Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst ... 3 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 104
  1. #51
    Elite Sage
    BBK..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol!!
    Age
    25
    Posts
    10,520
    Rep Power
    93
    Points
    53,124 (15,799 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    If they had made Crysis 2 all out like they made Crysis, 1) It wouldn't be able to run on any rig 3 years from launch. 2) They would've sold likely less than even previously (which was around 1m).

    Basically they lost a lot of money and I don't know what they're doing to compensate for that but I do know they initially meant to just build the engine to license other developers.

    So I don't think they would've gone all out again...if you remember, they specifically mentioned they wouldn't make a Crysis for consoles...then they did. Wonder why. They can't sustain if they made it specifically for the top-end PCs, Crysis couldn't be a more perfect example of what I'm talking about here.

    Now I can tell you without looking that both consoles likely sold Crysis 2, more even separately.

    That's the issue with PC you can never rid of.
    That's the problem that Crytek even addmitted with their own admission and seems to be a problem they fixed with Crysis 3.

    "I made a joke at one point saying, 'we're going to melt PCs,' and I think we are going to melt PCs again. People want that, and we'll deliver that."With Crysis 2 we tried to make the spec available to as many PC gamers as possible. Then we heard back from the loudest group, which was enthusiast PC gamers, 'our PCs are running this game at 200 frames. What the hell? We should be running at 30 frames.'
    "Crytek is probably the only company where you read forums and YouTube, people are excited if they can't run the game. I don't think it's like that at any other game company.
    "Our graphics programmers said, 'we're going to give them a game they can't run any more."
    Hypothetically speaking, a lot of console users that want games would obviously go to PC but as an industry, it'll be a bigger loss. And yes, trust me, you don't have to tell me how good PC is. I know how good it is, I've played countless games on it including RPGs. I would like Skyrim more on PC for sure and I hated it on the PS3 just because it was on a console, it just didn't work well.
    I don't think Skyrim, or any of the TES games are exactly bad games on console (i just think they're bad games full stop )but i do think the benefits of not only mouse+keyboard but also mods really shine on PC.

    That doesn't mean they can't make a good RPG on consoles, Bethesda just had a horrible execution of how they ported the game. It had enormous lag in controls likely due to graphics. Oblivion had the same problem.
    Clearly not, many great RPGs have been created on console, just needs the right developer to create it. Never played it but Dark Souls must've been one of the greatest games in recent years due to the following. My personal favourite has been The Witcher games, they've been up my street.

    Right but that's not what we're arguing about. We're arguing if low-end PCs hold back PCs or do consoles? I do think consoles do as well but that's a more indirect relation than something that's in direct relation. Console is holding back PC in games that weren't meant for PC to begin with.

    Low-end PCs are the primary reason PC games can never truly be utilized. While we can argue that it's still better than consoles...isn't that a little pointless when you're needing twice the hardware just to have the bells and whistles? Why do you think that is? Do you think that's because of consoles? I don't think so. It was there before, we just never noticed it until consoles came into the equation.
    Low end PC's do affect PC gaming but they don't affect them all that much. I'll tell you what affects a PC game more, when a game that was ported from console misses the basic features of a PC game. No video settings and capped frame-rates. though there have only been a few of those examples.

    While it will never be utilised, it doesn't need to be.

    So I'm not arguing about power, again, we're arguing about what truly holds back PCs and it's definitely not consoles.
    Definitely is a bit of a strong word. It holds is back, in extreme cases as i said above. Not always though.

    I honestly don't think the two games look worlds apart...some things definitely looked more improved and some a lot more improved...such as draw distance and explosions but really, what else do we have there? Better character models? Lighting? I wouldn't call those worlds apart...I wouldn't even think KZ:SF looks worlds apart...it looks really good for a launch title but trust me, we're going to see some amazing stuff after merely a year.
    I was actually very impressed with the 17 minute long video. Thought it looked better than BF3 in every possible way. Oh no doubt, for a launch title KZ:SF is going to be an amazing looking game. But i don't think it's going to be blowing anything on highend PC's out of the water. We'll see. I remember when people were comparing Killzone 2 to Crysis.

    You're speaking about extremists...that's not the casuals you speak of. And we don't know how many of them are out there, I'm thinking likely somewhere around 20 mil? Not counting farmville users that wouldn't buy an actual game or console.

    I think the reason why MMOs didn't really come out much on PS3/360 is due to 1) RAM 2) Updating system isn't there 3) Controls need to be optimized. Just off the top of my head, FFXI was popular on PS2 but I think it's risky at this moment to do something like this.

    I don't think we're going to see more MMOs on consoles this time around also but we will definitely see a lot more of it...I'm already hearing about MMOs and the console isn't even out yet. Not to mention, how many MMOs do we need anyway? Most aren't even that popular. I think we might see MMOs from Japanese developers...can't say why.
    I think there will be a few MMO's released on console this time around. I just don't expect them to be as indepth as a PC MMO.

    You're saying a low-end PC is more powerful than PS4? Based on?
    Maybe i didn't say it clear enough but what I meant was that low end PC's barely hold back High End PC's as it is so why would a low end PC hold back a PS4 what isn't as powerful as a high end PC. Not that low end machines are more powerful than the PS4, sorry.

    This video imo doesn't looks better than KZ:SF...did you forget the scene where they showed the city? Of course this is my opinion against yours but this game just doesn't blow away what we saw.

    That one? While it is a very good looking segment of gameplay, i'm more impressed by Crysis 3. I don't think people truly give Crytek credit for the technology they create. As it said it in another DF article, that is probably due to so few that are truly able to see Crysis as Crytek intended for it to look.

    Hah that it's running on an SLI configuration with two cards that alone are twice as power as PS4's GPU but guess why they don't wanna make 4x better-looking games...not even 2x...why do you think they don't want to? Anyone?
    It was actually 3 titans to keep it at 60fps at that resolution Either way, you challenged me to find a game that looks better and that is what I did, from my opinion anyway.
    Why would you need 4k or more resolution on a, more of less, 22 inch monitor? Are we talking about big-screen gameplay?
    I don't think there are any 4k monitors at that size, as nice as it would be. 4k screens really start at 27'' and above. But no, i'm talking about desk gameplay. As you are aware, the closer you sit to the desk the more a bigger resolution matters as it is right in your face. As soon as 2560x1440 becomes available in 120Hz (or if 4K was able to exceed 30fps) i'll be going for a 27'' size monitor, unless i find another amazing deal on 3 1920x1080 120Hz screens.

    I'm sure PCs will outpace KZ:SF but I have yet to see something that good. I honestly think Crysis 3 looks uglier than Crysis 1 but that's just me. I think KZ:SF definitely looks better, maybe it doesn't have the resolution or the frame rate but it was running on 2GB and it was alpha code.
    Each to their own I guess, that is just a testament to how good Crysis 1 looked really, a 5 year old game is still up there for visuals. I'm sure once the PS4 is out and KZ:SF has been released there will be countless comparisons over the internet of how the PS4 stacks up to a high end gaming machine. I still don't see them targetting anything past 30FPS but who knows, either way I will be impressed by it - only due to it being a launch game, not due to it being the best thing i've ever seen.

    I'm not arguing that PS4 will outpower top-end PCs in even 1-2 years in but it looks like the ball is in PC court atm.
    I don't think the PS4 will even outpower top-end PC's when it is released. It's the nature of PC gaming. Advancements happen all the time. Lets wait until multiplatform games are out, then we can judge. I know what you'll say - The PS4 won't be taken full advantage of because it will be new, well neither will the PC as even by what you've said you're aware the PC never gets to flex all of it's muscles. According to those who think the PS4 is equal to one, there shouldn't be many, if any differences between a game running on the highest settings and a PS4.

    nope, never implied otherwise. how can static technology compete with dynamic technology? That's not logical. Maybe for a little while with optimized coding but over time, just not rational to think otherwise.
    Optimisation can only take you so far. Does Uncharted 3 look even 2.5 times better than Uncharted 1?

    It would only make sense if consoles were upgradeable, then we can argue. However that would defeat the entire purpose of having a console...as it would run into the same issue as a PC, which is multiple configurations.

    When did I say PCs would hold back consoles?
    You didn't... It's the subject of the thread?

    Also, it's untrue that low-end PCs barely hold back high-end PCs...you can easily test this out by comparing what a console with its particular GPU can do as opposed to a PC with a similar GPU. MGS2 with 4MB VRAM would "never" be possible on PC with 4MB of even today's video RAM. Just not possible.

    The fact that PCs have dynamic technologies, is its biggest advantage and biggest disadvantage.
    Isn't everyones favourite point that consoles need less resources due to them being coded directly to metal? I don't see your point. Of course a console can run a game off less resources. That's the joys when you know exactly what you have to work with and that everyone has the same.

    As for WoW, I'm not saying that all games are made that way on PCs...I think my example was lost there lol. My point was to show how powerful the casual market is...which is why PCs will always run into the problem of engines that are designed for scaling. As long as the game can scale graphics, it won't be truly optimized.
    But as i keep saying, who needs optimisation when you have power? Sure, don't optimize your game on console and you could have a whole world of problems. That doesn't effect the PC half as much.

    A console is like a European sport car, fine tuned and efficient. A PC is more like an American sports car, chuck in a big inefficient engine and just use the sheer power to get your results. The amount of power you want is only limited by the amount you want to spend on it.

    What the PC lacks in efficiency, it makes up for in options.
    The only reason they have games that can scale down is because they want to sell their games...which is why a $#@!ty-looking game will still sell whereas a really good-looking game (which is proven with Crysis that it is a horrible idea as it won't run on even top-end PCs as the code is still inefficient as it is not made for one configuration) will not sell much at all.
    I can't disagree with you as it's true. But you still have developers such as CDPR and DICE that push the PC to it's limits whilst also still being available for weaker set ups.

    As long as that's there, you're not going to have anything that is efficient. The code can't possibly be nearly as optimized as code that is possible on consoles. Again, not to cause a confusion, I'm not saying that this efficiency will cause consoles to always outpace the top-end PCs but this concept will definitely keep its head over most PCs longer each time but this is beside the point and discussion we're having here...logically, consoles will never outpace the moving technology of PC hardware but you will still see games that just don't have competition (i.e. GT5 compared to PC racers). That likely has to do with the health of PC industry.
    Not sure what you mean but that health of the PC industry is actually in a decent state. No doubt that the consoles have also helped with that but if you are trying to imply it is doing badly, i'd say you're wrong in that regard.

    Anyway, regarding the OP. No i don't think low-end/weaker PC's will be holding back game development any time soon. Minimum specifications on games are already rising.


    edit: Back to my point about Optimisation, it seems Uncharted was a bad point to use as it has improved...


    However, has it really improved that much, the face certainly looks a lot better but optimisation doesn't make it as much better as some would make you believe.
    Still a noticeable and impressive difference though
    Last edited by BBK..; 04-19-2013 at 15:24.

  2. #52
    Forum Overseer

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    32,703
    Rep Power
    198
    Points
    136,937 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBettaKnow View Post
    That's the problem that Crytek even addmitted with their own admission and seems to be a problem they fixed with Crysis 3.

    "I made a joke at one point saying, 'we're going to melt PCs,' and I think we are going to melt PCs again. People want that, and we'll deliver that."With Crysis 2 we tried to make the spec available to as many PC gamers as possible. Then we heard back from the loudest group, which was enthusiast PC gamers, 'our PCs are running this game at 200 frames. What the hell? We should be running at 30 frames.'
    "Crytek is probably the only company where you read forums and YouTube, people are excited if they can't run the game. I don't think it's like that at any other game company.
    "Our graphics programmers said, 'we're going to give them a game they can't run any more."

    I was actually very impressed with the 17 minute long video. Thought it looked better than BF3 in every possible way. Oh no doubt, for a launch title KZ:SF is going to be an amazing looking game. But i don't think it's going to be blowing anything on highend PC's out of the water. We'll see. I remember when people were comparing Killzone 2 to Crysis.
    I'm still more impressed by Crysis 1 than Crysis 3. I think Crysis 1 still is the king of graphics, especially with the mods. But no one can sell a game like that...admittedly that can't even run well on the top-end PCs. I bet you guys still can't run that at 60fps lol.

    I agree KZ:SF may not blow anything out of the water once it releases.

    Low end PC's do affect PC gaming but they don't affect them all that much. I'll tell you what affects a PC game more, when a game that was ported from console misses the basic features of a PC game. No video settings and capped frame-rates. though there have only been a few of those examples.

    While it will never be utilised, it doesn't need to be.
    I never disagreed that it didn't affect PC gaming...but we're going back to the fact that it wouldn't be on PC if the game wasn't going to sell on consoles and wasn't designed for the consoles.

    It's the same argument TD24 or whatever his name is, presented. Yes, technically consoles suffer when Blizzard doesn't want to move from PC...if there was no PC, there'd be a watered-down version of WoW on consoles. But that's a silly argument either way.

    In case of a PC, i.e. there wouldn't be a PC version of COD because no one deemed it was going to make money (if there wasn't a console version).

    Definitely is a bit of a strong word. It holds is back, in extreme cases as i said above. Not always though.
    Let me give another example. You know those tech demos they show? Have you seen Titan's tech demo? That's the theoretical power of that video card. Granted they get to make them more snazzy as there aren't a lot of things going on and it's not a big environment...but still, compare those tech demos to what the actual games look like right now. That's due to low-end PCs that they have to hold back on.

    KZ:SF looks better than the UE4 tech demo and that's because a closed-box environment allows this to happen.

    I think there will be a few MMO's released on console this time around. I just don't expect them to be as indepth as a PC MMO.
    I agree and a bigger part of that is because all the big players are on PC...but yes, there may be some cutting back still. We'll have to see.

    Maybe i didn't say it clear enough but what I meant was that low end PC's barely hold back High End PC's as it is so why would a low end PC hold back a PS4 what isn't as powerful as a high end PC. Not that low end machines are more powerful than the PS4, sorry.
    As long as anything is higher powered than a low-end PC, it will hold that down. If that game isn't for PC and only for PS4 then obviously it will look much better than it would have if it was on both PC and PS4.

    That is precisely why UC2 and 3 look better than most console games. They are specifically designed for an architecture and aren't multiplatform. The same issue would come on consoles when the game comes out on 360 and PS3, it may look really good but still not the top.


    That one? While it is a very good looking segment of gameplay, i'm more impressed by Crysis 3. I don't think people truly give Crytek credit for the technology they create. As it said it in another DF article, that is probably due to so few that are truly able to see Crysis as Crytek intended for it to look.[/quote]and how is that not proving my point lol.

    back to KZ, but that city! look!

    It was actually 3 titans to keep it at 60fps at that resolution Either way, you challenged me to find a game that looks better and that is what I did, from my opinion anyway.
    That makes me cringe lol. 3 titans to keep it running at 60fps...for what reason? It doesn't blow KZ:SF out of the water and that game ran on 2GB with several times inferior GPU! Isn't that again proving my point? Why 3 titans!

    I don't think there are any 4k monitors at that size, as nice as it would be. 4k screens really start at 27'' and above. But no, i'm talking about desk gameplay. As you are aware, the closer you sit to the desk the more a bigger resolution matters as it is right in your face. As soon as 2560x1440 becomes available in 120Hz (or if 4K was able to exceed 30fps) i'll be going for a 27'' size monitor, unless i find another amazing deal on 3 1920x1080 120Hz screens.
    Meh, I barely got used to 22", anything over is overkill unless you're going to be sitting more than 2 feet away.

    Each to their own I guess, that is just a testament to how good Crysis 1 looked really, a 5 year old game is still up there for visuals. I'm sure once the PS4 is out and KZ:SF has been released there will be countless comparisons over the internet of how the PS4 stacks up to a high end gaming machine. I still don't see them targetting anything past 30FPS but who knows, either way I will be impressed by it - only due to it being a launch game, not due to it being the best thing i've ever seen.
    I don't think they will target anything more than 30fps. If they can lock at it 30fps, most people wouldn't know the difference or care.

    I don't think the PS4 will even outpower top-end PC's when it is released. It's the nature of PC gaming. Advancements happen all the time. Lets wait until multiplatform games are out, then we can judge. I know what you'll say - The PS4 won't be taken full advantage of because it will be new, well neither will the PC as even by what you've said you're aware the PC never gets to flex all of it's muscles. According to those who think the PS4 is equal to one, there shouldn't be many, if any differences between a game running on the highest settings and a PS4.
    Your comparison is unfair. Of course the PS4 will never make anything better-looking with multiplats. That's raw power, no efficiency involved.

    It goes back to the same example...Dirt, Shift, NFS, and any other racer you want to compare, does not compare to GT5 because of a very obvious difference.

    I don't want to jump the gun but theoretically exclusives on PS4 should be giving PC, as a whole, a run for its money for at least a couple of years. Even if it doesn't have 4K resolution or 16AF, 16AA, etc. it still would have effectively done the job as only a fraction of the PC community have cards that would be able to handle that.

    Most people wouldn't care if a game was at 30fps, at 1080p with 4xAA. They just wouldn't care or know the difference.

    Optimisation can only take you so far. Does Uncharted 3 look even 2.5 times better than Uncharted 1?
    I never implied that in any way.

    You didn't... It's the subject of the thread?
    Yes, low-end PCs would but that's only if a game was out on both PC and consoles. But that has nothing to do with the power of PC, it has everything to do with the fact that the engine will be created for two platforms. Theoretically an engine made for PS3 and 360 would likely do better than on these consoles than an engine made for PC/360/PS3. The more platforms involved, the worse it gets. Especially with the lowest-common denominator, which are definitely those netbooks (I'm kidding but really, some people run games on their $#@!ty laptops and expect it to run and developers notice these things and are forced to cut corners)...but that depends on the minimum requirements they build the game upon.

    Isn't everyones favourite point that consoles need less resources due to them being coded directly to metal? I don't see your point. Of course a console can run a game off less resources. That's the joys when you know exactly what you have to work with and that everyone has the same.
    Thank you.

    But as i keep saying, who needs optimisation when you have power? Sure, don't optimize your game on console and you could have a whole world of problems. That doesn't effect the PC half as much.

    A console is like a European sport car, fine tuned and efficient. A PC is more like an American sports car, chuck in a big inefficient engine and just use the sheer power to get your results. The amount of power you want is only limited by the amount you want to spend on it.

    What the PC lacks in efficiency, it makes up for in options.
    You're right, it doesn't matter if the PC is still in competition at the top end. But to me, it doesn't make sense to run the best games with...say....that SLIx3titans game you showed me earlier. Sure it's the best-looking game right now but at what cost? And while this is beside the point of our discussion, I guess we are talking about two subjects here.

    I can't disagree with you as it's true. But you still have developers such as CDPR and DICE that push the PC to it's limits whilst also still being available for weaker set ups.
    Pushing something to its limits means nothing. What matters is how efficient the code is. You can say that Dark Souls pushed PC to its limits because it didn't run above 30fps with the best video card available, that's not true, it's not just optimized.

    BF3 did not push PC or consoles to its limits, it pushed its engine to its limits but the console and PC can do much better. We will never see that because DICE would never exclusively make the game for either PC or a console but if it were to happen, it would look better than BF3. So the PC version of exclusive BF3 would look far better than the real-world BF3 we have...especially if you take out low-end PCs from the equation (which would be even more rare, it'd be more like a tech demo). Vice versa with the console version with its real-world BF3 game.

    BF4 did not get pushed anything to its limits at all. Think about it, there are certain things they can't do with BF4 because they have to also make it appear on PS3 and the 360. So now you're cutting down severly on your design choices. I can't prove this to you but if compare ARMA3 to BF4. Even though I dislike ARMA3, at this point, it's more interesting than BF4 because that's possible on PC and PS4 right now but just hasn't been done yet. ARMA has a higher minimum requirements and thus why it is probably not a big seller, not everyone can buy the game and run it with full satisfaction.

    We should be getting something better than ARMA 3 as it's still an older game than BF4. Look at the design choices of both games and then understand what they could've done with BF4 and why they made it just look better but not exactly technically better. It's still the same game but just bigger and better. That's not what next-gen is about, it's about totally changing the design of video games.

    [quote]Not sure what you mean but that health of the PC industry is actually in a decent state. No doubt that the consoles have also helped with that but if you are trying to imply it is doing badly, i'd say you're wrong in that regard.[quote]I know it came off that way but what I really meant was that it's not as good as console industry.

    Anyway, regarding the OP. No i don't think low-end/weaker PC's will be holding back game development any time soon. Minimum specifications on games are already rising.

    edit: Back to my point about Optimisation, it seems Uncharted was a bad point to use as it has improved...


    However, has it really improved that much, the face certainly looks a lot better but optimisation doesn't make it as much better as some would make you believe.
    Still a noticeable and impressive difference though
    For a 256MB+ console, that's impressive. Show me a PC game running at 256MB or so with the details UC3 boasts (I will make it easier and include today's games too), that's optimization. It's not about improvement because of course that will be limited as it's a closed-box, it's about how much of the untapped power you can use from the beginning, is what matters. PC developers can't take advantage of all that untapped power because they want most gamers to be able to play it.

  3. #53
    Apprentice
    Coconut_Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    359
    Rep Power
    16
    Points
    4,727 (0 Banked)
    I just say....Bring on the games.
    She put the lime in the coconut, she drank them both up.

    http://youtu.be/5LxC3M-Yngs

  4. #54
    The Dawkness!
    Naxi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    PSN ID
    ElNaxi
    Age
    24
    Posts
    9,819
    Rep Power
    106
    Points
    9,505 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Crytek's move to consoles benefited PC gamers as far as optimization goes. They can push and reach more with less power in Cryengine 3, making Crysis 3 better for everybody.

    My name isn't a misspelled Nazi,god****.

  5. #55
    Forum Overseer

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    32,703
    Rep Power
    198
    Points
    136,937 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Naxi View Post
    Crytek's move to consoles benefited PC gamers as far as optimization goes. They can push and reach more with less power in Cryengine 3, making Crysis 3 better for everybody.
    But that's natural to assume with sequels...however, it doesn't look better than the original...which is why putting it on multiplat reduced its quality.

  6. #56
    The Dawkness!
    Naxi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    PSN ID
    ElNaxi
    Age
    24
    Posts
    9,819
    Rep Power
    106
    Points
    9,505 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    But that's natural to assume with sequels...however, it doesn't look better than the original...which is why putting it on multiplat reduced its quality.
    True, but not to that extent. 1 wasn't really optimized. It's due to CE3 that they were able to bring Crysis 1 to consoles.

    Does 1 look better than 3 though? It still holds up well, but what exactly looks better? Mods is something completely different.

    My name isn't a misspelled Nazi,god****.

  7. #57
    Forum Overseer

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    32,703
    Rep Power
    198
    Points
    136,937 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Naxi View Post
    True, but not to that extent. 1 wasn't really optimized. It's due to CE3 that they were able to bring Crysis 1 to consoles.

    Does 1 look better than 3 though? It still holds up well, but what exactly looks better? Mods is something completely different.
    1 wasn't really optimized, true but it was still taking advantage of PC. Thus why it would still hold up to the best-looking games...again, if they had optimized it correctly, people would be able to run it.

    So now, with CE3 (being for multiplat) you have something more optimized but not taking advantage of the PC architecture. You can't blame them for what they did, they weren't going to make any money off their games on PC with the target market. However, if they had good programmers that knew how to make a good game (gameplay-wise), going PC-only would've benefited them a lot.

    Think about it, PC gamers want a PC game to cling on...these console ports aren't that fantastic for what some of these people have in their rig. I shouldn't say port because most of these games are probably lead on PC but the design choices are to fit consoles so technically it's still a port.

  8. #58
    Supreme Veteran
    mynd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Down Under
    Age
    42
    Posts
    18,415
    Rep Power
    166
    Points
    209,118 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Naxi View Post
    True, but not to that extent. 1 wasn't really optimized. It's due to CE3 that they were able to bring Crysis 1 to consoles.
    And some severe dumbing down of effects, plants number of things on screen etc etc.



    Does 1 look better than 3 though? It still holds up well, but what exactly looks better? Mods is something completely different.
    Just about everything?
    Last edited by mynd; 04-20-2013 at 00:39.

  9. #59
    The Dawkness!
    Naxi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    PSN ID
    ElNaxi
    Age
    24
    Posts
    9,819
    Rep Power
    106
    Points
    9,505 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    1 wasn't really optimized, true but it was still taking advantage of PC. Thus why it would still hold up to the best-looking games...again, if they had optimized it correctly, people would be able to run it.

    So now, with CE3 (being for multiplat) you have something more optimized but not taking advantage of the PC architecture. You can't blame them for what they did, they weren't going to make any money off their games on PC with the target market. However, if they had good programmers that knew how to make a good game (gameplay-wise), going PC-only would've benefited them a lot.

    Think about it, PC gamers want a PC game to cling on...these console ports aren't that fantastic for what some of these people have in their rig. I shouldn't say port because most of these games are probably lead on PC but the design choices are to fit consoles so technically it's still a port.
    Why do you think CE3 can't take advantage of PC? Crysis 3 already has a lot bigger requirements than 1. By optimization they can already cram more for less power, and it's next-gen ready. It's a technically better engine.
    Last edited by Naxi; 04-20-2013 at 00:46.

    My name isn't a misspelled Nazi,god****.

  10. #60
    Forum Overseer

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    32,703
    Rep Power
    198
    Points
    136,937 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Naxi View Post
    Why do you think CE3 can't take advantage of PC? Crysis 3 already has a lot bigger requirements than 1. By optimization they can already cram more for less power, and it's next-gen ready. It's a technically better engine.
    i.e. Conceptually, if Crytek made an engine specifically for the PS3 and released a Crysis game on it and vice versa with 360 and PC.

    All of their respective theoretical versions would look better than any of their counterparts that are present in the real world.

    Each time you try to appease multiple platforms, somewhere something has to be cut in order for it to run on all platforms.

    In this case, it seems like while they may have made some things more optimized (as it is expected naturally), it probably has some effects that are worse than CE1. I'm positive that, had they kept CE2 and CE3 all about PC, it would blow away Crysis 3 on PC.

    But the problem is, why would they even invest in CE2 or 3 when the first Crysis sold like crap, sadly that's how it is on PC and why I'm content with consoles.

    Do not forget that Crysis is about what, 6 years old? if it still holds up well against Crysis 3, something is wrong, don't you think? As the tech is far superior than that of 2007.

  11. #61
    The Dawkness!
    Naxi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    PSN ID
    ElNaxi
    Age
    24
    Posts
    9,819
    Rep Power
    106
    Points
    9,505 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    i.e. Conceptually, if Crytek made an engine specifically for the PS3 and released a Crysis game on it and vice versa with 360 and PC.

    All of their respective theoretical versions would look better than any of their counterparts that are present in the real world.

    Each time you try to appease multiple platforms, somewhere something has to be cut in order for it to run on all platforms.

    In this case, it seems like while they may have made some things more optimized (as it is expected naturally), it probably has some effects that are worse than CE1. I'm positive that, had they kept CE2 and CE3 all about PC, it would blow away Crysis 3 on PC.

    But the problem is, why would they even invest in CE2 or 3 when the first Crysis sold like crap, sadly that's how it is on PC and why I'm content with consoles.

    Do not forget that Crysis is about what, 6 years old? if it still holds up well against Crysis 3, something is wrong, don't you think? As the tech is far superior than that of 2007.
    True, it would look better on a single system, but 3 is still an impressive looking title on all platforms. I don't know what exactly holds up against 3, 1 is comparable to low. Mind you, Crysis 3 still looks good in low.

    Crysis uses CE2 and the sequels use CE3, just to correct you.

    My name isn't a misspelled Nazi,god****.

  12. #62
    Supreme Veteran
    keefy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Sock Gap
    Posts
    18,198
    Rep Power
    129
    Points
    66,528 (0 Banked)
    Items Gran Turismo 5Michelle MarshDoomid SoftwareCommodore 64Metal Gear Solid
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Cry Engine (1) is Far Cry.

    Cry Engine 2 is Crysis

    Cry Engine 3 is Crysis 2&3

    EDIT

    As the above says.

  13. #63
    Forum Overseer

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    32,703
    Rep Power
    198
    Points
    136,937 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Naxi View Post
    True, it would look better on a single system, but 3 is still an impressive looking title on all platforms. I don't know what exactly holds up against 3, 1 is comparable to low. Mind you, Crysis 3 still looks good in low.

    Crysis uses CE2 and the sequels use CE3, just to correct you.
    I don't know much about their progression of engines so did not know that CE1 was for Far Cry.

    I don't know what people see in Crysis 3...I see the video that was posted with SLIx3 Titans and the console versions look downright ugly. To each their own, I don't think this game looks all that. Maybe I'm looking at the ugly parts and granted I haven't played the whole game but from what I've seen so far, it's pretty much above average to me.



    What am I missing here?

    Quote Originally Posted by keefy View Post
    Cry Engine (1) is Far Cry.

    Cry Engine 2 is Crysis

    Cry Engine 3 is Crysis 2&3

    EDIT

    As the above says.

  14. #64
    Supreme Veteran
    keefy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Sock Gap
    Posts
    18,198
    Rep Power
    129
    Points
    66,528 (0 Banked)
    Items Gran Turismo 5Michelle MarshDoomid SoftwareCommodore 64Metal Gear Solid
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Just pointing out an inaccuracy, that is all, the guy above beat me to it.
    Do not worry I am not arguing with you, I cannot be arsed with the amount spiel you excrete.

  15. #65
    Forum Overseer

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    32,703
    Rep Power
    198
    Points
    136,937 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    I meant to reply to your post as well but since I had mentioned in his, I didn't say anything then I was too lazy to edit your post out and I didn't want to put yours with his because then it'd be confusing as to who I'm responding to lol.

    But the "what am i missing" part was about the video above. Thanks for pointing it out, I didn't know CE had been around longer. Which makes sense as Crysis was pretty much Far Cry on steroids.

  16. #66
    Supreme Veteran
    keefy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Sock Gap
    Posts
    18,198
    Rep Power
    129
    Points
    66,528 (0 Banked)
    Items Gran Turismo 5Michelle MarshDoomid SoftwareCommodore 64Metal Gear Solid
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Easy mistake to make

    Yea Far cry was an amazingly colourful game, it looked great and sounds awesome especially the mounted guns on the vehicles, also there is a 64 bit patch which has slightly upgraded things. Which back when AMD was kicking Intel's arse and the only desktop CPU maker that had 64bit CPUs was a big deal or at least wanted people to think that.

  17. #67
    The Dawkness!
    Naxi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    PSN ID
    ElNaxi
    Age
    24
    Posts
    9,819
    Rep Power
    106
    Points
    9,505 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    I don't know much about their progression of engines so did not know that CE1 was for Far Cry.

    I don't know what people see in Crysis 3...I see the video that was posted with SLIx3 Titans and the console versions look downright ugly. To each their own, I don't think this game looks all that. Maybe I'm looking at the ugly parts and granted I haven't played the whole game but from what I've seen so far, it's pretty much above average to me.



    What am I missing here?
    I don't know, might be the art direction that's putting you off. Technically it is very sound. It's about the little things as well, a lot of the scenery has physics and reacts. It looks better than most other console games.


    My name isn't a misspelled Nazi,god****.

  18. #68
    Forum Overseer

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    32,703
    Rep Power
    198
    Points
    136,937 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Naxi View Post
    I don't know, might be the art direction that's putting you off. Technically it is very sound. It's about the little things as well, a lot of the scenery has physics and reacts. It looks better than most other console games.

    I think I get it, it's the grass areas that look ugly during darker areas. The outside looks pretty and weather effects look really good. Though it's somewhat of a hit and miss to me. While the grass has physics...it looks cartoonish as grass doesn't act that way in real life.

    Just overall that grass looks fugly.

    Anyway, of course it looks better than console games, I totally agree...I just don't think it blows KZ:SF out of the water...I actually think SF looks better...I mean that freaking city looked amazing. In some ways Crysis 3 does look better, like when they showed weather effects but then it's hard to compare when we haven't seen much of SF.

    Does it really take 3 Titans to run the game at full details? I know KZ has always had weather effects, hopefully they have rain so we can compare.

  19. #69
    The Dawkness!
    Naxi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    PSN ID
    ElNaxi
    Age
    24
    Posts
    9,819
    Rep Power
    106
    Points
    9,505 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Well grass in games overall looks bad, but it still looks better than what we've seen before. This is also taller grass, wind does affect it quite a lot. Also you won't see a lot of helicopters, bullets, and explosions near grass in real life, lol.

    I meant console Crysis 3 compared to other console games.

    Killzone does look great and does benefit from it's strong art direction and sci-fi setting. However, the city is only a vista. The playable area is still the same size as previous games.

    No, it's the crazy resolution. It runs at 4k@30-40fps with that setup, which is quadruple the pixels of 1080.

    My name isn't a misspelled Nazi,god****.

  20. #70
    Forum Overseer

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    32,703
    Rep Power
    198
    Points
    136,937 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Naxi View Post
    Well grass in games overall looks bad, but it still looks better than what we've seen before. This is also taller grass, wind does affect it quite a lot. Also you won't see a lot of helicopters, bullets, and explosions near grass in real life, lol.

    I meant console Crysis 3 compared to other console games.

    Killzone does look great and does benefit from it's strong art direction and sci-fi setting. However, the city is only a vista. The playable area is still the same size as previous games.

    No, it's the crazy resolution. It runs at 4k@30-40fps with that setup, which is quadruple the pixels of 1080.
    Vietnam? lol.

    Crysis 3 on PS3, to me, looked horrible. I only played the beta but from what I'm hearing, the final product does not look much better. and the beta looked worse than bf3 beta and that beta was out what...more than a year and a half ago?

    Alright, sure, KZ is likely not an open-world game but we don't know if it's as small as the older ones, it may be bigger. But is Crysis 3 open-world? Doesn't look like to me.

  21. #71
    The Dawkness!
    Naxi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    PSN ID
    ElNaxi
    Age
    24
    Posts
    9,819
    Rep Power
    106
    Points
    9,505 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    Vietnam? lol.

    Crysis 3 on PS3, to me, looked horrible. I only played the beta but from what I'm hearing, the final product does not look much better. and the beta looked worse than bf3 beta and that beta was out what...more than a year and a half ago?

    Alright, sure, KZ is likely not an open-world game but we don't know if it's as small as the older ones, it may be bigger. But is Crysis 3 open-world? Doesn't look like to me.
    I haven't played the whole game either, but I've seen vehicle sections with a lot bigger environments.

    MP is supposedly bad looking anyway, the singleplayer is a different beast.

    E: I do think Shadow Fall will end up being the better looking game.
    Last edited by Naxi; 04-20-2013 at 02:44.

    My name isn't a misspelled Nazi,god****.

  22. #72
    Forum Overseer

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    32,703
    Rep Power
    198
    Points
    136,937 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Well naturally, it'll come out a year later...it will be made with 8GB RAM available and be able to use that to its fullest. We will of course see better PC games once the consoles come out as that will flood gates to the limit that is being put by the target market.

    They will redo the engine to make higher-quality games.

  23. #73
    Master Sage
    Bitbydeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Age
    32
    Posts
    14,489
    Rep Power
    133
    Points
    47,410 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    Just overall that grass looks fugly.
    The grass is a bit of a jaggy mess.



    We've only seen a little of Killzone Shadow Fall so far so i'll reserve judgement as to which is better til we see more.
    I'll say one thing about it, it does look smoooooth. Not sure i like how the Helghast masks looks more animated now though.
    (Saying that what we did see was an early build)


  24. #74
    Supreme Veteran
    keefy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Sock Gap
    Posts
    18,198
    Rep Power
    129
    Points
    66,528 (0 Banked)
    Items Gran Turismo 5Michelle MarshDoomid SoftwareCommodore 64Metal Gear Solid
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Physx or Tress FX will sort the $#@!ty grass out but it costs lots of resources.

  25. #75
    Forum Overseer

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    32,703
    Rep Power
    198
    Points
    136,937 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    I'm just going to say that I've seen better grass but it is better than having less grass aka RDR PS3 version LOL

    it's not just grass too...just the whole...fuzzy-looking colorless...ugh...depresses me.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
vBCredits II Deluxe v2.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2010-2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.