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: http://www.maxconsole.net/c...
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.