Crytek: Current Consoles "Already At Their Technical Peak"

Cavan1
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 11:46:44 AM
Reply

hmm, i may have only seen the trailors, but crisis 2 dosnt look as good as uncharterd, maybe theres just better developers out their than crytek (well corncerning the ps3 as i know they know their stuff on the pc)

25 up, 1 down

Akuma07
Thursday, September 02, 2010 @ 2:19:09 AM

Crytek have been a PC developer until now.

They were a big part of the PC games with crysis, and gave them a big reputation.

But they cant come into the console world, make one game, and say "okay, we've maxed it out now"

They are used to hardware making it easy for them, thats what pc's do, "we need a better system"......"thats cool, people will just buy better graphics cards"

In the console world you cant do that, you HAVE to improve your code, and streamline the way you make the game, so that it is extremely efficient.

THey arent used to that.

10 up, 0 down

Snaaaake
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 11:46:54 AM
Reply

We'll see, I'm just looking forward to Kojima's next game and whether or not he'll use a new engine or an upgraded MGS4 engine.

And also Uncharted 3.

13 up, 0 down

jaybiv
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 11:52:08 AM
Reply

i'd buy what he was selling if they actually put some effort in the ps3 version of the game.

15 up, 0 down

ace_boon_coon
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 1:34:36 PM

exactly. he must just mean multiplat titles are maxed out. kz3 looks better than crysis. this guy needs to rephrase his statement. he'd know the truth if he made crysis exclusive.

12 up, 0 down

THEVERDIN
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 4:04:29 PM

I think he meant to say that he's tapped out.

9 up, 0 down

The CEO
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 11:55:02 AM
Reply

If Crysis 2 looked better than Killzone 3 than I would agree, but it don't so I think hes wrong about the PS3. I even think Gears 3 looks better than Crysis 2 so I just think Crytek has not learned all the tricks to squeeze more out of either system. Crysis 2 still looks amazing though.

10 up, 0 down

Nynja
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 11:55:28 AM
Reply

I believe developers have harnessed the full power of the PS3, but have yet to realize the full potential. There are still plenty of techniques they are still learning to further optimize their game engines. Just because a developer has reached the full technical capabilities of hardware does not mean there still isn't room for performance and graphical improvements. Knowing the full capability of the hardware will only help the developers to create something even more astounding than what we have seen thus far.

This is good news as this means, the best is yet to come.

(like the reference there?)

4 up, 1 down

Highlander
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 12:07:21 PM

Well, I could write a tiny program to max out the CellBE by running continuous loops of null operations on all cores, and claim I have maxed out the processor. That's why I always view these kinds of comments with skepticism.

With any processor it's not whether you use all the cycles it's how you use them. With the CellBE in particular, the architecture rewards certain ways of using the SPEs, and they are particularly well suited to certain kinds of work. That's why we've seen such good results from Naughty Dog who understand the architecture better than most.

They (ND) found ways to move their graphics post processing to the Cell instead of burdening the GPU with things that the Cell can do better. That's what makes me laugh at the comments about CPU/GPU convergence. The CellBE is really an embodiment of that idea because the SPEs can be used, and are designed to be used, to process video and audio data as well as being well suited to physics work. Supplemented by the RSX and it's abilities, the PS3 gives developers a lot of choice when it comes to allocating the various workloads.

21 up, 1 down

Nynja
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 12:15:09 PM

I actually couldn't agree more. Just because a developer claims to have maxed out a system, doesn't necessarily mean they know how to fully optimize their applications for the best performance and graphics the architecture has to offer. It's a step closer to realizing what compromises can and should be made for better work load management, in addition to overall improvement in product quality.

Crytek has claimed they are already doing this but, as Coverton has pointed out, they are still limited by foreign platforms when trying to keep all versions as similar as possible.

Last edited by Nynja on 9/1/2010 12:15:34 PM

6 up, 0 down

Temjin001
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 10:25:48 PM

Yep, very true with the hardware processing, Highlander. As a student in programming, I've learned that their are several ways to code a single object. Optimization is the key. Declaring a variable, for example, with a data type that uses more memory than necessary is an example of poor memory optimization. Or using too many global variables that are processed every time an application is run, regardless of whether or not a function would even call for those specific variables.

I'm still relatively new to programming, having only taken courses in C++ and Visual Basic, but I'm en-route to do plenty more like Java and C#

1 up, 0 down

coverton341
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 11:57:31 AM
Reply

Well, I am running under the assumption that they are developing the game across three platforms simultaneously; PC, PS3, and the 360. If that's the case, even with separate development teams for each platform they still have to keep everything of an even field which means they can't solely focus on any one platform.

We have seen time and again multiplatform games look great but be out shined by exclusives and the reason for that is, the development team on an exclusive game can limit their scope to a specific hardware architecture. They can finely tune the game to the exact specifics of the chosen system.

If Crytek really think that the consoles are maxed out let them make three separate Crysis games next time around, each for a specific platform. Then let's see how they feel about the lifespan of the systems

10 up, 0 down

Nynja
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 11:59:27 AM

Excellent point.

4 up, 0 down

Highlander
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 12:16:46 PM

Indeed. I believe that it would mean that the basic engine design will be similar across all three platforms with optimizations for each platform, and implementation specific changes, but still fundamentally the same. In which case the very design of the engine may not be suited to the PS3's architecture.

5 up, 0 down

BikerSaint
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 2:46:37 PM

Both, Nynja, Highlander, & Coverton, all gave good solid info from the technical side in their posts.

But as for myself, I'm just gonna go with my own dumb-a$$'ed non-tech savvy layman's term here.......

"TWEAK, TWEAK, TWEAK"

2 up, 0 down

Highlander
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 12:00:02 PM
Reply

I hate to sound techno-snobby, but Cevat Yerli sounds awfully like a PC developer with this bit...

<<He goes on to say that with the next "convergence of GPUs and CPUs," we'll get "greater-looking worlds" and "better-simulated worlds.">>

Convergence of GPU and CPU? Without much more information it's really hard to tell exactly what he wants, but the Cell BE *is* very much a synthesis of GPU and CPU concepts. The SPEs on the CellBE are very high speed scalar devices that are optimized for floating point math. This is precisely where GPUs are going. In other words, The Cell processor in teh PS3 already is a convergence of GPU and CPU, so what more is it that he wants? Does he not 'get' the design? Does he not understand the purpose of the SPEs?

PC developers constantly harp on about GPU CPU convergence because for them the GPU is a discrete device on the end of an IO bus, it has to be handled as a separate subsystem. CPU GPU convergence is so attractive to PC developers because is removes that architectural obstacle of having to go through an external bus controller and bus to get to the GPU.

The PS3 doesn't work that way at all. The GPU in the PS3 is directly connected to the CPU and acts as the system's memory and IO controller. So in essence the Cell and RSX are already functionally integrated in the system's design. With the SPEs on the Cell and the direct connection to the GPU itself, the PS3 architecture is a 'converged' architecture.

To be honest, if Crytek have implemented all the same things on both PS3 and 360 and think that the PS3 is maxed out, I am not sure that they are making good use of the SPEs.

I mean, *if* developers are using the SPEs and are leveraging the ability to run SPEs both in series and/or in parallel depending on the tasks, then they are getting the most from the system. But when people like Naughty Dog are saying that there is life in the old girl yet, I will take the statements of relative newbies (to the PS3 architecture) like Crytek with a pinch of salt.

22 up, 1 down

Nynja
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 12:04:30 PM

It's such a pleasure having someone around such as you and Coverton. Always enjoying reading both of your comments.

9 up, 0 down

Highlander
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 12:25:25 PM

Thanks. I really enjoy the discussions we have here. I hesitate to list posters by name because I will miss someone out, but we have a large number of posters who always bring new perspectives, knowledge and experience to the discussion. I'm always particularly impressed by many here who may not be the most technical people, but still have great insight into these things. It's a real pleasure because discussions here at PSX require thought and often some research to check things.

9 up, 1 down

JJJames
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 12:27:44 PM

Damn straight. You can't honestly say your making a multi platform game that maxes out both consoles. This is Crysis first shot at consoles, so no offence to them but they shouldn't be ranting and raving about maxing out consoles. It's proberly just a marketing scheme.

10 up, 0 down

Nynja
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 12:30:47 PM

"discussions here at PSX require thought and often some research to check things."

lol, exactly.

4 up, 0 down

chedison
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 12:37:35 PM

Or possibly to lay out an explanation when they come out with excuses as to why the game , or specifically thePS3 version is inferior, or does not make any technical or graphical progression.

Btw, Highlander thanks for that technical explanation :).

3 up, 0 down

RobiinzZ
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 1:29:01 PM

Also, i read an article before, which stated that Sony were thinking about releaseing the ps3 without a gpu since the SPE's can do graphical tasks, But they thought it would be too hard for developers to programe for so they added the RSX for the devs to lean on untill they new the architexture of the Cell BE.

And since most exclusives seem to look better than multi-plats, Cytek i think still proberly aren't utilising the SPE's fully.

I mean, GOW 2 on ps2 8 years into its life cycle looked better than 1.

So, the more you know about one specific console, the better you can squeeze out of it.

Side Note: i love reading your comments high lander, you seem to know quite alot about this sort of stuff lol.

5 up, 0 down

BTNwarrior
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 12:31:12 PM
Reply

well I'm good with little upgrades for the next 5 years. That is why we all love new system launches because it is like we have been using a bow all these years and then out of nowhere someone gives us a machine gun to use. Makes spending lots of mony seem worth it

0 up, 0 down

Jawknee
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 12:41:48 PM
Reply

Uh huh, then why does Crysis 2 look less than impressive when compared to PS3 exclusives?

11 up, 0 down

Nynja
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 1:35:10 PM

I mostly agree, but until I see actual gameplay footage running on my big screen, I will not draw any comparisons just yet.

Still images hardly ever do a game justice, except for titles like Uncharted 2, GT5, or MGS4. God of War 3 screenshots looked amazing, but the game just looks so much better when in motion.

1 up, 0 down

Jawknee
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 1:48:31 PM

There are a few gameplay trailers on PSN. It shows the game in action. It's not a bad looking game but it doesn't top the exclusives Sony puts out. The game doesn't even look better than MGS4 in my opinion. It's rather uninspired and bland and the graphics are mediocre. Rage looks like it has better graphics than Crysis 2.

The trailers are in 720p as well so I'm sure they look as good as they're gonna get. A lot of the time these trailers look better than the game itself.

Last edited by Jawknee on 9/1/2010 1:52:40 PM

3 up, 0 down

Nynja
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 1:58:05 PM

I for one never really understood all the hype around Crysis. From what I gathered, it was wonderful "eye-candy" but a generic shooter at best.

I've seen some of those vids, but there is always loss of detail from file compression. I have to see it on my HDTV before I draw a final conclusion.

I have seen some nice images for the upcoming Crysis game and have to admit that it sports some of the best looking foliage in any game I've seen yet. The only games that can come close to comparing, in my opinion, are Uncharted 2, Far Cry 2, and Oblivion. Can't say so much for the Crysis character models I've seen, though.

0 up, 0 down

Wissam
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 12:47:21 PM
Reply

They haven't released their first console game and they talk crap about consoles. if these consoles are too old why do you even bother bringing your stupid game to them.

6 up, 0 down

elass0wyp0
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 5:51:00 PM

Exactly. The excuses start already. Man let the public at least see your game and tear it apart before you start dissing the consoles.

He's pretty much already confirming that this will be a crap port limited by the 360 and will have short gameplay length. Trademarks of the multiplat dev. Enraging.

Tommy can you hear me?

6 up, 0 down

SvenMD
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 12:47:29 PM
Reply

Sounds like someone needs to work harder on their engine, or learn how to use the PS3 architecture better.

If your multiplatform game is looking exactly the same on the 360 and the PS3, then you haven't tapped out sh**.

Sometimes it just sounds like people give excuses because they've lost the creativity and ingenuity to pursue different avenues and truly push the limits.

7 up, 0 down

Oldtree
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 12:53:40 PM
Reply

Correction: The PS3 has maxed out the CryEngine.

27 up, 0 down

Alienange
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 1:17:09 PM

Bingo

9 up, 0 down

Nynja
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 1:48:02 PM

lmao!

7 up, 0 down

AcHiLLiA
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 6:33:03 PM

hahaha, yah.

0 up, 0 down

OtisFeelgood
Thursday, September 02, 2010 @ 4:05:34 PM

@Oldtree

Comment of the day. lol

Last edited by OtisFeelgood on 9/2/2010 4:06:12 PM

0 up, 0 down

spiderboi
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 1:07:42 PM
Reply

That's a pretty negative statement from Yerli. When you say you've already done what you can, that's where improvement stops. Now, if they look at it in other perspectives, they should keep trying ways to optimize. Just take a gander at GoW2. I pretty much thought I saw the best the PS2 can dish out, but this proved me wrong. And of course, MGS2 and MGS3. Such optimism at optimizing should be their attitude to be on real excellence level.

5 up, 0 down

Nynja
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 1:43:14 PM

As Highlander stated in an earlier post, this could have to do with the Crytek's PC development thought process.

Experienced console developers have been learning to squeeze as much out of legacy hardware as they can, all while PC developers may (I stress "may") tend to push consumers to buy the next GPU upgrade or purchase more RAM rather than efficiently optimizing their game engine for outdated hardware.

I know that Crytek have been working with the PS3 hardware for at least 2 years now. They should have plenty of experience with the PS3 to have an idea of what they are talking about, especially if Sony Engineers provided any assistance in their game development. This does not mean that when Crytek speaks, everyone should adhere to their claims. It just means we should expect great things from them if they claim they have reached Naughty Dog's level of quality.

I personally can't wait to see how true their claims are.

5 up, 0 down

Amazingskillz
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 1:09:23 PM
Reply

Judging by Highlanders mentioning of an already existing convergence of GPU & CPU in the PS3, I think there could be other factors involved in Mr. Yerli's comments. I believe to some degree that he's attempting to build hype for the game by making it seem beyond anything else. He clearly wants gamers to believe that the game will be superior to others because they've maxed out every systems capability. Its actually a smart marketing ploy in my opinion. It then becomes a must have.

0 up, 0 down

Kai200X
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 1:15:58 PM
Reply

I tend to forget Crytek is an expert on PS3 development. Wait...

7 up, 0 down

Lawless SXE
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 1:24:10 PM

Sure they are. They bought Free Radical :D

3 up, 0 down

chedison
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 1:19:49 PM
Reply

I'm not usually one for jumping on the hate-wagon.... But how much crap are they going to talk before their game actually comes out? Every time we see Crytek in the news, its about something they have to say about a certain developer, or system, or game, etc.

Instead of making excuses and spouting BS, why don't you actually release your game before you open your mouth and realize your foot is in it?

8 up, 0 down

Lawless SXE
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 1:23:04 PM
Reply

Eh. If I remember correctly, Naughty Dog also mentioned maxing out the PS3. Of course, they went on to say that they could further optimise their engine to improve on the technical details of Uncharted 2. I'm not going to say that Yerli is shortsighted or whatever, because if the team has the PS3 busy all of the time, then it could well be that he thinks it is tapped out. It can always be made better though. Look at the PS2, when did devs start saying they'd maxed it out?

The thing we must all remember is that no matter how powerful the PS3 is, there is always going to be aspects where it will fall short, most often in terms of graphical realism. What we have now is a problem with lighting in games. While the character models could be mistaken for reality in some very rare cases, the peculiar properties of lighting in games is an impediment to that realism.

Here's hoping that Crysis 2 will be able to walk the walk when it is released because Crytek seems to be talking way too much. If it is on par with Gear of War 2, then I will consider them to have succeeded. If it on par with Uncharted 2, then they will have knocked it out of the park. If neither of these is true, then maybe next time they'll learn to shut their mouths and do what they're promising.
Peace.

5 up, 0 down

Jawknee
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 1:27:15 PM

Naughty Dog did say that and Uncharted 2 looks 100X more polished than Crysis 2.

7 up, 0 down

Jawknee
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 1:23:12 PM
Reply

Killzone 2 still looks better than Crysis 2 on the PS3/360. What the hell is the he is he smoking?

I wish these devs would just release their games before thumping their chests. I have a feeling Crysis 2 is going to be less than meh when it releases.

Last edited by Jawknee on 9/1/2010 1:24:58 PM

11 up, 1 down

ace_boon_coon
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 1:36:23 PM

as of right now no fps has been able to touch kz2's graphics, and kz3 looks even better. this guy is nuts. he needs to just speak on MS side of things.

6 up, 0 down

Alienange
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 1:26:32 PM
Reply

I am trying very hard to keep my cherub-like demeanor, but Yerli's comment really pisses me off. What kind of nonsense comment is that?? He's basically saying the 360 and the PS3 have the same hardware and his fancy pants game is the superlative example of what a game can be this gen.

What a closed minded individual. Crytek would be better off without him.

8 up, 1 down

Jawknee
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 1:28:38 PM

Not even one console game out the door yet and he's already proclaiming "king of the mountain."

What a joke indeed.

7 up, 0 down

Highlander
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 1:45:56 PM

I think his problem is that the more recent GPUs on the PC are extremely powerful (and extremely expensive) and he's worried that they can't scale their game engine from that to the hardware inside a game console. With the ridiculous GPUs in PCs now, PC developers become dependent on the performance of GPU, to do everything. That is why they cry for convergence, they see the GPU as the magical accelerator.

If Crytek had a track record on the PS3 or using the Cell processor then I would take him a lot more seriously. But, they don't have that track record. So why should we take his statements at face value?

8 up, 0 down

Alienange
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 4:54:09 PM

You said it guys. Making these sweeping statements is just a plea for attention on the part of Crtytek.

If they really wanted to say something intelligent they should have said what Valve said. That the PS3 version will be the best console version of their game. But they've said quite the opposite.

And you know, as a gamer, there's nothing wrong with your game NOT maxing out the hardware. Nintendo proved that. But for some reason, these guys have taken on a superiority complex in regards to developing games. And I don't like it.

2 up, 1 down

Akuma07
Thursday, September 02, 2010 @ 2:28:33 AM

Agreed Highlander.

Its almost like the GPUs have become magicians, and PC devs just whisper into its ears what they want, and expect it to pump it perfection.

PC devs are getting lazy, they need to learn how to OPTIMIZE their engines.

1 up, 0 down

Amazingskillz
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 1:45:32 PM
Reply

He's clearly feeding the hype machine. I guarantee you Crytek doesn't have a team designated for the 360, then another designated for PS3, then another designated for the PC. Probably one team for all three. So you know he hasn't maxed the PS3 yet. He must think we gamers are dummies. Do they even have a demo out for Crysis 2?

1 up, 0 down

maxpontiac
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 1:56:25 PM
Reply

Crytek's consistant mouth running is making me second guess any support I might give.

PS3? Done? Don't tell that to Naughty Dog. Plus, perhaps Crytek should look at the PS2 and GOW2 for further proof.

6 up, 0 down

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 2:41:39 PM
Reply

Everyone knows Playstation consoles are maxed right about the time the next iteration comes out. See GOWII briefly before the PS3 came to life.

7 up, 1 down

Nynja
Thursday, September 02, 2010 @ 7:45:51 AM

And that's what makes the World go around...

0 up, 0 down

tes37
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 3:29:53 PM
Reply

They are basically saying the same thing other developers were saying when they first started working with the ps3. They're not fooling anybody but themselves and they are doing damage to their reputation before they even release a game.

They don't strike me as having the desire to push the ps3 any further.

6 up, 0 down

DjEezzy
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 3:34:15 PM
Reply

says the guy who's team makes computer games...
Seems like these guys are making games for the next next generation. "Our game looks the best ever, but only on hardware that 1% of the population can afford." They could make a lot of money if they were to just sell a new computer or console with the game. LOL.

Last edited by DjEezzy on 9/1/2010 3:38:17 PM

0 up, 0 down

Maiq The Liar
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 3:58:01 PM

Eureka!!!

0 up, 0 down

dveisalive
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 4:19:44 PM
Reply

This dude doesn't know what he is talking about, no one has yet to use the full power of PS3! There is still KZ3, U3, and even Infamous 2 thats gonna blow Crysis 2 out the water. I wouldnt be surprise if Crysis 2 looks better on 360 for they are familiar with a outdated maxed out console known as the 360 O_O. Give the Crytek engine to Naughty Dog and we will have a CGI game running in real time xD lol

0 up, 0 down

daus26
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 4:32:07 PM
Reply

If any game is "pushing the boundaries," of a console that's exclusives. Heck even Kazunori-San said they're only about 80% into the PS3's full potential and that game is already looking ridiculously amazing.

I'm not tech savvy like highlander and some of you here, but if game developers like PD, Naughty Dog, and the makers of KZ hasn't yet said they've fully-tapped the PS3 (and beyond), how could a game like Crysis do?

Again, I know nothing of this, but with what some of you and what Sony exclusive developers have said, I find it hard to believe Crytek have really already went "beyond" the PS3's capabilities.

1 up, 0 down

RebelJD
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 5:03:08 PM
Reply

All that matters to me when I'm playing a video game is that it look like I'm playing a video game. If and when these video games start reaching and passing the line of realism it can get unsatisfying...maybe even creepy. They've written articles on this subject before.

Either way, I want my games to continue presenting to me what I know as fun. Too real can become too boring, IMO.

0 up, 0 down

ro kurorai
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 5:04:11 PM
Reply

I wouldn't take CryTek's opinion on consoles that serious. They are after all a PC developer. They think solely in GPU/CPU terms, which unfortunately for them, does not apply to PS3 development.
I'm not very tech-savvy regarding the CellBE, but I've read my share of dev diaries (ND and Santa Monica Studios).
In my understanding the Cell's (and SPU's) structure is vastly different from PCs.

That's why most multi devs have problems with PS3 development, as it is different than PC/360.

So unless Crytek can deliver an FPS that looks, sounds and plays better than KZ2 I'll stick to my opinion that they don't know squat about PS3 optimization/development.

And with all due respect for the developer, the console versions of CrySis 2 don't even compare to KZ2's visuals, which is over a year old already.

On powerful PC hardware Crytek's engine truly shines, but on consoles it's kinda lackluster.

Heck, even Quantic Dream, who are an independent 3rd party studio managed to properly utilize the Cell/SPUs. To me Heavy Rain's visuals are still amongst the best on Sony's hardware (graveyard scenes, anyone) and they didn't claim to have maxed out the system.

To be frank, HR still looks better than anything I've seen of CrySis 2 so far ^^

Last edited by ro kurorai on 9/1/2010 5:09:07 PM

2 up, 0 down

Highlander
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 5:35:10 PM

Indeed.

0 up, 0 down

Akuma07
Thursday, September 02, 2010 @ 2:26:25 AM

No, i dont believe they shine on PC's

Years ago, they released Crysis, which crippled alot of PC's. You had to have a reaaaaally good PC to run it at full.

Yes the graphics were awesome at max, BUT its not really worth it if you have to pay 4x a PS3 for it.

Their engine uses brute force to achieve visuals, instead of optimization.

1 up, 0 down

Lotusflow3r
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 6:40:31 PM
Reply

....And i'm gutted my boys at Free Radical are now under their command.

"No continuation of Timesplitters 4 development until enough public demand" my arse, Crytek!

0 up, 0 down

DemonNeno
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 7:19:05 PM
Reply

This coming from the developers that crippled nearly 3 generations of PCs with their hardware murdering game engine.

I highly DOUBT either of these consoles are that peaked.

4 up, 0 down

Highlander
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 11:43:20 PM

ROTFLMAO!

That's one of the best replies I've seen. It's so true, they code something that just kills PCs and looks good. Everyone assumes that because it looks good, it's efficient. logging good doesn't make it efficient, so what if it really wasn't efficient or well optimized at all? What if they coded an engine that was as efficient as paddling a canoe with a ping-pong bat? It might still look good, but would murder PCs in order to do so because it would require monster specs to achieve it's greatness.

I don't know, I can't critique their engine, and I don't suppose anyone really can. However is it possible that they could have much more tightly optimized instead of throwing ever more effects at it? Could it be that it would have worked better on more modest PCs if they'd left it in the oven for longer?

I think so. As other developers (Naughty Dog springs to mind) have shown, optimization pays huge dividends on the consoles - especially PS3.

0 up, 0 down

SmokeyPSD
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 8:37:21 PM
Reply

it hasn't even come out yet and they're already talking this way...

0 up, 0 down

Temjin001
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 8:53:20 PM
Reply

Interesting thoughts by Crytek.
If it wasn't for games that look like Uncharted 2 and GoW3 I would be inclined to agree. Afterall, he's probably more qualified to make such claims than anyone else on these boards.

I have to wonder if his statements aren't self-serving.
Crytek is trying to introduce a middleware engine, Cryengine 3, well after other devs have bought into software tools like Epic's popular Unreal Engine 3. I would imagine that it would be advantageous for Crytek to secure licensing agreements when a multitude of devs are in the market for new tools. What better way to sell their software when new hardware bolsters demand for such products. Perhaps Crytek wants to speed the process along by advocating a NECESSITY to more passed this generation of processing and onto the next where they're proudly advertising their software tools.

2 up, 0 down

Highlander
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 11:47:26 PM

You're right, but I think that Crytek's mistake is that they cannot cry about hardware and force an upgrade cycle in the console world. You can do that on the PC. A hotly anticipated game can drive, or at least help to drive, a hardware upgrade cycle. Could it be that he forgot that you can't do that in the console world?

2 up, 0 down

Akuma07
Thursday, September 02, 2010 @ 2:23:27 AM

The next generation of consoles, will be on par with the most advanced computers we have NOW.

so by the time the next-gen consoles come out, computers will be way ahead again.

im so sick of this pc's better than consoles bullshit.

0 up, 0 down

Highlander
Thursday, September 02, 2010 @ 12:27:53 PM

To be fair, the PS3 had the edge over PCs for at least a year of it's life thanks to the ridiculous compute power of the cell. The RSX chip was never going to win a race against what was in PCs at the time, but in combination with the Cell, there were no PCs that could really compete. Not so true now of course...

1 up, 0 down

bigrailer19
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 @ 11:55:34 PM
Reply

Tell that to Naughty Dog, and Guerrilla Games, and Sony Santa Monica. They arguably have made some of the best looking games ever, and they don't claim any such thing. In fact they say quite the opposite.

That's all I have to say on the matter!

Last edited by bigrailer19 on 9/2/2010 12:00:07 AM

0 up, 0 down

Akuma07
Thursday, September 02, 2010 @ 2:20:42 AM
Reply

These are consoles, not pc's.

ANY developer could have maxed out the ps3 from day one. seriously.

but it doesnt mean the game would look amazing and work flawlessly.

Some of the first programs i wrote on my pc, nearly made the thing commit suicide.

CRYTEK IN THE CONSOLE WORLD, EFFICIENCY RULES OVER POWER.

Last edited by Akuma07 on 9/2/2010 2:21:39 AM

0 up, 0 down

DeusExMachina
Thursday, September 02, 2010 @ 3:34:18 AM
Reply

Let's not forget that Crytek is just generally sloppy with their programming, they have no idea how to prioritise and optimise their code, this was evident in the first Far Cry, you had to have a GFX 5900 (or ATI equiv), 1.00GB RAM and a 3.00Ghz CPU to run that thing smoothly, I dont mean on very high just smoothly, well untill crytek released the patches, which took ages. This was even more apparent in the first Crysis as it was practically the PC hardware benchmark for 2 years and a lot of Crysis' is smoke and mirrors coupled with the heavy price one has to pay for only the best hardware (you couldnt even play it on DX10 at the highest setting comfortably when it came out, due to consumer tech not being good enough yet). Its cause their programming sucks. Only in Crysis Warhead did it get decent and that was just a refined engines of Crysis'. I mean if Valve (a company thats actually good at their main platform) struggled this long to get to grips with PS3 (and Portal 2 looks delectable, I think they gonna deserve praise), how can these bosos chatter already?

1 up, 0 down

___________
Thursday, September 02, 2010 @ 6:51:52 AM
Reply

thats a crop of sh*t crytek!
anyone could write a program to max out any system, hell give me 5 minutes and ill code a program that would make a I7 cower like a school girl!

as time goes on new tools become available, so now instead of executing a certain task taking x amount of resources and CPU time it now takes 20% less.
best example of that would be alan wakes lighting and rendering system.
they have more lighting effects than freaking KZ2, but apparently has 30% less taxing on system resources!

every generation games keep improving year on year on year and dont stop improving till developers stop making games for it.
look at GOW2 for crying out loud it looked better than some freaking ps3 games!

KZ3 will come out and set a new bar, than crysis 2 will come out and do the same, than RAGE, than LA Noire, than Agent and so on and so on.
just like previous generations were not going to see the best out of either consoles or PC for a few years to come!
im sure crytek themselves will learn new things to implement into their next game after crysis 2 ships.

1 up, 1 down

Highlander
Thursday, September 02, 2010 @ 12:29:59 PM

Hold on, you really can't make this kind of statement "best example of that would be alan wakes lighting and rendering system.
they have more lighting effects than freaking KZ2, but apparently has 30% less taxing on system resources!"

You can't use a 360 game's lighting effects and their load on the system and then compare that to a completely different game on a completely different platform as some supposed evidence of greater efficiency. There's no equivalence at all there, and you can't draw a conclusion based on it.

1 up, 0 down

___________
Friday, September 03, 2010 @ 9:31:09 AM

i did not say that, the tech company who was working with remedy said that.
i cant remember which edition it was, but PSM3 i think it was i was reading in the hospital when i went to see my nan and it had detailed info on remedys engine.
the animation, and lighting effects were not made by remedy, there was actually a third party company brought in to help them out on it, its the third partys engine not remedy and apparently there looking at licensing it out to other developers.
ill look the companies name up if you want to look a little into it, i would not mind myself it sounded really interesting.

you get the point though, there are more and more tools coming out every day allowing developers to do things they previously could not.
i read a article on TFU2 the other day, apparently the devs have found a way to use motion blur to make a game look like its running at 60FPS with all the advantages of a game running at 60FPS, but with having the system drain of running at 30FPS.
unfortunately they ran out of time and it wont be in TFU2 but it will be in all of Lucas arts games from now on.

hell, crytek, remember the indian kid a few years ago got a contract cant remember who with, but he made his own engine and tech demo which looked like a top of the line 360 game.
whats the big deal you ask?
IT WAS RUNNING ON THE XBOX!!!!!!!!!!!!!
so if he can make a xbox game look like that, than dam what the ^%$# are crytek bitching about?
its amazing how far you can go just by optimizing your code, look at KZ3 they have added 3D to the game, they have added more features so you would think this would slow the game down, make the graphics look worse.
but nope, they added so many features not to mention 3D and it still looks better than KZ2.

0 up, 0 down

Highlander
Friday, September 03, 2010 @ 10:52:04 AM

Sure, I would read up on the lighting engine you're talking about.

I still find it hard to take any developer of a multi-plat game or engine seriously when they compare apples and oranges as if they are the same fruit - you know. But I guess the proof, so to speak, will be in the pudding when games launch.

That motion blur thing, I've heard something about that before too. If a game has a rock steady 30 frames per second, and is fully sync'd with the display, then I can totally see how a developer could fool the eye somewhat. After all that's what analog TV did for years. To simulate the analog picture quality, even at 480p, you need anti-aliasing out the wazoo and the entire kitchen sink of image enhancements to take a digitally produced 480p images and make it as smooth as an analog image. But those old analog TV images (assuming you had a great TV and a clean, strong signal) looked crystal clear, even with fast action. I still remember being utterly disgusted when TV coverage of sports started using digital cameras. I had a nice analog TV and you could see the frame stutter with really high speed sports like F1 racing because the digital camera captured crisp individual frames, but the lack of analog motion blur, made them look disjointed to the viewer. Of course, cameras are better now, and make an attempt to retain some motion blur, but I am still disappointed with digital video technology compared to analog.

If someone has found a method to achieve that kind of effect at 720 resolutions making 30 fps look smooth, it will look to us puny humans like it's running at 60fps. To be honest, if they can do that at 720, it's time to step up to 1080... Either way, that's an interesting development, I will look it up. Thanks!

1 up, 0 down

___________
Saturday, September 04, 2010 @ 7:56:47 AM

no prob.
thats the beauty of it though, using that tech they dont need any AA.
so using this tech there basically getting 60FPS with 4XAA at the processing tax of just standard 30FPS.
your getting 500 bucks, but only paying 300 not bad ay?
this has not been implemented into any games yet though, so let them get it up and running, optimized than let them continue to 1080P.
this just goes to prove how much more can be done with current gen consoles, a year ago we would of thought techniques like this are impossible.
with software tools developing like this, well we dont really need a new set of consoles for a while.
when you think about it, consoles are really are what is pushing the industry forward not PCs.
PC you have the hardware to do whatever, consoles you really need to be smart on how you code and that is what creates tools like this.
was a really interesting read, will be interesting to see if LA delve deeper into it its something i was really interested in.

0 up, 0 down

Crabba
Thursday, September 02, 2010 @ 8:30:15 PM
Reply

Crysis (1) was a great-looking game, but I haven't seen anything yet that makes Crysis 2 look better (or even as good) as the original so far. Considering Crysis 2 is a multi-platform game I seriously don't see how it can possibly "max out" the PS3, especially since it's their first game on the PS3, at best it's an optimized engine for being a multi-platform game.

It would surprise me if Crysis 2 will even look as good as the now more than 1.5 year old Killzone 2, let alone Killzone 3.

On the other hand I'm 100% confident that Uncharted 3 will look even better than the best-looking current-gen game yet, Uncharted 2!

2 up, 0 down

ro kurorai
Friday, September 03, 2010 @ 8:17:20 AM

Honestly, I agree that CrySis 2 won't look better than Crysis on PC.
Their new engine is multi-plat, which means the benefit on PC will be most likely scalable resolution and native 60FPS, as long as the rig can handle it.

It's an assumption I've made after having played my share of ME2 on PC.
The general graphics are identical to the 360 version. Only differences are resolution (1920x1200 vs. 1280x720), steady performance, various selectable quality settings (dynamic shadows, number of cinematic lights, spherical harmonic lighting etc.), 16AF and enforceable AA (which I'm not using anyways).

So, on PC the overall image quality and performance can be improved, but the general graphics are the same.

I'm predicting the same thing with Crysis 2 ^^

Last edited by ro kurorai on 9/3/2010 8:18:21 AM

0 up, 0 down

___________
Friday, September 03, 2010 @ 9:33:48 AM

on consoles it wont, but on PC it most certainly will!
DX11 support confirmed, 3D support, APEX PhysX.
crysis 2 is going to make crysis on the PC look like a freaking 1986 game!

0 up, 0 down

Highlander
Friday, September 03, 2010 @ 10:54:49 AM

Yeah, but you'll need an i7 with 12GB of DDR3 RAM, and GTX 480s running 3-way SLI to do it.

LOL!

0 up, 0 down

wiiplay
Friday, September 03, 2010 @ 7:54:43 PM

@TheHighlander:
I have the i7, and I have the 12GBs of RAM, but I lack the GPU.

Anyways, I personally cannot wait for Crysis 2 to release. Being that I am a fan of the original Crysis, I am sure that I will enjoy Crysis 2.

I hate the fact that I need to upgrade my system to play Crysis 2 on high settings, but I at least still have the PS3 game to enjoy.

(I will be buying the 360 and PS3 versions, just to see if there is any difference between the two)

Even though I respect Crytek, I'll choose to wait until Naughty Dog says the PS3 is maxed out, before adding money to the "Next Gen" savings account.

1 up, 0 down

___________
Saturday, September 04, 2010 @ 8:13:06 AM

:( ive only got a single 470 and single 9800GTX+.
towards the end of the year ill get another 470 though, and im going to customize my case so i can use water cooling so i can do some serious OCing.
that way i can play games in proper 3D, now with 3D on im struggling to get 20FPS!

0 up, 0 down

Amazingskillz
Friday, September 03, 2010 @ 4:12:06 PM
Reply

Maybe you two should go and work for a developer if you don't already.

0 up, 0 down

TamaDrumz76
Saturday, September 04, 2010 @ 12:24:06 PM
Reply

Well, I might be the first person to not agree with you all jumping down Crytek's throat. While, I may not agree with them 100%, there is some credibility to what they're saying. They are very talented developers, in my opinion they push the envelope for OVER-ALL detail and realism. I have been thinking bout this for a while now; that a hardware upgrade for consoles will need to come soon in order to continue to vastly improve games. Luckily for us, games are kickin' butt right now... but for the next level in butt kickin', more powerful systems will be necessary. While I loved Uncharted 2(series is easily one of my favourites), KZ2, etc... I will say that I don't think it will compare on a TECHNICAL scale as a Crytek developed game. Production values on the other hand(cinematic experience, voice acting, etc) may be higher on something like Uncharted 2, but technical prowess, less so. I still play Uncharted 2 regularly, but one thing I noticed since the first time I popped the game in, is how it seems they sacrificed texture quality and resolution of some things even in comparison with Uncharted 1 to improve in other areas. The current generation of games are full of compromises. That's not to say it takes away from the game, but it does mean it COULD be better given the resources to do so. Think of how to this day many people cannot play Crysis at full detail. Truth is they just didn't make many compromises, but they built into the graphical options the ability to scale back in order to play it on lesser systems. There is more than just graphics however, but advanced physics does require some good computing power, especially while improving AI. Although, I do agree... harnessing the knowledge to make it all come together is the most important of all.

0 up, 0 down

PaiNT_kinG
Saturday, September 04, 2010 @ 10:51:20 PM
Reply

can someone at PSXextreme get rid of these annoying pop up advertising blocking me from reading articles sheesh, freaking annoying -_-

1 up, 0 down

Lordnicon
Sunday, September 05, 2010 @ 3:19:26 PM
Reply

I dont know if the consoles are completely tapped and I dont know how much faith to put into Crytek and any of their statements about console architecture but I will say that Im not sure we need new hardware yet to provide us with new and far better experiences. While I do think fresh generations can bring fresh mindsets, I dont think it is required.

0 up, 0 down

Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories cheats	PSP
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas cheats	PS2
Grand Theft Auto IV cheats	PS3
MX Unleashed cheats	PS2
Pro Evolution Soccer 2013 cheats	PS3
Devil May Cry 4 cheats	PS3
Dynasty Warriors 5 cheats	PS2
Conan the Barbarian cheats	PS3
Spider-Man 3 cheats	PS3
Sega Rally Revo cheats	PS3

Do you still care about Final Fantasy Versus XIII?
	Hell yes, I still can't wait!
	Sort of, I just wish they'd tell us more.
	Not really, I've started to lose interest.
	No. Don't care about vaporware.

Playstation 3

Playstation 4

PSP

Playstation Vita

Playstation 2

Playstation

Other

PSX Extreme

Site Stats

Crytek: Current Consoles "Already At Their Technical Peak"

Comments (89 posts)

Leave a Comment

Latest Updates

Popular Cheats

Recent Reviews

Recent Previews

Popular Sections

Extras

Sponsor

Our Poll

Metro: Last Light review	PS3
Zombie Tycoon II: Brainhov's Revenge review	PS3
Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon review	PS3
Star Trek: The Video Game review	PS3
Injustice: Gods Among Us review	PS3
Dead Island: Riptide review	PS3
Defiance review	PS3
Sniper: Ghost Warrior 2 review	PS3
Army of Two: The Devil's Cartel review	PS3
Bioshock Infinite review	PS3

The Bureau: XCOM Declassified preview	PS3
Time and Eternity preview	PS3
Ride to Hell: Retribution preview	PS3
Call of Juarez: Gunslinger preview	PS3
Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon preview	PS3
Spartacus Legends preview	PS3
Payday 2 preview	PS3
DUST 514 preview	PS3
Dynasty Warriors 8 preview	PS3
Disgaea D2: A Brighter Darkness preview	PS3