During this year's Gamescom, Crytek showcased the PC version of Ryse: Son of Rome running at 4K.
Great graphics average game.
How many average games have amazing graphics like what Ryse has? Name a few of them I would like to play those average games.
He's saying that the game itself is pretty average, not that the average game has graphics like Ryse.
Killzone SF is pretty average.
4k footage, off cam footage, posted to YouTube, displays at 1080p -_-
Crysis 1 on PC.
Crysis 2 and 3, Killzone Shadowfall, Battlefield 4?
I don't think any average game has graphics as good as Ryse. In fact, I don't think any game at all has graphics as good as the PC version of Ryse.
Ok, disagree-ers, which game looks better than Ryse on PC? I have a high end PC and a PS4 and I've played all the best looking games on both platforms. Crysis 3 is probably the best looking game on PC currently, but Ryse is in fact using somewhat more advanced tech than Crysis 3. It features better character models and better materials and lighting in general thanks mostly to a move to physically based rendering. I've seen Ryse being played on an Xbox One in person and it looks stunning, but the lower resolution and sometimes stuttery framerate held it back somewhat. Even in that state, though, I thought it looked a bit better than Infamous Second Son in terms of the core graphical attributes, just not as sharp and clean. So I have no doubt that the PC version of Ryse will look better than the best-looking PC game and best looking PS4 game.
probably the story of Killzone is average, but the gameplay is far from it, the issue here is Killzone is not meant for noobs(COD, Halo, BF players), sorry true fact.
I rather enjoyed it actually. It was a bit on the short side, but fun combat and the second part of the story arch was amazing.
Looks like 4k and uncapped gameplay is the only real upgrade, the cutscenes are still 30fps locked. not sure if i'll get this again, maybe much later.
Do the cutscenes need to be more than 30fps haha? Almost every single movie ever made is 24fps
true. i would have liked though uncapped cut scenes.
@incendy35 Personally I find it really annoying when games use prerendered cutscenes running at 30 fps and then have it switch to 60 when the actual gameplay starts. It takes you out of the experience.
Like every Crytek game.
Wish they upped the vid in 4K on youtube, would have made more sense.
4K and offscreen.... sigh :( Where is my gamersyde HQ video....
might as well not even be 4k
Whats the saying about polishing a turd?
well in myth busters they actually managed to polish poo, but I guess the saying is what you where after even tho its factually wrong.
Crytek game & 4k can only mean one thing, not just crappy frame rates, but extremely crappy frame rates.
With 3 Titans on SLI Crysis 3 hangs around 30fps at 4K. It's doable but Im sure it aint cheap at all to get Ryse at 4K.
Looks pretty but the game didn't review well. I'll wait for a cheap steam sale to get it.
Now those are some next gen graphics. Super impressive as Cryengine never fails to deliver. Will be enjoying Ryse PC on my 4K Sony TV
Just curious - how many people actually have a pc that can run this game at 4K? I want real stats, not just what an individual and his friends have. It's nice that Crytek is offering this upgrade but, considering the financial trouble they're in, I'm wondering if the upgrade will be profitable for them. Regardless, I guess they deserve kudos for providing 4K gaming content.
not many people but it is somewhat future proofing, this game will still look gorgeous 10 years from now
More people would have cards capable of 4k than those who actually have a device to display 4k. And you aren't going to find any stats related to this unless you go from Steams opt-in stats, which doesn't represent anything apart from showing what % of people are likely to opt-in to a survey.
Crytek is promoting a game for PC gamers at Gamescom so we shouldn't be surprised to see them pulling a stunt like this. Making a new game is much more expensive and riskier than showing a 4K version of an existing game to a new demographic. 4K gaming hardware might be expensive for the average gamers but it might not be a problem for developers to add 4K content to an already completed game. Just a couple of years ago developers were releasing HD texture packs for PC games post launch as part of a free DLC or patches. It won't be surprising for the next couple of years we'll be seeing 4K texture packs are released in a similar fashion. Personally I prefer it that way since I don't see the point of downloading extra gigabytes of texture that I'm not going to use if I'm still playing on a 1080 monitors.
Not too many. As of right now it seems game developers are using 4K support for marketing. I imagine it being easily another 2-3 years before 4K becomes more mainstream.
@Subaruwrx http://store.steampowered.c... Only a few percent could possibly run these resolutions. But there are even less people who own a 4K monitor. A proper setup is just too expensive in the moment. It's the future standard though. Give it 2-3 years.
the FPS are looking solid, the 4k resolution? hm... on my 32 inch no big difference. You need at leat 65 inch to see the difference between 1080p and 4k So at leat at my TV the resolution soednt matter, the FPS for sure. Anyway the game isnt that bad!
No offense but you have no idea what you are talking about. The size of the screen alone doesn't tell you anything if you are ignoring the viewing distance. Also is you're 32 inch monitor even capable of displaing 4k resolution?
Three things for you to look up: 'Pixel pitch'; 'Visual acuity'; 'Vernier acuity'. Take the size of a pixel, then calculate how close you'd have to be to that pixel for the angle formed between either side of it and your head to be about 0.8 minutes of arc (give or take a couple of tenths). That distance will be a nice, rough figure for how close you need to be to resolve that single pixel's worth of detail. Vernier acuity is something else further, which helps suggest why geometric aliasing is so striking to us. The 'take-away' is that pixel pitch and the detail our eyes can see are what matter. Hopefully that will stop you from spreading misinformation in the future.
cramming more pixels into a given screen size will give you less aliasing, resulting in "better graphics"
Still the same Sword and shield tired gameplay.
just me or the guy describing sound like he'd rather be elsewhere?
You cant blame him I guess lol
Am I OK playing on low/med settings on my pc? or do I need an Xbox one to enjoy the better graphics to actually enjoy the game? I'm hoping on my pc since a lot of you guys say the game play is good?
Apparently the gameplay is where the game failed. It was OK but most people said it was very average with pretty visuals.
Well then guess I'll wait for a steam sale
Huh PC people asked for this game? Never knew.
No but as always more to any platform is welcome.
Crytek reminds me of old id software, great engines but in desperate need to hire some real games designers instead of having programmers do everything.
You can hear the sadness in his voice...
Meh.......looks the same.
meh looks the same I didnt know pc gamers wanted this generic game
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.