DuckThor Evil
Legend
Right...
I think it's a bit premature to make calls like that, since much of Crysis is still unknown.
Crysis on Consoles - The Facts of the Matter
- Thread starter "Nerve-Damage"
- Start date
Right...
I think it's a bit premature to make calls like that, since much of Crysis is still unknown.
Fu3lFr3nzy
Regular
How about trying to read the gameplay Crysis tries to deliver before making your assumptions
Crytek employees have been interviewed countless times and explained in detail just what can we expect from the game. I've been keeping up with the game since it got announced and from what I've read and seen so far, the games you mentioned dont even come close to what Crysis will deliver
And the games you mentioned arent even in the same category as Crysis (gears is 3rd person, r6 is tactical and cod is historical fps)Its really annoying to read that most people think Crysis is just an eyecandy game and nothing more. If you really know Crysis, you'd know graphics is only one of their priorities and that having a good gameplay experience is just as important.
How about trying to read the gameplay Crysis tries to deliver before making your assumptions
I've been keeping up with the game since it got announced and from what I've read and seen so far, the games you mentioned dont even come close to what Crysis will deliver
Its really annoying to read that most people think Crysis is just an eyecandy game and nothing more. If you really know Crysis, you'd know graphics is only one of their priorities and that having a good gameplay experience is just as important.
If a game could be effectively judged through press clippings, screen shots and limited video clips, then I might have found your comments objective.
Dr. Evil is right. Any calls on what Crysis will deliver is "premature". Crysis might turn out to be the PC version of crack cocaine or the PC version of a plumbers pants being too low while fixing your kitchen sink.
Last edited by a moderator:
For the price of a next gen console you can purchase a state of the art video card which is the deciding factor of how performance is handled in virtually every pc game I've ever encountered.
While I find your statement to be somewhat true. There are a few issues.
Due to the vast diversity of PC out there in the real world, simply buying a highend GPU is not always the answer. I don't think coupling a 8800 GTX with a P4 Celeron would be considered pratical.
Also, one could argue that PC gaming is not really a true alternative to console gaming. PC gaming and console gaming typically takes place in two different areas of the one's home. They tend to emphasize different genres of gaming with FPSes being one of the few true crossovers. Level of complexity jumps up a notch when it comes to PC gaming with such aspect as installation, patching, configurability and gameplay.
It doesn't take a gross amount of money to buy a PC, while a graphics card alone will usually do the job. Look at it this way. If I removed my X1900 XTX and replaced it with a substandard card, a few generations behind, while all my other requirements meet virtually any videogame out there, my computer is new, the performance difference would be out of this world. And you're right, coupling state of the art graphics with hopeless rigs isn't going to do much good, but that isn't necessarily the case with EVERYONE. I'm certain more people out there than you think have either standard or above standard elements of their computers that wouldn't require upgrading whatsoever, and the addition of something simple would place them in the higher echelon of pc gaming. A lot of computer upgrades that could make a great deal of difference cost less than the absurd prices of these consoles now is essentially what I'm trying to convey.
Depends on your performance expectations. My bro is gaming away on a 4 yr old Dell P4 2.6 with a X800XL and 1 gig RAM. He doesn't seem to mind. The X800XL replaced his old 9700 quite recently too. Most gamers just don't care if they don't have the highest possible framerate and settings.
It costs to have maximum edge-of-tech performance. It doesn't cost that much to just play the games.
DirectX 9 just hit mainstream rather recently. This year I'd say. And DX9 arrived in '02.
You right not everybody has "hopeless" rigs. However, there is enough of them combine with people's general ineptitude beyond general use on the PC to make a "simple" graphics card upgrade not viable for EVERYONE. I don't disagee with what you say, I'm just saying I wouldn't apply that statement to every potential console owner.
Exactly. Very well said, swaaye. My own personal expectations don't necessarily meet the same standards as every other PC gamer's expectations.
Neither would I, that statement doesn't apply to everyone. I'm just stating it's within the realm of reason for more people than you think. PC upgrades aren't loan worthy investments necessarily.
I guess we see eye to eye on everything except this one point.
Only by purchasing that card I ll have to deal with installing, upgrade other parts of my PC and mess with configuration to make the game run satisfactory, when I could get a console (which will get much cheaper as time passes) that only needs a disk inserted in it, connected on my TV and enjoy gaming on my couch. If a game is supposed to run at 30fps or 60fps on my console it will always run as much with a satisfactory level of visuals. I ll also know that devs will get full advandage of the true capabilties of the hardware I paid. The next Oblivion for example most likely will improve on every aspect and it will show on every 360 and every PS3.
On PC to enjoy as much as on the console the improvements of the sequel there are chances I ll have to sacrifice few aspects of the visuals. I ve seen this with many friends' PCs. Pentium4 3.2Gz, 1024RAM, 6800 or any other card and one game could run great while another one which may even seem less demanding could run on choppy framerates and low res textures.
Even my PC(not very good for todays games btw) seems to have problems running some very old games despite that it's got more than needed to run them. There seems to be problems with the games themselves or the drivers.
One game might run well with satisfactory graphics, the other one might need to lower resolution, the other one might need low-res textures, the other one may need some effects turned off and this varies from PC to PC according to what kind of processor,drivers, RAM, graphicss card etc are in. The games arent perfectly optimized for every configuration and normal/medium PCs.... So ok I can still play games on a mediocre PC. But one think I ll always be sure on a console I ll know that a good game will always run like a good game as well as possible.
I dont feel like spending a certain amount for a graphics card, knowing other parts on my PC will have to get upgraded and have to deal with the uncertainty that some games might not run as well as I would have been expecting from a console.
It may not be as serious as it sounds but why pay for a PC upgrade when I can spend the same money or less for a next gen console that has more certainty on the qualiy I ll get, which is simpler and I can play on a TV while sitting comfortably on a couch?
The only thing my PC can replace my console in gaming that would be strategy games and FPS.
inefficient
Veteran
This post is brought to you by the letter "C"
We already have a Crisis on consoles. We don't need a Crysis.
The console Crisis is too many crappy mutiplatform ports.
Crytek's constrainment of Crysis will contribue in containing this console Crisis.
We already have a Crisis on consoles. We don't need a Crysis.
The console Crisis is too many crappy mutiplatform ports.
Crytek's constrainment of Crysis will contribue in containing this console Crisis.
Given that the PS3 allows keyboard and mouse in games (which is almost mandatory in strategy games), and that the resolution limit of older consoles is now a thing of the past (ad least for those with HDTV) - I guess we will see some of the RTS games crossing over also, in the next few years, to this console ad least. It will make also FPS on consoles more appealing for people that hate the controller.
A few, maybe, like LOTR on 360, but I dont see it going widespread due to simple nature of the console experience. You're right though, the increased resolution now at least makes it a possibility.
Can you use mouse/KB on PS3 FPS? It becomes those balance issues again..
________
black Cams
Last edited by a moderator:
DuckThor Evil
Legend
First of all I would like to say that X360 costs between 299-399$ at the moment, how on earth can anybody claim that as absurd?
You are correct that if you have a PC that is performing reasonable well, then upgrading it can be done cheaply, however you can't do that many times, because eventhough PC tech holds against time better these days than it did few years ago, it still gets outdated in a few years, so basically you can go without major upgrade for only so long.
Also the fact that you count already existing PC for that equation, doesn't really make it a fair comparison. I can sell my Xbox and 10 games before the purchase of X360 and the remaining price will be very low, considering that the retail price for the X360 is already LOW of course the PC gamer can also sell his two year old craphics card, but usually those don't go for a very high price.
Everybody knows that the cost of PC-gaming and the PC-tech in general has come down in price and at the sametime the tech is usable for a longer period of time. Still any sort of arguments favouring PC-gaming over consoles that is based on costs is dead on arrival (excluding games)
imo
archangelmorph
Veteran
From what I heard, UT on PS3 will support mouse and keyboard. Probably multiplayer matching will take in consideration this, and will not allow "controllers"vs"mousers" unless you specifically choose so. Or maybe "controllers" will get some auto-aiming.
ROFM does not support mouse, though, and it seems that people at SONY are not actively pushing mouse&keyboard support to devs. Which really is a pitty, I would love so play some RTS (havent played any since Starcraft) but not on PC, I'm totally a console guy.
Perhaps you've forgotten PS3 is 600 dollars, ironically the same price of my videocard. And please be so kind as to point me in the direction of where you see an xbox 360 for 300 dollars. And even that's after a price drop after the induction of the PS3. I seem to remember it being higher. While you make a valid point regarding the price reduction in the costs of PC hardware, you neglected to mention the skyrocketing prices of consoles. I seem to remember N64 in it's hayday being no more than 300 dollars upon arrival. Plus everyone tends to forget top notch televisions are generally a must nowadays, otherwise you're sacrificing a great deal of visual quality, and those start at what? While you're right the topic of price efficiency is usually dead at the doorway of the conversation regarding consoles and PC's, provided you've met a certain criteria in the first place, but if you want to keep up with the latest technology, obviously it's going to cost money, otherwise you get a continual stream of the same looking game, ie the case with EVERY console, until they're just plain obsolete.
Last edited by a moderator:
