Get your first glimpse of the engine powering Far Cry 2. Link for SD quality : http://www.gametrailers.com/player/29855.html
I think this can be done on consoles.. The Grass is like Turok/Uncharted to where there is a level of detail. Its not far off in the distance.. like in Crysis. The Bloom.. well.. lol. consoles can handle bloom. The building hut scene looks like it could be done in Assassins creed. There is wind in the trees/grass like in Uncharted. But those aren't leaves.. those are the lame ass poly-plant-leaf trees that are all just made of cards. This stuff look great, BUT... nothing even remotely close to Crysis. I doubt it ever will. The dynamics are a whole new ball park as well..
I have to disagree. Those were the best graphics I've seen so far. I'm not sure that the gfx will be that good in game... but if so, it looks better than Crysis and anything I've seen on consoles. I'd be interested to know if they can get the console versions looking that good!
Dunia will support console too. Far Cry 2 is coming out to the PS3. By the way, Just for you enthusiasts, Dunia is arabic for "world".
i don't know if the game will look like the trailer, but if it does, i think that would be the most realistic graphics i've seen in a game ever. but if it doesn't it wouldn't surprise either.
doesn't look THAT good. PS3 can do it(assuming its not coded by monkeys), than again, it is ubisoft....sigh.
COD4 and uncharted look as good as that.. This isnt in game I bet so hard to say. I would rather not look at prerendered clips it just leads to dissappointment. This doesnt look at all beyond the scope of current gen consoles.
This is one of the best game I ever see, I like Crysis graphics but I think this is more realistic...Totally sure it will run that good on console...as we know no one until now reach the limit of the power of console...even uncharted use just ~20% of ps3 Power...but 20% does not mean that if we build another game using 20% power we will got something like uncharted...it could be better more realistic with same power being used...just it depend on how good developers are... Waiting for this game, I Like the non liner game...
First of all it's 1/3 (33.33333... and so one %), and second of all it's a third of the cells capacity. Sure you can but code handling graphics on the cell as well but since the rsx is built to handle graphics and the cell is a multipurpose cpu the rsx is more effective at handling graphical calculations meaning you have to balance how much of the graphical calculations you put on the cell.
the game looks *GOOD (or should i say, the graphics engine looks good). fantastic even. but in all honestly, i truly think the Playstation 3 could handle said engine. the thing that i think most folks don't understand about the Cell and RSX, is that those 6 available SPEs in the Cell are able to take on quite a bit of tasks if coded properly. the Cell and RSX are limited to 256MB of RAM, with the RSX having 256MB of GDDR3 RAM, which is quite faster than normal RAM. what's notable, is that the Cell has a memory bandwidth of 25.6GB a *SECOND. that's a lot of information being pushed through the Cell. the RSX has about 22GB of memory bandwith per second. unlike the Unified architecture of the 360, in which the 512MB of RAM have to *SHARE the 22 or so GB of memory bandwidth, the Cell and RSX combo are able to utilize *BOTH SIMULTANEOUSLY. that is to say, the Cell and RSX combo has a total of roughly 48GB of memory bandwith. it's been proven that not only is the Cell expert at running ridiculous numbers of calculations (look at Folding @ Home for evidence of this), but the Cell is *ALSO quite excellent at running graphics (visit Youtube and look at some of the Cell only graphic presentations). afterall, video games and graphics, are just a bunch of numbers being crunched by the processor, and the Cell is one hell of a number cruncher. Sony was right, in that they could have released the PS3 with the Cell as it's GPU and CPU (thanks to those 6 SPEs being able to run things like AI routines, physics simulations, audio and video processing, etc, *SIMULTANEOUSLY, where, usually, some of those things would be handled by the GPU solely in other setups), but they supplemented it's abilities with the RSX, which, while i won't compare it to any of the PC graphics cards out there, because i don't have the specs on me, i know the RSX is a very powerful video card indeed, but a lot of the workload for these games could be run off the Cell, freeing the RSX up to run other programs (say you wanted some fancy HDR, anti-aliasing, and all those spiffy texture layers that developers are fond of combining; the Cell could run some elements, and the RSX could run some elements, without bogging each other down due to their *SEPERATE memory bandwidth pipelines, 256MB of dedicated memory RAM or not). *NEITHER processor has to carry the full brunt of the game's needs. people make a big fuss out of the 256MB and 256MB split between the Cell and RSX, but the fact that their separate memory buses are able to churn through memory so fast, that 256MB isn't the bottleneck that it's made out to be. the "secret," or "trick," as it seems, is *STREAMING. you *DON'T cache the graphics data to the 256MB of RAM, you *PASS IT THROUGH. and as *FAST as possible. when you have high texture data being sent through as fast as the Cell and RSX are able to do (especially if you have the Cell handling the AI, physics,etc, and the RSX almostly *SOLELY handling things like HDR, Anti-aliasing, etc), it doesn't matter that there's a 256MB "limit." the Cell is a master and churning through data. the trick is that it's just *NOT very simple to get all your routines not only running, but running *AT the same time. most often, the developers run into said bottlenecks with the 256MB/256MB RAM split because they're simply trying to *CACHE the data like they do with, well, *EVERYTHING else, from PCs to 360s. *HOWEVER, when a developer gets it *RIGHT, and learns how to get their Cell and RSX working together, we get results like this: Uncharted: Drake's Fortune: http://www.1up.com/do/slide... http://www.1up.com/do/slide... http://www.1up.com/do/slide... Ratchet and Clank Future: http://farm2.static.flickr.... http://www.britishgaming.co... Killzone 2: http://www.threespeech.com/... http://www.breakitdownblog.... i can attest to the fact that they are *ALL in game screenshots, no photo-manipulations. notice something about these games? i mean, besides the incredible visuals? HDR *AND AA are going at the same time. not a jaggy in sight. in the case of the Killzone 2 screens, these are screens from a build from *ONE YEAR AGO. they hadn't even moved into the final tweaking and code optimizing phase yet. the point is that those three developers, Naughty Dog, Insomniac, and Guerilla Games respectively, have figured out how to, one, stream data constantly not only through the Cell, but through the Blu Ray disc (you need a higher capacity disc to store all that massive texture data the Cell is going to stream), and they have *ALSO figured out the best uses for the RSX (such as anti-aliasing and HDR effects, to name only a few they can offload to the RSX). because of the unique architecture of the Cell and RSX set-up, *NEITHER processor is being taxed as hard as they would if, say, the Cell was only dedicated to running game code, and the RSX was forced to run *ALL of the graphics calculations itself. Uncharted has *NO load times right after the initial start up. it *DOES not cache any data to the hard drive, or require an install or a partial install. it is a *FIRST GENERATION Playstation 3 title, and Naughty Dog's *FIRST Playstation 3 title in general. Ratchet is Insomniac's *SECOND Playstation 3 game, but still a *FIRST GENERATION PS3 title, being as it released during the console's first year. Killzone 2 is Guerilla Game's *FIRST Playstation 3 title, and is only a SECOND GENERATION PS3 game, and they've been working on it for over 3+ years. the reason for this gigantic post was to explain *WHY i think the PS3 could handle these graphics, no sweat, with the only problems being the fact that the Far Cry 2 developers would have to rethink their engine code, and practically *REWRITE it for optimum use of the Cell. not many developers are willing to do that, but you see what happens when they *DO (Uncharted, Ratchet, and Killzone 2 are all using their *OWN game engines, written from scratch; Ratchet uses an updated Resistance engine, however, but that engine was *STILL built from the ground up). one more for the road: Metal Gear Solid 4 http://www.rotpod.net/rotpo... http://www.playlipse.fr/scr... once again, *ALL in game, with effects like AA and HDR going on. i'm not saying that this *ISN'T possible on other consoles (i think the 360 can do it as well), i'm just saying that the Cell/RSX combo is *SPECIFICALLY designed to handle these high-bandwith polygons and textures, on top of the latest in post-processing affects (ie, AA and HDR). but developers have not gotten around it yet. my sources on the Cell is this *VERY informative article i found a long time ago, that is constantly being updated as new information of the Cell is released. it's dense, and very technical, and i admit that i don't understand *ALL of it, but the writer explains it well enough that you don't need to be a Borg to get the gist of it: http://www.blachford.info/c... very informative. i'm on the lookout for a more in depth look into the RSX, as my knowledge of that is a lot less, so if any PS3 users have some links, let me know! but enough about that, Far Cry 2 is looking very "Afrika-ish." is Africa the new Hoth/WWII/Jungle for this phase of the "next" generation? i thought the part with the Zebra looked *AMAZING. the gazelle(?), not so much. i'm looking forward to seeing the new trailer that will hopefully shed some light on the actual *GAMEPLAY (but, you know, its FAR CRY, so i'm assuming there will be some pointing and shooting, but still).
woah. Do you really think I will read all that!?.
@Figboy, so can it do Crysis then and run above 30fps? :)p
the Cell truly is a very powerful processor. it just takes *EXTREMELY precise coding to ring the best out of it. i think it could do Crysis...in about another year or so. i mean, just *LOOK at what the system is capable of outputting *NOW, after only a year on the market, with developers that are still finding their way through the technology. imagine what these developers will be able to do now that they've gotten their ears wet. we've already seen what Insomniac can do after some experience with Cell. the jump in quality from Resistance to Ratchet was *OUTSTANDING, and the jump from Ratchet to Resistance 2 is looking just as outstanding. oh yeah, and to prowiew; you don't *HAVE to read anything, and i don't expect everybody to read my posts, but in this particular one, there's some interesting insight into the Cell processor (especially in the provided link), which i think sheds some light on what developers have been doing *WRONG with the PS3 so far, and that other developers like Insomniac, Naughty Dog, and Guerilla Games, are doing *RIGHT with the PS3. that's all.
The graphics are not the problem, its the size of the game world. Im sure the current consoles can show these graphics but to have the same size playing area will probably take up to much ram. Something will have to give.
but in my above post, i explain that the way the PS3 and Cell works, is that the game isn't actually *STORING anything on the RAM like in convential design setups, but it is supposed to be *STREAMING all that data. the Cell has 256MB of RAM, with a dedicated memory bandwidth of roughly 26.5 gigs a second. the RSX *ALSO has 256MB of GDDR3 RAM, with it's own memory bandwidth of roughly 22gigs a second. they're both able to run their respective code individually from one another, and simultaneously. the Power Processor Element of the Cell (the PPE), is only there as a controller for the 6 available SPEs on the Cell. in short, the PPE is like the shift supervisor, designating tasks that his employees (the SPEs), are able to run simultaneously, and individually. Uncharted, for example, is *SEAMLESS. the game streams, from the disc, no less (no hard drive caching) from start to end. if you stand on a cliff of Uncharted and look out over the forest, it is *MASSIVE. there is one part in the game in particular, where you are approaching a gigantic Fort. the fort is along a cliff overlooking the ocean. however, if you look off towards the ocean, you can see this *HUGE building off in the distance, as well as other mountains, and surrounding areas. through the course of the game, you eventually work your way *TO that building, and when you look back, you can see the Fort that you were at earlier. since the game never breaks to load in segments, you could have probably run from the Fort, to that building, no problems. the Cell is designed for streaming data, not caching it to RAM, though it, naturally, has that option. unfortunately, that's when the 256MB RAM for the RSX, and the 256MB RAM for the Cell can become problematic. most developers nowadays, have been making games with that caching to memory method for *AGES. a weak analogy is kind of like how difficult it was for us gamers who have been playing games for 20+ years to get a handle on playing with a console like the Wii; the new control system was awkward, even diffcult, at first, but after a while, you get used to it, and compensate for the changes. PS3 developers need to get out of their traditional thinking, and begin to write their code with the PS3's unique architecture and setup. developers complained that the Playstation 2 was *ALSO too difficult to program for, because of it's own unique architecture. you don't hear that complaint anymore. why? because developers have gotten used to the technology, and have developed methods to maximize the PS2 technology. the same thing will happen with the PS3. i think a lot of people forget that the PS3 has only been out *ONE YEAR, and not *TWO, like the X Box 360. PS3 developers are a full 12 months *BEHIND 360 developers, and they are trying to catch up. as you can see by tracking the first 12 months of the PS3's release, they are catching up rather fast (looking at Uncharted, Ratchet, Folklore, Heavenly Sword, Unreal Tournament 3, to name a few). remember when PS3 games were *HORRIBLY behind 360 games in terms of visuals with multi-platform titles (ie, Splinter Cell: Double Agent), that has become more and more rare over time, as now, a lot of PS3 and 360 games are practically *IDENTICAL (Assassin's Creed, Call of Duty 4, Burnout Paradise, Devil May Cry 4). developers are slowly getting a handle on the PS3's architecture, and as they figure it out, the differences between the two consoles will even out. in the instance of Burnout Paradise, Criterion had the PS3 as their lead platform, and as a result, *BOTH versions of Burnout are practically identical, with differences so minor they are practically non-existent. but back to your original point, if programmed with proper streaming in place, i don't think the PS3 version of Far Cry 2 would have to give up much (i *DO think it'd have to give up something, just not geographical space, depending on when it's scheduled to release, i'd say it'd probably take a graphics loss, as it's still quite difficult to get the most out of the PS3 right now).
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.