Crysis director Cevat Yerli: "If you predict how hardware evolves at the current speed of evolution, - Polidicks

[QUOTE=TonyP;39646712]Precisely, no computer released at the same time as the PS2 could handle something like GT4. All you people rating me dumb need to go look at the history of games before you show your ignorance.[/QUOTE] We're not saying it's impossible for games to be so optimized for console hardware, we're saying it's not the norm, especially as consoles come to use more general hardware anyways.

[QUOTE=mblunk;39646837]We're not saying it's impossible for games to be so optimized for console hardware, we're saying it's not the norm, especially as consoles come to use more general hardware anyways.[/QUOTE] Not the norm...are you bonkers? It's pretty much a requirement unless you want your game to look and run like shit. If it wasn't the norm then PS3 would still have games that look like Resistance 1 and Genji. Are you not aware of how unimpressive those games look now? Go look at a gameplay video of those old stale toasts. Graphical powerhouses like Killzone or Uncharted wouldn't be possible if they didn't figure out tricks to make them run above 2 frames per second. For example, those games do something where they have one of the Cell's cores render the lighting so the RSX can have more resources available for other graphical things.

[QUOTE=TonyP;39646712]Precisely, no computer released at the same time as the PS2 could handle something like GT4. All you people rating me dumb need to go look at the history of games, because you obviously either have amnesia, weren't gaming back then, or are just in denial of that fact that consoles don't need the same level of performance to output the same quality of visuals as a computer.[/QUOTE] No you're just somewhat wrong assuming now is the same as then. Yeah, history and what not, but times change and the PC has changed significantly since then and won't be edged out in the same way due to it having grown and the optimization that consoles go through coming more in play near the end of it's life span when it's already harshly outclassed. Look at the most recent console generation, the 360 and PS3 had great launch graphics rivaling, perhaps even beating PC's for the first bit of it's life, then that edge fell down a bit as computers upgraded and consoles kept pushing themselves by having more and more optimization. [editline]19th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=TonyP;39646914]Not the norm...are you bonkers? It's pretty much a requirement unless you want your game to look and run like shit. If it wasn't the norm then PS3 would still have games that look like Resistance 1 and Genji. Are you not aware of how unimpressive those games look now? Go look at a gameplay video of those old stale toasts. Graphical powerhouses like Killzone or Uncharted wouldn't be possible if they didn't figure out tricks to make them run above 2 frames per second. For example, those games do something where they have one of the Cell's cores render the lighting so the RSX can have more resources available for other graphical things.[/QUOTE] Actually, if I go play Resistance 1, 2, or 3, which I can as they're all a foot away from me, I'll notice that they all look pretty crappy, even if I think of how games looked back then in general. I don't think it was ever that good looking. Neither have many 360 games really been "holy shit" moments(Except Kameo, that game was "holy shit how is the 360 doing this") Uncharted and Killzone are great looking games, but they're like that because of optimization, and they STILL fell down compared to PC games that released in the same year graphically.

[QUOTE=TonyP;39646914]Not the norm...are you bonkers? It's pretty much a requirement unless you want your game to look and run like shit. If it wasn't the norm then PS3 would still have games that look like Resistance 1 and Genji. Are you not aware of how unimpressive those games look now? Go look at a gameplay video of those old stale toasts. Graphical powerhouses like Killzone or Uncharted wouldn't be possible if they didn't figure out tricks to make them run above 2 frames per second. For example, those games do something where they have one of the Cell's cores render the lighting so the RSX can have more resources available for other graphical things.[/QUOTE] Why are you going back to a point I already refuted? I said it's not the norm, meaning there are of course exceptions. Optimizing a game to that point, however, takes a hell of a lot of work that most studios can't afford to do. But a budget PC has been able to generally beat out console graphics for years now, and if you're only going to focus on console-optimized ports, then I'll use PC-optimized ones like Crysis 1 v1.21 as my example.

Wow you guys just really don't read my posts right do you

[QUOTE=TonyP;39647070]Wow you guys just really don't read my posts right do you[/QUOTE] well you're just saying things like Killzone run amazingly well do optimization but that optimization comes at a large cost. a PC is going to run that game at higher standards without that optimization are you reading ours

consoles stay they same as they are when they come out... this is why you are supposed to compare them to computer hardware that was out when they came out... resistance or genji or some other PS3 game of 2006 didn't look much different from the PC offerings of 2006 killzone and uncharted and the last of us/etc far outclass the ps3/pc offerings of 2006 i doubt a computer from 2006 could handle Killzone 3 hence my examples of a 1999 PC running gran turismo 4 or a computer from 1994 handling whatever graphics powerhouse the PS1 had. same with pretty much every console other than the Wii/U or dreamcast since it died before it could be truly squeezed is this really that hard to understand or do i just not know how to phrase things coherently because either way i'm getting pissed off by everybody not understanding what i am saying as usual

So your argument is about how much optimization makes a console better than PC tech of the time? This isn't true for every console/PC generation Just a handful of them. Yes, there are games that are so well optimized on consoles that they're impressive and wouldn't run on PC's of the same year(This isn't really something you can argue for sure, too many variables, like what kind of PC or how much money has gone into it and etc) but they're more exceptions than the rule itself. In the long run, I don't see consoles optimization being a great argument about how they're better than PC's, time doesn't stay static and a PC will in a short time span, beat out any console.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;39647280]So your argument is about how much optimization makes a console better than PC tech of the time? This isn't true for every console/PC generation Just a handful of them. Yes, there are games that are so well optimized on consoles that they're impressive and wouldn't run on PC's of the same year(This isn't really something you can argue for sure, too many variables, like what kind of PC or how much money has gone into it and etc) but they're more exceptions than the rule itself. In the long run, I don't see consoles optimization being a great argument about how they're better than PC's, time doesn't stay static and a PC will in a short time span, beat out any console.[/QUOTE] who's arguing that consoles are better than PC? [editline]19th February 2013[/editline] am i really so bad at writing that people get something not even remotely close out of what i intend in my writing?

[QUOTE=TonyP;39647308]who's arguing that consoles are better than PC?[/QUOTE] You're arguing they outperform PC's of the same year due to optimization if that's not what you're arguing than I'm not sure what you are

No hes arguing that the consoles are a reliable constant while computers are a wild variable

[QUOTE=BFG9000;39647354]No hes arguing that the consoles are a reliable constant while computers are a wild variable[/QUOTE] what the hell does that even mean

I'm saying this guy has no foresight, and, apparently, no long term memory, and is a fool for judging a console's potential based on unfinished launch titles, which in the end always look like shit compared to the end-life graphical masterpieces that are a result of 5-6 years of developers learning the hardwares secrets. Compare Killzone 3 or The Last of Us to Genji or Resistance, they are incomparable. Compare Gran Turismo 4 or Black or Killzone to PS2 launch titles. Once again incomparable. This is such an innocent and non-controversial process of the developers learning how to best utilize the console more and more as it gets older, I don't see how people can disagree with this simple fact or rate it dumb.

There are alway concessions made for consoles. If you look at, side by side, what each game looks like on each console, the PC will generally look or perform better. The Xbox and ps3 are both very hardware limited, and versus a not so limited platform, where they cut corners becomes very obvious. Does the average person notice? Probably not, but to assume that PCs straight up do not outdo consoles is just wrong.

I hope that wasn't in response to me because it has nothing to do with anything I said. Meh I think it's time for me to abandon this thread. Any more of this lost in translation crap and I'm going to be contemplating suicide again.

It has everything to do with what you said. Late life graphical powerhouse games are really not any more taxing than unfinished release titles, developers just learn where to cut corners. A top of the line PC needs less of these corners cut to run the game.

[QUOTE=Robber;39646205]Crysis had amazing graphics and amazing gameplay (in the first half).[/QUOTE] crysis 1 gunplay was terrible tho

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39647713]It has everything to do with what you said. Late life graphical powerhouse games are really not any more taxing than unfinished release titles, developers just learn where to cut corners. A top of the line PC needs less of these corners cut to run the game.[/QUOTE] No because I'm talking about console-release-date-PC-hardware not whatever you're talking about bye have a nice day.

[QUOTE=TonyP;39647732]No because I'm talking about console-release-date-PC-hardware not whatever you're talking about bye have a nice day.[/QUOTE] Well PC hardware back then was 1:1 comparable to console hardware, again it's a matter of how easier it is to optimize for consoles. You apparently have no idea how game development works.

[QUOTE=TonyP;39647533]I'm saying this guy has no foresight, and, apparently, no long term memory, and is a fool for judging a console's potential based on unfinished launch titles, which in the end always look like shit compared to the end-life graphical masterpieces that are a result of 5-6 years of developers learning the hardwares secrets. Compare Killzone 3 or The Last of Us to Genji or Resistance, they are incomparable. Compare Gran Turismo 4 or Black or Killzone to PS2 launch titles. Once again incomparable. This is such an innocent and non-controversial process of the developers learning how to best utilize the console more and more as it gets older, I don't see how people can disagree with this simple fact or rate it dumb.[/QUOTE] So if I compare those games to equally well crafted PC games of the same time, those will win every time? I think not. You're acting like the process of learning to better utilize what's there is solely for consoles. It's not, it's a fact that side by side developments of games for cross platform usually toss the PC on the back burners. We're this not the case, your argument wouldn't have as much weight. It takes years for them to properly optimize material for those systems, you said so yourself. So why did the argument shift from comparisons of release games and PC games of the same time to the end of its life cycle?

[QUOTE=TonyP;39647213]consoles stay they same as they are when they come out... this is why you are supposed to compare them to computer hardware that was out when they came out... resistance or genji or some other PS3 game of 2006 didn't look much different from the PC offerings of 2006 killzone and uncharted and the last of us/etc far outclass the ps3/pc offerings of 2006 i doubt a computer from 2006 could handle Killzone 3 hence my examples of a 1999 PC running gran turismo 4 or a computer from 1994 handling whatever graphics powerhouse the PS1 had. same with pretty much every console other than the Wii/U or dreamcast since it died before it could be truly squeezed is this really that hard to understand or do i just not know how to phrase things coherently because either way i'm getting pissed off by everybody not understanding what i am saying as usual[/QUOTE] The thing is we're not stuck living in the year 2006. Nobody's denying console optimization can do some impressive things... but it's nothing compared 7-8 years of hardware progress. [QUOTE=TonyP;39647533]I'm saying this guy has no foresight, and, apparently, no long term memory, and is a fool for judging a console's potential based on unfinished launch titles, which in the end always look like shit compared to the end-life graphical masterpieces that are a result of 5-6 years of developers learning the hardwares secrets. Compare Killzone 3 or The Last of Us to Genji or Resistance, they are incomparable. Compare Gran Turismo 4 or Black or Killzone to PS2 launch titles. Once again incomparable. This is such an innocent and non-controversial process of the developers learning how to best utilize the console more and more as it gets older, I don't see how people can disagree with this simple fact or rate it dumb.[/QUOTE] You're saying we don't have foresight when you're just telling us about how ancient hardware is nice because if you spend enough time and money on it, you can make it kind of impressive? By time consoles have matured enough to see that level of optimization, PC harware has progressed to the point where that kind of effort isn't necessary for a similar result.

And that's exactly right mblunk, and that's why it's so profitable for developers to develop for console and port it over. That's just business - you want max profit with minimum effort. It has almost nothing to do with which is more powerful.

Argue rather than rate dumb TonyP. This isn't a vitriolic argument and you're acting very offended.

Pshaw, he's going through every SH thread and rating dumb. He who is dumb spews dumb in more ways than one.

[QUOTE=TonyP;39647678]I hope that wasn't in response to me because it has nothing to do with anything I said. Meh I think it's time for me to abandon this thread. Any more of this lost in translation crap and I'm going to be contemplating suicide again.[/QUOTE] You're threatening suicide over an internet debate about video game hardware..? Maybe you should see a doctor/therapist.

Well considering I just dropped a few grand on my new machine, BRING IT ONNNNN