications..?
Crytek Developer: Well on the bright side we will be able to reuse alot of the exisiting codebase and only spend x amount of time doing the optimisations to get the game running at an acceptable framerate.. The down side is we lose IQ which drops the game's visual appeal to below that of what Bungie is doing wid Halo 3..
Crytek Producer: But will we still see the returns?
Crytek Developer: Oh yeah of course.. The majority of gamers won't care too much as long as all the HDR, bloom and normal mapping (standard SM3.0 effects) is there people wont care too much about the game not looking "astounding"..
Crytek Producer: So the alternative is to spend x + x amount and do a rebuild of the entire tech around the console.. Is this feasible..?
Crytek Developer: Yeah it's feasible although we'd have to spend and extensive amount of time optimising and unless we re-write everything we may never achieve the same IQ were getting on DirectX 10 h/w.. But don't expect to see any greater returns from doing this over the alternative..
Crytek: Great! so it's settled! we're outsourcing!!
[I think that sounds about reasonable..]
Hardly. I wasn't privvy computers were items of the sofisticates.
I'm just assuming that they plan to sell more than 1,000 copies of Crysis, in which case making the game incapable of running on a midrange PC would seem to be at the very best a poorly thought decision. Either that, or they're targeting the game for PCs 4-5 years from now, at which point shoehorning it into X360/PS3 may be about as difficult as squeezing Doom 3 and Half-Life 2 into Xbox was (with similarly unfortunate results).
Fu3lFr3nzy
Regular
Oblivion and FEAR were some of the more graphically demanding PC games that came out in recent memory and I believe both sold reasonably well
In a not so ironic turn of events, both games manage to make their way to next gen consoles, and while the X360 version cant be compared to its PC counterpart, it was acceptable(?) by console standards.
If it ever ends up on consoles, god forbid EA has the game developed by anyone but Crytek(which is what happened to the FarCry games), because I cant help but imagine just how horrible that will be
Last edited by a moderator:
From what i have heard olbivion was almost the same like the high end pc version and better from the 95% of the PCs out there and i read that Fear is slightly superior from the PC version (better lighting , some physics glitches from the pc version are repaired , during the mayhem more particles flying around).
Yes, but FEAR is not exactly new to a PC user yet just came out on the console front.
Most of the draw distance is for aesthetics. I doubt battles are going to constantly take place at a 1000 meters. Shortening draw distance would mean you would engage the enemy at a distance that under normal circumstance would take place 85 percent of the time on the PC version anyway.
Crytek wants to produce a quality product, but Crytek is also in the business of making money. I doubt that would hold back a console version just because it wouldn't mimmick crysis on core 2 with an 8800 GTX on MS Vista.
It also completely lacked soft shadows and the demo version at least had lower res textures, not sure if they ever fixed that for retail or not.
Plus the better lighting was just the addition of HDR in a primarily dark game.
Im not sure why you would need to be. Gaming at say Wii level fidelity would be nothing more than a $99 graphics upgrade to even the lowliest off the shelf net surfing PC's.
No doubt you need to spend a lot more for 360/PS3 level power but that doesn't make Wii level graphics obsolete. In fact $99 could get you a GPU that goes far beyond Wii's capabilities.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
They didnt. The far cry IP is owned by ubisoft. Crytek now is under EA's wing and is working on crysis wich basically is far cry but with a other name. But they arnt making FC games anymore. Ubi is making the wii version.
It looks almost the exact same. IGN has side by side screenshots, 360 versus 7800GTX equipped PC. There is virtually no difference.
________
Syanna
Last edited by a moderator:
I assume the PC screenshots were without soft shadows?
Comments based on Cry Engine 2 and Crysis is way off the mark, it runs extremely well on the g80 at very high settings.
Not to mention Cry Engine 1 and its xbox version are very similiar, the main changes are the shaders used (which are these shaders are also avialable in the PC version)
Textures sizes have to be dropped some as well when porting a PC game to xbox, these are visual changes you guys are seeing. The engine itself has some modifications to drop the amount of ram being used, but nothing significant.
Not to mention Cry Engine 1 and its xbox version are very similiar, the main changes are the shaders used (which are these shaders are also avialable in the PC version)
Textures sizes have to be dropped some as well when porting a PC game to xbox, these are visual changes you guys are seeing. The engine itself has some modifications to drop the amount of ram being used, but nothing significant.
FEAR's soft shadows looked and performed terrible. I wasn't really impressed with the engine's graphics considering it was released over a year later than Doom3 engine. The engine itself ran a lot worse while doing the same stuff basically.
I thought the game itself was rather mundane for the majority of the run through. The beginning was great cuz the game was fresh at that point, and the end was awesome, but the rest was so repetitive.. Cool combat moves tho.
It was rather humorous that the console port came so late after the PC version and everyone was all excited over it's triumphant regurgitation. At least the Xbox Far Crys are basically new games.
Hmm? Probably you didnt get me. Or was it me who doesnt get you? What I wanted to say is that in order to enjoy gaming on PC you have to spend more money than on consoles to be able to play the best PC games that come.
You dont care about that on consoles because you buy a console and play the game as it is ment to be on the console. I know that I ll buy buy Wii without caring about super doober graphics. I know I ll get a 360 and a PS3 and play their games without bothering with settings or having to deal with hardware alterations.
On PCs you have the problem of configuration. Sometimes PC games play well on certain settings and certain cards while on others there are problems. So you must have enough income so you wouldnt bother with the fact that you might spend more for a gaming PC and still have a few problems with some games not playing as perfectly as you were expecting.
And if you have the money and you are the hardcore PC gamer you ll pay thousands to get a top notch more future proof PC for games but not all of us are like that. These are the minority. But even for them next year another game may be released that may need hardware upgrade.
If you want a simple computer that can play games then you can get one easilly. If you want to get a PC to play games well then you have to spend a lot. And in order to be able to play the next games as efficiently as the previous games you have to update more often. Which makes gaming less easier to enjoy for the common gamer who just wants to play games without ever bothering with technical aspects and such
There are tons and tons of people playing games with craptastic Intel GMA chips. Guild Wars and even WoW, for example. Oldblivion popped up to let users with DX8 and GFFX cards play Oblivion and it's quite popular.
If you look at Valve statistics you'll find that an awful lot of people are running very crusty hardware. Elitist high-end gamers are a rather small segment of the gaming populace. Hell, I consider myself a pretty serious gamer and my video card is an X800 that I bought a year ago for $200. Not bleeding edge tech or cost there. My friends/family have cards like Ti4600, 9700, 6600, 6800, X800, X1600, 7900. Quite a range of video cards, and CPUs/platforms as well.
I don't think PC gaming is quite like a lot of you guys seem to imagine it. As someone who's been PC gaming since the late '80s, I can say that bleeding edge hardware is absolutely unnecessary.
That was my point actually. I was mainly targeting those claiming that PCs are ment to be playied with graphics maxed out.
The PC specs you mentioned arent nearly as good as the quality you ll get on a 360 and PS3, cant play well many of the new games or at all and you certaintly have to pay more to get a PC to play them better than these consoles or just as good so I wonder whats the point of other people trying to convince how a PC game is ment to be playied?
edit: With other words current consoles are perfectly fine and comparable to a very good PC. Not the perfect Alienware super costygaming PC that will play Crysis in super resolutions 60fps with all maxed out but might play them in a very satisfactory level
Last edited by a moderator:
i thought developing environment for Windows Vista and Xbox 360 are nearly the same, with little modifications to make games work on both consoles???
anyway, im not bothered bout this game, this game seems empty apart from DX10 graphics, personally i think CoD3, R6:V and Gears give better gaming experience than Crysis
anyway, im not bothered bout this game, this game seems empty apart from DX10 graphics, personally i think CoD3, R6:V and Gears give better gaming experience than Crysis
Similar threads
- Locked
