Crytek say “PC is easily a generation ahead”, being held back by consoles

shadowfox said:
I don't think I can quite agree with that. Graphics don't make a game - they never will. I'll do the whole "ooh-aah" thing for shiny graphics just as much as anyone else, but when push comes to shove I'll rather play the game with crappy graphics for years on end than play a visually stunning game that has nothing else going for it.

Similar to my argument for Avatar - might have looked uber awesome in 3D, but that didn't save it from being a crap movie.
Click to expand...

Indeed but they're not mutually exclusive. Some effort should go into improving graphics.

To be fair some games have made great improvements on PC. Like Mafia 2. While mass produced games aimed primarily at consoles like COD and MOH look like they were released 3 years ago. No improvements in gameplay or story there by the way.
 
Alan said:
While mass produced games aimed primarily at consoles like COD and MOH look like they were released 3 years ago. No improvements in gameplay or story there by the way.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Which is why you're not likely to find either of them on my shelf :)
 
Pr⊕phet said:
but does tsar not have dexterous hands ?
erm.gif
:D
Click to expand...

It is not actually using the control it is aiming, just feels rigid to me. I do enjoy using a controller.
 
Just dropping this in here, but hardware does not only affect graphics, though graphics is probably the first major improvement you will notice. It places very strict limits on the developers on how "complex" the gameplay and AI can be.

Eg. Notice the difference between PS2 and PS3 games in terms of gameplay. It wasn't because developers suddenly had an epiphany on how to create "better" games (for the most part), it's because the hardware ceiling was raised and they could now do more. This is exactly why in years passed it was said that hardware drives innovation in gaming.

What Cervat is saying here more bluntly is that we've seen all this generation has to offer and its mostly going to be reskinned games with a different story.
 
I like the fact that the PC now gets a chance to cool down, I mean honestly is there really a need now to go buy a GTX580 or 6970 will it make a massive difference to the game besides getting 79fps over 50 type thing? Consoles are a good thing as it also takes a lot of the schlep out of gaming, in order to play a PC game 90% of the time you have to reconfigure things.
 
Pffft, of course the Crytek guys are going to bash consoles, their games/tech demos are nothing without decent visuals and thus they need to keep sucking up to the PC market.

Besides, anyone who thinks PCs are leaving consoles behind needs to take a serious look at recent sales figures.
 
RustPuppet said:
Pffft, of course the Crytek guys are going to bash consoles, their games/tech demos are nothing without decent visuals and thus they need to keep sucking up to the PC market.

Besides, anyone who thinks PCs are leaving consoles behind needs to take a serious look at recent sales figures.
Click to expand...

Regarding cashing in, hell no. Hardware-wise, obviously.
 
Will Crysis 2 have LAN?

I was kinda impressed by the gameplay footage I saw, you can jump, grab ledges and pull yourself up.
 
As a gamer by that I mean I play console and PC and sometimes that other stuff you know in those open plains with those green stuff and the round thing whats that called oh yeah soccer (real LIFE not FIFA btw )

I have to say im with the Crytek guys on this cause I have seen Crysis 2 and its made me feel good about my PC again really proud ,proud enough to want to shell out some for a new GFX card .

This about pushing the limit is that if its pushed you can only comment if you have played the game the way the developers intended it to be played and this is where the line blurs because , comparatively most A grade titles look and play way better on PC and we must assume that is the way it is intended to be played ,

You cant stick Crysis 2 in your machine with a 9400 GT and core 2 duo and say that the Xbox version is better

Its as good as your hardware will allow it to be ,but thats not how it was meant to be played

PC still rocks and I see the trend swinging back to PC ,now more because you have the Motion gamer infiltrating the ranks
Real gamers will come home I know I have .
 
Azimuth said:
I just need it to play games.
Click to expand...
...that are a generation behind. Did you know that Halo 3 renders on 640p and is internally upscaled to 720 HD ready & on Full HD TVs upscaled *again*?

I'm all for the convenience that consoles bring. Just annoyed that the console market is pulling down PC gaming with it. ("future PC games will be limited by having to cater to less powerful consoles.")

Azimuth said:
And here I thought creative expression and content were always more important that OMGRAPHICSLOL, anyway.
Click to expand...
It is....but they are not mutually exclusive. Why settle for one when it is quite possible to have both?

Pr⊕phet said:
when i get home i want to enjoy my fucking game not practically re-program it to work. that's definitely one side i do enjoy of my console VS my pc.
Click to expand...
And I want to change my FoV, console commands and dedicated servers. Instead I'm stuck with poor consoles ports.
 
HavocXphere said:
...that are a generation behind. Did you know that Halo 3 renders on 640p and is internally upscaled to 720 HD ready & on Full HD TVs upscaled *again*?
Click to expand...

Yes. I'm not sure what your point is, besides claiming, "IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE FUGLY". But I think it looks just fine - the aesthetics are designed within the console's limitations. Halo is not meant to look photorealistic, and it's not meant to look like Crysis.

Also, a game is more than its graphics.

I'm all for the convenience that consoles bring. Just annoyed that the console market is pulling down PC gaming with it. ("future PC games will be limited by having to cater to less powerful consoles.")
Click to expand...

No, developers who are working primarily for the console market are pulling down PC gaming with it. But that's kinda like saying mainstream movies are pulling down arthouse projects. You can't expect most developers to pay more attention to such a small market.

It is....but they are not mutually exclusive. Why settle for one when it is quite possible to have both?
Click to expand...

Can anybody honestly say that something like Gears of War 2 - or even Halo: Reach, for that matter - is ugly? Graphics don't have to be photorealistic to be good. Hell, some of the best-looking games of this generation (Braid, for example) are 2D.

And I want to change my FoV, console commands and dedicated servers. Instead I'm stuck with poor consoles ports.
Click to expand...

Again, developers are catering to their largest market. And why shouldn't they? It's just good business sense.
 
I would probably be happy with my consoles (both 360 and PS3) if they rendered games at the screens native resolution. 600p+- upscaled to 1080p is ugly, it is extremely ugly. It's like taking a tiny picture and zooming the crap out of.

Prior to getting my 360 and later PS3, the last time I played a 3D game not running at native res was half life 1 in software rendering. That was 1998, 12 years ago. Its just impossible not notice it when swapping from PC to console and vice versa.

Here's an example (view full size):

600p:


1080p upscaled:


1080p native:


In this case there is 8x anti-aliasing in the upscale, so there are no jaggies and it looks far better than it should, but still terrible. The text is unreadable, but a work around on consoles is to use a massive font size.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top