Crytek Boss: "Impossible" For New Consoles to Beat PCs

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Seth Carter:
Yeah, you can't make a 3000 dollar piece of machinery that requires technical know how to assemble and configure for 3-500 dollars pre-assembled and guaranteed to function for anyone.

If you can manage to plug in a console you have 90% of the technical know-how required to assemble a PC

I think the factor most everyone is missing here is that there's not really any difference between a PC and a console now. Back in my day, a PC running your Lucas Arts adventure game of choice was a completely different animal than the SNES running Mario and Final Fantasy. Fast-forward to today, and there's not really any reason to own both, just one or the other. Sure, there's a few exclusives, but even so, those games are hardly different than another similar multiplatform game.

image

It's not like Intel and AMD are willing to secretly develop hardware better than anything on the market and help Microsoft shove it into a $500 box.

And Crysis games are boring anyway. Might as well be a Michael Bay movie.

omicron1:
My two cents: Once the lowest target spec is brought up to at least 2010 hardware, many things about even the PC versions of games will be allowed to improve. That 8-16 gb of memory is the difference between, say, a fully-dynamic open-world (Skyrim with no load screens!) and corridor shooters; or between Crysis 1's glorious open island maps and Crysis 2/3's wide hallways. And that's not to mention the benefits of manyfold faster CPUs (Physics? AI? No problem!). Even if the graphics are no match, to some extent the introduction of next generation consoles will be a huge aid even to PC gamers.
That is, once they stop buying exclusivity for everything.

Yep, and CryTek seriously needs to settle on a market already and stop bullshitting everyone else.
PC gamers know exactly why Crysis 2 and Crysis 3 didn't end up as large open world games with dozens of possibilities, and him saying that "Crysis 3 will melt PCs" doesn't change the fact that his company designed all the gameplay and levels to fit on consoles and that these games are NOTHING like the first Crysis at all, which despite what everyone says about "Benchmark" and whatnot was also a really good game.

It's like they're eternally trapped between two markets, pissing off one of them to garner the others favor in cycles.

What if I don't want to pay for a 2000$ computer to play your games? What if I want to buy a 500$ console and 1500$ worth of games... that's at least 25 games assuming I don't buy older or sued games as opposed to one game and a PC that will be outdated in 6 months.

Of course this is the guy who has a goal of developing thing for the highest rated and most overcost hardware as opposed to say, the equally noble goal of optimizing something to run on lower end systems.

This isn't news, this is obvious. Even a 4 year old graphics card alone has more processing power than a current gen console by a huge factor. Still, after Crysis 2, I'll be seriously holding out before buying 3. No chance of a preorder, that's for certain. A sci fi CoD clone designed for consoles....errrrr, no.

DoomyMcDoom:
Shoop!

Lemme address this in order, starting with "I don't have anything against computers as a gaming medium.". I use one, although it is not may favorite means of play. So, if there is some way you construe this as an attack, that you should feel personally offended, don't. Now then...

Now then, consoles with features that are there to make them act like computers are an irrelevent detail for the reason you just stated: They're bad at it. It's just a tacked-on, non-central feature, like rolling your sandwich in bacon. Tastes good, but not good FOR you. We can drop the comparisons on that front because they're unimportant. They're not what consoles are FOR. Now, computers are for LOTS of things. That's why they cost a buttload of money. You paid more for your computer, definitely, because - even if it were a gaming computer - it is also going to be able to do any professional work, surf the net, download various things, and so on. This is what it's meant for. A gamming console has one ACTUAL true function: To play games. It is STRICTLY an entertainment device. Even if you play your CDs, MP3s, movies, and other things on it OR even try to use the net, it is all for entertainment and nothing else. You with me so far?

Consoles are not computers in a box. They don't function that way, they do not have that format, and not everything they do even in THIS AGE is interchangeable...save for PERHAPS the X-Box because it's fucking Microsoft. Nintendo and Sony don't have a basis in PCs, so that wouldn't happen. They're not the same, AND they're not built the same. Also, I'm not sure if there's a difference in pricing in Canada, but a good computer to 'outpace' a console doesn't cost $400. Or if it does, it must be nice to live in Canada, but that isn't how things are south of you. (Alternatively, you managed to cut a VERY good and uncommon deal.) Consoles cost less than the kinds of computers you would need for Skyrim, I think.

Additionally, yes shit DOES evolve. PCs do it piece by piece and program by program. Consoles do it generationally. Please don't make such silly comments like Skyrim on NES. That's a bad comparison. I'm very glad that your PC experience has been good for you. Don't knock MY good times in a futile war.

Gearhead mk2:

Cevat Yerli:
Blah blah blah glorious pc gaming master race blah blah consoles suck blah graphics are everything blah blah blah.

That's all I'm hearing from this.

The thing is, PC will always be better than console in almost every way. It's a fact. The only advantage I've ever seen that console has is the ability to put a disc in, and play the game. No need to be online, or make accounts, or download/install, etc.

Of course, it never matters how much better PCs are than consoles, or how powerful consoles are. Until we get some better stories with better gameplay, and stop trying to make games as shinier and 'realistic looking' as possible, graphics are pointless. I'd rather play a blocky looking game that's fun than...Crysis 2.

Dryk:

Seth Carter:
Yeah, you can't make a 3000 dollar piece of machinery that requires technical know how to assemble and configure for 3-500 dollars pre-assembled and guaranteed to function for anyone.

If you can manage to plug in a console you have 90% of the technical know-how required to assemble a PC

If you're dropping 3000 bucks into it, I think you're getting into a bit more complex then your basic PC. Thats got to include some sort of fancy heatsinks or something, that or people grievously overcharge this guy.

FalloutJack:

Lemme address this in order, starting with "I don't have anything against computers as a gaming medium.". I use one, although it is not may favorite means of play. So, if there is some way you construe this as an attack, that you should feel personally offended, don't.

I'm not offended.

Now then, consoles with features that are there to make them act like computers are an irrelevent detail for the reason you just stated: They're bad at it. It's just a tacked-on, non-central feature, like rolling your sandwich in bacon. Tastes good, but not good FOR you. We can drop the comparisons on that front because they're unimportant. They're not what consoles are FOR. Now, computers are for LOTS of things. That's why they cost a buttload of money. You paid more for your computer, definitely, because - even if it were a gaming computer - it is also going to be able to do any professional work, surf the net, download various things, and so on. This is what it's meant for. A gamming console has one ACTUAL true function: To play games. It is STRICTLY an entertainment device. Even if you play your CDs, MP3s, movies, and other things on it OR even try to use the net, it is all for entertainment and nothing else. You with me so far?

Umm, no pricing isn't that different here than anywhere else, except maybe out of the way countries where it's hard to find anywhere to buy a computer. www.ncix.com is the website where I procure my parts, and even the parts I bought on sale on there are only like $5 more expensive not on sale, I'm not shitting you it cost me $400 including shipping and shipping insurance, that's not a buttload of money.

Consoles are not computers in a box. They don't function that way, they do not have that format, and not everything they do even in THIS AGE is interchangeable...save for PERHAPS the X-Box because it's fucking Microsoft. Nintendo and Sony don't have a basis in PCs, so that wouldn't happen. They're not the same, AND they're not built the same. Also, I'm not sure if there's a difference in pricing in Canada, but a good computer to 'outpace' a console doesn't cost $400. Or if it does, it must be nice to live in Canada, but that isn't how things are south of you. (Alternatively, you managed to cut a VERY good and uncommon deal.) Consoles cost less than the kinds of computers you would need for Skyrim, I think.

You don't know how consoles work do you? That hardware in the console there, is a computer, the parts in an xbox 360, are 6 year old pc parts, sony is involved in the pc world, as you probably don't know, their whole Vaio product line, includes laptops, desktop pcs, pcs built into monitors/touchscreen monitors, and the PS3 is a pc with a different operating system in it for all intents and purposes, it has a CPU a GPU RAM and a motherboard.
also just so you know, I was running skyrim on a pc that cost me like $400, only that computer I bought 4 years ago, and was about half as powerful as my current system, so yeah, considering cost depreciation, if I were to sell you that computer, I'd only be able to charge you like $50 for it with a clear conscience.
And just so you get the idea, skyrim on that computer, makes skyrim on the xbox/ps3 look like minecraft in texture resolution and visual quality by comparison...
And with a few mods has much better gameplay value too.

Additionally, yes shit DOES evolve. PCs do it piece by piece and program by program. Consoles do it generationally. Please don't make such silly comments like Skyrim on NES. That's a bad comparison. I'm very glad that your PC experience has been good for you. Don't knock MY good times in a futile war.

Not knocking anyone's experience, just pointing out some inconsistencies, so that you or others may learn if you so choose.

Another thing that a lot of people like to say that I'ma knock outa the park before you feel the need to throw them out there, save us both time.
I can plug my pc into a tv, I can plug all sorts of controllers into my computer, and almost every game I have(over 400 at this point, on steam alone, I have many on GOG and I have a big pile of discs, don't feel like counting them all) is capable of being configured to work with almost any given kind of controller, I can use gamepads joysticks steering wheels, even wavystick motion control stuff like the Wii controller.
I have access to my entire game library with ease, I don't even hafta put a disc in!
Also wireless mouse and keyboard if I want to I can play games on a bigscreen tv sitting on my couch, wireless gamepad controller as well. I can stream anything off of the internet, through netflix or off of youtube or any other site off of my tv anytime, and I don't hafta fumble with a controller to type shit in either.
I get games cheap, I can mod them to hell and back, and I don't lose ANY of my library when I choose to upgrade, cuz backwards compatability, hell I can run games for consoles due to using an emulator for those older games that I still own for the PS1/PS2 just pop em into my drive, and play em.

PC is unquestionably the best gaming platform, whether or not it was made for such duties, hell, I know you are likely to throw the quote of how I bought a pc for about $400 4 years ago, back at me, I gave it to someone cuz I was flying across a country bringing nothing but a suitcase with me, I couldn't bother to ship it out with me, just saved time and bought a new one here, so yeah I might've popped more ram and a tuned up video card into it or something, which would've cost me about $100 but that'd just be for the sake of pushing everything that much further. on that system I could still run all of the games available and make em look better than they do on a console, so really not an issue overall when it comes to comparison.

also when you rack up the cost of my steam library(more games than any sane person needs at this point) of over 400 games, and think about how much that library cost me due to steam sales, I'm looking at a cost estimate of I'd say around $500-$700, if you can get a games library of 400 games, and a console to run them, prettier than consoles do now, with mod support, and all sorts of other nifty features for $1200 or less... I'd call that a value win, cuz even if we said you got all those games for your console second hand at $20 a game, you're still spending $8000! So really, who's spending a buttload of money here?

KingsGambit:
This isn't news, this is obvious. Even a 4 year old graphics card alone has more processing power than a current gen console by a huge factor. Still, after Crysis 2, I'll be seriously holding out before buying 3. No chance of a preorder, that's for certain. A sci fi CoD clone designed for consoles....errrrr, no.

a Sci Fi CoD clone designed for consoles and requiring Origin no less!

Twilight_guy:
What if I don't want to pay for a 2000$ computer to play your games? What if I want to buy a 500$ console and 1500$ worth of games... that's at least 25 games assuming I don't buy older or sued games as opposed to one game and a PC that will be outdated in 6 months.

Of course this is the guy who has a goal of developing thing for the highest rated and most overcost hardware as opposed to say, the equally noble goal of optimizing something to run on lower end systems.

Because after you buy the 2,000 dollar computer you can buy 25 games for about 100 dollars, and they are going to be generally AAA games.

PC gaming is generally cheaper than console gaming, a lot of people dont realize that part though.

Doclector:
Lower pricing for PCs still doesn't change the accessibility issues or the fact that games companies are using the PC's variation and adaptability to pull some ridiculous bullshit with DRM and the like.

Sure, there have been rumours that next gen consoles will pull similiar shit, but until that's confirmed, consoles still have advantage of not being as open to such tactics....not everyone, however, can get their head around PC's technical parts. Not everyone's even comfortable with it, it's not always about sheer technical knowledge, it's about being able to purchase a game with the confidence that it most likely works, not having to worry that it'll disagree with your particular setup.

I've never been that worried about sheer horsepower, myself; as long as the graphics are good enough, and they're not clearly broken, I can deal with them. But yeah, if any of those rumors about the 720/PS4 turn out to be true--mandatory Kinect, no more used games, always-on DRM (on a console! Always-on DRM on a fucking console, for fuck's sake!), PS3 game streaming rather than backwards compatibility (it's like always-on DRM, plus your games are now truly no longer yours!)--that will definitely drive me to PCs. I may not know much about building them, but I'll damned well learn, rather than tolerate this nonsense.

dreadedcandiru99:

Doclector:
Lower pricing for PCs still doesn't change the accessibility issues or the fact that games companies are using the PC's variation and adaptability to pull some ridiculous bullshit with DRM and the like.

Sure, there have been rumours that next gen consoles will pull similiar shit, but until that's confirmed, consoles still have advantage of not being as open to such tactics....not everyone, however, can get their head around PC's technical parts. Not everyone's even comfortable with it, it's not always about sheer technical knowledge, it's about being able to purchase a game with the confidence that it most likely works, not having to worry that it'll disagree with your particular setup.

I've never been that worried about sheer horsepower, myself; as long as the graphics are good enough, and they're not clearly broken, I can deal with them. But yeah, if any of those rumors about the 720/PS4 turn out to be true--mandatory Kinect, no more used games, always-on DRM (on a console! Always-on DRM on a fucking console, for fuck's sake!), PS3 game streaming rather than backwards compatibility (it's like always-on DRM, plus your games are now truly no longer yours!)--that will definitely drive me to PCs. I may not know much about building them, but I'll damned well learn, rather than tolerate this nonsense.

As much as I hate to admit it, I may have to do the same. Hell, it's not looking like the Wii u's going to offer much for the hardcore market, if it did, I'd probably go crawling back to nintendo apologising for the many times I've cried "BETRAYAAAAL!" for their nigh on abandonment of the hardcore gamers that have stuck by them for so long.

Though, there is the problem that if both hardcore consoles use always on DRM, this may spur even more companies to do it on PC too.

Doclector:

dreadedcandiru99:

Doclector:
Lower pricing for PCs still doesn't change the accessibility issues or the fact that games companies are using the PC's variation and adaptability to pull some ridiculous bullshit with DRM and the like.

Sure, there have been rumours that next gen consoles will pull similiar shit, but until that's confirmed, consoles still have advantage of not being as open to such tactics....not everyone, however, can get their head around PC's technical parts. Not everyone's even comfortable with it, it's not always about sheer technical knowledge, it's about being able to purchase a game with the confidence that it most likely works, not having to worry that it'll disagree with your particular setup.

I've never been that worried about sheer horsepower, myself; as long as the graphics are good enough, and they're not clearly broken, I can deal with them. But yeah, if any of those rumors about the 720/PS4 turn out to be true--mandatory Kinect, no more used games, always-on DRM (on a console! Always-on DRM on a fucking console, for fuck's sake!), PS3 game streaming rather than backwards compatibility (it's like always-on DRM, plus your games are now truly no longer yours!)--that will definitely drive me to PCs. I may not know much about building them, but I'll damned well learn, rather than tolerate this nonsense.

As much as I hate to admit it, I may have to do the same. Hell, it's not looking like the Wii u's going to offer much for the hardcore market, if it did, I'd probably go crawling back to nintendo apologising for the many times I've cried "BETRAYAAAAL!" for their nigh on abandonment of the hardcore gamers that have stuck by them for so long.

Though, there is the problem that if both hardcore consoles use always on DRM, this may spur even more companies to do it on PC too.

And of course, if they do, our job as gamers is to make a point of not buying from those companies. I've rejected more than a few games already, for that very reason. I was totally going to get the new SimCity, for example, until they pulled that shit. There are loads of DRM-free PC games to be had out there--I keep hearing good things about GOG.com. And yeah, Steam's basically DRM, but between the loads of extra functions, the constant sales, and (most importantly) the offline mode, I'm willing to accept it.

Console-wise, I'm way, way more psyched for the Ouya and the Steam Box (in whatever form it eventually takes) than the 720 or the PS4. Whatever their eventual shortcomings, at least they're not apparently determined to treat customers like criminals. Between those two and the PC, I think I'll be fine.

Anathrax:
Bungie please, listen to these types of statements and follow them. I play shooters on a mouse and keyboard, many others do. DO NOT BE STUPID.

The only way bungie could be stupid is if they didn't release their next game on consoles

Desert Punk:

Because after you buy the 2,000 dollar computer you can buy 25 games for about 100 dollars, and they are going to be generally AAA games.

PC gaming is generally cheaper than console gaming, a lot of people dont realize that part though.

Uh, console games go down in price too.

Akalabeth:

Anathrax:
Bungie please, listen to these types of statements and follow them. I play shooters on a mouse and keyboard, many others do. DO NOT BE STUPID.

The only way bungie could be stupid is if they didn't release their next game on consoles

Desert Punk:

Because after you buy the 2,000 dollar computer you can buy 25 games for about 100 dollars, and they are going to be generally AAA games.

PC gaming is generally cheaper than console gaming, a lot of people dont realize that part though.

Uh, console games go down in price too.

Not as much as PC games though, and PC games have far better and much more convenient sales. a month after skyrim came out you could get it for about 20 bucks brand new. Even buying used you would get it for 50 dollars from gamestop.

Desert Punk:

Akalabeth:

Anathrax:
Bungie please, listen to these types of statements and follow them. I play shooters on a mouse and keyboard, many others do. DO NOT BE STUPID.

The only way bungie could be stupid is if they didn't release their next game on consoles

Desert Punk:

Because after you buy the 2,000 dollar computer you can buy 25 games for about 100 dollars, and they are going to be generally AAA games.

PC gaming is generally cheaper than console gaming, a lot of people dont realize that part though.

Uh, console games go down in price too.

Not as much as PC games though, and PC games have far better and much more convenient sales. a month after skyrim came out you could get it for about 20 bucks brand new. Even buying used you would get it for 50 dollars from gamestop.

What you mean to say is that "A month after skyrim came out you could get the priviledge of playing it through a service for about 20 bucks brand new". Because of course you don't in any way own your games, through Steam, which is what I presume you're referring to or some other digital distribution service. And by "own your game" I mean being able to trade or re-sell it which is effectively ownership.

Hmm well my 3000 dollar system (which is fictional but still) had better run Crisis 3 at full graphics or I'll get... annoyed? No that is too much I'd feel more like bothered? or maybe miffed. Hmm no it more likely be indifferent. Yep I'd be indifferent if I couldn't play Crisis 3 at full graphics settings.

I'm a proud PC gamer and I tend to run games at whatever their default settings are graphically because I'm color blind, badly, so I have issues noticing graphical upgrades these days. I also have pretty terrible vision on top of colorblindness and even with corrective devices (of some kind or other) I still doubt I see as well as the norm so graphics beyond the high or even average settings are lost on me. But I likes me mouse and keyboard so won't be trading off for a console any time soon.

Also: Why would any company basically attempt to alienate roughly half their customers? It is pretty much the stupidest thing you can do. Do you hate money? Because if you hate money I'd take it from you without complaining. Do you like scorn? 'Cause I'd heap scorn on you for a share of all that money you seem to want to throw away. Seriously Crytek, the antics of your management amuse me.

Akalabeth:

What you mean to say is that "A month after skyrim came out you could get the priviledge of playing it through a service for about 20 bucks brand new". Because of course you don't in any way own your games, through Steam, which is what I presume you're referring to or some other digital distribution service. And by "own your game" I mean being able to trade or re-sell it which is effectively ownership.

Being able to buy or sell a preowned game doesnt matter to me, none of my games are preowned and I have never sold any of my games because I am not a cheapskate, I like to pay developers for their work.

Besides, in the EU they have ruled you are legally able to resell your digital goodies, and if ya havent noticed, Microsoft can brick your entire XBOX if they get pissed off at you, Steam or any other client cant do that to MY gaming system if they get annoyed with me.

Desert Punk:

Akalabeth:

What you mean to say is that "A month after skyrim came out you could get the priviledge of playing it through a service for about 20 bucks brand new". Because of course you don't in any way own your games, through Steam, which is what I presume you're referring to or some other digital distribution service. And by "own your game" I mean being able to trade or re-sell it which is effectively ownership.

Being able to buy or sell a preowned game doesnt matter to me, none of my games are preowned and I have never sold any of my games because I am not a cheapskate, I like to pay developers for their work.

Eh? You like to pay developers for their work, and yet just two posts ago you promoted the idea of buying AAA games at rock bottom prices? Did you buy Skyrim at 60 dollars? Or 20 dollars? If it's the latter, you ripped them off.

And what the hell does selling a game have to do with being a cheapskate? If you're done with something, and will never used it again, you sell it. Or do I have a moral obligation to have it taking up space in my house?

Besides, in the EU they have ruled you are legally able to resell your digital goodies, and if ya havent noticed, Microsoft can brick your entire XBOX if they get pissed off at you, Steam or any other client cant do that to MY gaming system if they get annoyed with me.

Yeah but Steam can close your account, which'll cost you hundreds of dollars in access to games.

I've never met anyone who's had their console bricked by either Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft.

Akalabeth:

Desert Punk:

Akalabeth:

What you mean to say is that "A month after skyrim came out you could get the priviledge of playing it through a service for about 20 bucks brand new". Because of course you don't in any way own your games, through Steam, which is what I presume you're referring to or some other digital distribution service. And by "own your game" I mean being able to trade or re-sell it which is effectively ownership.

Being able to buy or sell a preowned game doesnt matter to me, none of my games are preowned and I have never sold any of my games because I am not a cheapskate, I like to pay developers for their work.

Eh? You like to pay developers for their work, and yet just two posts ago you promoted the idea of buying AAA games at rock bottom prices? Did you buy Skyrim at 60 dollars? Or 20 dollars? If it's the latter, you ripped them off.

Besides, in the EU they have ruled you are legally able to resell your digital goodies, and if ya havent noticed, Microsoft can brick your entire XBOX if they get pissed off at you, Steam or any other client cant do that to MY gaming system if they get annoyed with me.

Yeah but Steam can close your account, which'll cost you hundreds of dollars in access to games.

I've never met anyone who's had their console bricked by either Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft.

I bought it at 60 dollars, but even if I had bought it at 20 they still get a cut unlike people who buy used, which every cent goes to Gamestop.

And I havent met anyone who has had their steam account blocked, Yay anecdotal evidence!

PC master race reporting in.

Cevat is in way over his head if he's thinks visuals are all there is to games. Obviously consoles can't hold a candle to PC's when it comes to visuals/complexity, but they account for only 20-25% (even less for some people) of a game's appeal.

In the end sales determine the success of everything, and $1000+ gaming computers isn't where the sales are happening. 7-year-old consoles are still leading the way.

DoomyMcDoom:
Massive Snip

To bring this all to a finely-crafted head...

I AM aware of how consoles work, but they're not made to behave as PCs do, ergo they do not count as one.

My gaming experience (for consoles) hasn't been as expensive as you describe either, so I believe we're both fortunate in our fields.

Comparing console graphics to Minecraft is another very-unrealistic comparison. Graphics engines on either side are way too strong for that to be possible unless we're talking it being on purpose or because it wasn't in the budget.

Controls, storage, and other features between the two are growing more parallel by the day. Steam is a good point, but that's just because Valve is awesome and does good business. (Though, using a controller on a PC... I had a bad experience with trying that. It was utter hell to try and make work, for an MMO that supported it. For that, I prefer to TRY to adapt to the keyboard/mmouse configuration, which I'll never be use to over a controller, sadly.)

What you have is basically a well-informed opinion. That you're not taking any point of my disagreeing with it personally is a good sign. I'm open to new concepts and opinions, of course. I'm not ready to call anyone superior becuase {A} stupid console VS PC war is stupid, {B} it's really a case of six in one, half a dozen in the with the attributes of the two sides anyway, {C} I use BOTH of them anyway 'cause I'm a dynamic player, {D} the industry for either one is hella-strong. These businesses are TOO BIG with too much lucritive cash to earn for one to triumph, so superiority be damned. The playing field is level.

This is pretty obvious, a good PC is like a Lamborghini or Ferrari. A console is like a Honda Civic. It will get you around just as well, and it's usually cheaper to maintain, but it will never compete when it comes to sheer power and (potential) build quality. Although these days the price point between a new gaming PC and a new console is shrinking rapidly. If the next gen retails for $500, another 2-3 hundred could get you a much better PC. Hell my PC was only $550, but I got it used. I've made it last over 5 years now with two minor upgrades (GPU and RAM). The extra money you spend on the PC will soon likely be saved on cheaper game prices.

Also, after Crysis 2, my hopes for this game being good are dashed. Probably another shitty linear corridor FPS. Bring back what Crysis was, and also give us some damn answers for the cliffhanger we were left with in Crysis 1.

I guess this is better than the stupid shit Epic comes out with once in a while "No guise, consoles still have a lot of untapped power!111", or the laughable interviews about how this or that game makes the consoles give everything they have (which is still far behind games from 2007, and even earlier in some cases); but Yerli is just paying lip service here. And he's not pointing out the exact scope of how weak the consoles are, which always annoys me as it propagates a very simplistic and vague conversation about this.

Gearhead mk2:

Cevat Yerli:
Blah blah blah glorious pc gaming master race blah blah consoles suck blah graphics are everything blah blah blah.

That's all I'm hearing from this.

Really? That's curious. Please, tell me more.

SkarKrow:
Thats nice Mr Yerli but look at all the fucks I give:

See that?? Not a single one. Power and shiny graphics aren't everything and Crysis still has to prove itself as more than a 45 benchmarking tool.

That's funny, because before Crysis 2, the series was a pretty fucking awesome, fast paced, relatively open shooter.

It's only when the switch to consoles happened did the suit get battered into being basically what most other FPS games offer + invisibility, the pace slowed down about 30%, and the levels turned into corridors.

BrotherRool:
So wait, he's designing Crysis 3 to run on $2000-3000 PC's?

Nah, he's designing Crysis 3 to run on consoles, with a bunch of more advanced graphical features thrown in to give the guys who have 2000-3000$ PCs something to test it with. The only reason he's even doing that is because there's a certain obligation to showcase Cryengine 3.

DrunkOnEstus:
The only reason you would need a $2000 PC is if you had 3 monitors with 3D on and 16AA and shit. My $300 PC made Skyrim look gorgeous with mods at 1080p, everything ultra. If this guy really wants to talk up what PCs can do, talk flexibility. Choice in input method, graphics settings, and everything else. Waving the "you need a $3000 PC lol" e-peen around just scares people away from considering the PC as a viable platform.

I was about to say something in the vein of "Come on, there's no need to lie", but you know what, you might actually be right. That's only because vanilla Skyrim looks like garbage, even on Ultra.

And yeah, only mentioning the insane 2000$+ PCs in these sorts of threads is really doing a disservice to the whole conversation. The simple facts of the matter are that the current gen consoles are weak enough to be handily outdone by completely bare-bones 300-400$ PCs, and given what we've heard about the next gen neither MS nor Sony are willing to go hardware-heavy again, which means at most, for a PC that's noticeably better than the consoles you'll need something like 800$.

Twilight_guy:
What if I don't want to pay for a 2000$ computer to play your games? What if I want to buy a 500$ console and 1500$ worth of games... that's at least 25 games assuming I don't buy older or sued games as opposed to one game and a PC that will be outdated in 6 months.

Of course this is the guy who has a goal of developing thing for the highest rated and most overcost hardware as opposed to say, the equally noble goal of optimizing something to run on lower end systems.

Here, Yerli, this is exactly what I meant.

You don't need a 2000$ computer. You're going to need something like $400 to play them (which means jack shit), and $800 to play them at decent/good graphic levels. And yes, that $800 PC is likely going to be more powerful than a next gen console. This talk about $2000-$3000 price tags is really next to irrelevant and only serves to mislead whoever is reading the articles, which it has. Define "outdated PC", please, because the simple fact that you may not be able to run everything on max somewhere down the line is not a valid thing to say when your alternative is "because of that, I'll go even lower".

And I'm not sure you're serious with the second paragraph. Just how much more do you think can be "optimized"? Optimization isn't some magical ritual that gives you more processing power and memory to work with. All it is is cutting corners and inefficiencies, and we're at a point, for years now, where any extra work spent further optimizing is basically wasted as you're sluggishly approaching a point that wasn't particularly spectacular 7 years ago. The progress does not warrant the effort anymore, and you simply cannot get around hard limitations like the 512mb RAM.

FalloutJack:
Gimme a break. Computers are built for a wide variety of functions and do them all well, as per the sum of their parts and programs. (This includes games.) However, consoles are built FOR GAMING. Add all the features you like, such as movies and internet or anything else, but the fact is that they are made to play games, specifically. If your game cannot run on a platform whose life goal is this one thing, them perhaps your game has problems.

In short, get over yourself, dude.

No.... Pretty sure the issue is with the consoles.

Its like shipping ports in some ways. A lot of countries have large shipping ports with deep canals, allowing massive trade ships to come in. There are also shipping ports with not-so-deep canals that can handle smaller trade ships, but not the really large ones.
Is it the trade ship's fault that the port wasn't deep enough?
No. Its job is to carry a lot of trade goods. The port's job was to allow it to dock and unload those goods. Only one of them is failing at this job, and its the port.
Likewise a game's job is to entertain, and the console's job is to run the games. The console is the one failing at its job at this point, not the game.

Additionally, it is VERY possible to have a PC built for gaming, and just like a console have Internet and Documents be only a side thing. Its how my PC was until a few months ago when I finally installed utility software. It existed to play games, and that is why I built it. Yeah it could perform other tasks like chat with Skype and using the Internet, but really it existed for games.

OT: This is old news. Consoles have been far behind in the power/price comparison for ages, and they're NEVER going to close the gap - only keep falling further behind. The only real advantage they've had over PCs for a while now has been the subjective fact that they fit into someone's life better - having it fit in better with their decor, or its small size working better for them - and even then sometimes...
They do also have a baseline advantage of being relatively cheap to just let you play games, but there's a reason I'm still using the PS2 I got for $50 instead of buying a PS3 or anything.

Hammeroj:

Twilight_guy:
What if I don't want to pay for a 2000$ computer to play your games? What if I want to buy a 500$ console and 1500$ worth of games... that's at least 25 games assuming I don't buy older or sued games as opposed to one game and a PC that will be outdated in 6 months.

Of course this is the guy who has a goal of developing thing for the highest rated and most overcost hardware as opposed to say, the equally noble goal of optimizing something to run on lower end systems.

Here, Yerli, this is exactly what I meant.

You don't need a 2000$ computer. You're going to need something like $400 to play them (which means jack shit), and $800 to play them at decent/good graphic levels. And yes, that $800 PC is likely going to be more powerful than a next gen console. This talk about $2000-$3000 price tags is really next to irrelevant and only serves to mislead whoever is reading the articles, which it has. Define "outdated PC", please, because the simple fact that you may not be able to run everything on max somewhere down the line is not a valid thing to say when your alternative is "because of that, I'll go even lower".

And I'm not sure you're serious with the second paragraph. Just how much more do you think can be "optimized"? Optimization isn't some magical ritual that gives you more processing power and memory to work with. All it is is cutting corners and inefficiencies, and we're at a point, for years now, where any extra work spent further optimizing is basically wasted as you're sluggishly approaching a point that wasn't particularly spectacular 7 years ago. The progress does not warrant the effort anymore, and you simply cannot get around hard limitations like the 512mb RAM.

Outdated means anything that's not "cutting edge" in this story since its quiet apparent that this guy wants to develop for stuff that has just been released onto the market. That's the problem with trying to develop only for the best is that the market shifts so fast that the best quickly becomes not so.

Algorithmic optimization. Its cool to develop new algorithms and its cool to design new algorithms that do the same thing but using less resources. Many developers only address the issue of creating new algorithms and being "cutting edge". As an overly simple example, developing a string matching algorithm and developing a string matching algorithm that runs in half the time are both equally good goals but one keeps getting ignored in favor of the more flashy goal of 'cutting edge'.

I dont need 2000 dollar PC to run your crysis 3 though. a 800 dollar one can run anything thats out there.

While he does go a bit on the curwe of self-glirification, that is not ucommon for me as well, one has to admit he is right about one thing - from a power perspective consoles will never be able to beat PCs, unless they make consoles so upgradeable its a PC with a TV for monitor anyway. And crysis franchise did push PC upwards. remember when Crysis 1 came out? how it was "hey icna run it im a god now" and how all benchmarks suddenly started using it as a base test? Crysis did push the hadwares to limits and made people buy newer ones. whether it is a good game is a different question, i frankly enjoyed it, but i would not want to re-play it, but the fact that it did advance hardwares people use is unquestionable.

as for people saying graphics are nto everything - i agree. but consoles limit more than jut graphics. remmeber DUST514. yeah, the console MMOFPS. being eve player i been following that developement, and they had to cut 2/3 of game modes simply becuase PS3 wotn run it. want to walk on lava bursting planet? PS3 cant handle it. want to fly on low gravity gas giants? PS3 cant handle. so were stuck with the regular brown barren planets. simply because PS3 cant handle other things. not to mention the size of the map and the real randomization of bases been cut due to PS3 limits. you know why we keep getting all these chest-high wall FPS? becuase consoles cant run anything else.

Algorithmic optimization. Its cool to develop new algorithms and its cool to design new algorithms that do the same thing but using less resources. Many developers only address the issue of creating new algorithms and being "cutting edge". As an overly simple example, developing a string matching algorithm and developing a string matching algorithm that runs in half the time are both equally good goals but one keeps getting ignored in favor of the more flashy goal of 'cutting edge'.

very true and i am saddened that optimization is very lacking in modern gaming. i mean look at GTA4, it had the worst optimized engine of the year, and it still sold well simply because it was GTA.
That being said i think crysis was awesomely optimized. the first one at least. that was the only FPS that year that my laptop could handle on high settings.

What if I don't want to pay for a 2000$ computer to play your games? What if I want to buy a 500$ console and 1500$ worth of games... that's at least 25 games assuming I don't buy older or sued games as opposed to one game and a PC that will be outdated in 6 months.

In this aprticular case yes, but in the logn run no.
Lets say you have a choice to buy a 7 year old console for 400 or buy a new and capable PC for 700. you plan to spend 1000 on gaming in time X. you can buy 400 console and 10 games for 60 each (lets ignore second hanf market that makes calculation more complex for now). or you can buy 700 PC and buy 10 games for 30 each at various steam sales and whatnot that seems to happen every freaking week now somewhere. You are ended up with a more powerful machine, same amount of games and cheaper games in the future. PC wins the cost battle in the long run.

For those who think they need a $2000 PC to play games, or even $1000...WRONG!

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: Intel Core i3-2120 3.3GHz Dual-Core Processor ($117.27 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: MSI H61M-P31 (G3) Micro ATX LGA1155 Motherboard ($51.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Memory: Kingston 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1333 Memory ($45.86 @ Amazon)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 500GB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($59.49 @ Outlet PC)
Video Card: MSI Radeon HD 7770 GHz Edition 1GB Video Card ($96.99 @ Microcenter)
Case: Cooler Master HAF 912 ATX Mid Tower Case ($56.21 @ TigerDirect)
Power Supply: Antec High Current Gamer 400W 80 PLUS Bronze Certified ATX12V / EPS12V Power Supply ($45.98 @ Outlet PC)
Total: $473.78

This baby will still run games better than current gen and arguably even next-gen consoles, while having the expansion room for a far more powerful graphics card in the future (you can't upgrade consoles :P). A semi-decent gaming PC for less than $500.

Well, this is just an indication that it's that time again. I'm a PC gamer and as the next generation of consoles rolls out, I expect to be seeing lots of news and articles talking about how "PC GAMING IS DYING!!!!1 THE PC IS DEAD!!!~" and then by 2020, the "next gen" will once again be the very "outdated gen." At which point we'll be hearing about how the PC is light years ahead of consoles. Hmm. Here's an idea, just play on whatever system you like. My last console was a Sega Master System II because after that, a PC made more sense according to my needs.

Hammeroj:
Snip

That's funny because I played both of them on PC and the first one is really rather boring most of the time. Most of it is just walking through jungles to the next enemy camp to fight the shitty AI for a few minutes without actually using the suit because it's awkward at best without the shortcuts and even those don't exactly make combat that much easier.

It's definitely a gorgeous game with some great graphics but right through I felt hampered by some bizarre control choices (why couldn't I bind the suit functions? I mean I have a keyboard, not even inputs for Crytek or something? I'm aware of the shortcut option but it still doesn't make up for the lack of binding the things) and AI that's just not adequate for the task at hand, it can do the basic stealth stuff but it's so black and white on detecting you that it's difficult to have fun with it.

Maybe that's because it's far cry with a super suit and comes with all the inherent crap I hate about far cry.

2 is vaguely entertaining, or it would be if it didn't have the same terrible AI and a story that I just couldn't begin to feel compelled over. I'll concede that 2 is very corridor driven at times and when it opens up is when it's at it's best, particularly near the end.

2's multiplayer was also complete shit.

Hammeroj:

Gearhead mk2:

Cevat Yerli:
Blah blah blah glorious pc gaming master race blah blah consoles suck blah graphics are everything blah blah blah.

That's all I'm hearing from this.

Really? That's curious. Please, tell me more.

Well, Crysis is (or at least was) one of those series that PC elitists hold up as the reason that puny consoles can never hope to compete with glorious PCs and anyone that doesn't buy a 900 computer with eye-searing graphics and FTL internet is a puny sniveling poser that doesn't be deserved to call themself a gamer, etc etc. The series itself is average. Passable. I tried Crysis 2 round a mate's house once, it was kinda cool, but nothing special. But what the Crytek guy is saying here, that graphics are the be-all-end-all and that consoles are paperwights, really anoys me. Either he's been pressured into saying that stuff, in which case I feel really sorry for him, or he actually means it, in which case he should be making Micheal Bay films, not games.

Note: I'm not slamming PC gamers as a whole. I spend equal time on my PC as I do on my 360. I'm slamming PC supremacists.

Joccaren:
Snip

Hey hey, whoa. Don't misunderstand. I didn't deny gaming computers. I'm typing on an Alienware as we speak. The notion is that computers CAN be pointed in that direction, not that this is their life goal forever and ever and ever. You following me? One's a modifiable rifle for different ranges and effects, and the other is a sniper rifle for penetration only. They come from different worlds and only after you alter them both ALOT do they resemble each other.

Desert Punk:

Yeah but Steam can close your account, which'll cost you hundreds of dollars in access to games.

I've never met anyone who's had their console bricked by either Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft.

I bought it at 60 dollars, but even if I had bought it at 20 they still get a cut unlike people who buy used, which every cent goes to Gamestop.

And I havent met anyone who has had their steam account blocked, Yay anecdotal evidence![/quote]

I don't typically buy games used actually, but I trade in games if I don't want them anymore. I do have a few used games, but they were all purchased from dedicated second-hand shops years after they've been released (or I get original Xbox games), not stupid gamestop where they barely lower the price. Who buys used to save 5 dollars? Doesn't make sense. Though when game stop opens your game and takes out the disc on even new games, it might as well be used anyway.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 66590)