Submitted by Abriael 673d ago | news

Crytek’s CEO Explains Why Ryse is 30 FPS, Details Using Xbox One’s ESRAM for “Considerable Speed-up”

Many wondered why Ryse: Son of Rome is locked at a framerate of 30 FPS and not 60, like some expected, and Crytek’s CEO Cevat Yerly has no qualms on explaining why, as much as telling how the company used the Xbox One's ESRAM to increase performance. (Ryse: Son of Rome, Xbox One)

« 1 2 »
Newmanator  +   673d ago
Shame 60fps isn't the new standard like I was thinking it would be.
Abriael  +   673d ago
As long as a game looks good, I don't really mind. I played Crysis 3 at about 30 FPS on PC before upgrading, and I still was blown away by the visuals so...

I guess PC gamers are much more used to trading off framerate for visuals.
#1.1 (Edited 673d ago ) | Agree(27) | Disagree(67) | Report | Reply
Eamon  +   673d ago
Not at all. Serious PC gamers have the hardware to support both high fps and ultra visuals.
Abriael  +   673d ago
@Eamon: you mean "PC Gamers with a lot of disposable income".

When Crysis 3 was launched it took at the very least two 680s in SLI to have fully stable framerate over 60 FPS at fully maxed settings. That's way above what "serious PC gamers" have.

That's definitely not the only case, mind you.
aiBreeze  +   673d ago
On 30fps is there any noticeable frame issues?
Malphite  +   673d ago
Actually most PC gamers prefer performance over visual fidelity. That's one of the big aadvantages of PC gaming that you can choose wether you like performance > graphics quality or the other way around. I think 30fps is ok for some games.

@aiBreeze: if it doesn't go under 30fps you wouldn't see any frame rate issues. It just doesn't look as fluid as 60fps. Everything above 24fps is movement for our eyes. If it dips below that we start to see the frames individually. So framerate drops at 60fps aren't nearly as dramatic as framerate drops at 30fps. However a stable 30fps framerate doesn't look bad at all.
#1.1.4 (Edited 673d ago ) | Agree(35) | Disagree(1) | Report
black0o  +   673d ago
@eamon only 1-3% of pc gamers do that .. and frame rate is more on CPU side I guess

when I updated from i3 to i5 the frame rate increased with same VGA card
Eonjay  +   673d ago
Well, its really weird because he is basically saying that he doesn't have the power to compute at 60FPS but it not clear if he is referring to ESRam size or to the GPU itself.

Earlier today we heard GG confirm that Killzone is not locked at 30. Crytek is vindicated by GG's decision not to lock at 60 and to instead focus on details, textures and effects. However, @900P, the computational savings should and the memory freed in ESRam should be quite substantial. Interesting to say the least...
vulcanproject  +   673d ago
Crysis has always had top quality motion blur, it was one of the first games that implemented object based motion blur in DX10 in 2007.

This greatly enhances the feel of a game running around 30FPS.

60FPS is a luxury for most Crytek games if you want the higher visual settings. I guess with PC though you can always choose what you want. Gotta love having the options.
loulou  +   673d ago
eonjay. ryse is already looking amazing for a launch title. i already want to see them use their experience on ryse 2.. things will only get better

surely someone who claims to be a dev should know this right?
Eonjay  +   673d ago
You don't have to be a dev to know that as time passes, people get more familiar with platforms and can push their potentials.
caperjim  +   673d ago
Like you, I don't mind the 30FPS but a resolution of 900p too? I would think it should run at 1080p at 30fps. I was going to get this game at launch but I think I will wait to see some reviews and a price drop.
#1.1.10 (Edited 673d ago ) | Agree(22) | Disagree(8) | Report
4Sh0w  +   673d ago
You only need 60fps on super fast games, those where the gameplay is such that twitch reactions make a huge difference. Shooters, racers, fighting games and only hack n slash games with fast pace combos like Bayonetta benefit from 60fps. I know KI could have been better with 60fps but Ryse not so much.
Dude420  +   673d ago
I just realized what Abriael said, nm.

I don't mind visuals being put down as long as I can get close to 60fps. Sometimes on certain games I don't mind 30fps
#1.1.12 (Edited 673d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(1) | Report
QuickdrawMcgraw  +   673d ago
32% OF PC gamers......Yawn
Gigaguy777  +   673d ago
Replace serious with rich.
rdgneoz3  +   673d ago
@Eonjay KZ:SF was known a while ago to be 30 fps for single and 60 for multiplayer. They just basically said today that it'll be 30 or above for single player. Also, it's running at 1080p..
Magicite  +   673d ago
to run crysis at stable average 30fps, u need quite and quite decent PC (if u were playing on max possible settings/full hd).
difference is that pc gamers can choose between graphics quality and farmerate while console gamers must accept whatever developers present them.
n4rc  +   673d ago
Frame rate isn't an issue really..

Fluctuations are what is noticed.. I'd rather have a solid 30fps then a spiky 60fps only in certain scenes..
Ritsujun  +   672d ago
nukeitall  +   672d ago
You know, 60fps will never be the standard. Why?

Because, it isn't needed in many games, and people would rather push more quality pixels on screen. Why push frames if it makes minimal if any impact on the experience, while the visual is far more likely to do.

After all, marketing wise a pretty screenshot or even video does more than a game showing 60fps.

Don't really understand the hung up on fps and resolution. It is the art work and experience that makes the game stand out for me. If it was resolution and fps, PC would have been my choice of platform a long time ago.
Sevir  +   672d ago
See the thing about this all the smoke and mirrors MS has been doing, from Running Games on more powerful graphics cards in their dev kits than the actual hardware, at higher resolutions and frame rates, to downgradings and upclocking CPUs and GPUs to increasing performance or as They've been throwing around "Balanced Performance".

There is No Doubt that Ryse is a Visually arresting game on the Launch of the XBOX One, BUT SERIOUSLY, after all the cuts, concessions, software overclocks in the CPU and GPU and the supposed EDGE of ESRAM's Bandwidth through put, This game Sill can only manage 900p resolution and not 60fps.

Seriously I'm wondering what MS really planned the XBOX One to be because Games simply aren't performing the way they were meant to be performing. The stand out title in their line up is being pegged on Crytek, and they are having issues up on performance, 30fps at 900p for a First party exclusive on a next gen title is surprising, I figured with the resolution cuts to push the graphics they'd have resources to get a frame rate for an action game to be 60fps.

Who designed this system of "Balance" because there seems to be too much work going in to get something balanced.

Killzone: SF has a variable frame rate that doesn't dip below 30fps but runs higher than baseline when the action isn't intense. all this with destructible environments, more open environments, more characters on screen dynamic weather, volumetric fog and ray traced lighting engine with dynamic lights along with particle effects and the Visuals are face melting like Ryse, and it runs at FULL HD.

For all the visual splendor going into Ryse, on a technical level its just not impressing like KZ is.
hiredhelp  +   672d ago
Whats all this assuming PC Gamers that have high end video cards are rich...?
Im low income my magic trick is to and here keyword here "SAVE"..
Even if that means sell on your old video card too Not only that you can also achieve visual fidelity and good famerates with some simple overclocks on CPU and GPU. So not all of us are rich also for thoes new to pc market find certain games hard to hit solid or average of 60fps you may want to change MSAA to eaither FXAA or MSAA 2x. There not huge differnce between the two but can make for better performance with mid range cards.
#1.1.21 (Edited 672d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report
AndrewLB  +   672d ago
Now you're just making crap up. Crysis 3 ran 60fps @ 1080p on a single GTX 680 on Ultra. It just didn't while enabling TXAA or higher than 4xMSAA while maxing out anisotropic filtering. Even then I was getting a solid 45fps.

Unfortunately, Microsoft and Sony both screwed everyone by not building consoles that at the very least have the ability to play ALL games at native 1080p @ 30fps. If only they had got the memo saying how much long console release cycles and slow, last gen hardware actually has held back game development. Every time in the past when Consoles were close to high end PC's, there were huge leaps in not only game graphics, but when those graphics result in even the fastest PC's struggling, graphics hardware seemed to have more frequent updates and larger performance increases over the previous generation.

It's a shame that these consoles will NEVER be able to match the graphics seen in Crysis 3 maxed out on PC. They simply don't have the physical ability to calculate that amount of data. Here is a screenshot I took a while back while playing Bioshock Infinite @ 1600p maxed out. You gotta admit... that is pretty incredible. (make sure you make it full size)

#1.1.22 (Edited 672d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
Gamingcapacity  +   672d ago
@Andrew. That picture isn't that impressive.
UltimateMaster  +   672d ago
*Reads Article*

Ok, so let me get this straight.
You're saying that they can only achieve 30fps and that's WITH the ESRAM!?!

That says a lot.
MizTv  +   673d ago
I do like 60 better than 30 but I would rather have no screen tearing
UnHoly_One  +   673d ago
I was just about to type this exact comment.

I'd much prefer being locked at 30 than have it jumping all over the place between 30 and 60 and having that screen tearing line distracting me from what is going on.

I hated that crap this gen, I am hoping that will be a thing of the past one way or another.
Gamingcapacity  +   672d ago
On the leaked Ryse single player footage you could see a lot of screen tearing. Will update with link when I find it.
kewlkat007  +   673d ago
I've seen so many 30fps vs 60fps debates...and usually only hardcore PC gaming fans win them.

Can't we all just enjoy a game for what it is?

Both these consoles will vary in FPS and Resolution depending on game, budget, schedule,techs and architecture.

The initial launch day/schedule games will not be perfect or be a real representation of what these consoles will do in 3-4 years.
fardan85  +   673d ago
Let them do what they think is the best for the game.
30 fps is fine, 60 fps is a plus.
I just hope that there will be depth in the combat and some awesome enemies to fight. Crytek should work on their NPCs, main character looks great but the rest are not.
Trekster_Gamer  +   673d ago
Me thinks you are blind..
Bigpappy  +   673d ago
Best NPC's of any Next gen game.
ape007  +   673d ago
it's impossible to have heavu duty nextgen games on nextgen engines running at both 60FPS and 1080p unless consoles cost 800$-900$
#1.5 (Edited 673d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(12) | Report | Reply
cyguration  +   673d ago
lol five years from now, when they have the next-gen equivalents of Gears of War 3 and Last of Us, you will be saying a different thing.
thejigisup  +   673d ago
Just because these initial games aren't ruining at 60 doesn't mean it won't happen this gen. Crytek is speaking about the xb1 here and a game initially designed for the 360. Let's look at sony's camp and see what/who sets the standard. Last gen it was bluray.
mxrider2199  +   673d ago
this gen its gddr5
assdan  +   673d ago
Well, I've gotta give to crytek, they didn't coat the turd all that much. Which makes me have some respect for them. They explained exactly why it was going to be 30. I was expecting it entirely to be "30 frames feels more cinematic" and there was only a little bit of that. I don't know what people were expecting them to say, it's 30fps because the xbone can't handle those graphics at higher than 30, that's it. I knew it wasn't going to be more than 30fps after seeing the two huge graphical downgrades they did. And yes, 1080p to 900p is pretty big (only 69.4% as big as 1080p). I also liked seeing them finally talk about what ESRAM does. I think the fact that it's running MSAA, and they said they had a hard time to get it to even do that shows that it doesn't quadruple the systems bandwidth.
larrysdirtydrawss  +   672d ago
they said msaa is not running at its fullest... pretty sad
Killjoy3000  +   673d ago
Crytek gasses up the X1's hardware soooo much, lol.
despair  +   673d ago
If after a year or so games are not going standard 60 fps then you can make that judgement, not from launch titles. Too early.
Persistantthug  +   673d ago

Why? What is it that takes place a year from now?

I mean, in a year or 2 from now, are games gonna get less and less demanding?
Rhaigun  +   672d ago
Not less demanding, per se. But, they will find ways to make things they're doing now easier. Game engines evolve over time. Making certain tasks less demanding.
hiredhelp  +   672d ago
Exactly its early days devs wait for 6months thingsget better 60fps who knows.
If i remember everyone wasnt complaining at 30fps last gen my recommendation to devs is 720p try rach 60 or close as.
1OddWorld  +   673d ago
60fps should be the standard for multiplayer games like KZ: Shadowfall, Battlefield 4, COD and Halo. Single player would be nice to have 60fps but 30fps is adequate.

I love reading comments on articles...
The new defense plan from XB-One loyalists is your not a true gamer unless you buy both systems, WTF. I am going to buy two systems one is a PlayStation and one is a PC because I am an informed consumer and not a freaking sheep BAhhhhhh...
BABY-JEDI  +   672d ago
I personally think 60fps is the way to go. This game especially. As it is an exclusive & a high profiled launch title.
T3MPL3TON  +   672d ago

That is incredibly ignorant of you to say. I'm broke as hell. I just spent $500 on a PC that will out perform the PS4/Xbone. $500. Think about that.
buynit  +   672d ago
I've been thinking about building a pc but a 500 pc isn't much to brag about and not that much power, not from my research anyway.. Now a pc with a $1000-$1500 budget would be a sick pc but it still couldn't play ryse unless crytek ports it to pc soo..
#1.12.1 (Edited 672d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report
buynit  +   672d ago
Same here.. I guess in another 10yrs, my goodness how much power do these developers need to make it Happen with out compromise?
Shadonic  +   672d ago
I think that that will change in time.
Perjoss  +   672d ago
A GTX Titan which is a video card for PC that costs twice as much as the PS4 and XB1 can not run games like Crysis 3, Metro Last Light and Hitman Absolution at 60 frames. The XB1 and PS4 were never going to run the high fidelity titles at 60 frames, unless the developers make sacrifices or start using 'cheaper' tricks to achieve similar graphical effects.
bromtown  +   672d ago
I don't think you need 60FPS for every game, racing and shooting definitely, but for something like RYSE or Uncharted/ TLOU I think if you ran it at 60FPS it'd lose it's filmic look. I don't have a competent PC though so maybe my eyes aren't open to the brilliance of high frame rates haha
Goku781   673d ago | Trolling | show | Replies(2)
Axonometri   673d ago | Trolling | show | Replies(4)
Eonjay  +   673d ago
"We put our most accessed render targets like the G-Buffer targets into ESRAM. Writing to ESRAM yields a considerable speed-up. While 32MB may not be enough to use something like MSAA to the fullest, with a smart memory management strategy it is possible to deal with that."

Just as predicted. And of course why not. Microsoft has even implied that the ESRam would be used for this purpose. This also explains why games such as Forza look great at 1080P but are missing AA. If you are using the ESRam as a frame buffer and there is only 32 MBs, (and multiple render targets are stored in ESRam; as it should assuming decent double/triple buffering is used), there is no room for it.

This also explains why 900P is a more desired resolution when working on Xbox.
#4 (Edited 673d ago ) | Agree(13) | Disagree(5) | Report | Reply
ambientFLIER  +   673d ago
Microsoft obviously knew about this before finalizing the console specs. So why didn't they make the ESRAM bigger? It would have cost what, a dime, to double it?
wishingW3L  +   673d ago | Interesting
because esRam is really expensive. Those 32mb probably cost more than the whole 8GB of DDR3.

Another thing to account for is the space in the APU. The esRam is very close to the core and the space there is limited.
#4.1.1 (Edited 673d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(2) | Report
joeorc  +   673d ago
Because its COST's a freaking lot to put even that much on a console by single system, it is not cheap and the more you put on the the cost goes up by quite a bit because if you want to save costs by reduction die shrinks down the line stacking that ram is going to be quite expensive cost upfront per embedded ram wafer in the PCB stack. Sorry typing on a tablet. But the expense on this is not cheap I'm an engineer and I know first hand on 3D stacked TSV's and the COST's.

As wishingW3L just pointed out it is not only 2 times but if its stacked is could even be as high as 5 times the cost upfront on a per/system basis. Now that's not much but when you need to order in the millions of units upfront its d@mn site expensive.
Never mind production times on wait to ship components , and time is money.
#4.1.2 (Edited 673d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(1) | Report
ambientFLIER  +   673d ago
I was not aware of that. Thanks for explaining it. I thought esram was cheap.
sandman224  +   673d ago
60 frames should be standard on next gen. Although 30 frames can look amazing when there is no motion, 60 frames looks stunning in motion. And that's why it should be standard.
PixelNinja  +   673d ago
It can't be a standard yet and shouldn't.
We haven't got to the point yet where all cheap hardware can run all games +60fps. Sure some games have 60fps now but new games further on down the line will drop frame rates to increase visuals.

Developers like all the previous generations before will have to decided on the fine line between visuals and framerate.
obliterator  +   673d ago
Why is he comparing games to movies is beyond me. Lol.
josephayal  +   673d ago
that sounds good to me. Game is beautiful with no screen tearing
stuna1  +   673d ago
I don't know if anyone catches what Crytek has just done, but it seems to me they have just let the "Cat out of the bag!" As to why most games on the Xbox 1 have been downgraded in resolution or FPS.
ambientFLIER  +   673d ago
Which games have been announced as one rez or fps, and then got downgraded?
MightyNoX  +   673d ago
Ryse - originally 1080 then 900

Dead Rising - originally 1080 then changed to 'dynamic' resolution (as well as 60 to 30 fps)

Killer Instinct - originally 900 then downed to 720

Rumored - Titanfall, CoD and BF4, all downgraded to 720.

Remember, kiddos, Google is your friend.
#8.1.1 (Edited 673d ago ) | Agree(24) | Disagree(11) | Report
come_bom  +   673d ago

Yes... Google is your friend, but if you believe everything you read in Google (or from Google results), then i pity you.
#8.1.2 (Edited 673d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(10) | Report
ambientFLIER  +   673d ago
MightyNOX - Can you give me links, PROOF, to where ryse was stated to be 1080P by microsoft or crytek and then downgraded, or where dead rising was downgraded in fps, or where Titanfall or COD were CONFIRMED to be 720P?

And you DO realize that BF4 is 720P on the PS4 too, right?
#8.1.3 (Edited 673d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(13) | Report
ziggurcat  +   672d ago
@ ambient:

No, BF4 is higher than 720p on PS4. They've (DICE) already stated that it won't be 1080p, but it'll be higher than 720p.
#8.1.5 (Edited 672d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report
Naga  +   673d ago
"Most games" is a bit of a stretch. I think you might be letting the rumor mill mingle with the facts department a bit more than you intend.
#8.2 (Edited 673d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(4) | Report | Reply
stuna1  +   673d ago
So why don't you give me a list of the games that haven't seen a downgrade from when they were originally announced! The only one I can think of is Forsa 5
Gamer666  +   673d ago
Crytek is correct. It has to be based on what you are doing from a compute perspective in the game.

Unfortunately, processors are not yet fast enough on any device to give a full gaming experience and give you 60 FPS in a game such as this one.

I just hope the console is fast enough to make the experience of this game good or great. Most games that end up being reviewed lower did not have a bad idea or concept, but rather were overly ambitious at what they could accomplish.

Ex. Too Human, Alan Wake, Duke Nukem Forever, etc.
#9 (Edited 673d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(3) | Report | Reply
ambientFLIER  +   673d ago | Interesting
Processors will NEVER be fast enough to run everything at 60fps. That's because 60fps is an artistic choice. Some developers will use it, and some will prefer 30fps and use the extra resources to add even more effects. Some games do not benefit much from 60fps, and some do.
PersonMan  +   673d ago
This is correct. The processor speed has nothing to do with 60fps. It's up to the developers to decide what they want to put the most resources into. Do they wanna have a 60fps game with okay visuals or do they want a 30fps game with advanced physics, lighting and visual effects?
Gamer666  +   673d ago
I have been in technology a long time. Saying NEVER is probably not the best statement...

I remember when a 1 GB drive was a world wide wonder, a 1.44 MB floppy disk was insane, hitting the 100 MHz mark for processors made me wonder why you would need more, and the idea of 1 MB of memory was pie in the sky stuff, not to mention a wireless network in your home or on the road that could out perform a 10 Mbps wired connection.

But you are correct, it is an artistic choice. aka trade off.
Belking   673d ago | Trolling | show | Replies(3)
thehitman  +   673d ago
At all the people who keep saying "60 fps should be standard" NO it should not be. Tired of hearing it. First of all 60fps is only for games that NEED it. Racing games/ fighting games such as sf, mvc etc... and SOME shooters that are very faced paced like Unreal tournament fast. Other than that 60fps is just an unnecessary showcase of extra GPU power thats left over. If developers are pushing the hardware like they are suppose to be doing then 30fps should still be the standard. If you dont like that then you need to build a 1500-2000 PC and not be crying about why a 400-500 console cant do 60fps at max settings. 60fps does not improve the gaming experience for the cost it takes to reach it efficiently.

Now with that said the xb1 has a shit poor design seeing cryteks comments for the next generation of gaming of already making sacrifices to certain areas, while everyone developing on the ps4 side are still saying we didnt have to sacrifice anything and there so much left to improve says a lot. There IS an excuse for games not to be 1080p @ 60 fps on max settings BUT there is NOOOO excuse not to be 1080p @ 30fps. I know xbox fans will be disgruntled w/ that but the console is going to be considerably weaker than the ps4 which is fact.
bjmartynhak  +   672d ago
Thank you! Unfortunately, the framerate and resolution will be a constant discussion the entire gen.

Sometimes I think 1080p@60fps should be a stand only to make people move on the other topics. I'm fine with 30fps for the vast majority of games.
corroios  +   673d ago
I cannot accept this. im paying 500 for a console that is already cutting stuff on launch! Its not FHD, its not 60 frames, so why im im buying it. I already have a nice 360! Im tired of gamers saying we dont need that or that. Hell no, yes we need.

We are almost at 2014 e 1080p should be standard, because i cant understand what were they thinking when building the console...

To think that the xbox 360 had a kick ass GPU and a nice CPU and good memory and compare to the Xbox one...
#12 (Edited 673d ago ) | Agree(11) | Disagree(4) | Report | Reply
ATi_Elite  +   673d ago
They were thinking we gotta build a console that would:

run quiet
Not cost an arm and a leg
run games using new technology
not use a ton of electricity
fit in a small box
run cool
last for 7-10 years
and do all of this using less than 300 watts

that's what they were thinking
corroios  +   673d ago
1 - My 360 slim is quiet, it looks better than then the one...

2 - yes it does, because 500 for me is not cheap.

3 - what new technology? ddr3? 8 core cpu 1.75 GHz? blueray? gpu 7750?

4 - we are at 2014 and still has a power brick

5 - Small box!! are you kidding me

6 - i dont know nothing about runnig cool

5 - Again, you are messing with me, do you think that the xbox one can last for 7/10 years?

6, ok, it true is less.
mxrider2199  +   673d ago
you forgot maximizing profit with cheaper specs...
thehitman  +   673d ago
You say 500 isnt cheap for you yet people who game on PC that can really get 1080p @ 60 fps build 1500-2000 rigs. You are kinda delusional if you think spending 500 dollars is enough. GPUs that kick out that sort of power cost 500 dollars alone.


A good bench marking site you can take the costs of those gpus and guess how much a console would cost to get what you want. Then you can stop acting entitled and be grateful for what you get.
HugoDrax  +   673d ago

"4 - we are at 2014 and still has a power brick"

You know a power brick comes with plenty of other electronic devices right? Don't try and out Microsoft as the only company to be using a power brick lol. If I'm not mistaken the original xbox didn't have one at all?

"5 - Again, you are messing with me, do you think that the xbox one can last for 7/10 years?"

Same was said about the X360, look how that turned out. Also I'm sure the Xbox One Ver 2, will have some upgraded hardware in 4 years. You're talking about the second most powerful computer company in the world. As if they don't know what the hell they're doing. I swear you fanboys act as if you could make a better product than Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo. Relax a bit......
ThatOneGuyThere  +   672d ago
"Same was said about the X360, look how that turned out" HAHAHA you mean the giant failure rate? Thats not something to be proud about.
Foxgod  +   672d ago
DDr3 is new, DDR4 isnt out yet, you wont get ddr4 until the X2 and ps5.
Most of your complaints are very unnrealistic.
#12.1.6 (Edited 672d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
esemce  +   672d ago
Yes the 360 when released was quite powerful even compared to PC's. Ms chose Kinect over better hardware.

The Xbone really does seem weaker than it should, killer instinct only running at 720@60 is proof of that. Only Forza 5 runs at 1080@60 but that has the track disapearing in the rear veiw mirror.

I would of payed extra over the PS4 for more powerful processors but I wont pay extra for the sh!t that is Kinect.

With the Physical size of the Xbone cooling higher end parts would of been feeable too. I've chosen PC+PS4 and will maybe get a used Xbone without kinect one day.
ATi_Elite  +   673d ago
WoW I'm impressed I didn't think anyone was even gonna attempt to use the Esram this soon.

Good article cause you get to hear about a Dev and how they decided to use the Esram.

anyway it's a Darn $500 console locked at under 300 watts. It's gonna have it's limits but even with those limits I think Ryse SOn of Rome looks fantastic even at 30fps.

Same thing goes for Killzone:SF SP, it looks fantastic as it fluctuates from 30 to 60 FPS.


Until Console devs fully understand the tricks and trades of the new consoles there will be compromises in Development. Even then Some games will just ask too much of the hardware but still produce great visuals at whatever the final specs are.

To be honest I know we all expect 1080p 60fps but looking at the consoles specs I would be happy with 720p 50fps but with a lot of post processing, graphical eye candy, and 2xMSAA and that's ONLY if the game was truly a EYE BURNER!
#13 (Edited 673d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
ssj27  +   673d ago
But Killzone sf does more on bigger maps more advanced tech like ray trace lighting, etc and its 1080p..

plus it does it all in mp with up to 48 entities at 60fps.. they just don't have the time to push solid 60fps on campaign and using that time to put the solid 60fps on the mp ..

ryse will even struggle to get 30fps at 900p..

#13.1 (Edited 673d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(4) | Report | Reply
Kuse  +   673d ago
Killzone's framerate is being unlocked so now the game looks entirely more framey and them jaggies are gonna show up more often. Not all games will be perfect on the PS4 and its starting to show.
Foxgod  +   672d ago
KZ looks less impresssive then ryse during gameplay.
Its those in engine rendered cutscenes that make kz look so impressive.
However, in engine cutscenes require a lot less resources then actual gameplay.
#13.1.2 (Edited 672d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report
jhoward585  +   673d ago
Crytek made the right choice, 60pfs wouldn't work considering how many characters and object are rendering on the fly.

Anyone! does DR3 comes to mind?
DevilishSix  +   673d ago
Sub 1080p and 30 fps, X1 is not off to a good start with resolution or framerate with its exclusives, which is very telling. The one that disappoints me the most is X1 having trouble reaching 30 frames on Dead Rising 3. That is a friggin 360 game brought over to shore up the X1 launch and it has trouble with that.

I would rather MS waited 6 months or a year and gave us something better than a machine with a 32mb ESRAM bottleneck. This is very stupid this is happening.
#15 (Edited 673d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
AceBlazer13  +   673d ago
so even with esram they could only chalk up 900p 30fps .
Reem  +   673d ago
30fps locked @900p WOW just WOW this is the end, your only friend bots, the end
Foxgod  +   672d ago
the order is the same, but does not nearly look as good as ryse.
Trekster_Gamer  +   673d ago
This is the best looking game out there that I have seen. Crytek knows what they are doing. If you say that this game looks anything but good then you are a blind fanboy...

Trolls and fanboys disagree and reply below.
wishingW3L  +   672d ago
it has good character models but that's it. The game's sub 1080p, it has awful frame-rate that is not even stable 30, etc.
corroios  +   673d ago

when the x360 come out it had one of the best gpu out there and that help to improve the games over the years, and best combo with memory, alot better then the PS3.

More you cant compare buying something for your pc with Microsoft buying direct to AMD or Nvidia, because they will need millions and millions of gpu and therefore they will be a lot cheaper to buy.
#19 (Edited 673d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
ThatOneGuyThere  +   672d ago
no it didnt. it had a middle of the road GPU at best. calm down.
FlyingFoxy  +   673d ago
If you don't like games that run slow or aren't greatly optimized, i just suggest you avoid Cytek's games, this is what i do and never even play their games when i upgrade my PC.

i prefer 60+fps and good graphics over 30fps with better graphics. Seems Crytek will always be like this and develop their games for hardware that aint even out yet to run it properly.
#20 (Edited 673d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
Reem  +   673d ago
yada yada "Because it's too weak!" is the real reason
Smootherkuzz  +   673d ago
We are expecting to much from the coming gen of video game consoles.
jmc8888  +   673d ago
Of course the ESRAM will speed things up. The DDR3 only has 68 gb/s.

But it only 'speeds' it up because of how crappy DDR3 is for gaming.

It will be difficult to successfully implement in every game. Many smaller devs, or simply devs on a tight timeline are going to be hard pressed to get ESRAM working well enough.

Let's not forget Ryse BY FAR is the game with the most time in development. When did this game start development 2010?
#23 (Edited 673d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
Foxgod  +   672d ago
your argument is senseless.
If ddr3 would be crappy for gaming, then so would gddr5.
Gddr5 is based off ddr3 with boosted bandwith, sacrificing the timings.
When ddr4 will be out, gddr6 will be created using that memory standard using the same principles as ddr3/gddr5.
mikeyphi  +   672d ago
Just come out n say it Crytek...XB1 cant cut it...
bacrec1  +   672d ago
At least they keep defending their game.
Allowen  +   672d ago
In God of War 3 for the PS3 Santa Monica gave us the excuse that to make the game look better when mixing the full motion video and the game it self it had to be locked at 30fps.

I still remember how much gamers biached about gow3 not being a 60fps game. Expecially the 360 fans were laughing loudly about the PS3 not being able to run a 60fps game.
#26 (Edited 672d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
wishingW3L  +   672d ago
GOWIII frame-rate is unlocked and it goes all the way down to 30 to all the way up to 60 depending on what is going on on screen. GOW Ascension is the one they locked at 30 frames to increase the visual fidelity.
worldwidegaming  +   672d ago
Its really sad when they use the whole "people did not like 48fps movies" argument!
Buttery smooth 60fps looks great and saying it does not is pure BS! This is not real visuals per say
But realistic visuals! Playing a game at 24fps is just WRONG! Why would you even pay cold hard cash for something like that is just stupid. (even worse if its programmed that way.)
Current gen has an excuse (outdated tech at the end of life) and we understand this.
Settling for 30fps is not the end of the world...30fps should be the minimum that is (not a frame under 30 ever!)
This is the bar that must be reached in gaming! (now that we obviously are settling for 30/720/1080)
Saying you wish to create a world where 30fps is preferable is another story.
The tradeoff of visuals VS smooth frame rate VS high frame rate should be addressed
Rather than downplayed. I know some 5 yr olds who would not fall for this crap, why should the rest of us.
Brix90  +   672d ago
I thought that they were trading off their resolution for a faster frame rate. Don't get me wrong theirs nothing wrong with 30 fps its a better frame rate for more cinematic experience and 60 fps should be the standard this gen for racing and shooter games. I think both consoles we will be seeing 30 and 60 fps doesn't mean it's weak. I do think that Crytek should push for 1080p considering that there not aiming for 60 fps.
mochachino  +   672d ago
I wish console games just gave the option.
condemmedman  +   672d ago
you can all the power in the world if it runs on a shite ui like the ps3 did then it makes the whole experience dull. I hope Sony ditch that awful psn because it's a turd.
« 1 2 »

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
New stories

Back to Bed Review - G4@Syfygames

1h ago - G4@Syfygames reviews the PS4 port of the puzzle game Back to Bed. Does it keep you awake, or shou... | PS4

Monster Hunter 4 Ultimate Review

1h ago - NF - Let me get this out of the way right at the start of this review: Monster Hunter 4 Ultimate... | 3DS

Check What PS4 Games are Coming Out in August

Now - At Releases.com you can check release dates for all PS4 games. Visit now and start tracking the games you plan to buy. | Promoted post

Atomic VR Reveal Specs for PAX Prime HTC Vive Demo

2h ago - VRFocus reports on Atomic VR revealing specifications of their PAX Prime HTC Vive head-mounted di... | PC

Guild Wars 2's Core Game Officially Goes Free to Play Starting Today; Raids Detailed

2h ago - During a panel at PAX Prime in Seattle, ArenaNet officially announced that Guild Wars 2's core ga... | PC

PAX PRIME Day One Images At Skewed And

2h ago - Skewed and Reviewed have posted a selection of images from day one at PAX Prime. | Culture