PC Gaming being "held back" by Consoles says Crytek Boss - Polidicks

[QUOTE=imasillypiggys;26338399]for about $450 you can with the added part that its a computer and can surf the internet[/QUOTE] $450 is equal to £288 over here, and there is no way you could get a computer that performs as well as the xbox in games for that price, and even if you could you would have to build it yourself, which alot of users are not willing to do.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;26339120]Too fucking bad Crysis had an innovative gameplay[/QUOTE] lol i'm not gonna touch this one anymore let's just ignore crysis and say the number one feature was graphics and it certainly was advertised as that

[QUOTE=thisispain;26339139]that's not even true and it happens on the PC even with its monstrous RAM requirement i have 6 GB's of RAM and i still run out of it on GTA IV[/QUOTE] I don't think that should happen, GTA4 is the worst port I have technically EVER had the misfortune of buying, it was SO fun but it ran like...awful [editline]27th November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;26339159]lol i'm not gonna touch this one anymore let's just ignore crysis and say the number one feature was graphics and it certainly was advertised as that[/QUOTE] It was innovative, it felt good in general, and the several ways of approaching situations both geographically and power...ly was very interesting

[QUOTE=GunFox;26339087]Car turns corner and it magically disappears! Yay RAM restrictions directly affecting gameplay![/QUOTE] I never had anything like that ever happen unless I lagged in multiplayer, which is nothing to do with RAM. Infact, the only time I've ever had my xbox even lag on me was when I stacked as many of those explosive barrel things on Halo 3 as I could and blew them all up. My last computer, which cost £700 at the time (It was a few years ago, but Xbox 360's were out at the time) wouldn't be able to run most new games at maximum settings without lagging.

[QUOTE=thisispain;26338725]not even in the same range as PC games considering you can't play online with them (there are many ways to play online with pirated games) and they require modding[/QUOTE] Softmodding is easy

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;26339166]I don't think that should happen, GTA4 is the worst port I have technically EVER had the misfortune of buying, it was SO fun but it ran like...awful[/QUOTE] well the idea is that RAM is not yet that much of a bottleneck, i highly doubt the 360 is at the end of its line compare xbox 1 games at launch and at the end . [editline]27th November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Zezibesh;26339191]Softmodding is easy[/QUOTE] absolutely not, it's notoriously difficult and you lose online support which is a killer

[QUOTE=thisispain;26339202]well the idea is that RAM is not yet that much of a bottleneck, i highly doubt the 360 is at the end of its line compare xbox 1 games at launch and at the end .[/QUOTE] I often forget the xbox 1 existed because I never played any games, or even knew it existed until I played it at my poor friend's house (no offense to him but y'know)

[QUOTE=thisispain;26339044]crytek was saying "oh yeah the graphics are being held back" which is total bollocks anyway. if you weren't floored by GTA IV when it first came out on the 360 then i don't even[/QUOTE] It looks much better on non-upcaled full HD and max settings on PC, really less pop-in, better textures and shadows Consoles are reaching their limits, or have already reached them The only way to keep up the graphics improvements is to have less load on the system, which either means more efficient level streaming, or shorter levels overall.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;26339120]Too fucking bad Crysis had an innovative gameplay[/QUOTE] In what department? The weapon/suit modification system that has been there since the FPS/RPG hybrids of the late 90s/early 2000s? The use of vehicles which has been there since Operation Flashpoint/Halo/BF1942, all games 9 years old? The setting which was ripped straight from Far Cry? Please tell me, I really want to know.

[QUOTE=Zezibesh;26339239]It looks much better on non-upcaled full HD and max settings on PC, really less pop-in, better textures and shadows Consoles are reaching their limits, or have already reached them The only way to keep up the graphics improvements is to have less load on the system, which either means more efficient level streaming, or shorter levels overall.[/QUOTE] but the fact is that Read Dead Redemption fixed a lot of those issues and is easily in the same scale as GTA IV

RDR didn't have the "wow" effect on me as GTA 4 did. We're kinda already past that stage.

[QUOTE=thisispain;26339139]that's not even true and it happens on the PC even with its monstrous RAM requirement i have 6 GB's of RAM and i still run out of it on GTA IV[/QUOTE] Which has everything to do with the engine being designed for consoles and nothing to do with your computer. 360 shares ram between video and conventional. Your computer sports enough RAM to theoretically keep track of just about every vehicle in a 20 block radius as well as have at least every vehicle in the game loaded into conventional RAM if not video RAM as well. Something the 360 would light on fire and die attempting to accomplish. If you have SLI, your machine is even better suited for this. The main processor manages everything and keeps track of vehicles in real time, video card 1 takes care of the graphics, video card 2 takes care of the physics. A half way decent modern gaming PC is LITERALLY several orders of magnitude more powerful than the 360. If people would actually develop half way decent engines for PC then we'd see some amazing work done. Crysis continues to put console games to shame.

[QUOTE=SovietAssault;26339259]In what department? The weapon/suit modification system that has been there since the FPS/RPG hybrids of the late 90s/early 2000s? The use of vehicles which has been there since Operation Flashpoint/Halo/BF1942, all games 9 years old? The setting which was ripped straight from Far Cry? Please tell me, I really want to know.[/QUOTE] It blended all of them neatly, you don't have to make new concepts to be innovative, you can just do it better.

[QUOTE=GunFox;26339296]Which has everything to do with the engine being designed for consoles and nothing to do with your computer. 360 shares ram between video and conventional. Your computer sports enough RAM to theoretically keep track of just about every vehicle in a 20 block radius as well as have at least every vehicle in the game loaded into conventional RAM if not video RAM as well. Something the 360 would light on fire and die attempting to accomplish. If you have SLI, your machine is even better suited for this. The main processor manages everything and keeps track of vehicles in real time, video card 1 takes care of the graphics, video card 2 takes care of the physics. A half way decent modern gaming PC is LITERALLY several orders of magnitude more powerful than the 360. If people would actually develop half way decent engines for PC then we'd see some amazing work done. Crysis continues to put console games to shame.[/QUOTE] That's like saying that the Bugatti Veyron puts some old banger you got for £50 to shame. I agree that Crysis is much better than anything the consoles have, but then again it's bound to be, since even now not many systems can truly max it out with AA and AF on as high as possible.

The irony of the investment consoles are getting is how expensive it is to develop games for them. When putting your game on the Wii/360/PS3, you have to pay licensing fees, pay for disc production, pay for transportation, pay for shelf space... it's brutal. It's a totally closed-end platform where a developer can expect to see $15 off a $60 game, if they're doing well. If it weren't for the low development costs, I would have no idea why anyone develops games for the iPod/iPhone: the margins are even worse.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;26339302]It blended all of them neatly, you don't have to make new concepts to be innovative, you can just do it better.[/QUOTE] Hah, please don't argue that crysis was innovative in anything but the graphics department. It was a fun game, but it didn't even manage to match the original Farcry in terms of gameplay quality.

Cryengine was the engine that was created without much holding back for the sake of sales, and that's what companies are scared to do [editline]27th November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=GunFox;26339361]Hah, please don't argue that crysis was innovative in anything but the graphics department. It was a fun game, but it didn't even manage to match the original Farcry in terms of gameplay quality.[/QUOTE] you make me cry

[QUOTE=GunFox;26339296]Which has everything to do with the engine being designed for consoles and nothing to do with your computer. [/QUOTE] there's no such thing as being designed for consoles. GTA IV's "under-optimization" is exaggerated. [QUOTE=GunFox;26339296]360 shares ram between video and conventional. Your computer sports enough RAM to theoretically keep track of just about every vehicle in a 20 block radius as well as have at least every vehicle in the game loaded into conventional RAM if not video RAM as well. Something the 360 would light on fire and die attempting to accomplish. [/QUOTE] lol where are you getting these measurements from. most of the ram in the game goes towards textures FYI and that makes sense considering there's about 10GB's of texture data [QUOTE=GunFox;26339296]If you have SLI, your machine is even better suited for this. The main processor manages everything and keeps track of vehicles in real time, video card 1 takes care of the graphics, video card 2 takes care of the physics. [/QUOTE] GTA IV doesn't have this feature. [QUOTE=GunFox;26339296]A half way decent modern gaming PC is LITERALLY several orders of magnitude more powerful than the 360. If people would actually develop half way decent engines for PC then we'd see some amazing work done. Crysis continues to put console games to shame.[/QUOTE] uhm, not really consoles feature much more flexible pipelines than PC graphics cards. when you play PC games the sad fact is that your cards are brutally underutilized. nvidia and amd want you to buy graphics cards as often as possible

I thought it was great, Far Cry was good too but that had quite literally nothing interesting gameplay wise about it besides uh...throwing rocks

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;26339302]It blended all of them neatly, you don't have to make new concepts to be innovative, you can just do it better.[/QUOTE] They didn't do it better. Any of it. They ripped off a whole lotta concepts just like they were, and then they simplified some of those concepts to please a broader audience. Crysis was a revolution in terms of graphics, everything else has been done before and done better.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;26339372]Cryengine was the engine that was created without much holding back for the sake of sales, and that's what companies are scared to do[/QUOTE] no that would be UE3. again we're using graphics as the chief determination. there's a reason why the cryengine isn't used more than UE3

[QUOTE=thisispain;26339429]no that would be UE3. again we're using graphics as the chief determination. there's a reason why the cryengine isn't used more than UE3[/QUOTE] Wait what do you mean? UE3 wasn't made without holding back in the sense of optimization, for some reason Cryengine missed that memo generally

[QUOTE=thisispain;26339385]consoles feature much more flexible pipelines than PC graphics cards. when you play PC games the sad fact is that your cards are brutally underutilized. nvidia and amd want you to buy graphics cards as often as possible[/QUOTE] This has a lot more to do with consoles having a purpose built architecture than anything else, but yes, the cards ARE underutilized and the full utility of them only starts to become apparent when you join them in SLI/Crossfire. The fact that this is necessary however speaks a great deal about how inefficient computer architecture currently is. That said, they are making lots of improvements, especially in regards to the interaction between CPU, chipset, and RAM. Still need some video card<->motherboard optimization though. It is one of the few downsides to being able to customize your hardware... it requires quite a bit of tweaking to get it right, and you'll never get it 100% perfect unless it was made to work that way.

[QUOTE=Tudd;26337398]Source [url]http://www.gamesradar.com/pc/crysis-2/news/pc-gaming-being-held-back-by-consoles-says-crytek-man-360s-and-ps3s-everywhere-have-a-cry/a-20101126161847503007/g-20090601103020991082[/url] I think it's a shame PC's aren't used at their full potential, but consoles are needed in society for the average man. [img_thumb]http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/7664/45617314zi1mu6copypp8.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] Cool zero punctuation ripoff, bro,

[QUOTE=Strongbad;26339493]Cool zero punctuation ripoff, bro,[/QUOTE] that isn't a rip off... that IS zero punctuation

[QUOTE=ChaosUnleash;26339157]$450 is equal to £288 over here, and there is no way you could get a computer that performs as well as the xbox in games for that price, and even if you could you would have to build it yourself, which alot of users are not willing to do.[/QUOTE] I used new egg and later for a 100$ more I got it to play games even a little better then ps3, it took a while of searching but it was worth it

[QUOTE=thisispain;26339385]there's no such thing as being designed for consoles. GTA IV's "under-optimization" is exaggerated.[/quote] Uhhh so people throw a machine which is way WAY more powerful than a 360 at GTA 4 and then get worse framerates than the 360 and somehow it's not under optimized? Can I have some of what you are smoking? [quote] lol where are you getting these measurements from. most of the ram in the game goes towards textures FYI and that makes sense considering there's about 10GB's of texture data[/quote] Oh yeah forgot how insanely huge the texture data was for GTA4 [quote]GTA IV doesn't have this feature.[/quote] Which was my point. The engine was designed for consoles. [quote]uhm, not really[/quote] PC's were more powerful than the 360 at launch date. Today they are WAY more powerful. [quote]consoles feature much more flexible pipelines than PC graphics cards. when you play PC games the sad fact is that your cards are brutally underutilized. nvidia and amd want you to buy graphics cards as often as possible[/QUOTE] Yeah, that is why they sink stupid amounts of money into R&D when their cards can magically go so much faster.

[QUOTE=GunFox;26339534]Yeah, that is why they sink stupid amounts of money into R&D when their cards can magically go so much faster.[/QUOTE] To be fair GunFox, I wouldn't doubt that CPU and video card releases are purposely done in slow increments so as to maximize the profits obtained from each level of research. Look at the iPhone... release a new one every year that is only mildly different than the last one, charge full price. (yes, I am well aware that AMD/Intel/nVidia/ATI are, thankfully, not Apple)

[QUOTE=GunFox;26339087]Car turns corner and it magically disappears! Yay RAM restrictions directly affecting gameplay![/QUOTE] That only happens to my PS3 when I play Saints Row II. Not GTA

[QUOTE=thisispain;26339159]lol i'm not gonna touch this one anymore let's just ignore crysis and say the number one feature was graphics and it certainly was advertised as that[/QUOTE] Did you even play it? It had some pretty decent gameplay, not amazing, but still very fun. I don't know why you people bitch about it just being graphics, it's single player campaign, while loaded with a shit story, gave you a very great range of gameplay, you could play it just about anyway you could possibly want to, and not only that, you really did feel like some supreme soldier. Ugh, start fucking thinking.