Hedon Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Crytek, creators of the benchmark busting Crysis and its upcoming sequel, believe current generation console technology is maxed out.Speaking on a panel concerning the future of games, Crytek CEO Cevat Yerli expounded upon his thoughts on console technology, and of course touted Crysis 2 as a title that will set a new, higher benchmark for graphical fidelity in games. ?I think that there is not much more possible on the 360 and PS3 at this stage,? he said. ?We?re already using a lot of squeezing tricks and smoke and mirrors to get the maximum we can out of the hardware. We?re pushing the boundaries already. With CryEngine 3 I think going forward we?re going to require a new generation of console hardware.? Oh, but it doesn?t stop there. ?With the next generation the convergence of GPUs and CPUs will mean you have greater-looking worlds,? Yerli continued, ?but also better-simulated worlds. I think we need better animation technology, too ? so, mo-cap but also physics-based animation technologies. We need better simulation of intelligent foot-stepping, anti foot-sliding; just balancing the characters better, and having them react believably.? I agree with his points. High definition games today look wonderful, but they are far from excellent. There?s certainly loads more developers can do to up the authenticity ante in a number of departments. Facial expressions come to mind first and foremost in my opinion. What would you like to see improved upon in games? My link I have to agree that today's consoles are close to dead in the water as far as improvements go. The PC's are proof of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minifig Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Isn't it funny that Crytek were also the people who said if they can't put it in the console version of Crysis 2, it won't go in the PC version.. thus screwing over and consolizing the PC version? :| Seriously... If you think the current tech is out-dated, why accommodate your game to it and make the one system that can make your game shine, actually.. show it's worth? What would you like to see improved upon in games? What would I like to see? No more DRM, Developers who aren't afraid to tell console companies that if their systems can't run the game, the game won't appear on their system... adult rated titles that aren't a ****ing joke...More games that actually focus on story instead of 'purdy graphics' (see any game from the Unreal engine lately..) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacer Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 While I agree that the current console are reaching their graphical performance ceilings (especially the 360), I don't think that means they're reaching their innovative ceilings. Graphics aren't the only piece of the puzzle when considering what makes a good game. I for one would be perfectly happy staying at the current graphical performance levels if that meant things like quieter hardware, load times, AI, animation, story, dialog, and gameplay are the bigger focus (and therefore yield more improvements). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedon Posted September 2, 2010 Author Share Posted September 2, 2010 While I agree that the current console are reaching their graphical performance ceilings (especially the 360) Since they are pretty much dead equal in power, they both would be at their ceilings. I don't think that means they're reaching their innovative ceilings. I agree with you here. They can surely do some additional thinking outside the box going forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reacon Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 This is what I've been preaching for a few years now. Cryengine2 is STILL the most beautiful engine known to gaming, and yet, it's three years old now! Also, anyone who has actually played Crysis will know that "purdy graphics" isn't the only thing that shines in the game. Although it tends to out-shine everything else... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massiveterra Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 What about innovation in AI? The amount of players in a multiplayer match(in a good game LOL)? The amount of enemies on screen? The amount of players in a coop game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanLeto Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Current consoles don't impress me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yxz Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 die consoles die Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridlas Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Make games for the PC only. Problem solved. :) I'm sure my GTX 480 and my Core i7 would handle anything they can throw at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x-byte Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Isn't it funny that Crytek were also the people who said if they can't put it in the console version of Crysis 2, it won't go in the PC version.. thus screwing over and consolizing the PC version? Why do you think they made CryEngine 3? If they did it with CryEngine 2 then it would have happened, no doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tha Bloo Monkee Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 High definition games today look wonderful, but they are far from excellent. There’s certainly loads more developers can do to up the authenticity ante in a number of departments. Are you kidding me? There's always room for development in ANY area. There will never be a day that games are 100% "perfect" with no room for improvement. To say that games are far from excellent just seems like you're setting the bar WAY too high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerowen Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Make games for the PC only. Problem solved. :) I'm sure my GTX 480 and my Core i7 would handle anything they can throw at it. With consoles though, there is a standard. When making a game, you know exactly what kind of hardware/software the end user has, so you know exactly what kind of experience they are going to have playing your game. With PCs, you have the possibility of different operating systems and hardware. Some people will have ATI cards, some NVIDIA, some Intel, some people will have Windows, or Linux, or OSX. With that many different possibilities, people can have a huge variation in the experience they get from a particular game, therefore making it harder for the game designers to nail down all of the possible bugs and make the game the best it can be. Besides, beginning with today's generation of consoles, I think they've began leaving PCs behind in terms of processing power. I have yet to see a desktop PC with an 8-core processor like the PS3 has. Sure it's RAM and video card are beginning to be dated, but the processor is still very very powerful even by PC standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo003 Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Well of course it's maxed out, they can't even run crysis 1 at max. But that's what it is, if you don't like it then stop making game for console period Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George P Global Moderator Posted September 2, 2010 Global Moderator Share Posted September 2, 2010 I like how everyone says "don't make console games, do PC then, blah blah blah" . You do know why they did consoles this time right? It's where the damn money is, the PC, as great as the hardware is, really don't give them the returns they need. Why does everyone think more and more game devs are now going multiplatform? You can cry and moan about "whaaa the PC version is going to get gimped now!" and so on and so forth, cry me a river. If PC only game sales where enough crytek would never touch consoles, but guess what? It's not, so deal with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
what Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 The 360 is almost five years old now. The difference between console graphics and PC graphics doesn't represent five years of extraordinary technical advancement tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo003 Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 So stop complaining, I have both console and pc (capable of playing crysis atleast) so I'm not taking sides here. But as you said it's not consumer as much as dev are crying an moaning in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argonite Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Get ready for another string of Crysis jokes as soon as the new generation of hardware comes out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridlas Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 The 360 is almost five years old now. The difference between console graphics and PC graphics doesn't represent five years of extraordinary technical advancement tbh. Oh it does. Should play Crysis 1 with a GTX 480 in SLI and a core i7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WastedJoker Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Foot-sliding is my current annoyance. Fallout 3 was horrendous for it :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spenser.d Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Coming from a company that makes games that don't run well on anything that isn't the highest of the high-end at their release :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qdave Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 ^yeah hopefully future games will solve that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treemonster Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 With consoles though, there is a standard. When making a game, you know exactly what kind of hardware/software the end user has, so you know exactly what kind of experience they are going to have playing your game. With PCs, you have the possibility of different operating systems and hardware. Some people will have ATI cards, some NVIDIA, some Intel, some people will have Windows, or Linux, or OSX. With that many different possibilities, people can have a huge variation in the experience they get from a particular game, therefore making it harder for the game designers to nail down all of the possible bugs and make the game the best it can be. Besides, beginning with today's generation of consoles, I think they've began leaving PCs behind in terms of processing power. I have yet to see a desktop PC with an 8-core processor like the PS3 has. Sure it's RAM and video card are beginning to be dated, but the processor is still very very powerful even by PC standards. the ps3 hardware wasn't all that great when it came out. and it's a real pain to develop for to actually take advantage of the hardware to it's full potential. which is why ps3 games tend to look worse than on xbox. and just because the ps3 cpu has 8 cores doesn't make it any better than a core 2 duo. just like just because an amd phenom 2 x6 has 2 more cores doesn't make it better than an i7. also most games are written for windows, not linux or osx. also to the guy that said crysis shined in any way other than graphics, personally i found crysis to be boring to actually play in single player, and the mp was terrible in every way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ci7 Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 With consoles though, there is a standard. When making a game, you know exactly what kind of hardware/software the end user has, so you know exactly what kind of experience they are going to have playing your game. With PCs, you have the possibility of different operating systems and hardware. Some people will have ATI cards, some NVIDIA, some Intel, some people will have Windows, or Linux, or OSX. With that many different possibilities, people can have a huge variation in the experience they get from a particular game, therefore making it harder for the game designers to nail down all of the possible bugs and make the game the best it can be. Besides, beginning with today's generation of consoles, I think they've began leaving PCs behind in terms of processing power. I have yet to see a desktop PC with an 8-core processor like the PS3 has. Sure it's RAM and video card are beginning to be dated, but the processor is still very very powerful even by PC standards. on PC side games just barely started exploiting tri/quad cores cpus and it has been around for how many years? 6 cores are here octo/8 processor just soon enough errr next year I like how everyone says "don't make console games, do PC then, blah blah blah" . You do know why they did consoles this time right? It's where the damn money is, the PC, as great as the hardware is, really don't give them the returns they need. Why does everyone think more and more game devs are now going multiplatform? You can cry and moan about "whaaa the PC version is going to get gimped now!" and so on and so forth, cry me a river. If PC only game sales where enough crytek would never touch consoles, but guess what? It's not, so deal with it. still PC made the ton of money but you know companies always look for chance to make more $$$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chsoriano Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Besides, beginning with today's generation of consoles, I think they've began leaving PCs behind in terms of processing power. I have yet to see a desktop PC with an 8-core processor like the PS3 has. Ha... what a naive statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vice Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 I think they've began leaving PCs behind in terms of processing power. I have yet to see a desktop PC with an 8-core processor like the PS3 has. Sure it's RAM and video card are beginning to be dated, but the processor is still very very powerful even by PC standards. Calling what the PS3 has an 8 Core processor is a bit of a stretch. It has one serious core and the rest are like floating point monsters that are very basic in their instructions. A single GTX 480 (which yes is a graphics card) can be used for the same things that the cells SPE units are used for (the things your calling cores). And if we are going on core count alone then the GTX 480 has 480 programmable cores and the HD 5870 has 1600 programmable cores. At the end of the day, core count just like MHz and GHz doesn't mater. Performance per watt is what matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts