Consoles too weak for Crysis

[dmacfour]

399.99 if you want somthing with a harddrive. One thing i love about PCs is that I can salvage parts from older comps (Harddrives, optical drives) so that I save money.... you can't do that with a console.

 

[towely]

They each have their merits, and if you can't accept them BOTH as a viable gaming solution then I just feel sorry for you cuz you don't know what you're missing

Because you know, PC gamers who stick to PC games... don't have friends with consoles... and don't play said console when at their friends house.

I just don't like consoles... it's the easy way out, it's quick and too easy to get into. It lacks the depth of custom controls and ruins perfectly good pc games. Halo was an amazing piece of work until it got picked up by Microsoft. When it got picked up... they trimmed it down, changed the game and released it to a fps virgin market.

Consoles are fine... I just wouldn't describe them as the ultimate gaming machine, like so many people who own them do.

You're coming off very narrow-minded Nate. You are truly missing out on some of the greatest games of all time if you neglect your console bretheren. We are talking about games ORIGINALLY DESIGNED FOR CONSOLES, not ports which you seem to be focused on.

Imo, Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time for the nintendo 64 is the best video game ever made to date. Furthermore, Goldeneye 007 was probably the most fun you and 3 friends could have with video games at the time. It was revolutionary.

You talk as if PCs and consoles are mutually exclusive. If you're so rich, what's stopping you from buying both? Hell, you could buy every console in existence along with their 10 best games for less than half of what your Mach V cost.

Yes, I prefer PC games over consoles by a large margin. But I am not ignorant enough to dismiss them entirely.

Swearing off consoles after playing PC games is like giving up vaginal intercourse after trying anal. You're just limiting your own pleasure.

 

[towely]

I'm happy with my smaller 22" monitor with it's huge increase of resolution... maybe one day I'll get a 30" monitor and play games in XHD on computer... you know 2560 x 1600 pixels. Much better than any HDTV

Again, if you're so rich you should have both, anyway. I'm sure you don't watch your DVDs on a 22" pc monitor.

 

[foshizzle]

I love the way so many people bash the 360 yet no one wants to comment on the way Gears of War looks :roll: :roll: :roll:

Are those pictures above in-game graphics? They look like pre-rendered video to me...

This whole console vs PC thing is a stupid arguement. You can't compare consoles to PCs. They are entirely different, and designed with very different goals in mind. It's hard to even compare consoles to each other honestly.

Is it so wrong to like some variety in gaming? I see nothing wrong with preferring PCs to consoles or vice versa. However, there is no definitive characteristic that makes one actually better than the other.

It all comes down to personal preference. I leave it at that.

 

[kaotao]

It's funny because before the 360 came out, people were saying how it was going to be the closest thing to DX10 out there. I remember reading that in a Gamespot article, but can't find it now. Anyways, gaming on consoles can be fun, but I prefer my PC.

 

[Natecannon]

I own a NES, a SNES, an N64, and a Gamecube... and probably will buy a Wii. I'm not a nintendo fanboy... Me and my girlfriend would rather boot up a copy of Mario Party than play scrabble though. Like I said... I like consoles to a point. I just hate that everytime a new console hits the boardwalk, the console boys come out and call it the ultimate machine... I'm fine with consoles and pcs living in harmony. Though I'm probably part of the problem with my elitest attitude. But it still doesn't change the fact that I'll be playing games primarly on my PC.

I've played goldeneye, i've played all the Zelda's which includes my fave game of all time (Legend of Zelda: Link to the past)

You know what I was just happy that Crysis is too graphically intensive to be properly played on console. It brought a nice glow to me.
I generally come off as a jerk and close minded... I dunno why but it's a problem I have.

Yes, GOW looks awesome... it was originally intended to be a PC/XBOX360 Game.. It uses the U3 engine which will be also used in UT2007, and the new Tripwire (Makers of Red Orchestra) game.

My only real gripe with consoles, is that they get all the attention (yes Im an attention whore)... When a game is announced for PC and a console... the pc version usually gets shafted... like with cod2 and the consolitis it has. It still doesn't change the fact I've played it over 500hrs though.

Ok I'll end this now since it's long and probably doesn't make any sense.
But I'm sorry for being a dick 😛

 

[theaxemaster]

I think it is funny how microsoft abandoned the intel CPU for a PPC setup while apple did just the opposite.

 

[albanian]

Ok well i like consoles and pc's what ive seen as of late is that pc's are dominating consoles. but take it from me pc's are getting darn expensive, if u plan on running games on medium then why waste money on a new card, look at that i just bought a 7800gt 4 months ago and a new rig, now it will be outdated once crysis comes out? why cause its coming out end of this year or Q1 2007, that means i need a new card! a new card that will cost minimum 400$ yes 400 minimum.

To run a game like crysis i believe dx10 cards will cost 400-600$ once released."So what does all this mean for us? The potential for it all sounds great on paper. Since DirectX 10 is tied to Windows Vista, this means if you want to experience DirectX 10-powered 3D games you are going to need Windows Vista, a DirectX 10 video card, and a DirectX 10 game at the least. Windows XP users need not apply for DirectX 10."

Ah you cant even use dx10 on your slow windows xp! wow that means new vista, now the dx9 version of this game will not nearly compare to its dx10 counterpart. And dx10 is not backwards compatible but as windows stated there will be a way to play dx9 games through a sort of emulation but it will run even slower!.

 

[i_am_not_god]

well if EA takeover Crytek, then expect to see Crysis on consoles pretty soon, EA only have money in mind...

 

[BoxCarRacer]

How old are you guys honestly? Those are some pretty uneducated remarks to make. Consoles are great gaming machines... Some of the greatest games out are for consoles only. I honestly dump almost a grand a year into computer hardware, this compares to maybe the grand that I've spent in consoles over the last 4 years... PC's will always have the leading edge when it comes to capabilities, it'll only be a short time before PC graphics will catch up to the next gen consoles. Honestly, if you can afford to keep your PC up to date with the latest gaming hardware, then you can definately afford a console... Titles like FF, GranTurismo, and MGS you can't really find outside of the console realm...

I hate 30 fps on ANY games *cough*consoles*cough*

😀

Fool!
I believe 30FPS cannot be exceeded on the 360.
Low FPS isn't noticeable.
It is the varying of FPS that is noticeable to the eye.
Lower than 30 you could tell though.
PS3 is set to 60 I believe.

 

[farmernate33]

Nintendu 64!!!!!

my first and only console. Got it back in the 6th grade. soo like 8 years ago. Still playing smash bros and mario kart occasionally. AHHAHA i still love my game cartridges (plug n play baby).

 

[SuperG]

Hmmm.....
I own both a 360 and a high end PC and really would not want to do without either. Honestly both kick butt! anyone take a look at gears of war coming out for the 360? pretty awsome. 8) Besides Crysis I dont think I have ever seen a game look so good.

Crysis looks is halve the deal. Or less.
1 ) lokin good
2 ) Very more interactive.
3A ) Pumping it even further with DX10.
3B ) Have Detail settings for nextgen hardware wich even isn't out yet. Think of the second DX10 generation or refresh.

Gears of War for the 360

Well the 360 at least can do some DX10 features but it does not have all the full functions and features that a true DX10 video card will bring to computers.

The game It looks different. Comparing games. Apples to bananas. But then again it not difficult to make a scene look good but how it interact. The detail and the world size?

Console are very memory limited. But its a common one wich is a requierment for the game design. Make me thing of Optimizing code for a very small footprint to fit under 640K of those DOS game times. For consoles this is 512MB UMA.
G-cards have dedicated vidiomemory as large as the total UMA Memory of a whole console system. Wich is 512MB.
PC range 1 to more then 2 GB. Wich could be put to large details playflied

Console differ that there is a harsh limit but decent power but restricted by size of the resources. Memory.

My Vision of a early 2007 Game rig is. A bit high end Conroe for crysis Physics Vista 64 and 4GB of mem. At least a Dx10 512MB card.
DX10 helps a lot for more detail and uniekness in a map.

I want to play Crysis as it ment to be played.

well if
EA takeover Crytek, then expect to see Crysis on consoles pretty soon, EA only have money in mind...

I think not.
Crysis runs on DX9 to so Console would be a problem to support. Xbox360 with just DX9 slink down for crysis.

I thing the problem is.
the Crytech 2 engine wich is inhouse developed with a inhouse Physics engine. Deep woven in to the core engine. Would be heavenly optimised PC specific. Like asembler for X86 and EMt64 or AMD64.
Wich means the must make a Conslole engine flavor. And do the Optimizing again but for Console instruction set. IBM Xen.. If avaible, some Consoles force to use only higher level language or Developkit in C++. No direct acces to The hardware.
In short that's a lot of work to port.
Plus The Game must be trimmed down to a Memory footprint that keeps in the limmits. The game must be balanced to compensatie this feature beeding. And must be optimised for Console gameplay and restrictions.
It would not be the same game more extracted from crysis and reworkt.
Would be costly and timely event to go for it.

Well Unreal 3 supports it all. Consoles PC PPU and DX10.

Migrate the Content to Unreal3 engine console version.

Graw PC migrated to the Diesel engine. So it's done before.

 

[DeAtHrApToR]

To run a game like crysis i believe dx10 cards will cost 400-600$ once released.

The 8800GT is rumored to cost $299 - $399 when released.

Also thought you might be interested in seeing this:
Official Crysis Requirments from the site
Minimum Requirements

CPU: Athlon 64 3000+/Intel 2.8ghz
Graphics: Nvidia 6600/X800GTO (SM 2.0)
RAM: 768Mb/1Gb on Windows Vista
HDD: 6GB
Internet: 256k+
Optical Drive: DVD
Software: DX9.0c with Windows XP

Recommended Requirements

CPU: Dual-core CPU (Athlon X2/Pentium D)
Graphics: Nvidia 7800GTX/ATI X1800XT (SM 3.0) or DX10 equivalent
RAM: 1.5Gb
HDD: 6GB
Internet: 512k+ (128k+ upstream)
Optical Drive: DVD
Software: DX10 with Windows Vista

It won't be extremely demanding.

 

[pauldh]

Minimum Requirements

CPU: Athlon 64 3000+/Intel 2.8ghz

If I were AMD, I'd be a bit ticked at those requirements. A64 3000+ or 2.8GHz Intel. It makes them sound the same when we all know an A64 3000+ is quite a bit better than a P4 2.8GHz in games. Maybe it's a sign the game seriously takes advantage of Hyperthreading. But even so a P4 2.8B(533) doesn't support that and is so far behind any A64.

 

[albanian]

well i guess then if i meet the recommended that means i can fully expierence the game? at high settings ?

 

[angry_ducky]

I was gonna write this off as BS, but then I saw that Pauldh posted it. So I beleive it. I wonder what the f*cking PS3 fanboys will have to say about this one. First their favorite console (or is that wet dream machine) costs $500, then Sony has to degrade the specs, and finally, it doesn't have the power to run these great new games. I wonder what bad news will come next.

 

[pauldh]

well i guess then if i meet the recommended that means i can fully expierence the game? at high settings ?

With the GPU's mentioned, probably no more than running Oblivion on it's X800/GF6800 recommended cards. I'd assume minimum lets you play the game at it's lowest settings, and recommended will play nicely at medium settings.

 

[angry_ducky]

To run a game like crysis i believe dx10 cards will cost 400-600$ once released.

The 8800GT is rumored to cost $299 - $399 when released.

Also thought you might be interested in seeing this:
Official Crysis Requirments from the site
Minimum Requirements

CPU: Athlon 64 3000+/Intel 2.8ghz
Graphics: Nvidia 6600/X800GTO (SM 2.0)
RAM: 768Mb/1Gb on Windows Vista
HDD: 6GB
Internet: 256k+
Optical Drive: DVD
Software: DX9.0c with Windows XP

Recommended Requirements

CPU: Dual-core CPU (Athlon X2/Pentium D)
Graphics: Nvidia 7800GTX/ATI X1800XT (SM 3.0) or DX10 equivalent
RAM: 1.5Gb
HDD: 6GB
Internet: 512k+ (128k+ upstream)
Optical Drive: DVD
Software: DX10 with Windows Vista

It won't be extremely demanding.

Sweet; Crysis will run on Windows X-Pee.

 

[albanian]

ok well ps3 can support the game so idk what the devs are talking? check the specs

CPU: Cell Processor

* PowerPC-base Core @3.2GHz
* 1 VMX vector unit per core
* 512KB L2 cache
* 7 x SPE @3.2GHz
* 7 x 128b 128 SIMD GPRs
* 7 x 256KB SRAM for SPE
* * 1 of 8 SPEs reserved for redundancy total floating point performance: 218 GFLOPS

GPU: RSX @550MHz

* 1.8 TFLOPS floating point performance
* Full HD (up to 1080p) x 2 channels
* Multi-way programmable parallel floating point shader pipelines

Sound: Dolby 5.1ch, DTS, LPCM, etc. (Cell-base processing)

Memory:

* 256MB XDR Main RAM @3.2GHz
* 256MB GDDR3 VRAM @700MHz

System Bandwidth:

* Main RAM: 25.6GB/s
* VRAM: 22.4GB/s
* RSX: 20GB/s (write) + 15GB/s (read)
* SB: 2.5GB/s (write) + 2.5GB/s (read)

System Floating Point Performance: 2 TFLOPS

Storage:

* HDD
* Detachable 2.5” HDD slot x 1

I/O:

* USB: Front x 4, Rear x 2 (USB2.0)
* Memory Stick: standard/Duo, PRO x 1
* SD: standard/mini x 1
* CompactFlash: (Type I, II) x 1

 

[pauldh]

That Cell processor is alot weaker than many people think it is. A past pulled anandtech article mentioned that developers had stated a single A64 is easily more powerful than either the 360 or PS3 CPU.
I'll have to see if I can find my old link to a cached version of that article.

edit: no article yet, here is a quote from it though:

"The most ironic bit of it all is that according to developers, if either manufacturer had decided to use an Athlon 64 or a Pentium D in their next-gen console, they would be significantly ahead of the competition in terms of CPU performance."

 

[albanian]

looks like sony is a bunch of liers again.

By Charlie Demerjian: Monday 28 August 2006, 16:43
IT LOOKS LIKE the PS3 is way too powerful for us mere humans, and because the value is so overwhelming, Sony is going to make it a little more palatable. The RSX, previously scheduled to run at 550/700 core/memory has been realigned with expectations and the value chain at 500/650.

We can't tell you why the GPU lost nearly 10% of it's clock, it could be an NVidia screwup, or it could be Sony/Cell. Either way, it just became much less of an overwhelming value, but you get a DRM infected drive for 'free' either way.

"BTW by your listed "stats" it would be weaker then a 7800GTX which Nvidia has gone on the record and stated that it is more powerful then the 7800GTX."


"the RSX, even at 550 MHz, is less powerful than a GeForce 7800 GTX, because half the ROPs are gone, and the external bus is only 128-bit."

pixel-pipelines/ ROPs: 8 instead of the usual 16 in NV40, NV47/G70/G71

vertex shaders: probably 6 instead of the 8 that are in NV47/G70/G71

texture units: supposedly the same 24 that are in NV47/G70/G71

pixel-shader pipelines: hopefully the 24 that are in NV47/G70/G71, but probably less.

external memory bus: 128-bit instead of the 256-bit bus used on NV47/G70/G71 cards



it's already been confirmed on B3D that RSX has half the ROPs of a NV47/G70/G71.

as for the vertex shaders & pixel shaders, I'm betting on fewer than NV47/G70/G71 for the sake of increasing yields.

 

[kaotao]

It's funny because before the 360 came out, people were saying how it was going to be the closest thing to DX10 out there. I remember reading that in a Gamespot article, but can't find it now. Anyways, gaming on consoles can be fun, but I prefer my PC.

Well compared to anything out right now for the pc it is. So your point??? :roll:

Huh? WTF are you smokin? It was a bit ahead when it was first released, but that didn't last long. I do like what they did with the water on Far Cry though.

 

[Synergy6]

Rule #1. Never quote from the Inquirer. And put "confirmed". In the same post. Never, never, never.
Synergy6

 

[albanian]

that whole post was quoted lol

 

[pauldh]

Links:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050629-5054.html
http://www.games.net/features/102043.shtml