Crysis Too Good-Looking for Next Gen Consoles?

You bet:

Gamepro Article
Original Team Xbox Article

This just makes me laugh. Brand spankin' new consoles aren't good enough to play new computer games anymore, eh? I love consoles, I own an Xbox 360, but this is just goes to show that computers can outperform consoles any day of the week on any game. But they cost a lot of money, and I mean a lot of money.

Anyways, if you guys really want to play Crysis, and want it to look as beautiful as the screenies look (which is pretty fricken' beautiful), then you're going to need top of the line product. This means Vista, and Direct X10 capable cards! As far as DX9 cards go, the best single card for the game will probably be the nVidia GeForce 7950 GTX, which basically is a two graphics cards in one, uber-powerful, $600 video card. Eek!

Laptop wise, obviously the Geforce Go 7900 or something like that will be the best, and even then it's not a DX10 card, so:

Yay?

 

Well, you can't expect a console that is almost a year old to be as powerful as a $1000+ gaming rig built today. I am sure you couldn't have built a system when the xbox 360 was launched that would adaquately run Crysis today.

The Playstation 3 however ..... what a joke. If you don't have atleast the performance of current desktop graphics, and you are trying to run around bragging about how powerful your console is people will stop taking you seriously. When Xbox 360 came out, it offered performance about equal to the high end desktop graphics cards. And it came out for $400 package that only needed games to go.

Consoles have the crazy cost advantage locking you into a stable platform for much less than the average computer gaming rig that will be supported for usually 2 years. PS3 seems to have lost direction a bit with this new expensive underpowered console.

 

Plus, PS3 wise:

PS3 Shortages?

I heard from EGM at E3 that sony thought PS3's would fly off the shelves and do great just because its a playstation, and now they can't even supply enough consoles?

Edit: But still, the 360 should be able to perform decently with Crysis. It's gfx is comparable to a 7900 or something like that, right?

 

I think the game will come out and look fantastic on the new consoles ... but I am sure there will be some awesome DX10 effects in the engine that the console just won't be able to hang with.

In my opinion it will be like what FarCry: Instincts was to FarCry. FC:I was still a fantastic looking game but just didn't have everything that the PC version had.

 

I just don't like BlueRay Disc as the systems HD.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but thats what I read somewhere.

 

Well so far we have seen crysis in only its dx9 glory, running on current hardware. The 360 should really have no problem running crysis without noticable quality loss in its DX9 form. PS3 will probably be the same. I would have expected the Wi to be atleast as powerfull as the 360, but some say it isn't so I would wait to pass judgement on that.

 

1. Crysis on the 360 would probably look like Doom 3 does on the Xbox: Good, but clearly pared down.

2. PS3 should be mocked and ridiculed at every opportunity.

3. The Wii is basically a souped up GameCube, but it's not about pixel pushing so much as just providing a completely new gaming experience. The Wii will branch out like the DS has.

4. Crytek said DirectX 10. Not DirectX 10 hardware. Don't confuse the two, the API of DX10 is very different from DX9, and I wouldn't be surprised if it could do some new things with the old hardware. DX10 handles the hardware itself differently.

 

I think crysis would be possible on the xbox 360 and the ps3. Just look at the frist buch of games that came with the playstation 2, they don't look half at good as the ones from today, they even look like froma diferent consoles. With consoles there's like a learning curve for programes and when time passes by they just understan it better and better so much better games are possible.

 

crysis will totally burn down my laptop.......

 

i hadn't seen it until now. i wish my sz was powerful enough to run something like that without exploding.

 

Well bad news for all console players, I'm no pc fanboy (although I do enjoy computers), but the consoles for sure will not add Crysis to their library. Whether this is good or bad for the pc industry, having everyone else salivate over their pc counter parts, is yet to be seen.

Quoted from incrysis.com:
"Game Informer interview
Game Informer has released a new interview with Cevat Yerli. They talk about a lot of stuff, but here's something of intrest.

GI: How scalable is Crysis going to be for lower end PCs? Do you have a low end benchmark right now?
Yerli: We didn’t do a low end benchmark. What we are aiming for is going two years back in the hardware specs, and we will go one and a half years in the future. That literally means we can support the future before its here. We will support two year old hardware in every aspect and make sure it’s available.

GI: You’ve originally brought Far Cry to the PC, and then released it on consoles, and right now your plans are for Crysis on PC only. What are your plans on releasing this for consoles?
Yerli: (laughs) There is no possibility."

http://incrysis.com/crysis/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&Itemid=2

 

dx 10 will only run on dx10 hardware, it is not compatible with dx9 and lower cards, wich in the long term will be a good thing, they are making the the compliance standards much much tighter for the chip makers, wich in the end means that all the bells and whistles that cards have will be used, instead of defaulting to the lowest common denominator, or developers having writing seperate code for nvidia and ati parts,something that should have been done ages ago in my opinion

 

the fact is, that Crytek is looking for a PS3 programmer & cross platform development, and a grafic programmer, who can port PC platform to PS3 platform & maintain the Crytek engine 2...

That would strongly suggest that Crysis could be coming to PS3 as all Crytek is working on is: Crysis

link: http://www.crytek.com/inside_crytek/item.php?id=42&s=jobs&pID=4

 

Good call razor be, you should be an investigator!!

 

It could also mean that it's *not* all they're working on. They're probably looking into their next project already.

 

That's what I was thinking.. I doubt they would lie about not bringing the game to PS3.. cause that'd hurt us 360 owners.

 

Completly and utterly disagree. Ps3 is going to be a beast and the beauty of it i the games are going to mature as programmers work out how to use the full potential of the cell CPU. When i played the 360 i really wasnt impressed at all- and i still have no urge at all to buy one- and to be honest its all about the games you can get on each system. playstation have gran turismo and grand theft auto which are both awesome whereas xbox only have halo -which is still to be released for the 360- and project gotham racing which gets its ass spanked by gran turismo.
Furthermore i think the year wait between the 360 and ps3 is really in sony's favour as there using modern blu ray technology rather than ancient-in technology terms- dvd tech. the wait is also long enough that people will now buy both-like many of my mates.
And as for gaming on laptops, well thats really too costly.

 

All Blu-Ray really is, is a bigger storage medium. "Oh joy of joys, my new PS3 can play hi-def movies!" You see how well THAT'S made the technology take off. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are stagnating in the marketplace.

PS3 is also coming out with a ridiculous price tag, and shamelessly attempted to lift technology from the Wii by adding a tilt feature - a tilt feature which performed horribly at E3 - to the controller.

Couple that with a woefully arrogant Sony, whose Ken Kutaragi had the balls to go in public and say "I don't think we're charging enough for the PS3," and you have all the makings of a major failure.

The PS3 is also notoriously hard to code for, much worse than the PS2 was, which is pretty bad.

Comparing the PS3 with gaming on a laptop is apples-to-oranges. A laptop is a computer that can do all kinds of things other than game. But for what it's worth, the price you pay on a quality laptop to make the jump to dedicated graphics is, on average, lower than the price of a PS3.

While this is for the most part true, this doesn't mean that DX10 will only run on DX10 hardware. Remember, DX10 is an API. You aren't going to need DX10 hardware to install DX10. Just like DX9 didn't need DX9 class hardware to run (albeit non-DX9 class hardware was missing features, appropriately.) Remember to keep the software and hardware separate, and understand that DirectX is just the method the OS uses to interact with the hardware itself.

 

I am looking forward for the PS3 but I agree with everybody that Sony is being a bit arrogant just like Nintendo was when N64 was around the corner. I usually dont participate in these kind of disputes, it's really pointless. Whether Crysis will be released in a console or not is up to the developer to decide, they may or may not, I really don't care anyway. The word of caution is to be taken in consideration here, wait and see which console does better instead of rushing out and buying it when it first comes out and do not hold your breath waiting for a certain PC game to be released there.

 

Ridiculous for those who cant afford it! Considering you getting a blu ray player in my opinion its not that bad. I bought my ps2 when it came out and it was worth every penny- ive had 2 laptops in that time. What your completly forgeting is a console has a far longer life cycle. Once you have bought it you dont have anything to worry about until next gen comes out whereas notebooks dont last nearly as long. And as for hardcore gaming on notebooks, well in my opinion thats just a waste of time.

I know but were on the gaming sub forum and in terms of gaming a console is far more sensible.

TBH i dont care, it was hard putting a man on the moon , it was hard to make the first plane, it was hard to make the phone. But im not doing the coding, the guys at EA and stuff are and they will learn how to code the games. And this will create a learning curve and thus why the ps3 will get better over time. Thats what happened with the ps2!

Well if nintendo didnt patent then its thier fault. Stealing ideas happens all the time so i dont know why your calling it "shameless"

 

oh almost forgot:

Thats called promoting your product. Ofcourse thir going to say its good value fo money their hardly going to say to the public its a rip off!

How you can say that? They havnt even had time to stagnate.You have to give i time before a technology takes off. ie 64bit OSs

 

Why on earth has this turned into an all out console war fight?

Ok let me explain things:

First, about Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. HD-DVD can only hold 30 gb of stuff, while Blu-Ray can hold 50gb with dual layer, so that, I guess, makes Blu-Ray better. Blu-ray, though, is harder to manufacture then HD-DVD, because HD-DVD manufacturing just requires modifying the DVD manufacturing, wheras Blu-ray requires new technologies and whole new stuff to make it.

Right there is the HD era of cd's in a nutshell. Obviously Blu-Ray costs a tad more than HD-DVD.

ANYWAYS, Microsoft has sided with HD-DVD, while Sony has, of course, gone with Blu-Ray. The gaming format for the 360 is your standard 9GB DVD. The gaming format for Sony is of course, blu-ray disc, which can hold up to 50GB.

Now think about this for a moment guys. Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion for the 360 only took up, though its a ginormous game, 6GB! Do you really need more expensive technology that can hold more than 50GB when the biggest, and most expensive games to make only take up less than 9GB?

I don't see why Sony decided to put Blu-Ray in the PS3. I think it's more of a marketing device then it is a practical device to make gaming better. It just doesn't have an impact on gaming.

So now PS3, at a price tag of 600 big ones, is basically a little more powerful version, and I mean just a tad, of the 360.

[bias]

For you 360 fanboys, you should know GTA IV will no longer be the selling point of ps3... because you can get it on the same day for the 360!!! And for 200-300 dollars less too :-D!

[/bias]

Now think about this: games are costing millions and gajillions of dollars to make nowadays. Exclusive titles are becoming less and less standard, though are still important, but are becoming endangered, because they cost so much **** money. Why only release your multi-million dollar creation for one console, when you can double your profit and just release the same thing for another?

Games are going to start coming out for the PS3 and the 360, and are going to look the exact same and perform just as well on both systems. They might have a tad more shine on the PS3, but no real noticable difference.

Truthfully, the 360 and the PS3 will be practically the same!, except for the exclusive titles for each. 360 exclusives example: Gears of War, Mass Effect, Blue Dragon, Too Human. PS3: MGS4, Final Fantasy.. ETC.

Stop arguing, neither console will be much different.

The Wii.. on the other hand.......

 

i agree somewhat to what your saying but the ps3 has more room for the future. Like you were saying games now only need 6gb but a year or two down the line they may be using far more.
I also agree that when the ps3 initiallycomes out it will be only slighty faster than the 360 but statistically the ps3 is far faster and when the programmers work outhow to fully implement this power it will dominate the 360.

Oh and were debating not arguing btw.

 

This conversation needs to tone down - I don't want a console vs. PC war, it has been shown countless times before that it is pointless to debate that. Make sure that you know what you are posting is an opinion - don't make it sound like a fact. That's what causes the arguement.

 

Why has this thread turned into an inquest into Sony's decision to bank on blu-ray and PS3 vs 360?

 

1. Understanding your statement about futureproofing in terms of storage space, you'll notice things haven't really scaled up as much as you'd like to think. Game sizes have pretty much plateaued and if you think about it from a technological standpoint, that makes sense. The Blu-Ray drive in the PS3 isn't there for the games, it's there because Sony's wagering it'll shoehorn their format into the marketplace, similar to how early on, the PS2's DVD support helped drive the DVD format.

2. Statistics don't matter. All that matters is whether or not the hardware is properly harnessed. This is a chicken-and-egg issue and unfortunately for Sony, the vast majority of us can't justify the cost of the PS3 when we can get a 360 AND a Wii for the same price. That's just sound consumer sense.

3. Superior hardware != success. For examples, see:
PSP, Game Gear, Sega 32X, Sega Dreamcast, 3DO, Atari Jaguar, Neo Geo Pocket, etc. etc. I know it's early to call shenanigans on the PSP, but the reality is that the Nintendo DS is wiping the floor with it in the marketplace.

4. It's shameless when it's as patently obvious as Sony was. They acted as though their accelerometer was some kind of new, revolutionary techonology, when the reality of it is that: Wii had already done it and done it better, and there had been no mention of it for the PS3 up until E3. More than that, it was clearly grafted on to attempt to compete with the Wii, especially when you consider how badly the Warhawk demo actually controlled with it.

While being a shameless rip-off isn't inherently the problem, it's gamers' perception that really kills it, because they know where the idea came from, and the train of thought is...why would I want an imitation when I can get the real deal for half the cost?

Oh, and a quote from Penny Arcade that I find very apropo:
"I forgot, it's not innovation unless it involves another render pass."

 

Pulp, I agree with you %100, especially with the "Handheld Market".

Sony came out with the PSP around the time the Nintendo DS. At first glance, the PSP is sexier. Better graphics, bigger screen, black-gloss finish. But at a closer look-

Sony- Trying to sell the PSP as more of an "all in one" gadget. MP3's, UMD's, Pictures, and games. Problem- most people already have Mp3 players. Most people don't care too much about watching movies in a 5" format, and really... most people don't care about carrying pictures around, with the over-use of Cameraphones. Add that to the fact that the PSP games completly LACK originality, and the fact they charge the same ammount for a handheld game as for a console, and you have yourself the recipie for an over-hyped failure, riding the tracks.

Nintendo- MAKING HANDHELD GAMES! Wow! Nintendo realized, the market that buys handheld systems, need PICK-UP games... not games that will take them an hour of dedication... but 5 minutes of fun! They are original! DS just keeps shelling out hits, while Sony is having trouble figuring out what games to "port" to their system.

I just see the handheld market as "owned" by Nintendo... now onto the consoles...

 

First of all, PSP vs DS has has no relevence to Crysis or PS3 vs 360; it kind've relates to Nintendo vs Sony, which is really more of a preferential debate rather than being fact based. Second, PSP is fairly equal with DS. DS is more innovative, but PSP has several major titles that PSP doesn't and although is may not necessarily perform better than DS, it is basically equal.

Going back to topic, the original question was whether Crysis is too good for next gen consoles. Right now, the only next gen console out is the 360, so that is the best one to use as an example. Hardware wise, the weakest GPU that a laptop can run this game on is the Geforce 6600. The 360 is more powerful than that, and would probably fall between the MR x1600 and the Geforce 7900GTX; powerful but not impressively so. Based on that, Crysis could theoreticallly be released and run on a 360. Hardware wise, the Wii is the weakest of the next gen consoles. If the 360 would be passable at running Crysis, the Wii would struggle at best and would probably never be forced to run games like Crysis anyway. The PS3, although somewhat overpriced and hated (especially in these 360 dominated forums) is equal to or more powerful hardware wise than the 360. Both the PS3 and 360 could theoretically run Crysis, although they wouldn't stack against the dx10 based gaming rigs that can also run it.

Sony vs Nintendo vs Microsoft is an impossible to win, mostly preferential debate. All three are arrogant in their own way. They all have their strengths and weaknesses, and trying to comdemn Sony because of a personal preference against them is both pointless and infuriating for people who disagree. Just because you may like the 360 better than the PS3 doesn't mean that the PS3, or Sony for that matter, is bad. Threads like this need to be toned down, and distinctions need to be made between fact and opinion.

 

Actually..Sony released a controller with the tilt function years ago with the PS (one). It was big, clunky, and expensive. Hence, it didn't get popular. I forgot what game it was for, or what the controller was called, but it was in PSM.

But that's not the topic.

I highly doubt the Wii would be able to run Crysis. I'd say the 360 could run it pretty fairly, but not anything spectacular. But I differ from a lot of you, and I think the PS3 could definately run it. It's Cell engine is amazing. As of now though, Crysis might not be playable because it's probably impossible for them to write all the game in Cell coding. It's a brand new code, but its limitations are HIGH. It will take a lot of time for developers to learn, but once it is, games will be amazing.

And I have no doubt that the 9GB limit will be reached. The 25GB limit will take a long time though. A game doesn't necessarily have to be as big as Oblivion to take a lot of data space up. Let's just take for example FFXIII. Have you read anything about it? For example...about how the cut scenes go seamlessly into real game play? Rendering the whole game in near CGI quality is gonna take A LOT of space. Even small things like facial expressions to different chats with a person each time will build it. FFXIII has a ridiculous amount of detail involved in it. All that=many GB of data.

But yea...Crysis

 

I have money, and I still think the PS3 is overpriced junk. And if your looking for games to save it, just look on over at the PSP. I dont care if it does come with a hi def player, that crap is over priced as well. give it a year, then well know if the format is dead, and if it isnt, the player prices will be way down.

 

psp realyl sux i own one myself..

you can break the butto on psp real easily

 

Programmed for it, have you?
It is certainly amazing, it's just very ill suited for games. And no amount of "getting used to it" will change that. Sure, in 3 years, they'll be able to use it better than they do now, but it'll never be more than a tiny fraction of its theoretical capacity. Simply because it's very badly designed for games. (Or actually, it is pretty well designed for a one-chip solution. The SPE's were originally intended to deal with graphics. It was pretty late in the process that they found out they needed a dedicated gpu to compete, so now there's basically nothing to use the SPE's for.

The Cell is *not* "amazing" for games, and it's not just a matter of rewriting code to take advantage of it.

When it comes to games, the 360 is about as powerful, maybe even slightly better.
(And its GPU is **** powerful, moreso than a 7900GTX, because it's not limited to DX9 features. It has a ton of features that aren't available on PC's, and which offer major performance boosts.)

And about the 9GB "limit"? I doubt it'll be reached any time soon.
At the moment, the trend is towards bigger, better shaders and procedurally generated graphics. Those are practically free in terms of storage space.
The only things that really consume disk space are sound (we already have that, and I doubt that's going to take noticeably more space than it does now), textures (same again. We're not going to see the amount of textures quadrupling on the same hardware, nor are we going to see quadrupling texture resolutions) and 3d meshes (these will go up a bit, simply because the PS3 can handle a higher polycount than a PS2, but nothing really bad).

But if a game hits 9GB, is that the end of the world? It wouldn't be the first time gamers had to switch discs halfway through a game.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the read speed of the PS3 Blu-Ray drive sucks. It's about 40% slower than that of the 360. *If* a game were to use more than 9GB, it'd take ages to load.

 

I think there will be more textures in dx10 games because those games can use more diffenent objects and will use more different textures too. But i hope the quality of the textureres will stay the same as the res of todays best game and won't get higher.

 

I've seen games for the Xbox 360 and besides the higher resolution, they barely look better than original Xbox games, this does not justify me paying 400$ to get games that are only marginaly better.

I can't say anything about the PS3 since it isn't out yet, we will have to wait for TGS on friday to see what Sony has up its sleeve. They haven't impressed me so far with their poor marketing and unreliable delivery dates.

 

If you think 360 games barely look better then original Xbox games, then you don't need glasses, you need telescopes taped to your face.

 

^^Maybe that's what it takes to make them look better

 

the xenos is a slightly cripled r600 (ati directx10 gpu coming out next year). it offers more performance over the r580 (x1900)

the rsx is very similar to g71 (7900) plus it can utilize cell's spe's to help with calculations.

Both of these are very powerful. saying that they can't run crysis as well as a highend pc is pure BS. Sure a straight port wouldn't run so well. The pc version of Halo ran pretty crappy on a computer 4x as powerful as an xbox for example.

 

the SPE's of the CELL are used in games... Developers can use them!
For instance, in Heavenly Sword, One SPE is entirely dedicated to the physics of the hair of the main characters... in that way they can be used...

The 360 ARE better then XBOX games

and for the DVD 9GB limit, We will have to see that, but there is One game that already uses about 22GB - Resistance: Fall of Man -
About the Blu Ray being slower... the PS3 has a standard hard drive, and Developers CAN assume everyone has a hdd, so they can stream content and cache them on the hdd, The 360 doesn't have a standard hdd, so dev's can't use that technique standard...
So i think the loading times will be alike...

 

So you're actually saying the only difference between 360 titles such as Oblivion, Call of Duty 2, Dead Rising, Fight Night Round 3, and the upcoming Gears of War and original Xbox titles are a higher res?

Right. I think maybe somebody sellotaped "Xbox 360" over an old Xbox and you bought it.

 

This conversation is starting to turn into an arguement, so to anyone who wants to post in this thread, keep it non-arguementative.

 

Where did you see me saying I bought it? I have to admit GOW does look nice, but for most of the games the difference isn't that great, maybe it's because they are still first generation games.

I for one was not impressed at all, maybe you were, and that's great


EDIT: Chaz, just saw your post, sorry.

 

can't you all just agree that what makes a console great is the games?

i mean if graphics is really that important, nintendo would have died out long ago cause their console is really the crappiest in terms of power compared to x360 and ps3

it won't matter how powerful a console is when the game is about as much fun as pong

 

Guys, this is the second time I'm saying it - keep the comments non-arguementative. Next time I'll close it.

 

Yes, they can. But that doesn't mean the SPE's are well suited for it or that "regular" cores wouldn't be better.

Really? Didn't know that, but I'll be more than impressed if they can offer good loading times. But most likely, they just haven't thought so far as to guess that people might get annoyed by that.
And more importantly, I seriously doubt it makes a difference. Sounds more like laziness than actual need (Why bother with compression, when we have plenty of space available?)
I'm willing to bet that they could fit it onto a 9GB disc if they had to. Without sacrificing visual quality.

They can't assume that there's lots of free space on it. Of course, they can cache data on it *if* there's space, but then they could easily do the same on 360. (If there is a HDD, use it)
And for a 22GB game? Can they safely assume that much free space?