Is Crysis max'd out the benchmark for Xbox3 and PS4?

[pjbliverpool]

Consoles have a set standard of hardware specifications for their lifetime, and this was the first generation I really thought consoles attempted to up the ante in a serious way, because while I agree with you that a SLI GPU was more powerful, the PCs of the time didn`t have multicore CPUs running at 3.2 GHz and VMX units to help them, nor GDDR3 memory.

The most powerful CPU available at the time of the 360 launch was the AthlonX2 4800+. Thats 2 cores running at 2.4 GHz and given the massive differences between the architectures I expect thats more than enough to at least match Xenons performance as a gaming CPU.

And PC's were using GDDR3 at that time. What do you think was on the GTX512? A pair of GTX512's offecred a total of over 100GB/sec of graphics memory bandwidth through their GDDR3. The PC's system memory would have been standard DDR running at 400Mhz (6.5GB/sec).

I am merely saying that the "real" new console games won't even hit the shelves for a few years - due to the 5+ year dev cycle for them. Hard not to think that of the blockbuster games in the next years, how many will be PC only? I think the 85% industry-wide console profits will climb to 90% or more with the only real holdouts being Ensemble Studios, Valve, Blizzard....

Yeah and how many will be console only? Or specifically to the console that you own? Most games are going multiplatform these days due to increasing development costs. That trend will increase with time, not decrease.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

I am merely saying that the "real" new console games won't even hit the shelves for a few years - due to the 5+ year dev cycle for them. Hard not to think that of the blockbuster games in the next years, how many will be PC only? I think the 85% industry-wide console profits will climb to 90% or more with the only real holdouts being Ensemble Studios, Valve, Blizzard....

I didn't think we were talking about majorities, I thought we were talking about singular absolutes.

Of course the Consoles will always have more games. The question I was discussing was where the top end games would be. And outside of the 360 launch window, the answer to that question is the PC and if you throw away the 360 launch window, the answer has always been the PC.

Even when console games are fully optimized for their closed systems they are still limited by production decisions. PC games or console ports to PC can afford to be much sloppier yet still demonstrate a visual improvement because they aren't dealing with a fixed 512 memory space. By the time the consoles are optimized, PC games will have minimum requirements of 256 just for GPU RAM, let alone the 1-2gigs of system.

The best looking game is simply always going to be on the PC because PCs have more resources.

 

[pjbliverpool]

I will be higly disappointed if Crysis max'd out will be the bench for the next next gen of consoles...i mean, Crysis is what i can expect from todays standards...not from next next gen

I guess you must be extremely dissapointed with current gen console graphics then if you expect Crysis level graphics, yes?

 

[Skrying]

I will be higly disappointed if Crysis max'd out will be the bench for the next next gen of consoles...i mean, Crysis is what i can expect from todays standards...not from next next gen

Interesting, considering Crysis is more than every other game currently by... a rather large margin.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Interesting, considering Crysis is more than every other game currently by... a rather large margin.

I wouldn't say that margin is that large.

 

[Neb]

I will be higly disappointed if Crysis max'd out will be the bench for the next next gen of consoles...i mean, Crysis is what i can expect from todays standards...not from next next gen

Not really it is above and beyond games shown today, especially console games. Well unless you have been talking about Crysis in medium detail settings? Otherwise check my sig and the links to the ss I have taken from Crysis, pure graphical madness, period!

 

[Neb]

I wouldn't say that margin is that large.

Opinions, facts says it is, check some videos of the engine and tech interviews.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Opinions, facts says it is.

Except you're not offering facts! You're whole argument, along with the other Crysis aficionado's is 'I'm so impressed with Crysis, nothing can be better!' without offering one single fact. What's the poly-counts? What are the skeleton details? How much of the scenery is interactive and with what sort of collision models (mesh based or bounding volume based)? What animation system is used? How many animations are recorded and what degree of blending is implemented? What sort of AI operations are being performed? What's the shader complexity in ops per second? How is the voxel engine implemented?

There are a few facts like the platform requirements, from which one can say that...1 GB of RAM is needed to run the voxel engine, perhaps. Even then, that doesn't tell us if an alternative implementation could add the terrain detail of Crysis without the massive RAM requirements.

There has not been one single, intelligent, reasoned argument why next-gen consoles shouldn't supersede Crysis in this entire thread. The only contribution from those supporting Crysis as a target for console in 4-5 years time is 'ooooh, look at this screenshot! Oooo, look at that screenshot! Ooooh, you should watch all the crysis videos out there. Nothing's this good. This game is so pretty I don't believe it'll be bested by even next-gen consoles.' This whole screenshot competition is ludicrous too. Does a screenshot from now that doesn't look as good as Crysis (without any regard whatsoever for technical achievement, because the entire level of reasoning at the moment is what looks nice) prove that next-gen will be struggling to match Crysis? Does a screenshot from now even show a game isn't competing with Crysis on a technical level?

Let's revisit this example :

We all agree that the top pic looks absolutely jaw-droppingly good fantastic, whereas the bottom pic look much like many other games. Then we were informed that the top pic is achieved in Crysis by tweaking the settings. Which if so goes to show that the same level of technical achievement, the same engine, can produce something that doesn't look as good! Thus you could show the top pic from Crysis as an example of the game. Then if someone offered something looking like the bottom pic from a different game, people would be saying it hasn't got the same technical achievements, yet the fact is it could well be, as that very picture shows how the visual output can vary from the same engine. It's the very same engine, in a different place with different lighting and stuff happening, and yet looks technically inferior - that doesn't prove the engine is technically inferior!

Yet people persist in looking at stills and making a sweeping statement of 'its not technically as good', even with qualifiers such as 'far better', without any reference whatsoever to real technical achievements.

 

[Neb]

Well if you quote the whole I say there is tech videos and tech interviews talking about the games features. I could line them all up with links but it will take some time. Also I am talking about this-gen games (as the discussion has been that quite much now even if off-topic from all parts) not next-gen games since most of it would be speculations not even knowing the specs of those systems. But for that I'll suspect it will be like Far Cry vs now, that means it will not stand up to all games or many at all but some most probably.

Of course the graphics IQ will be different depending on location/scene/view, all games have their low IQ parts and their high IQ parts. The thing is what is more important is what it can achieve and does in the majority of the time. It is the sum of all parts and choosing to use one low IQ part to base the whole games graphics on that is ridicolous aswell as claiming it is a disappointment.

Can we be shure that the top image quality will be the least ugly the next-gen consoles will produce, or wil ltehy also have nice IQ parts and low IQ parts?

How good would the top image look if the motion-blur is removed or in the contrary how much better would the bottom image look if it has motion-blur?

Is the bottom ss what the whole game looks like now, a part of the game where it looks less flattering ignoring the rest of the parts? Even though it already has been provided videos of users artistically pretty much matching it and the devs saying that that image IQ is in the final game?

So it is fair to use some of the least flattering points on Crysis (not even being same level/scene/weather condition) for graphics comparision but doing the same with consoel games would have one "hanged/tagged/beaten"?

Cheers! :smile:

 

[Neb]

Those screens are all downscaled screens and look perfect because they hide all the flaws, the problem i have with Crysis is that when you take the original high res screens you can spot many low res textures there and here.

Those are downscaled becouse Photobucket allows only 1024*768 images hence why they are downscaled a bit (orig 1280*1024, my own ss). Apart from that the ss presents more bluriness than what is actually seen on screen due to compression of the image. But of course it has it flaws as all games but if focusing only on the flaws and using that to judge then should the same be done with other games? How would that look like?

You have to understand that in a game such as this with such a large graphical scope you just cant have all textures at 2048*2048, and what other game with such scope does it... none!

EDIT: Also the thing you say they look perfect shows some interesting things. One there is flaws on those ss, for example some rocks where the textures have not loaded, some clipping, some strange shadows etc. Two even with flaws you class them as perfect, then what is the problem?

 

[pjbliverpool]

I guess you didn't read my post

I said if NEXT NEXT GEN consoles will have Crysis level graphic i will be extremly disappointed as what i expect from next next gen is something able to match the final dead or alive CG matching Crysis is like saying the xbox360 been able to match Doom 3 graphic...

I fail to see how my expectations for the future would make me displease the current gen console graphic, unless i live in the future :laughing:

I apologise if I misunderstood you however your post did seem to imply that you see the current generation of consoles as outputting Crysis level graphics which I don't believe is the case. IMO Crysis represents a rough half way point between current and next gen console graphics.

 

[pjbliverpool]

Except you're not offering facts! You're whole argument, along with the other Crysis aficionado's is 'I'm so impressed with Crysis, nothing can be better!' without offering one single fact. What's the poly-counts? What are the skeleton details? How much of the scenery is interactive and with what sort of collision models (mesh based or bounding volume based)? What animation system is used? How many animations are recorded and what degree of blending is implemented? What sort of AI operations are being performed? What's the shader complexity in ops per second? How is the voxel engine implemented?

At the end of the day all of these comparisons are going to come down to opinion. Actually proving that Crysis is technically superior to every other game out there is virtually impossible without delving deep into its technical features and those of competing games using information that isn't even publicly available.

You could of course take a look at the available evidence and take a reasonable guess as to whether its likely to be the most technically advanced game or not.

Given its technical requirements on the PC and how the game looks (some may disagree but I think the majority agree that its currently the best looking game available), I think its reasonable to assume its likely doing more from a technical perspective than any other game overall.

 

[Obakan]

Except you're not offering facts! You're whole argument, along with the other Crysis aficionado's is 'I'm so impressed with Crysis, nothing can be better!' without offering one single fact. What's the poly-counts? What are the skeleton details? How much of the scenery is interactive and with what sort of collision models (mesh based or bounding volume based)? What animation system is used? How many animations are recorded and what degree of blending is implemented? What sort of AI operations are being performed? What's the shader complexity in ops per second? How is the voxel engine implemented?

There are a few facts like the platform requirements, from which one can say that...1 GB of RAM is needed to run the voxel engine, perhaps. Even then, that doesn't tell us if an alternative implementation could add the terrain detail of Crysis without the massive RAM requirements.

There has not been one single, intelligent, reasoned argument why next-gen consoles shouldn't supersede Crysis in this entire thread. The only contribution from those supporting Crysis as a target for console in 4-5 years time is 'ooooh, look at this screenshot! Oooo, look at that screenshot! Ooooh, you should watch all the crysis videos out there. Nothing's this good. This game is so pretty I don't believe it'll be bested by even next-gen consoles.' This whole screenshot competition is ludicrous too. Does a screenshot from now that doesn't look as good as Crysis (without any regard whatsoever for technical achievement, because the entire level of reasoning at the moment is what looks nice) prove that next-gen will be struggling to match Crysis? Does a screenshot from now even show a game isn't competing with Crysis on a technical level?

Let's revisit this example :

We all agree that the top pic looks absolutely jaw-droppingly good fantastic, whereas the bottom pic look much like many other games. Then we were informed that the top pic is achieved in Crysis by tweaking the settings. Which if so goes to show that the same level of technical achievement, the same engine, can produce something that doesn't look as good! Thus you could show the top pic from Crysis as an example of the game. Then if someone offered something looking like the bottom pic from a different game, people would be saying it hasn't got the same technical achievements, yet the fact is it could well be, as that very picture shows how the visual output can vary from the same engine. It's the very same engine, in a different place with different lighting and stuff happening, and yet looks technically inferior - that doesn't prove the engine is technically inferior!

Yet people persist in looking at stills and making a sweeping statement of 'its not technically as good', even with qualifiers such as 'far better', without any reference whatsoever to real technical achievements.

The second screenhot isn´t on very high (atleast not in comparasion with V.hihg on my computer), the reason to why we post screenshots is so that you can see what we mean, pretty much like when other members post KZ2 screenshots to show how it looks, there´s no nedd to get angry over that.

Here´s some information about what Crysis has:
http://www.incrysis.com/wiki/index.php/Crysis_Graphics
http://www.crytek.com/technology/cryengine-2/specifications.html

And may I add that Nebula actually said:

Opinions, facts says it is, check some videos of the engine and tech interviews.

If you guys now are so very interested in getting to know the features and technology that Crysis has and makes it impossible for todays consoles, then why dont you search!?
Nebula (and I´m sure many others have) posted that there´s tech-videos and interviews etc. to show the different things Crysis is running but then if you choose to ignore it then dont complain!

 

[Obakan]

Downscaling the pic makes it look a lot better then it really is.

This is a downscaled screen of Crysis running at high/very high @1600x1200 max detail it looks very great :

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h108/woundingchaney/crysis2007-11-0220-21-05-77.jpg

This is the original 1600 x 1200 screen :

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h108/woundingchaney/crysis2007-11-0220-21-05-77-1.jpg

In the original screen you can spot low res textures here and there, for example on the ground, where in the downscaled screen everything look high res.

Nope, all I can notice is that the full res. screenshots is a bit blurrier longer forward on the ground because of AF, and that can´t be seen so easy with the downscaled screenshot because it´s smaller and more compressed.

 

[Neb]

Those 2 images you posted, it is easy to see both have same texture detail (that means non-scaled and downscaled detail impression). What makes the smaller one look better is the lack of jaggies which are present in the non-scaled ss (although the non-scaled has more detail on the cliff at teh right side ) .

Youre also missing the point I had 1280*1024 images scaled down to 960*768 (Photobucket free account limit) wilst you have downscaled a 1920*1200 ss to 800*500!

Also the thing that you said my ss looked perfect even though you can see flaws (texture detail/clipping/shadows etc) shows you are grasping for negative material! :smile:

 

[Obakan]

Those 2 images you posted, it is easy to see both have same texture detail (that means non-scaled and downscaled detail impression). What makes the smaller one look better is the lack of jaggies which are present in the non-scaled ss.

Youre also missing the point I had 1280*1024 images scaled down to 960*768 (Photobucket free account limit) wilst you have downscaled a 1920*1200 ss to 800*500!

Also the thing that you said my ss looked perfect even though you can see flaws (texture detail/clipping/shadows etc) shows you are grasping for negative material! :smile:

Indeed.

 

[Neb]

Downscaling the pic makes it look a lot better then it really is.

This is a downscaled screen of Crysis running at high/very high @1600x1200 max detail it looks very great :

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h108/woundingchaney/crysis2007-11-0220-21-05-77.jpg

This is the original 1600 x 1200 screen :

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h108/woundingchaney/crysis2007-11-0220-21-05-77-1.jpg

In the original screen you can spot low res textures here and there, for example on the ground, where in the downscaled screen everything look high res.

First of all you aint got max detail if you run at high/very high settings, v.high on all is max detail. Second you dont know what resolution you are playing at? You say 1600*1200 yet the image is 1920*1200. Is it your own images or what?

 

[Obakan]

Maybe you have superman vision, but to me the downscaled is too small to have a fair idea of the texture quality.





I didn't miss the point, i just don't trust you and i don't really know if you downscaled the game from 1280*1200 to 960*768 or from a much higer res.

I only know that a non upscaled screen taken from the game 1920x1200 @ max detail at 1920x 1200 does not look as good as it does in your downscaled pics, that's why i provided a full resolution pic to make a fair comparison of how the game really look.



Interesting when given facts you say i am grasping for negative material...

Well your facts are not correct from what I and Nebula have seen, but it´s for you.
All I could notice between thoose screenshots was that I could notice more easier that AF was off on one of them, that´s all.
And lets not talk about trust....

 

[Neb]

Maybe you have superman vision, but to me the downscaled is too small to have a fair idea of the texture quality...

Look closer at the monitor then, dont sit 1 meter away trying to see difference!

I didn't miss the point, i just don't trust you and i don't really know if you downscaled the game from 1280*1200 to 960*768 or from a much higer res.

My CRT monitor doesn't do more than 1280*1024. Photobucket allows only 1024*768 size for images hence 960*768. And dont talk about trust since you have already discredit yourself in that part by not even knowing what res you have played with and stating max detail when it is not according to yourself!

I only know that a non upscaled screen taken from the game 1920x1200 @ max detail at 1920x 1200 does not look as good as it does in your downscaled pics, that's why i provided a full resolution pic to make a fair comparison of how the game really look.

It all depends on your monitor size, resolution and view distance. 1920*1200p shots of yours would look better on a 17 montor than a 24 one. Same with LCD TV size vs distance vs resolution, same with console games.

Fair in your view? My ss are legit 1280*1024 downscaled to 960*768 due above reasons. It does look like that on my 17 monitor except a bit sharper and some more jaggies.

Interesting when given facts you say i am grasping for negative material

you are retouching the same point even though it has been aknowledged that it has some low-res textures. Also the point that you said my ss looks perfect even when the low-res textures/clipping/strange shadows is visible.
Clearly shows you are grasping since you are aknowledging that a ss with some low-res tesxtures still looks perfect! :smile:

 

[Neb]

Lol i take many screens at many different resolution so excuse me if i did a small mistake on the resolution, and yes i took that screen at v.high i wan't sure but i just checked i am 100% positive.

No it is not very high since v.high has almost all rocks in 3D due to occlusion parallax mapping, yours dont it and it looks like high.

But you are playing on a widscreen monitor since you use 1920*1200p right? So why a non widescreen resolution like 1600*1200p? :smile: