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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Twilight_guy:

Hammeroj:
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 Define "outdated PC", please, because the simple fact that you may not be able to run everything on max somewhere down the line is not a valid thing to say when your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Outdated means anything that's not "cutting edge" in this story since its quiet apparent that this guy wants to develop for stuff that has just been released onto the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.

The point being? Progress happens and things get old so fuck progress? I fail to see how this is a problem, at all.

How do you get from this to "that's why I choose consoles"?

By the way, this guy doesn't "develop only for the best", considering the games Crytek release right now are designed on and for consoles this is a statement that's just beyond ludicrous.

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'.

So, basically, you think the consoles right now still can do about twice as much as they can today. I don't know where you get off assuming there's still that much progress to be made with rendering algorithms or any of that, and I don't know where you get off that it's more cost or time efficient to try to achieve what might be a pipe dream, but fine. Let's just assume that is the actual case.

Right now, I can buy a 400$ PC that's twice as powerful, or more, than a current gen console. Considering $400 is somewhere right on the edge of the bar where the cost-efficiency of PCs starts reaching acceptable levels, and considering the rather more focused nature of consoles and all the "discounts" consoles get in manufacturing and everything else, any half decent console that could call itself "next-gen" is going to have at least three times the capabilities of current ones, way more in terms of memory.

Your potential pipe dream in terms of capabilities has long been achieved by better hardware, there's no need to dream for some potential maybe when the future is right here.

As an addendum on the assumptions I mentioned, does the progress made by the 7+ years of this gen (especially the earlier progress compared to the last couple of years) really, really give you the impression that there's still much to go? Are you aware that the consoles right now can barely run a lot of their games on 30 FPS and 720p (if that), with small-scale levels, no anti-aliasing and ultracrappy shaders, never mind anything more sophisticated? How far do you really think they can progress, and is it based on more than just blind assumption?

Hes right but power should not be the main selling point that people try to push for PC gaming. For me its that PC gaming is WAY cheaper. The initial starting point might cost a little bit more but considering games are already $10 less off the bat and mix in Steam Sales (also other places like GOG that have great prices) and PC gaming is a good bit cheaper than consoles, especially Xbox. If you got the Xbox at launch and had Xbox Live from day one you have payed over $520. That is fucking ridiculous for a service that should be completely free. So ya, you want to play on consoles over PC? Go ahead, I think its stupid but if I don't really care it doesn't bother me.

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.

Had my PC that I built for $800 including a sweet Samsung monitor and the OS for almost two years now. I can still run pretty much every game on about the highest settings.

Spread misinformation some more though.

Eclipse Dragon:
I'm pretty sure PCs have always been more powerful than consoles, was he seriously worried the next gen would be any different? I think he needs to understand machine power has never been the selling point of consoles over PCs.

If next gen consoles are to "beat" PCs, it would be because consoles are more consumer friendly, standardized TV boxes that we can drop a flat fee on and never have to worry about upgrading. Of course that's pretty irrelevant these days also and seems to be a business model that current console devs are allergic to.

In all fairness when the PS3 first came out, the whole idea was that it was blinged out with top of the line hardware that COULD just about match a PC, but that was 2006..... It is a different world we live in now... Hey in 2006 there was no iphone, Youtube was new, and people still used myspace.

Frostbite3789:

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.

Had my PC that I built for $800 including a sweet Samsung monitor and the OS for almost two years now. I can still run pretty much every game on about the highest settings.

Spread misinformation some more though.

Take my made up numbers to illustrate an idea as literal some more.

Some people like a cheaper system so they can spend more on games.

Twilight_guy:

Frostbite3789:

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.

Had my PC that I built for $800 including a sweet Samsung monitor and the OS for almost two years now. I can still run pretty much every game on about the highest settings.

Spread misinformation some more though.

Take my made up numbers to illustrate an idea as literal some more.

Some people like a cheaper system so they can spend more on games.

Your made up numbers were WAY off base though, and you used them because in some way in your mind you thought they were semi-accurate. That's like me saying new console games cost $300, it's just flat out wrong. No two ways about it.

Also your games are more expensive and go on sale less, not to mention you have a 360, I hope you didn't ever get Gold for that, paying for a service you get for free on every other platform, with more ads that you see on every other platform.

And here's the thing, I have a PS3 and grew up on console games, so it's not like console gaming is some foreign entity to me. But you shouldn't say things if you honestly don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Hammeroj:

Twilight_guy:

Hammeroj:
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.

The point being? Progress happens and things get old so fuck progress? I fail to see how this is a problem, at all.

How do you get from this to "that's why I choose consoles"?

By the way, this guy doesn't "develop only for the best", considering the games Crytek release right now are designed on and for consoles this is a statement that's just beyond ludicrous.

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'.

So, basically, you think the consoles right now still can do about twice as much as they can today. I don't know where you get off assuming there's still that much progress to be made with rendering algorithms or any of that, and I don't know where you get off that it's more cost or time efficient to try to achieve what might be a pipe dream, but fine. Let's just assume that is the actual case.

Right now, I can buy a 400$ PC that's twice as powerful, or more, than a current gen console. Considering $400 is somewhere right on the edge of the bar where the cost-efficiency of PCs starts reaching acceptable levels, and considering the rather more focused nature of consoles and all the "discounts" consoles get in manufacturing and everything else, any half decent console that could call itself "next-gen" is going to have at least three times the capabilities of current ones, way more in terms of memory.

Your potential pipe dream in terms of capabilities has long been achieved by better hardware, there's no need to dream for some potential maybe when the future is right here.

As an addendum on the assumptions I mentioned, does the progress made by the 7+ years of this gen (especially the earlier progress compared to the last couple of years) really, really give you the impression that there's still much to go? Are you aware that the consoles right now can barely run a lot of their games on 30 FPS and 720p (if that), with small-scale levels, no anti-aliasing and ultracrappy shaders, never mind anything more sophisticated? How far do you really think they can progress, and is it based on more than just blind assumption?

Nope, not going to argue with you. Have better things to do with my time. Here's my points.

1. Developing only for, or primarily for, high end systems limits your customer base.

2. Some people prefer to buy a cheap system with good games even if its outdated. A notable example is the continuing popularity of the PS2 well into the PS3's lifetime.

3. As an aside, I hate the industry practice of only praising things that develop new technology and methods as opposed to improving on old methods.

Those are my points and I'm not going to be drawn into pointless arguments outside of that. Thanks for playing! Buh bye!

SkarKrow:
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.

You may not have found the first Crysis particularly engaging, but really, calling it a benchmarking tool is, while probably hyperbolic, it is so to the point of being counter-factual. That's the main problem I had with your post.

Crysis was one of the few games playing which I giggled like a schoolgirl. It gives you a suit, it puts you in an open-ish environment, says "You're a badass.", slaps you on the ass and throws cannon fodder at you to dispose of in any way you see fit. I can't tell you to like it, and I can't even call the AI particularly good, but you can't tell me the suit (coupled with the relative openness of the levels), control issues notwithstanding, isn't one of the most awesome FPS gameplay mechanics ever. Unless you hate fun.

Jumping over a wall only to see a guard on the other side, punching him on the way down and seeing his body slam down on the ground? Yes, please. Running 40 miles an hour and lightning-punching someone across the field? Uh-huh. Randomly picking up dudes and choking them or throwing them into their friends? Give it to me. Picking up a machine gun and mowing down people in the jungle while the trees fall all around them? Why not. Et cetera, et cetera.

The first Crysis was great at letting the player run wild and have this sort of gleeful, spontaneous fun. Now at the risk of sounding like a broken record, you may not have found it particularly appealing, and you may have found a lot of things about it rather simplistic (most of which I'd probably heartily agree with), but calling it a benchmarking tool is just beyond unfair.

Gearhead mk2:
[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.

Is the first half of the first paragraph supposed to say anything, other than illustrating just how whacked out of reality your view of PC gamers is? I've seen you do this three times within a week now, it's getting irritating. How is some potential jackoff somewhere - who you don't even bother to quote, by the way - supposed to relate to a game developer?

Okay, so you found the second Crysis average. Might I ask why you're referencing it? The PC elitists you're moaning about almost never praise that game.

And no, that's not what the Crytek guy is saying here. Power =/= graphics, power = everything. Size of levels, amount of NPCs/players, physics, loading times, armor slots, animations, everything. Even aside that, you haven't addressed how the guy's acting like a PC elitist or whatever it was. He's pointing out facts, and I'd say not nearly vigorously enough, are you saying you've got a problem with that?

Yeah, yeah, the non-existant PC supremacists that, given a chance to define, you define as something that maybe - and I'm being generous here - maybe one person on the site would fit. Settle down there, Don Quixote, actually talk to some of the people you think are being elitist (instead of randomly bringing them up, especially without even pointing them out), seriously define what you mean by it and stop flailing your arms around in an irritating fashion.

I have a little bit of an inkling all your raging against the elusive PC elitist is nothing more than having an emotional attachment to hardware you own, and getting hurt when unpleasant facts are brought up.

Frostbite3789:

Your made up numbers were WAY off base though, and you used them because in some way in your mind you thought they were semi-accurate. That's like me saying new console games cost $300, it's just flat out wrong. No two ways about it.

Did you just tell me what I think? That's just... a really dumb statement to make.

Frostbite3789:

Also your games are more expensive and go on sale less, not to mention you have a 360, I hope you didn't ever get Gold for that, paying for a service you get for free on every other platform, with more ads that you see on every other platform.

Who said I have an Xbox 360 and what does this have to do with anything?

Frostbite3789:

And here's the thing, I have a PS3 and grew up on console games, so it's not like console gaming is some foreign entity to me. But you shouldn't say things if you honestly don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Well admittedly I don't have much knowledge on costs for things. However I do know that people will buy cheaper systems even if they are outdated and presumably spend more on games then cutting edge technology. The PS2 is an excellent example of that.

I really do not care. Every few months this guy comes out and goes "Oh look at my games they're so shiny on PC compared to those filthy consoles."

Yeah you may get mods with PCs but it just gives you viruses, worms and leaves you open to being hacked.

This comes off as if his desk was atleast half a dozen inches higher during this interview...

But eh, since my own gaming PC has became a little outdated and when I'm looking at the prices off the new videocards I "should" get for it to upgrade it...
I could buy a Console for just that card at this point.

But, I still manage to cut some off my loses on game prices. Yay Steam Sales, but quite honestly. Untill they either bring out that Piston/Steambox thing, I'll just put the graphics down a bit.. >.>

Twilight_guy:
Nope, not going to argue with you. Have better things to do with my time. Here's my points.

1. Developing only for, or primarily for, high end systems limits your customer base.

2. Some people prefer to buy a cheap system with good games even if its outdated. A notable example is the continuing popularity of the PS2 well into the PS3's lifetime.

3. As an aside, I hate the industry practice of only praising things that develop new technology and methods as opposed to improving on old methods.

Those are my points and I'm not going to be drawn into pointless arguments outside of that. Thanks for playing! Buh bye!

If you have better things to do with your time, I'm having problems grasping your decision to make posts simplistic almost to the point of being bait. Or your decision to answer direct criticisms with nothing at all. How about next time you just don't post?

Now as far as your current "points" go..

1. Therefore? Lowest common denominator is the way to go? Also, next to nobody's developing games for high-end systems primarily, I don't know where the hell you're getting that from, were it even relevant.

2. And they are free to buy cheap, "outdated" (given your inanely broad definition of it) technology and move along that curve of progress a few steps behind everyone else.

3. Do you hate this just because, or do you hate this because you believe certain "old methods" still warrant a whole lot of improving?

Your points are vapid and inane if you don't give enough of a fuck to substantiate and defend them. So please don't. Save me the time.

FalloutJack:

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.

Eh, IMO its more where one is your basic precision rifle, the other is any kind of rifle you want - Old, New, Precision, Automatic, Anti-Materials - ect.
You can get one that resembles the precision rifle fairly easily, though even when you do it'll still come with an easier reload mechanism and multiple firing modes and ammunition types.

Bah, this whole analogy thing never works. Sadly nothing properly compares in comparisons like this.

Joccaren:
[quote="FalloutJack" post="7.401394.16540619"]Doink

Well, at least ours make some semblance of sense. The other guy's analogies were TERRIBLE. Decent fellow, but bad view of things.

Earth defense force: insect armageddon.
I have put more time into this game, which looks like an HD remake of an n64 game than all the crysis games put together.
2-player split screen forever.

Same with Borderlands.

(not to say I don't like crysis, just that graphics aren't that important in the long run.)

Seems fairly obvious but pretty unnecessary to point out. Saying that a console with fixed hardware that retails at several hundred dollars isnt going to have as good graphics as a several thousand dollar PC that you can upgrade...well..of course it wont.

Daystar Clarion:
News just in!

Birds fly, grass is green, the sun shines, and consoles can't hold a candle to PCs.

Ah ninja

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.

Do you want to have that argument? you like consoles fine... People don't need to get so defensive

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.

:(

did sombody hurt your feelings?

what he's saying is true, you can;t deny it...now does it matter? well no, aside from the fact the general consensus "well duh" people buy consoles for a number of valid reasons, they are the largest share of the gamespace and the reasoning gaming is as big as it is (for better or worse)

its like cars

a console is your family car, its reliable and does everything you need

a PC is a modded up rot rod...capable of great speed and such...at a higher cost and more chance of break downs

Impossible for consoles to beat really good PCs that are made by people who like to build PCs. That would be more accurate.

Newsflash: Not everyone likes to build PCs. Not everyone has 700 or 800 or 900 dollars to spend on a really, really good PC. Consoles are catering to those people. Nobody expects them to outperform the latest PC hardware.

These threads always degenerate into PC circle jerks. I've known PCs are better for years, I don't need to be constantly beat over the head with it. Its not really as big a deal as people go on about.

When I started playing my PC about a month ago there was no magical epiphany into the truth of gaming nor was there any drooling over steam sales. I played Planetside 2 for 3 hours then went on Borderlands on my 360. I was not shocked or disgusted by my puny console, it was the same as it always has been.

Also some guy before was saying that there is only one elitist on this site and i'd have to disagree. There are around 4 that I have seen.

Some SEVERE butthurt in this thread; people criticizing games they've never played because they're FPS and the leader of their dev team acknowledges the vast superiority of PC as a gaming platform.

If you weren't aware, the original Crysis was a terrific and inventive open-world FPS that allowed for loads of creativity in how one approached a fight---it actually did engage the player's brain. Obviously the only experience a console-only player would have with the series would be from Crysis 2, where everything was dumbed down due to the console limitation.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here