Metro Last Light ! Yay for the power of PC !

[pjbliverpool]

Do You mean better tech? Like better and faster lighting, faster shadows, faster ssao, god rays, better assets streaming engine?

Stop reeling off tech buzzwords (the majority of which made no sense anyway) and look at your screen. Anyone without a serious bias or a worrying sight problem can see that Crysis 1 is quite obviously the better looking game.

And about interactivity they could just limit the number objects that dont disappear or a time after they disappear. Its really only matter of trade offs. No one is gonna expect it to looks exactly the same as on 4-5 faster hardware with more ram.

Whatever they could or could not choose to do, the result is a less interactive environment. Of course no-one expects it to look or perform as good as the PC original... however based on comments like - "Do You mean better tech? Like better and faster lighting, faster shadows, faster ssao, god rays, better assets streaming engine?" - you do have to wonder.[/quote]

I dont know why people are still complaining about it. Its their decision and i'm actually glad, because i was bored in Crysis 1

Yeah it's pretty insane to complain about a sequel that comes out 4 years after it's predesesor while looking worse and having a smaller less interactive game world. What madness is this!

Clearly this would never happen in the console world if it occured to something like Killzone or Gears of War... oh . no. wait...

Seriously, imagine if they gimped your flagship games so that they would work well on mobile phones. Would you still be as understanding about it? It's easy to be happy when you support the weaker platform that benefits from gimping the high end.

and like most parts of Crysis 2 much better from gameplay standpoint. I think people just wanted Crysis 1 ported to CE 3, instead of real sequel.

Well there's no cure for bad taste I'm afraid.

 

[N_B]

Stop reeling off tech buzzwords (the majority of which made no sense anyway) and look at your screen. Anyone without a serious bias or a worrying sight problem can see that Crysis 1 is quite obviously the better looking game.

No, it isn't obvious. Crysis 2 does a lot of things better than the first game. Maybe Crysis 1 has higher poly counts and higher res textures, but that doesn't take away from the much more impressive lighting and postprocesing of Crysis 2.

 

[pjbliverpool]

No, it isn't obvious. Crysis 2 does a lot of things better than the first game. Maybe Crysis 1 has higher poly counts and higher res textures, but that doesn't take away from the much more impressive lighting and postprocesing of Crysis 2.

Uh huh

 

[swaaye]

If you take into account how inefficient Cryengine 2 is in various ways, maybe they could pull off a decent version of the first games on the consoles now with their current engine. Crysis and Warhead still run pretty bad even with modern top notch PC hardware. Part of it is the rudimentary multithreading support. The games as they are certainly would run terrible on the consoles simply because of that aspect. Their tech has come a long way.

 

[L. Scofield]

To answer your question, yes I have.

But that's not the argument here, The argument is for good looking, high tech games with big areas and good interactivity on consoles.

Yes Farcry 2 definitely lacks behind Crysis in terms of tech but its not something which I'd say huge (the art also plays a big role here in terms of how it looks as the ideas for a jungle are polar opposite in both games). Beside you also have to consider that there are some areas where Farcry 2 deserves credits for eg the world is bigger by a considerable magnitude and then you have some small fators like a wind and weather system, a system for foilage/tree regeneration over time, fire propogation etc. I am not saying its superior to Crysis in terms of rendering tech cause that would be wrong, however saying that there is a whole world of difference wouldn't be correct either. And ofcourse I am only considering the vanilla version of Crysis as putting a modded version up against an unmodable game like Farcry 2 would be unfair.

The main thing Crysis needs RAM for is the persistence of its world. You can brake trees in very specific segments, go to the side of the level and play for an hour, come back and the destroyed trees are still there, just as you left them. That doesn't happen in FC2, JC2, etc...

 

[Ike Turner]

If you take into account how inefficient Cryengine 2 is in various ways, maybe they could pull off a decent version of the first games on the consoles now with their current engine. Crysis and Warhead still run pretty bad even with modern top notch PC hardware. Part of it is the rudimentary multithreading support. The games as they are certainly would run terrible on the consoles simply because of that aspect. Their tech has come a long way.

Unfortunitelly Cryengine 3 as awhole (Scripting, Rendenring, AI, SDK etc) seems to just as innefficient as CE2 (but in different ways). I still cn't figure out how such a buggy game (C2) was ever released and many bugs have yet to be fixed (and won't ever be fixed given that Crytek as IIRC announced that no more patches are planned). What is troubling is that this is supposed to be the showcase game for the engine. So if Crytek can't even make the most out of it then the whole thing is simply poorly coded (how many non-crytek games use the CE engine anyway?).

CE just shouldn't be used a a becnhmark to compared Multi-plarform developement IMO.

 

[nightshade]

The main thing Crysis needs RAM for is the persistence of its world. You can brake trees in very specific segments, go to the side of the level and play for an hour, come back and the destroyed trees are still there, just as you left them. That doesn't happen in FC2, JC2, etc...

About breaking trees in specific segment....you can do the same in FC2, and you have more trees to break than just palm/coconut trees. The thing is in FC2 they grow back (albit with an accelerated rate).

 

[KKRT]

Stop reeling off tech buzzwords (the majority of which made no sense anyway) and look at your screen. Anyone without a serious bias or a worrying sight problem can see that Crysis 1 is quite obviously the better looking game.

Wait a second, do You really think that Crysis 1 on PC is better looking game than Crysis 2 on PC?
In terms of pure tech, they are not even comparable. Art style is to subjective.


And yes C2 has smaller levels, but much more varied assets in them.

 

[swaaye]

Ok I bought Crysis 2 just so I could experience it myself. I think it's quite pretty really. But the gameplay is mind numbing and is what I would complain about before anything else. Cevat wanted to make his own sort of Gears of War, I think. It's very movie like. None of this is caused by being on consoles, it's all the game designers "focusing their vision" or whatever you want to call it. Reminds me of how Chris Roberts wanted to make movies instead of games towards the end before he vanished from the industry.

I know there are people who thought Crysis and Warhead were boring because of how unguided they felt relative to corridor shooters. Maybe Cevat is in that camp.

But, fitting in with this thread, I think Metro 2033 is pretty much the same thing. I suppose there's no predecessor to Metro 2033 to put fans into rage mode over major gameplay changes though. Unless you look at STALKER, anyway.

 

[Davros]

stalker was much more open (objective wise) than their first game

 

[pjbliverpool]

Wait a second, do You really think that Crysis 1 on PC is better looking game than Crysis 2 on PC?
In terms of pure tech, they are not even comparable. Art style is to subjective.


And yes C2 has smaller levels, but much more varied assets in them.

In parts most certainly yes. Overall compared to the full DX11 maxxed out version? Possibly not.

But the argument is how Crysis 2 on the consoles had to reduce it's scope in order to look closer to Crysis 1 on PC. So if there's a a visual comparison beng made here then thats it.

Anyway, I dispute your claim that they are technically "not even comparable". In fact I'm sure they are extremely comparable and level size/interactivity is certainly part of the games technology and in both areas Crysis clearly leads over it's successor. If you're talking about the new DX11 effects in Crysis 2 then sure, Crysis 1 has nothing like that. But then Crysis 1 has a DX10 path which was more advanced than the pure DX9 pipeline of Crysis 2 at launch.

 

[Sigfried1977]

Crysis 2 looks excellent and is easily one of the best looking console games but extra check list features or not, it still comes a solid second place to the original. But no-where near as badly as it would have if they'd went for another highly open and interactive jungle type environment.

Disagree completely here. I think C2 looks way better.

 

[tabs]

Well, this only goes to show, yet again, that looks are entirely subjective. Arguing about which looks better out of A & B is fruitless, and frankly we should probably be moderating ourselves a little bit here as this threads gone WAY off topic. For my part in it, I apologise.

Perhaps we could get back to talking about Metro Last Light now?

 

[Sobek]

Well, this only goes to show, yet again, that looks are entirely subjective. Arguing about which looks better out of A & B is fruitless, and frankly we should probably be moderating ourselves a little bit here as this threads gone WAY off topic. For my part in it, I apologise.

Perhaps we could get back to talking about Metro Last Light now?

ARTYOM! ARTYOM! ARTYOM! ARTYOM! ARTYOM! ARTYOM! ARTYOM! ARTYOM! ARTYOM!

DO EVERYTHING.

 

[nightshade]

My name is Bourbon, and I like buiscuits...especially the dark choclate sandwich buiscuit that shares the same name.

 

[tabs]

ARTYOM! ARTYOM! ARTYOM! ARTYOM! ARTYOM! ARTYOM! ARTYOM! ARTYOM! ARTYOM!

DO EVERYTHING.

I hope they've toned that down a bit. I like a bit of discovery in very atmospheric games like this, and can't feel much achievement if all I'm doing is a set of actions I'm repeatedly being instructed to do. To be honest there are very few games I enjoy that have me running alongside an AI partner or group because generally they annoy the hell out of me.

 

[Man from Atlantis]

Metro Last Light PC aims for the technology throne: Developer talks about DirectX 11, Tessellation, GPU-Physx & Co.

PC Games Hardware: Will you keep the strategy that the PC version will look better and will allow technical/visual features that cannot be realized with console Hardware, e.g. higher texture resolution and better lighting? Can we once again expect Multisampling and Analytical Antialiasing in the PC version?

Oles Shishkovtsov: Definitely. The PC version will have much better visuals than before. And antialiasing is much much better than before (smile).

PC Games Hardware: When benchmarking Metro 2033 we found out that the engine utilized more than four cores of multicore CPUs if we were using the advanced PhysX effects on CPU, so you are utilizing Nvidias PhysX SDK 3.x? Will all the advanced PhysX effects only be available in PC version?

Oles Shishkovtsov: That's the common misconception that PhysX 2.X cannot be multithreaded. Actually it is internally designed to be multithreaded! The only thing – it takes some programmer time to enable that multi-threading (actually task generation), mostly to integrate with engine task-model and ensure proper load-balancing. So, 2033 used PhysX 2.8.3, and Last Light uses similar, a slightly modified version at the time of writing. And yes, advanced PhysX effects will be available only on PC.

PC Games Hardware: As above mentioned in Metro 2033 especially the DX11 render path took even high end cards to their limit of performance. Have you as a consequence of this tried to optimize the graphics part of the engine for speeding up the rendering with the help of DX11 features (e.g. computer shader or driver multithreading)? Can you already tell us if Metro Last Light will offer new DX11-Features that were not integrated in the renderer of the predecessor? Can you give us an overview which visual features will be only rendered with DX11?

Oles Shishkovtsov: We utilized compute shaders in one more place (2033 already used compute shaders). Regarding the performance, the interesting thing is that we have improved graphics in almost all places, but the performance is still on 2033-level, and even better in many places. Actually, until you turn on tessellation/displacement it is the same. That's because a lot more content is tessellated and displaced comparing to 2033. Regarding features, I'd rather say that we improved all the features like added Bokeh for DOF, implemented physically based SSAO or much better reflections.

PC Games Hardware: In Metro 2033 you can choose between DX9, DX10 and of course DX11. What visual and performance differences exist among these APIs and which effects are possible or not? Last but not least: Please tell us your favorite optical highlight.

Oles Shishkovtsov: DX9 mode disables a lot of stuff, and it is fastest by default. But if you turn off all API specific effects, all APIs will run at similar framerates on equal hardware, except that DX11 will be slightly faster. Regarding the effects, around 50% of all improvements will be visible in DX9 mode, +30% in DX10 and another +20% in DX11.

 

[Malo]

Actually, until you turn on tessellation/displacement it is the same. That's because a lot more content is tessellated and displaced comparing to 2033.

Nice to see they're doing a combination of tessellation and displacement, I assume depending on what is needed for the surface. A lot more content tessellated I hope doesn't mean Jersey Barrier Syndrome.

 

[pjbliverpool]

Great to see a benefitial DX10 path as well as DX11. Seems like they are pully out all the technical stops with this game. I just hope the graphics live up to the spec sheet.

 

[Man from Atlantis]

:/

Metro: Last Light delayed until 2013

I wonder any relations with Kepler launch particularly the bigGK