CryEngine 3 equal to CryEngine 2 'medium' settings, comparison video reveals

You're forgetting your $1500 on a decent large screen 1080p TV. My PC was $1200 a year ago, and it runs Crysis maxed.

...in terms of hardware.

Fortunately for us, console gamers, what matters is the software.

@Ashitaka
I lol'd. No.

If most people don't want it or don't care about it, fine. But for those that do want all that, they have the option, they have the choice which is nice.

But you only need to spend 500-600 to get great performance..

Except you don't have to pay close to $2000 more, its a tired, old misconception among the console guys.

Of course, PC and console gamers usually are very different people. I understand how console gamers want to pop in the disc and play. I also understand the satisfaction of tweaking the OS, drivers, installing a new videocard and seeing your performance increase.

Its just like people who buy a regular sedan and just want it to work, whereas there are other who trick out their cars and take all that effort but also enjoy the process and end result.

Both types of gaming are great.

This entire video made no sense i dont know why joystiq posted it... i mean realistically....
CRYENGINE 3 isn't done, also cryengine 3 from what i've heard will also be on PC as well so its xbox/pc/ps3

so A. we dont know how scalable cry3 is or how the console versions will be once the engine is fully tweaked out and tuned.

2006 maxed out PC was a lot better than a 6 series

Quite the opposite in fact, you're the one who is wrong.

Right now there are multiplatform games that require at least a 8800GT to perform as well as an Xbox 360, and it's not because they're coded poorly.

It comes down to how efficient consoles are, of course, but in no way are we getting 6800-level graphics on the consoles now, even when they came out and developers didn't know them as well they were far above that point.

The GPU in the 360 and the PS3 is somewhat above the 7900-series on a raw technical level, and of course they're going to exceed that level out of pure efficiency.

Cammy, remember also that most 360/PS3 games run at 1280x720 or even a bit lower like Call of Duty 4 and Halo 3 at their true native resolution, they can only be upscaled to 720P or 1080P. You have to take resolution, anti-aliasing and other factors into account when comparing how a PC videocard performs with the GPUs in the consoles.

Also, the PC is running Windows and other applications and processes at the same time unlike a console so of course there is performance loss and overhead.

Arkanaloth,

I'm sure Jester would disagree with you.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/30843645@N04/3461763010/sizes/l/

Or, maybe you'd like to speak to Prophet about how "darn good" Xbox 360 and PS3 games look.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/30843645@N04/3343396583/sizes/l/

Hell, why not conjure up Aztec while we're at it?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/30843645@N04/3231930739/sizes/l/

I have a gaming rig, Xbox 360, PS3, and a Wii (as well as all last gen systems except for a Dreamcast). As much as I love my consoles, even their most touted exclusives look like f*cking eyesores after a quick session with my gaming rig; the lack of texture filtering in Gears of War 2 made me want to scoop my eyes out with a spoon and the low-res environmental textures and lack of AA in MGS4 stuck out like a right-wing hate monger at a peace rally (to be fair, MGS4 couldn't have AA implemented because it uses HDR lighting and runs at a native 1080p). Good enough for the general population is mediocre to the rest of us.

Great to see your posts again Jackal, I wish you would post here more on Joystiq. : )
I had found out my Asus P6T motherboard just died, wasn't my ram, PSU, etc. I stupidly bent the CPU pins on it and the repair was expensive so I just bought another mobo. At least my PC is working again. : )

Can't wait for Crysis 2!

daynightnoon,

Jealous? We PC gamers aren't jealous, we're worried. We're worried that Crysis 2 is going to be castrated in some way (either in dumbed down gameplay or Crytek not making the most out of their new engine) just so it can run within the constraints imposed by the technical sloppy seconds my hardware industry of choice all but gave yours 3-4 years ago. Given that the Crysis, despite being almost 2 years old, still looks better than the Cryengine3 tech demo featured on the current crop of consoles at GDC, you don't have all that much to celebrate over.

daynightnoon,

"Jackal, if your so happy about your pc" I'm gonna stop you right there. While my rig isn't quite as nice as Cosmos', I positive it'd peel yours open like a soft shell crab and wear the bloody carcass as a trench coat before going on its merry way; how's that sound? I've played Crysis from start to finish, numbnuts, with image quality settings that make your most beloved console exclusives look comparatively meak (as the screenshots I posted above show) at a native resolution that'd set your PS3 and/or Xbox 360 on f*cking fire if they tried pulling off the same feat.

"You make no sense get over the fact that they're going to make it multi-platform and they want to make more money for they're hard work!" I've accepted the fact it's going multiplatform and I have never once complained about that here or anywhere else. All I've said, and it's a legitimate concern, is that Crytek will either nerf the gameplay in someway (in very much the same way Monolith did with FEAR2) or that they won't bother pushing their new engine anywhere near as hard as they did the previous iteration thanks to the constraints of technologically castrated, 4 year old hardware. I'm not expecting the same massive leap we all saw from Cryengine to Cryengine2, but I will be more than disappointed if Crysis 2 looks no better than a game I've been playing for almost a year because it was dumbed down for people like you.

"Put your teeth back in your skull for a moment and realize its possible to make a game for consoles that was only previous to pc's" I never said it wasn't possible, I'm saying it's not possible to do so while preserving the same level of image quality. Unless it's a horrible port, the PC version of a game will always be visually superior to its console brothers. Always. Setting aside the fact our hardware can actually play a recent game at a resolution higher than 1280x720 without dipping below 30 FPS at some point, we frequently enjoy: better lighting effects, higher resolution textures, and we have the benefits of any number of AA filters (MSAA, FSAA, CFAA, and/or Edge AA) as well as texture filtering. And, just so you know, I could run Doom 3 on a dinosaur of a system packing a Voodoo 2; just because you can run a game on a crippled hardware configuration doesn't always mean you should.

"Only because pc's come out with crap everyday." Really? NVIDIA's more recent GT200 (GTX 260-285) was released almost 16 months after it introduced its first DX10 performance part (G80 back in late 2006); there was a similar amount of time between the release of ATI's R600 and RV780 architectures. It took NVIDIA a year to release a refresh of G80 (in the form of G92) and from that point on, we've received refreshes around 6 months after a new architecture is introduced; there are slight performance enhancements to be found, but a refresh usually has lower power consumption and is, more importantly cheaper. If you bought a Geforce 8800 GTX back in 2006, guess what? Only three or four games in the entire market aren't playable at 1920x1200 with every image quality setting maxed out.

And, just to be clear, just because a new card comes out doesn't mean you have to immediately go out and buy one (people like you don't seem to freaking understand this concept, though). "but consoles come out every 5 to 10 years". I'm gonna take a stab here and say that's largely because they are usually sold at a loss for the first 2-3 years of a cycle (unless, of course, you've thrown a marginally faster refresh out the door like Nintendo did); PC hardware is, barring aggressive price cuts due to competition, is profitable from day one.

"Also ps3 broke the record that pc's could not do previously with folding home so shove off and they still have guiness WORLD record." Really? That 2 teraflop count every quotes for the PS3 was a best case, max theoretical for an application built specifically for that console; it comes nowhere near that close in reality, dumbass, even for the PS3 F@H client. My HD 4870 XOC has a better real world flop count than a GTX 280 does (1.2 teraflops vs. 950+ gigaflops) yet it doesn't manage to score anywhere near as well in F@H (a GTS 250/Geforce 9800 GTX has similar F@H performance to my card despite being almost half as fast). Goes to show how F@H isn't exactly the best metric for performance now, doesn't it?

"this lovely message was sent to YOU with my blu ray ps3 asshole" Oh, good for you. Apparently you glossed over the fact I've got every current gen console on top of the gaming rig. Oh...I'm sorry...did I take the sting out your little insult?

daynightnoon,

"bluray is superior to your little games that run on dvd" Now here's the point I'm gonna hand your ass to you. Your argument only holds true when comparing the PS3 to other consoles, only because you're playing the game from the optical disc in your drive; this is why, beyond save data, nothing is actually moved onto an Xbox 360, PS3, or Wii's internal/external storage when popping a game in and it goes to show why the mandatory "installs" required from PS3 games were there to simply bypass the BD-ROM's relatively low seek times (this is why an install typically took 4-8 GBs instead of the full 15 or 20 a game might be since you're still playing the title from your disc drive). As for the wonders of blu-ray storage capacity in the PS3, most games that fill or come remotely close to filling a blu-ray disc: have uncompressed CGI (the pre-rendered cutscenes of Insomniac's next-gen forays), have hours of uncompressed audio (like the 8 hours of uncompressed static audio found in MGS4), and/or the publisher decided to simply throw all of the regional versions of that specific game onto one disc so they didn't have to release four separately. They're hardly an achievement worth of praise coming from my platform of choice.

I digress. This isn't how PC gaming works, you stupid cunt, and why we simply just can't pop in a disc and play it right there. All of the game's assets (CGI, audio, textures, EVERYTHING) must be installed to the HDD and, while the game's disc might only be a dual layer DVD, the actual folder it resides in can come in well north of 10 GBs (GTA IV has an 18 GB installation, Age of Conan weighs in at 25). Rage is expected to exceed 25 GBs worth of HDD space when it's eventually released.

This isn't a problem for us simply because storage isn't an issue; every PC gamer has either an HDD or SSD of a decent capacity and, if they don't, they can simply expand their storage capacity with extra drives or upgrade to something with more space (PC gamers typically do both at some point). Considering a quality 500 GB HDD can be had for less than $60 and TB drives can be had for around $100, I'd say the cost is more than reasonable. While a developer might be limited to however much space an optical disc may offer on a console (and it's been an oft discussed concern amongst them) or worry about the size of the HDD found on a console's lowest end SKU, they've don't run into these walls on our platform; they can make a PC game as large as the want to knowing we'll simply increase our storage capacity in order to accommodate their product.

There is only one reason to have a disc in a DVD-rom or BD-ROM (yes, we can buy those too) while playing a game and that is to simply comply with copyright protection (specifically disc-based authentication). This is why Crysis needed to have the DVD in the drive but why Crysis Warhead (which used SecuROM instead of disc checking) or Crysis Wars (which has no DRM to my knowledge) didn't. In fact, no game using SecuROM requires the user to have the disc in drive. It's also why nearly all of the games that use Steam as DRM don't require a disc in drive but need the Steam client open to be played.

"What are u afraid of someone making you look like an idiot?" An inbred simpleton from the deepest, most forgotten bog in the deep south named Ferv would be more successful at trying to insult my intelligence than you possibly could (as evidenced by your piss poor grammar). And, for the record, I have Blu-ray movies and I do see an appreciable difference over DVD. For games? Not at all. Until you can show me a single console game that can run at a higher native resolution than 1280x720 with AA, 16x antiscoptic texture filtering, HDR lighting, truly high resolution textures, and do it all without grinding to an unplayable slideshow or burning your system to a smoldering ember, you've got absolutely nothing to brag about on a technical level.

I hate to say it, but if this is the best Joystiq now has for trolls, I wish Gundam would come back; he might've been a pompous ass, but he was a hell of a lot more intelligent than you'll ever be and arguing with him didn't make me feel like I was beating a mentally disabled toddler into unconsciousness.