Speaking at the Games Convention in Leipzig, Bernd Diemer, senior game designer of Crytek, explained that next-generation consoles don't offer enough computational power to run Crysis, German publication Heise reported.
I wasn't looking forward to photo-realistic, destructible environments, anyways! :S
How much are they getting paid to push MS Vista on this one. The damn game is runing on current DX9 hardware.
Didnt just last week they said it was possible wtf?
I think it is a little strange that PCs are beating out consoles this early. In the past consoles have kicked PC's for about 3 years after their release. I think this guy is just trying to sell the PC version to those waiting for the console version to be released.
this is major bullsh!t for sure. He says it's because DX10 is missing. But why then the game is DX9 with some additional things borrowed from DX10?
Why would F.E.A.R. in highest settings run easily on a 360, or get the result of Gears of War? Right. I guess this is just meant to push Windows Vista a bit, because I haven't heard of one game that needed that yet
"the next-generation DirectX API, which will ship along Windows Vista, allows more effects and more objects to be drawn on the screen with a smaller computational cost for the hardware. "
What he states is true ofcourse. DX10 does amazing things. But the 360 API effects can be just as good, if not better, but they are just different then the standard DX10 set. Before he states something like this it would be a good thing to get into the possibilities in the special designed API 360 effects and not think only in ports of DX9 or DX10 stuff
The onlly reason why next-gen consoles can't play crysis is because they don't support DX10. The 360 and PS3 are more than capable to pull off Crysis if it wasn't for the lack of DX10.
the 360 has some dx10 capabilities... not all of the flow blown system that vista will have but i have heard it has about half of the API.
i smell some laziness in this..they better take an extra more months to get this baby just about right..imagine buying a nextgen console 2 months ago and soon they telling u sh*t can`t run on it.This game better be nice on console or [email protected]
That is what SLI is for, other than C&C3 and BF2142 the pc offerings were getting slim anyways. i would have bought this game for my pc instead of the 360 anways.
last year people debated next-gen console vs PC in power. now we all know for sure that PCs are more powerful. sadly, it's only been 1 year and the PC has surpassed the console.
Who says that? Only based on one person stating something that hasn't been proved?
The 360 GPU is not even on the PC market. There is no card with 10 MB embedded fast ram that does 4 x FSAA for free.
Ofcourse, when you spend 2000 + and a sli top card, you'll be able to run a lot. But still I haven't seen the experience I have now.
One great image to show is this one:
wow marty when you dont rant like a sensless fanboy you actually sound intlegent! Keep it up.
PC's will always be more powerful than consoles. When the next next gen consoles come out they will be more powerful than PC's for a year then PC's will surpass consoles.
Sorry, CYTEK, I won't be a fool and have to purchase a 2000 dollar PC to run one game. PC gaming has been dying for the last 2 years give it up.
And the whole thing about PC's being more powerful, Of course they are BUT who's gonna spend more than a thousand to satisfy a few extra framerates and a little texture. That's why the business has been dying cause people can get consoles that do very similar performances for 400-600, instead of three times that.
Cytek's so lame to think that their game will resurrect PC gaming.
Don't you think there is a reason why the only thing you hear about Crytek is the graphics? The game, as far as I can tell, offers zero in the way of gameplay innovation. I agree with you - I'm not spending $1000 (literally) to play a prettier version of Unreal/FarCry/Quake.
The 360 should just run it in 480p. Max the HDR lighting and textures, cut the resolution. Most games aren't trying to look photo-realistic, and it's enough to have HD in these 90% of games. Or get a $3,000 gaming PC to play Crysis at high resolution.
A game that makes me think I'm watching a DVD is more than good enough to buy. It doesn't have to look like an HDDVD or BD before I'll say I'm impressed.
There is no way a console can compete with a power PC. Just think consoles loose the RAM fight right off the bat. No way 360, and PS3 can hang with a $3000 PC.
Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't get what owning a console is all about.
Oh yeah then your PC has 1 GB of ram. So what. It'll have to burn a lot of that on the OS/XP/Vista alone. It's not all dedicated for the game.
512 MB on a console is almost all for the game. Just because the OS is so light.
So please don't even try to compare, you don't know what you're talking about.
A desktop is a do-it-all machine. It does it all, but all mediocore.
A gameconsole is made to do just one thing great. That's playing games. The rest is add-on
i'am confused isn't ps3 a computer therefore it should be able handle cryisis right.
the PS3 is a computer as is the 360 in the sense that they have all the components that make up a computer:(GPU, CPU, RAM, etc.) the only problem is that the CPU, RAM, and other parts are not upgradable and Crysis requires quite a bit of CPU horsepower for a direct port. someone else can explain it better.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say silent ninja was being sarcastic.
Yeah Crytek is talking bull, that's a correct answer. If they can't get Crysis running an the new gen consoles it's just a weak thought of them wanting to run it on standard DX10 rules.
The consoles are strong enough to do the job
i'am serious. im not that into tech stuff but heard the cell(if thats right) can do amazing things such as photo realistic games
The thing is that an "upgradable" market such as the PC is evolving constantly. For example, ATI and NVIDIA release new, more powerful video cards every year (sometimes twice a year).
In the PS3's first (appearance?) in E3 2005 NVIDIA's CEO said the RSX "Reality Synthesizer" (what a cheap marketing strategy...) was as powerful as 2 (two) GeForce 6800 cards. Well, today you have the 7950GX2 available for the PC which is (roughly) 4 times as powerful as a single 6800, so go figure...
Of course, the consoles have big advantages:
1) Low price tag
2) No need to worry about drivers and stuff
3) No need to worry about compatibility and stuff
4) None of your friends owning one can brag about how his is more powerful
I am a graphics enthusiast, so if I have to shell out $500 just for the video card that can render photorealistic stuff I might...
One other thing. I've noticed that 80% of Xbox360 screenshots out there don't use AA... does anyone have one and can confirm if AA is selectable or forced by the game?
For some parts you are right.
Yes the PC is upgradable any time and evolving regurlary. Not constantly though only once a few months/half year real faster cards are available, not every month or so.
I agree with you about the PS3 GPU. Sony had to buy it in a rush when they found out the Cell couldn't do the GPU tasks besides CPU things as they first expected. So they bought an outpowered model. The last gen consoles also were running after the PC/hardware market.
The 360 though has a special build GPU, which is comparable with the fastest card on the market today the ATI 1900 XTX but with some extra's, like the 10 MB extra fast embedded ram that does 4 x AA for free without loosing any power on GPU for the rest.
That 360 GPU combined with the 360 API effects, that are similar to DX10 or they might even surpass that (everything is free to program, there is no specific structure like DX10 is, so who knows what MS has up the sleeve on this one) and you just forget one thing. The PC is a multitask machine. A console only has to do one things: play games.
With the 10 MB embedded Ram, the question of 4 x AA is answered. Some early launch games, like PGR3 don't use it because the devkits weren't available -or too late-, so all games should have it. Maybe you are watching early builds without it? Anyhow, every finished game now will use it I guess. It's forced by the game by the way
People give it a break, just look at those graphics and tell me that the 360 can do that!? please! you people are all living in La-La-land. And anybody who thinks that the 360 is more powerful than the PC is crazy! you's are either really ignorant fanboys or just straight up dilusional, just look at COD2, Condemned, King Kong, Need for Speed, Oblivion and so and so on, they all run better on a PC (and it doesnt have to cost no $2000, i can put you together a PC for around $1000 or less that'll outperform the 360.) And for those fools that think that the 360 can do AA for free. You's better recoginize, cuz that is not true. And if you just look at COD2 if you know what AA is, you can see that its shut off at 1024 X 768. And the texture quality does not match the PC's highest settings. Same thing with F.E.A.R. And while F.E.A.R is pretty damn impressive on the 360, if you really know your graphics features you will notice that the texture is not quite as high on the 360 as it is on the PC, it is lower res. also the physics and particles arent as good either, there are less particles moving around and the pyshics look weaker. Also the 360 uses a in-line (as opposed to "out-of-order" processor) and those are inferior to what the PC use. The 360's 3-core in-line 3.2GHZ CPU, is closer to a 2.4 - 2.8GHZ PC CPU, and im not even going to get into how the PowerPC compares to the Amd CPU's or Intel's (let's just say it weaker). Plus the 360's CPU shares its 1MB cache L2 which is not that good. And the 360 GPU processor is closer to a 480 or low to mid-range 520 core with some extra DX10 like capabilities. It is not as powerful as a 7900GTX or a X1900XTX, heck i wouldnt even say its as powerful as a 7800GT or a X1800T. So give it a break people! you's dont know what you's are talking about. Now dont get me wrong I do believe that the 360 could do Crysis, its just not going to look as good/exact! you will notice differences, with the PC looking better. Now the 360's strengths are its one standard not thousands like the PC, so on Xbox they can make games to take full advantage of the 360's capabilities, whereas on he PC they are always developing for the lowest common denominator. In other words for the weaker graphics cards/CPU's/computers. The PC just has way more raw power. And thats why you are paying more, not to mention the the OS lets you do way more things than a game system's OS (the 360's OS is just a super stripped down version of Windows). And to those that say that PC gaming is dying. Thats funny cuz 75% or more games that come out on 360 are basically PC games ported across all platforms, but the problem with the PC is piracy runs far more rampant, what do you think killed the Dreamcast. Come on people grow up, I like my systems too, but none of this blind fanboyism crap. Im sorry, but Im just to old to be taking sides with or loving anyone company, i go with whatever gives me what I want. And i dont love any company! like a company does anything for me? it just wants my money and thats it, and they'll try and give you want you want to get it. I left that since the 8-bit days. Also p.s. the 360 runs at a 128-bit memory bus on the graphics chip, which is poor by PC standards that run at 256-bit buses (although 128-bit graphics cards still do exist, and actually there are quite a good amount of them are)
Yes I agree. I have a 3-year-old ATI Radeon 9700 and I think I play games with better quality than the XBOX360 screenshots I've seen so far... not to mention I always use FSAA. Maybe I have to play them at around 22 FPS and not 40, but as I said I'm a graphics quality enthusiast and I'm willing to live with 22 FPS for the quality.
I use a 9800Pro that produces better texture quality than the 360, not better framerates though. However, sometimes it will. Also i gotta say, that the 30 does do really good AA at 640 by 480 but not as good (if any at 1024 by 768 on most games), i gotta give credit where credit is due. However, i am very disappointed with its trilinear filtering, i dont think it does it half the time, i think its more like bilinear filtering, or that gimmicky brilinear filtering. Na dwhy no anisotropic filtering going on? its very weak when they do! wehats up with that? ATI has always been good with Af. I think it has to do with there RAM limitations and there 128-bit bus. Either that or bad programming or it could point to a weakness in its architecture. Either way, its not a bad machine, just not as good as i had hoped for
the games you are mentioning, like COD2 and the other launch games are all ports.
Ofcourse a port will never run better then the original platform DUH
Just wait for Gears of War or Forza 2. Special designed for the 360 and then see if your PC has games like that
Have you seen or played F.E.A.R. on the 360 in final build/retail version? I guess not because it is not yet released! PC games in early build are also not up to highest level untill finished. So compare the finished product please
And then still. If it's a PC port it won't get better anyways so that's just wasting your time then
Excuses, excuses, excuses, kid, Fact is, that it doesnt look better, DUH! and the PC one is over a year old and it looks better on my PC which should be inferior to the 360.
The XBOX 360 is better than most pc's. I did say most, due to most have and are not upgraded and may be an average of 2 to 4 years old in many households. The PC advantage is that there up gradable and a console basically, less a few options and downloads is not. Today as we speak, yes it's definately on average more powerful than a PC, so is ps3 and Wii to some extent but that will change in another 10 to 16 months on average I'd say.
There are a few, yes, as in fear, ports that are better on XBOX 360 than they were in PC form. Fear has even been said by it's own developers to be superior on the XBOX 360.
But sooner or later they're going to have to bring it to next-gen consoles in order to get a substantial amount of buyers, especially considering the kind of PC specs this game requires. Whether or not they'll do the work to put it on the DX9 API of the 360 and Open GL 2.0 API of the PS3...I dunno. Maybe they should borrow Tim Sweeney for a month or somethin'. =P
You're not completely right in the post.
The 360 has as a base the DX9 API, but furthermore has it's own 360 API controlling. It's even not completely known, but it could well be it has more up it's sleeve then the standard DX10 has. MS can implement anything that the GPU/CPU/console is capable of.
Yes you're right. Most of the 360 screenies I've seen suck because of these issues... The lack of anisotropic filtering has a similar effect as low-res textures, it makes the image look really old. My 9700 does 8xAF practically for free, so why can't the 360's ATI card do the same?
Maybe the 360 targets kids who don't appreciate the finer details of graphics technology...
If EA buys Crytek, you can bet this game will be on everthing from the xbox 360/ps3 to the gamecube and even the psp. Trust me even if it meant a draw distance of 1 metre EA would still release it. LOL
draw distance of one meter...????
But this is like niching yourself into the corner. If it won't play on consoles, no way will it play on my pc. So the only way to play this game is to buy the newest 3 grand gaming rig?
You can keep your game, thanks for stopping by.
yet futher disapointment and lies in the wake of liepzig
I would take this guys word over yours anyday. There are no games on PS3 or 360 that come close to crysis. Physics, graphics, whatever. Show me something in realtime being played. And don't show me that Sony E3 05 crap either. PC > consoles all day. Plus with a PC I can do more stuff. Can you Burn a DVD on a PS3 or a 360. Don't give me that HD movies crap either WMVHD have been out for years. Consoles are the cheap way to game. BTW I'm a console gamer. Thinking of converting to a PC gamer. All this next gen console crap is getting crazy. Sony lies, M$ lies, getting sick of it. FANBOYS will ruin the indusrty. Brand loyalty kills competition. Competition keeps the prices down. Hell the PS4 will be $1000. The XBOX720 will be $800. May as well get a PC and do more with it.
"There are no games on PS3 or 360 that come close to crysis"
i don't know about that funky town tx. Heavy Rain comes pretty close. not sure if it's actual gameplay, but it IS confirmed as realtime from E3 2006. and it's from a build thats only 20% complete.
and here's confirmation that it was/is real-time:
and here's a screen of Lair. as you can see by the HUD, it IS real-time
now, i'm not saying that either of these games look BETTER than Crysis, but they stack up fairly nice next to Crysis. considering the fact that as of right now Crysis is the most gorgeous PC game currently conceived, and the fact that both Heavy Rain and Lair on the PS3 are roughly 10-20% complete (at least the two screens i've provided are), i personally don't see why the PS3 (at least), and even the 360 couldn't handle Crysis with some relatively crafty development.
You are just giving the weak point of a PC.
It does everything. So it does it all not at the highest possible level.
But still then. Ofcourse PC evolves constantly. Also a weak point: have to upgrade constantly if you want the best. 500 Euro/dollar every year for a new GPU? pfew
Gaming on a desktop @ a desk? Comfortable? No. Gaming with a wireless controller relaxed on the couch on a widescreen HDTV bigass 42 inch? Damn great experience, nothing to compare with (not even if the PC has a little bit higher graphics)
Look, I own a nice laptop...Pentium 4M processor...but NO 3-D graphics!!!
So, I play HL2 on my Xbox - a console that retailed for $149 at the time of the game's release.
Did I get the best graphics? No.
Did I get some framerate problems? Yes.
Did I have a blast playing the game?Absolutely!
A great game will be great when the graphics are turned down a notch. Heck - it was the same for Doom on the Xbox.
Don't tell me Crysis won't run on the 360 or PS3. It will. There might have to be some very small sacrifices made.
Oh, one more thing. Didn't Oblivion have the highest recommended system requirements ever at the time? And it looked/ran great on the 360 - one of the consoles "first gen" games...
Even if you know it was a plain PC port, not even specially designed on the 360.
Better then the highest PC configuration a port will never be, but still.
isn't this guy just a game DESIGNER? i mean, i'm not saying that he couldn't be right. but if he is, then whats up with this:
or more specifically, this:
This reminds me of Splinter Cell. Remember when everyone was saying that the Xbox is the only console that can support Splinter Cell's shadows and whatnot and it was practically impossible to put it on the PS2. That's why it was out for a while on Xbox. Then one day, the developers miraculously made it work on the PS2 somehow. This ended up spawning off a bunch of SC sequels on both consoles. Hummmmm...
It never did as in XBOX form show up on the ps2, it was a very downscaled and grainy ps2 version that came out, so they were right in there statement of it being superior and not playable on the ps2 as it was on the XBOX.
i garantee we'll see better loooking and more advnaced games than crysis for both xbox360 and ps3
men that doesnt sound good to me . how could it be that ps3 cant run this game . thats a big lie for having more customers . but who cares. there is mgs 4 and lots of other cool games for ps3 . but i didnt expect that
Apperently, oblivion on the 360 sold better than on the PC: 2K praised the 360 because it was responsible for high sales of Oblivion.
Companies will always say their console is more powerful than a PCs, and they will be: for about a day after the console ships. And PCs will always end up more powerful for the simple fact that it can be upgraded.
And they will always find ways of porting even the the most powerhungry PC games on to consoles, and they will always have a few flaws.
Does anyone seriously believe that through-out the consoles life spans we won't see any games that look as good as Crysis? The PS3 isn't even out yet.
Sad to say, the only thing in Crysis that really gets my attension is the graphics. And no, I won't pay $1000-$2000 just for a bunch of textures, instead, I'll buy a Predator DVD: that's got jungle shooting too and, hey! What's this? It's STILL looks more real than a video/computer game!
both have the horse power to run the game the dev just will get more royalties from the PC version. They are just protecting thier investment.
Of course Pcs will be always better...but there is always that price you need to pay... you cant keep upgrading it and pay apprx 400$ just to brag about...
Every year you need to change to a better motherboard,graphics card,ram because you need faster rams like the samsungs new GDDR4(it runs at 2.8ghz)....
if they start to make games for a particular hardware its simple for the developers and even for the most powerful pc card you can be sure it might not be pushed to its full limit like the ones on the consoles....
Because its gonna be the same way atleast for the next five years...but if you are some a$$ clown millonaire keep on upgrading ...
thats why i love my console dont need to do nothing with it...
Why pay ati and nvidia to upgrage every 8 months. That is just dumb unless you are just trapped under a rock. You still get a good game. Just like Doom 3 it did not look that pretty on the X1 but it did not look that bad. And they sold millions and id went to the bank. So the fan boy fight is looking real real silly
in about 2-3 years. The money is there, and you can belive they want it they just dont want you to avoid the PC version now because of the way th royaties are alocated. A company that actualy programs the port would under cut the cash up front. Just like with prey venom is the compant that programed the port. So they would have to find some one to port the game and pay them. So they would not want that loss right away. Would you? The only reason why the 360 got the PREY port right away is because ID and Microsft/xbox have a good and proven relationship. We will get Cryisis it is just to early for cytec to lose any money on the cost to port. Crytec may soon be a part of EA and you know EA is about that cash.
Damn, can't you all read? The consoles are not powerful enough to run this game. Only a PC running SLI/crossfire (2 video cards) or Quad-SLI (2 video cards with 2 GPU each) can handle this. Don't forget with a PC you can have a hell of alot more memory (2Gb+) I'm not saying that consoles will not have some great games but come on, you all can't believe a console with 512Mb of memory and a 500mhz graphics card can compete with a top of the line PC.
They can dev. a version that will get close. You know that so relax bro. The current version of crysis will not work "true" but a down draged port will. Doom3 pc and DOOM3 xbox1 same game x1 version downgraded to opperate on the console. Chill out. And by the way who are you yelling at? You do not run jack around here. So be easy. PEACE
I'm tired of all this fanboy crap...................Mine is better........no it isn't............yes it is........mine can cure cancer.........mine is a super computer.........fony sucks..........micro$hit is evil.....................
You all act like a bunch of 12 year olds. Your console (360 or PS3) will not save the world it will play games and movies. Grow up...........
And why would they want to develop a "down graded" version? Isn't that going backwards? I say keep moving foward, force Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft to make better hardware at an affordable price. Don't dumb down something just so something less powerful can also have it............That is what is wrong with everybody these days........"my kid feels bad because his baseball team can't win"..."I know we won't play to win..........Everybody is a winner!"................o r.......... " lets increase our school test scores by dumbing down the class, that way nobody fails". We have become a society of whining loosers that think we all should be winners.
I'm sorry boys and girls, you can't have it all.
They did it with Far Cry and other games. So why not with Crysis?
Tell me. You may not like it, you may try to be the next oracle but you are whining even harder then all console fanboys together over here.
GO run off to your PC and stop whining
Who said consoles will save the world
The way everyone acts on this site, Their respective console is a god.
And in your view the PC is
I feel you but you not being a big help. It seems like your looking for your own fight.
The only thing I am on this site for is gaming news, I'm not looking for a fight. I play games on everything and do not care who makes the system. The more there are the better. Why can't everyone see that?