Crytek says 360 and PS3 can't handle Crysis
by Joystiq Staff 
{ Aug 30th 2006 at 11:25AM }
Some news slipped out during the Leipzig convention in Germany that Crytek senior game designer Bernd Diemer said their upcoming first-person shooter Crysis was too über for the next-generation consoles -- the 360 and PlayStation 3 specifically. The heart of the matter related directly to DirectX 10 and it being the only way to truly unleash the beast behind this beautiful game.
Diemer was quoted as saying that "next generation consoles like the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3 do not offer the sufficient power" needed for some high-quality Crysis action. This news comes counter to the recent news that the Crytek team was looking for some PS3 worker bees for a possible Crysis port to the system. We may not see Crysis on the PS3, but it's still entirely possible we may see Crysis-like games in the future on Sony's console.
Reader Comments (Page 2 of 2)
atomos @ Aug 30th 2006 1:31PM
Yea I agree with you, that the articles are before the release, I haven't read any post release articles on the subject. I never made the comment and I dunno if a 1.7 celeron could run those games but a console is a closed platform, could they have afforded to stick in an athlon x2? Maybe thats why they all went ibm, is a 1.7 celeron enough in a closed platform?
Pretty Obvious @ Aug 30th 2006 1:46PM
Bottom line is... Those guys are full of shit. Half Life 2 which everybody said could not be run on current gen hardware was ported and was prob the best looking Xbox game ever released. Isnt Half Life 2 considered one of the most beautiful PC games? Yeah and its on the Xbox. This game will eventually make it over to the 360 and PS3, im sure EA will make this happen.
Ill never understand PC gamers and what justifies spending 500 to 1000 a year for gaming. This is why PC gaming is a niche market that will NEVER surpass console gaming. For about $500 every 4 to 5 years you get a console that you can enjoy on a couch in front of your HDTV with surround sound versus sitting at a desk in front of a monitor with a keyboard and mouse. The choice is pretty damn obvious.
spl1nter @ Aug 30th 2006 2:48PM
It's no big deal.
There's no point playing an FPS on a console anyway. Everyone knows you need mouse-look.
Scaught @ Aug 30th 2006 1:55PM
I think if a developer is good, they can make a FPS work on a console. I have no complaints with how Halo 2 handled.
Spoonard @ Aug 30th 2006 1:58PM
The same type of people that are gonna buy a PS3 are gonna buy a copy of Crysis. The hardcore gamers. I personally will be able to run Crysis with my video setup at on the highest settings, which should look pretty damn good. I'm lucky enough to have a job where I can buy a new pair of $500 video cards every 6 months. So, when they say Crysis will not be able to work on your precious 360 or your totally GAY PS3 because they have (in under a year) already been surpassed by the PC video card market (Remember, if your 360 or PS3 has a 5 year life cycle, you will be 5 generations behind the PC market by then) beleive it. Developers know what they are talking about moreso than you.
MosquitoControl @ Aug 30th 2006 2:01PM
With Dell's coupons, often $750 off $2000 or more, you can get a $1250 computer that will run any game very well for at least two years. My computer is still a beast and 18 months old. Dual monitor (one was included, one I had), what had been the top of the line graphics card, 2GB fast RAM, 250GB HD, DVD burner... the thing can keep up with pretty much anything outside of Crysis.
But I'm not surprised these consoles can't handle Crysis - the days of consoles besting PCs, if even for only a few months, are gone. PCs are much faster. And have more room. The Xbox couldn't handle Far Cry in its original form.
As for the quality of Crysis? Well, someone compared it to Doom 3. But id hasn't made a good single player game since Doom 2, and even that was only good because we didn't know better. Crytek made Far Cry, still regarded as one of the top 10 FPS games of all time. If they hold, Crysis will be right there with it.
Scaught @ Aug 30th 2006 2:02PM
Spoonard, I had no idea the PS3 was going to be totally gay. Are you trying to say that the PS3 will be really happy? Or are you saying that the PS3 is only into those of the same sex?
Josh @ Aug 30th 2006 2:02PM
Already outdated, and one isn't even out yet. That's why simply upgrading the specs of a console every five years is pointless. You wouldn't do it every five years on a PC, and it's not any different for these types of consoles.
Regardless, FPSs suck hard on consoles.
11010010 @ Aug 31st 2006 3:17AM
for the ones who don't believe it just by seeing a screenshot.. at http://www.gametrailers.com there is are different crysis-videos.. check out the details and the AI.. and then you are sure that the xbo360 or the ps3 might have some limitations..
http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?id=2509
CODPWNER @ Aug 30th 2006 2:22PM
One thing about people saying you need a top of the line computer every year are full of it. I have a 2+ year old computer that uses a 3400+ AMD64, X800XT, 1gig of RAM...this stuff today is worth maybe $400 today? And I can still play most if not all games today at more than acceptable settings...only thing giving me a slight issue is Oblivion, and even then its only in heavily dense out door areas. The 1.7ghz Celeron vs. Xenon thing I still call BS. OK, even if the Xenon was a Pentium 2, the raw 9.6ghz of power alone would out do a 1.7ghz Celeron by a wide margin despite the lack of SSE and 64-bit instruction. I find this claim completely unheard of, as I said, the ram ghz power alone will out do any Celeron.
Look here for some good info on the Xenon:
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/xbox360-2.ars
But like others here have said, this is already an issue on behalf of gaming consoles. As I said in my other post, 512mb should be enough if the game is coded and optimized correctly. But also keep in mind that the PS3 only has 256mb allocated for video where as the 360 can use as much of the 512mb of RAM as the developer sees fit, ontop of its few DX10 features.
But as with all things envolving consoles these days, we can only say so much...we havent seen anything yet.
Steve @ Aug 30th 2006 2:29PM
9.6ghz of RAW POWER? Ahahahaha... I hope that was sarcasm. You mean 3.2 crippled ghz. Both consoles have mid-range (i.e. the 7600gt class) graphics subsystems, and their CPUs (both have the PPE as their main core) are crappy at everything except graphics. In a game like Crysis, I would hope that it just isn't the graphics that are enhanced, but other things like physics and AI... and something that the 360 or PS3 can't do - decent controls in an FPS game.
Perhaps you should read the conclusion article of the same article you posted.
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/xbox360-2.ars/7
"Like the Playstation 3's Cell processor, the Xbox 360's Xenon processor represents a fundamentally different approach to performance than that which characterized the previous generation of consoles—and the previous generation of PCs for that matter. The Xbox 360 will rely on multithreading and procedural synthesis to make visual environments that are more immersive than anything that's possible on the present generation of either game consoles or PCs. Still, with all that pixel-pushing power at its disposal, there are a few probable flies in the Xbox 360 ointment.
Rumors and some game developer comments (on the record and off the record) have Xenon's performance on branch-intensive game control, AI, and physics code as ranging from mediocre to downright bad. Xenon will be a streaming media monster, but the parts of the game engine that have to do with making the game fun to play (and not just pretty to look at) are probably going to suffer. Even if the PPE's branch prediction is significantly better than I think it is, the relatively meager 1MB L2 cache that the game control, AI, and physics code will have to share with procedural synthesis and other graphics code will ensure that programmers have a hard time getting good performance out of non-graphics parts of the game.
Furthermore, the Xenon may be capable of running six threads at once, but the three types of branch-intensive code listed above are not as amenable to high levels of thread-level parallelization as graphics code. On the other hand, these types of code do benefit greatly from out-of-order execution, which Xenon lacks completely, a decent amount of execution core width, which Xenon also lacks; branch prediction hardware, which Xenon is probably short on; and large caches, which Xenon is definitely short on. The end result is a recipe for a console that provides developers with a wealth of graphics resources but that asks them to do more with less on the non-graphical side of gaming.
At any rate, Playstation 3 fanboys shouldn't get all flush over the idea that the Xenon will struggle on non-graphics code. However bad off Xenon will be in that department, the PS3's Cell will probably be worse. The Cell has only one PPE to the Xenon's three, which means that developers will have to cram all their game control, AI, and physics code into at most two threads that are sharing a very narrow execution core with no instruction window. (Don't bother suggesting that the PS3 can use its SPEs for branch-intensive code, because the SPEs lack branch prediction entirely.) Furthermore, the PS3's L2 is only 512K, which is half the size of the Xenon's L2. So the PS3 doesn't get much help with branches in the cache department. In short, the PS3 may fare a bit worse than the Xenon on non-graphics code, but on the upside it will probably fare a bit better on graphics code because of the seven SPEs."
Anandtech said similar things. Developers, if you talk to them behind closed doors, will tell you the same. Graphics aren't the only part of the game, and for the other parts the 3.2ghz PPE in the 360 and PS3 stink.
Magus @ Aug 30th 2006 2:30PM
Yes, I too can create a pong that will not run on a PS3 or a 360, if i get creative enough youd be lucky to get 1 fps out of it on a serious gaming machine.
The monstrosity is simple poor programming/design.
herman @ Aug 30th 2006 4:11PM
There is no way tro compare consoles and PC's fairly. Let Sonyt build me a 1500.00 PS3 and then compare it to a 1500 computer. The PS# or Xbox would crush it. Yes, PC's always pass by consoles, but at what cost? PC games are the most inefficiently coded things I have ever seen. The 360 can get by with only 512 of ram, but a pc needs 2 gigs? Oblivion is nice on the PC, but with the requirements it has, you would think it would be even better. That is the problem with PC gaming. It takes serious cash to play the best games the platform has to offer. With a console, once you buy it, you know you can play every game made for it, no matter how good or bad it is. Buy an average PC today, and a game like Crysis that everybody want s to play requires you to buy Vista for DX10, a DX10 compatible card, and possibly more ram. I am testing Vista here at my job, and it is a resource hog. I respect PC gamers, but the constantly escalating cost is a main barrier to most people. Maybe this is why Mark from Epic was mad. Most PC owners with their current machines cannot play the new hot game. No wonder thaey all make console games now.
Doom3 @ Aug 30th 2006 2:35PM
LOL Man the comments are pretty funny. Of course the PS3 can do these thype of graphics... wait i', sorry the RSX isn't a direct x 10 card...LOL So hold up If Direct x is MS's baby how come they didn't have sense enough to make the 360 direct x 10 compatiable? WOW ok who dropped that ball? This article isn't really about horsepower is it? The direct x spec calls for chip wired instructions to do these effects. I mean in theory the 360 could pull off some of that stuff with it's crazy frame buffer right? The Cell with the RSX could at least let you get close to that right? It sounds like the next generation came too earlier. Looks like sony should have waited for direct x to drop, MS too for that matter... but what if MS knows a way to get this to work? Maybe in SD resolution...LOL Maybe...
To answer some of the gamers questions... why is this such a big deal?... Yeah it looks good but is it fun?... Well you all are missing the point... Most 3d packages can't even display art like that in the viewport! This tech is a big step for graphics. I mean unreal engine 3 is good but this engine is stupid good... So really this means that direct x 10 is going to be a true next gen api. Thats what all the hoopla is about. This is great to hear for pc gaming and for the DCC CGI apps across the globe. With Amd purchasing ATI and Intel hiring guys for extreme graphics... I think the 500 dollar PC powered by driect x 10 is going to reach the sub 500 dollar level... if reports of on die GPU, CPU, FPUs are true.
Progress is always cool.
darryl @ Aug 30th 2006 2:45PM
"Crytek says 360 and PS3 can't handle Crysis"
Well duh! Neither can a $600 PC. How much money do I have to spend to play this game at it's full potential?
Besides, if there were a PS3 port, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between it and the PC version anyway.
[-Z-] @ Aug 30th 2006 5:29PM
Nonsense, maybe if they optimize their code good enough instead of sloppy port. I think that XBOX360 and PS3 might have a chance, maybe just doesnt look as good.
Jigen @ Aug 30th 2006 3:01PM
There are so many frothing fanboys here (but not just here). Consoles outdated by the time they're released? That must be why PCs struggle to run 1st gen 360 games like GRAW and King Kong Gamer's Edition.
The only reason SOME 360 titles don't look as good as their PC counterparts is they're ports from PC games. Oblivion for example had much, much more time in development for PC than the 360 version.
The same is also true with games like GRAW, because it wasn't optimized for PC either.
But I still don't see how anyone can call a 360 inferior to even current PCs when no PC GPU released to this date has all the graphics extentions that the 360 does, nor the high quality graphics in games...
Doom3 @ Aug 31st 2006 2:25PM
64:jigen
Ummm what is the 360 doing that my pc can't do right now? What are these extantions your talking about... mysteriously are these shaders? Plus read 59:steve hes on the money with the ppe's in these system suck at branch prediction
nalgae @ Aug 30th 2006 3:14PM
>Jigen
Might want to check your facts before you spout out nonsense.
GRAW runs easily above 50fps on my x1900xt at 1280x1024. GRAW is probably less demanding than FEAR. King Kong I know nothing about, so I won't comment.
As for Oblivion, it was developed for the 360 and PC concurrently. The #1 complaint from PC gamers was the crappy ass menu system, which was optimized for the 360 controller instead of mouse/keyboard. Luckily, PC Oblivion players have an active modding community that fixed all of this, while at the same time providing mods better than the official ones (ie replacement terrain textures that are 2048x2048 instead of 1024x1024).
And please, stop trying to say your 360 is graphically superior. It's a decent console with some good games on it, but it will never be able to outpace a high end PC graphics wise.
Scaught @ Aug 30th 2006 3:24PM
Until Guitar Hero comes out for the PC, I will always believe that consoles are the way to go!!!
Arch @ Aug 30th 2006 4:11PM
sigh ive alrady gone through this. Crytek devs are just ignorant pc fanboys and thats all.
"but but but i trust devs more tha nyou!!11"
thats nice heres a link
http://xbox360.qj.net/Why-the-absence-of-DirectX-10-on-the-XBOX360-won-t-matter/pg/49/aid/63216
the 360 can run crysis and so can the PS3 in its form right now and even better.
it cant run the DX10 version because itsn ot DX10 but it can still replicate the SAME EFFECTS OF DX10.
DX10 IS A PC API.
sigh crytek, guilty guilty guilty.
KR @ Aug 30th 2006 4:45PM
"And please, stop trying to say your 360 is graphically superior. It's a decent console with some good games on it, but it will never be able to outpace a high end PC graphics wise."
The 360 is graphically superior to most PCs out there right now. The only people who have better looking games on their PCs are the small niche market of hardcores - you know, the hardcores that support the pathetic, tiny-by-comparison PC gaming community?
Enjoy your pretty pictures that you shelled out 2000 bucks for, geeks. While you're digging through your couch for nickels to save up for that new $500 graphics card you'll need in 10 months, I'll enjoy having a cheaper, more fun experience with a much larger variety of games.
Sagan @ Aug 30th 2006 4:54PM
@#2
Core 2 Duo E6300: 175€
Some Mainboard for it: 80€
1 Gig of DDR2-667 Ram: 80€
Geforce 7600 GT 150€
All the other parts can be kept from your old computer.
Money spent: 485€
You can probably play Crysis on High Detail with this machine (or on the second highest setting at least) without antialiasing or anisotropic filtering at a reasonable resolution. It should be possible to get all of the components cheaper than what I listed. If you want to play Crysis on the highest setting you can spend more on the graphics card, and you will still spend less than you would on a PS3. But there aren't any DX10 cards out right now so it would be best to buy this graphics card and upgrade in 1,5 years.
And no, I did not cheat by saying "you can use all the other components from your old computer" - That's simply the advantage of a computer.
nalgae @ Aug 30th 2006 5:03PM
I love how people think everyone is as poor as themselves and have to dig under a couch for money.
Try getting a real job. I make 80k a year programming in .NET (usually C++ or C#). I'm not bragging, that's just the average salary for a programmer with 4-5 years of experience in LA. A CS graduate can easily find a 60k a year job. 10 years, and you can make 100k+. For my 80k figure, subtract 30k a year in living expenses and about 20k in taxes and I have 30k a year to spend. I'm sure I should be saving up for a house or something, but 500 dollars to upgrade my graphics card every year is really not that much.
I'm sure you enjoy your cheaper experience. I don't always go for a filet mignon, I admit. Sometimes a rib-eye is just as tasty, thought much more fattening. You can enjoy your Big Mac. It's cheap, filling, quick and good bang for the buck.
And smaller PC gaming community? Try this: Get the number of CURRENT subscribers to WoW. This is one game we're talking about. Now compare that to total number of 360s sold. Thank you, and good night. 3.5 million WoW subscribers. 5 million Xbox 360s sold.
Variety of games? You see, the thing about the 360 is, is that it's comprised mostly of games that also appear on the PC. What exclusives do you have? Now what exclusives do you have, that are actually good? For everyone one you name, I will name a Civ 4, a Spore, a Crysis, etc.
Cheaper experience? No doubt. More fun? Only if you disregard other good games that don't appear on your platform.
logikil @ Aug 30th 2006 5:14PM
@Nalgae
I'm a PC gamer as well as a console gamer, but you can't really use that WoW comparison to the Xbox360. WoW can play on a system that is far less superior, in a game sense, to a 360. Lets try that same comparison with say a PS2 or Xbox. Wow Subscribers 6 million (and i'm going to give you 6 million because i saw a recent figure that pegged the subscriber level that high) Ps2/Xbox owners 130+ million. Trust me I dig on PC gaming too, but you can't even remotely compare the number of PC gamers to console gamers. PC gaming gets eclipsed.
As to your PC titles:
Civ 4: Most strategy games dont translate well to console (RTS and standard strategy, regardless of how LOTR:BFME2 came out)
Spore: Will Wright is going to put this everywhere. It will be the new Sims.
Crysis: That remains to be seen. I would be willing to bet it hits consoles regardless of what this guy says.
Steve @ Aug 30th 2006 5:25PM
"the 360 can run crysis and so can the PS3 in its form right now and even better."
What a misguided young lad. It couldn't run Crysis in its current form, not even close. Could it be ported? Yeah... Just as Doom 3 would run on the XBox downgraded (with quite a difference) and the same reason that the Wii's version of CoD 3 doesn't look as good. The hardware isn't there to backup the demand of not only the visuals, but some of the content.
"360 - it cant run the DX10 version because itsn ot DX10 but it can still replicate the SAME EFFECTS OF DX10."
No, call it direct x 9.2 or something, but it can't replicate the same effects. It has some of the extra features that might end up in the final DX10, but it has nowhere near the complete package.
To those of you who think that the 360 and PS3 aren't already outdated (they contain mid-level GPUs, think 7600gt crippled with 128bit memory architectures) just look at the difference.
Gears of War, considered by many to be the best on the 360 right now... It was REALLY hard to find a NON-BULLSHOT of this game, because all of the cutscene shots are touched up. Here's the only Gameplay shot I could find that didn't have extreme amounts of post prouduction:
http://media.xbox360.ign.com/media/747/747891/img_3573911.html
I couldn't find any shots of Metal Gear Solid 4 or FFXIII that were in-game, so let's move onto the Assasin's Creed shots that people are gawking over. Unlike many of the PS3 photos and game previews, these are at least in-game and undoctored.
http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/772/772025/img_3863110.html
And then, Crysis... self-explanatory:
http://media.pc.ign.com/media/694/694190/img_3577746.html
Subnet6 @ Aug 30th 2006 5:32PM
"I have this concern because this is from the makers of Far Cry which was pretty to look at (at the time), but a joke to play through."
Somebody needs to try far cry on "realistic".
I remember the first time I played far cry and the group of guys I was stalking noticed me and then retreated, flanked, and snuck up behind me, I about shit my pants.
It was a great game. No need to retroactively insult it simply because the guys are crytek pissed you off by dissing your console of choice.
I disagree that the PS3 and 360 couldn't run Crysis, but who cares, these guys are just running their mouths.
That being said, I can't wait for Crysis on PC. I wouldn't buy a high end shooter for the console anyway. Thats just my personal choice.
dolemite @ Aug 30th 2006 7:22PM
@72:
Also add the cost of Vista, a new power supply as my old one is not strong enough, and a new mouse, as the one that came with my Dell is not good for games.Yes, I said a Dell. Most pc's sold are not game machines, so that person who wants to play Crysis has to basically start from scratch and buy everything new. Unless they are already a hardcore PC gamer. That is the problem with games like Crysis, they are targeted to that niche of people like Nalgae @73. I am not poor, and I am the hardware manager in my IT department,but I get to see how much this stuff is costing and I decided to opt out of PC gaming. More and more people are beginning to feel this way. And before you all mention the price of the 360 or PS3, for the price of admission with them I can play every game for the system, not just Crysis,for the next 5-8 years. What happens next year when Nvidia or ATi comes out with another mega video card? Or ID or Epic has a new engine that recommends the latest? One of the main problems with PC games (this comes from a friend of mine at Epic) is that the developers are making their games using the latest and greatest hardware, so they do not try to make the game run on lesser stuff. Why shoud they, when you all will just dump your old stuff and break out the plastic to keep up?
But I ain't hatin, if your pockets can support your habits and you're not robbin' me for the money, then go head player!
Arch @ Aug 30th 2006 5:44PM
steve you STUPID fanboy. "360's DX is like 9.2 or something" wth are you on about?
CRYSIS IN ITS CURRENT FORM IS STRICTLY DX9!
and both the 360s GPU and Ps3s are MUCH more powerful than the 7600. LOL!
READ THE ARTICLE! YOU OBVIOUSLY DIDNT UNDERSTAND IT.
and it can replicate the effects. read the dam narticle.
and nice try on bashing gears of war. hey heres an idea next time why dont you pick the game GUN and say itst heb est the 360 can do. then ill i wont post anything, and you can STFU.
nalgae @ Aug 30th 2006 5:47PM
>logikil
Thanks for the civil response.
As for the WoW comparison, I only brought that up because he was attempting to say PC gaming was a small community, only supported by hardcore players. The PC gaming community has far more casual players than the console gaming community does, simply by means of convenience: everyone has a computer, why not download and play Maple Story for free? Many of my female friends would never touch a console, but play Maple Story for that very reason. Now, if he would have said HARDCORE PC gaming was a small community, I'd give that to him.
But it'll be interesting to see how console and PC gaming change over the next few years. Yes, last generation, there were many console owners. But those consoles have had how many years? In addition, if you factor in the other popular titles such as Sims and Sims 2 for the PC, the number of PC gamers is incredibly high. If you factor in Freecell... well, haha. This generation, the high prices will certain alienate many gamers. Perhaps the Wii will be able to offset this, but only time will tell..
As for myself, I own a PS2, for the PS2 exclusive titles. SoTC, the GGXX series, FFX, Xenosaga, etc. I am in no one against console gaming. I'm simply saying that console gaming, graphics-wise, is inferior to PC gaming.
And as for Spore, the console versions will invariably be more "nerfed" versions, such as they did with The Sims 2 and all other iterations of console Sims. Though the original PC versions all garnered high praise, the console versions didn't fair so well, due to lack of features and, of course, customization.
Steve @ Aug 30th 2006 6:16PM
I'm not talking about the dev version of Crysis, I'm talking about the final version. Besides, neither console could handle Crysis in its current DX9 form, let alone what it turns out to be. It would most definately have to be downgraded, just like companies like EA and Ubisoft are downgrading some of their ports for the Wii, which doesn't have the same amount of graphics headroom as the others. It's exactly the same thing. Current PCs (be it Core 2 Duo, P4D > 3ghz, or Athlon X2's) with high-end GPUs can mop the floor with either the PS3 or the 360. The reason things require more memory and bandwidth on PC is because of the massive OS overhead.
Don't call me a stupid fanboy, when I can easily hypothesize that you (with your negative star) are trying to defend a product of which you have no idea what's inside. You have been fed the company lines of "uber graphics, teraflops!!!!oneone!!!!shift!!!" in these consoles...
In reality, yes, both the graphics architecture in the 360 and PS3 can be compared to mid-range GPUs (in memory bandwidth and capability) of today, the 360 having a slight edge in that it has a few extra features (why I said "DX9.2" in a joking fashion) and of course 10mb embedded dram... This was supposed to be to alleviate some AA penalty, but it can't be done. The 360 can't do FSAA without a big penalty, because 10mb isn't enough to apply that AA to the full screen without penalty. In order for anyone to do AA on the 360 using this 10mb framebuffer, they have to use "tiled AA", which unfortunately none of these next-gen engines is capable of (including Unreal 3 Engine in Gears of War or the next gen version of Renderware etc etc). These GPUs don't come anywhere NEAR the high end of PCs today (i.e. 7900gtx/x1900xtx) and they didn't compare to yesterday's either (7800gtx/x1800xt). If you think I'm pulling these numbers out of nowhere, go find a developer from a major company and ask them the same thing - you'll get the same answer.
SnapperDragon @ Aug 30th 2006 6:20PM
What is everyone all up in arms about?
So they make a dx10 game. OK, obviously, if you don't have a dx10 card (360/ps3) then you don't get those effects.
Yes, they are touting the game for the PC because right now there are just not enough next gen systems out there to make this game sell very well. Let's see...0 PS3's, and what...4 or 5 million 360's. So, yeah, let's hype up the pc-ness of this game and maybe catch the hard-core pc gamers and get them excited about buying a new dx10 vid card and using vista (like the ps3, it's not out yet).
Anyway, who cares. The graphics battle will never end and it is a constant upgrade cycle. PC gamers decide for themselves when they are ready to go with an upgrade and spend the money.
As for consolers...just remember what you had available the previous gen and what you have now and be thankful. It's a huge improvement. However, you can never keep up to date with the PC side of things as far as power goes, so be happy that your console will keep your hardware costs down for the duration of it's lifecycle.
And it's not like it's an exclusive thing, if you can afford it and want to, get a PC and pack it full of whatever hardware you can afford.
Lloyd Dobler: I got a question. If you guys know so much about women, how come you're here at like the Gas 'n' Sip on a Saturday night completely alone drinking beers with no women anywhere?
Joe: By choice, man.
vaylen @ Aug 30th 2006 8:09PM
"it's still entirely possible we may see Crysis-like games in the future on Sony's console."
I think the Naughty Dog game in development certainly fits that category.
nalgae @ Aug 30th 2006 8:59PM
>dolemite
I buy the latest and greatest card for 450 every year. I sell last year's latest and greatest for 300.
150 a year. Over 4 years, that will match the price of the PS3.
Graphic cards are the main factor in PC gaming. An Athlon 3500+ from years ago will handle FEAR at 1600x1200 as long as you have the vid card. 2GB of RAM has lasted me the past 8 years. Other than that, every other part of the PC you already have, just like you don't include the TV in the price of the PS3.
And, as I stated before, beyond Crysis, you have games like Civ 4 and Warcraft III which dont' require the latest hardware and will last for years and years of fun. Heck, I still dip into Civ 3 sometimes. How many console games can stand that test of time? For me, Chrono Trigger is the only old game I ever revisit every few years. These days, most console games have low, low, low replay value.
Uh_Oh @ Aug 30th 2006 9:00PM
I have a fast pc and a nice hdtv (sony) but i have no desire to buy a ps3.
Johan Krger-Haglert @ Aug 31st 2006 8:09AM
8) Except kick ass graphics I think the long (10 hours..) multiplayer sessions will be a lot of fun and a nice difference from the good old die 30 times in 5 minutes kind of FPSes.
Picks06 @ Aug 31st 2006 7:50AM
I've been a PC gamer for probably about 15 years now... The truth is, although I love playing PC games, you get caught up in a constant circle of upgrading all the time. I've just got fed up with it.
If I bought a top end card now that would run all the newest games with all the setting way up, I would also have a problem with DX10 compatibility with Vista coming out next year (as there are currently no available graphics cards at this time that support DirectX 10). How long would my new graphics card last me?
I don't think that buying a 360 was a bad decision. I know a lot of PC gamers are sceptical of the 360, and to be honest, so was I, but it's a really great gaming experience.
I'd also love to play Crysis, but not for the price of upgrading both my CPU and graphics card (or multiple of)... No way.
Picks06 @ Aug 31st 2006 7:58AM
#84
"These days, most console games have low, low, low replay value"
That's a very silly thing to say and I don't think I even need to explain why.
Evan @ Aug 31st 2006 9:21AM
Since this has turned into a PC-vs-console war...
Consoles are easy. I can drive down to Best Buy, pick up a 360, plug it into my tv, and be playing a game within half an hour. To play Crysis, I could ask the worker in BestBuy for their highest end PC, but other gamers would insult me and call me a "n00b" if I bought one of those systems. No, I have to research video cards online, and either order a system through mail-order or buy the parts from a shady OEM shop. If I buy the parts I have to pay the shop to assemble the computer, or assemble it myself. I've assembled my own PC before, that's not so bad. The annoying part is installing Windows, installing all the drivers, going online, downloading and installing updates. It takes hours! I could be getting drunk, f***ing my girlfriend, watching a game with the guys, or playing a game on a 360, anything other than sitting in front of my computer babysitting software installations.
But that's a one-time task (oh, I have to update my drivers?). Let's play a game. I turn on my 360, it's up and running within a few seconds. I insert a game disk, and it plays the game! I boot up a PC, it takes over 30 seconds for Windows to get moving. I insert a game disk, I have to install it to my harddisk, which means more sitting and waiting.
That's a lot of time and effort to play a game on a PC. Of course, hard-core PC-gamers thrive on the high entry-point. It's what separates the "1337" from the "n00bs". Forget the fact that have real-life friends, I own a Porsche, and I go SoloII racing on Sundays (that's real-life, helmets and all, not a video game). No, I'm the loser because I don't own an nVidia XYZ123 graphics card.
Hard-core PC-gamers can keep their Crysis, I prefer Guitar Hero anyway.
Ben Hobbs @ Aug 31st 2006 9:36AM
What?
You mean a $299 console doesn't have as much graphics power as a $2000 computer, Wow!
Of course PC's are always going to be ahead specs-wise they release new stuff every month, whereas a console has a single release date and a multi-year life span. It's fine if you have the money and enjoy updating firmware, drivers, deleting viruses and all that other fun PC stuff. Or what about some games that just don't work with your Graphics card/motherboard/memory combo, the beauty of the console is that every single one is based on the same design.
himura @ Sep 1st 2006 11:53PM
pc gaming is for the people into fps and rts, but let me ask, how many japanese devs out there release games SPECIFICALLY for the pc? we all know that the best games (in terms of gameplay,fun factor,inovation) come from the far east and the pc loses out big time in these areas. who cares if crysis is coming to the consoles or not? crytek will be eating ish when some jap/us dev releases a game that absolutley blows crysis grafx out the water, and i absolutley guarantee that this will happen. pc gaming is brute force, bigger the better, mines bigger than yours style gaming, boring. the more talented and elegant devs cater to the console, they see what the system can do and push it as hard as they can, find ways to create a special masterpeice, effects and a memorable experience. its almost like petrol guzzling muscle cars vs tech savvy turbos and such....
sure they both go the same speed but which is more economical?
Skrill @ Aug 31st 2006 6:52PM
It's these kind of games that will make me buy a new desktop PC with a top end graphics card.
Tony @ Sep 24th 2006 3:14PM
"19. In an age where Oblivion for PC easily uses 2GB RAM (and looks twice as good while doing it, versus the 360, mind you), I can see Crysis using at least 2GB, if not 4GB (if only because 3GB of RAM is technically not feasible for most, dual channel, for one). While owning a high-end PC and a 360, I can very much vouch for the fact that, while 360 games look great on my HDTV, my PC will always be able to produce much higher quality graphics (assuming certain hardware components stay current). This is more expensive, sure, but then we are slipping past the main arguement.
If you're bored and want to see me proven right, do the following:
-rob a bank for at least $2,000 cash money
-build a high-end system, and buy a spare 512MB RAM chip
-play Oblivion first with the 2GB, then with the 512MB
Even if you have high-end everything else, which is the case with the Xbox 360, your blatant lack of system memory (cutting Windows out and using less, or not, from the 360) is going to screw over Oblivion. This is one of the main problems with the Xbox 360 and probably will also be for the Playstation 3, only time will tell'
Dear lord, some one get this guy out of here!
If the pc needs at least 2gb of Ram to run oblivion then whats the point of getting it on the pc platform.
You could buy an xbox for the price of Corsair 2GB Ram !!! and have a full working Console, which will run oblivion fine. I have a high end pc, and am keeping my X1900XT as it can handle vista, but it can not handle DX10, does this bother me, Hell no!
As the xbox360 is ahead in my opinion, not in specs, minus the 3/3.2 cpus - But in bringing back the ease of gaming, just buy a system for less than 500£ and a few games, get setup on xboxlive(12 month sub) and your set to go. Fook the Dx 10, i couldnt give a monkeys about it, Xbox360 is gaming simplified, and that does it for me.
I'd rather spend less than £600.GBP than spend over £2,000BGP for some mega machine.
Also Take into account the Power Consumption of Direct X 10 G cards, Meh, Dudes your theory of just simply buying a new DX10 card is out of the Question, it has been said that, the new GPU's are going up by 300Watts on there own. If you have a 600watt psu, you are going to need a 900watt or more, just to handle these silly Dx10 cards.
If that doesnt piss you off, then this will:
ATi and Nvidia are saying, After 1 - 2 years they will be able to reduce the Power consumption that DX 10 CARDS take up, so in other words, you pay alot of money then they the newer cards come out that reduce the 300watt increase I MEAN DEAR LORD, WHAT IS GOING ON HERE !!.
Conclusion:
They are out to get your money, for no reason, only the Rich and idiots who simply don't have the knowledge will go for the DX10 option,
All this can be solved, JUST BUY A CONSOLE IDIOTS !!!
Scutt Farkas @ Oct 6th 2006 7:18PM
yoU CAN build a pc that can play crysis on high settings for 500 bucks, DUMBASS!!!!!
Tyrian @ Nov 14th 2006 9:03PM
Part of the point here may not be so much "can it be done" as "can it be done and still retain the look of the game". For example, many would argue that in porting HL2, the game took too heavy of a hit to it's graphics... as it is pale shades to the beauty of it's pc cousin, which even ran well on mid-end pc's.
I'd have to say that more than 3 great pc games are coming out this year... So there is three that you have heard of. Nothing is to say that the 100's for the console are going to be great either. The release list for PC holds many many titles, but not all are candidates for top billing... just as not all console games are pwningly awesome.
Just one game due to be released soon, UT2k7, could actually be considered a bunch of games, because of the proliferation of free mods to follow in its wake. In that same vein, there are many great free pc games (T:CE RTCW:ET Warrock etc.), as well as many great cheap pc games (lots of Steam titles, for example).
Media restrictions (such as disk price - esp. for blu-ray, anti-hack measures, etc on consoles) mean that the majority of the titles carry 50$ + price tags. (Not that all pc games are cheap, but most stay $49.99 usd and under, not counting Ltd Ed.)
My PC also makes a media center in a way my console can't, because my console is restricted to playing only the formats it comes with, which leaves out many codecs videos are encoded into now days (the mkv, divx, h.246, ogm, etc - although i haven't tested them all yet), as well as the ogg's of the audio world, and many lossless codecs.
Some of us choose to spend our hard earned monies into our pc. Some build/buy cars... you get the idea. Just because i play PC games doesn't mean i'm a fanboy. My 360 is plugged into my Dell LCD panel, a computer driven innovation that allows my console games to enjoy 1080p (which the 360 now supports) while i'm still on my messenger, surfing the web.
My pc helps me with things other than games, my console would as well if my pc wasn't a better choice for watching DVD's. (Heck, my surround sound output on my consoles goes through my pc soundcard to my speakers) so in that way, I enjoy the best of both worlds.
I'd also have to say that 2500$ a year on parts is something only someone who is dumb with their money could achieve. Lets look at it this way.
Fast processor: 250$ (C2D e6600)
Fast memory: 250$ (for 2 gig)
best mobo around: 200$
fast hdd: 100$ (for like 320gb seagate sata)
graphix: 300-500 (or lots less if you trade-up using any number of those programs that keep you in the tech for cheap)
and the top 4 of those oughta last you two years at LEAST and then you can make another pc outta them. Can't say as much for my console. (Yet.. anyway.. :D)
What about display, mouse, keyboard? Well, console gamers always seem to conveinently forget the occassionally staggering cost (what's a decent 1080p tv of good size run nowdays? 3k?) of their HDTV's and surround sound.
Yeah, you can use it for the long haul... but it won't be the BEST. Likewise, you can run these games on older pc's or cheaper parts, but it won't be the best.
Again to pretty obvious - if you don't understand PC gaming, you can't by any means fairly comment on. It's hard to give your observations on something you've never observed first hand.
If you look at it this way, you can budget that yearly pc upgrade with the change you can save from not subscribing to every channel on the dish, every option on your cellphone, the uber 10mbit line when you never do more than check your email and game, or that 5k top-of-the line TV when dropping 2 inches in size and getting the lcd (or rear projection, or dsp) instead of plasma would save 2k!
Many great games started out as mods, so to discount pc's also discounts those games that would not be possible without them. (uh... lets see... that would be just about... every game made?) as well as those advances pushed by the development of hardware for pc. Which is about every component of a console, from the GDDR used in the graphics chip, to the DX/OpGL used for the graphics, to the specs used in the in game sound, to the netcode used for Multiplayer, even the game optimized servers running your frag fest. All had their roots (heck, the ps3 gfx chip is a pc chip, and the 360 is just a modded one) in the pc world. So this PC innovation, is good for the console world. You think the 5 year console lifespan lends itself well to interim development? ... NO!
Support your pc gaming, ftw for both sides, support your console brethern for their ease of use and communication (xbox live, insert disk to play) that is coming to a pc near you!
The bottom line is the real winner is the person who can enjoy the best of both worlds to the best of their ability. Heck, there are several DOS games, and old PC/Console games i still love to death. Or, heaven forbid, I could go outside...
*shudders*
-Tyrian