C&C3 on the 360 and UT3

[SoundTheSurrender]

Computer newbs are just scared. They hold their mice and keyboards.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

so there isnt a 8 player limit on xboxlive or the 360 or what ever?

for me TDU suffers big time at only been able to show 7 other players at a time. its supposedly a massively online game, but 8 players doesnt constitute massive to me. PGR3 is fine with 8 though, though even GoW feels a little handicapped on line too 4 on 4 is abit rubbish. yet 4 on 4 in splinter cell DA is perfect.

so it depends on the game, but UT3 really needs 16 vs 16 to get the full effect. infact i remember the 64 player games being the best....those were insane in UT2004.


anyway this really wasnt a question of PC vs Console. it was more a question of does the 360 have the means to handle such scenario's? (ie at least 32 player onslaught or 8 player world war with impossible amounts of units)

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Piuc2020

Originally posted by: apoppin
it's a *wait and see* kinda thing

the Crysis Devs said the port to 360 is no problem

evidently xbox360 is more powerful than some PC elitists think ...

as to *controls* some people actually like the controller ...


me ?!? ... i'm sticking with PC gaming ... for at least awhile longer and it is becoming a good time to build a new gaming PC rig ... soon
r600 should push GPU prices down, barcelona might be a good alternative to conroe and RAM looks to be dropping in price ...
:thumbsup:

even the xbox might be getting a *makeover*

Sure, Oblivion was ported to mobile phones, so much for PC elitists thinking mobile phones had crappy processing power...

The point is, you can port Crysis to the 360, hell even the Xbox, but it won't look or be as (technically) good as on PC.

sigh

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/10/06/cryte...m-crysis-could-be-ported-if-we-wanted/

Crytek lead artist Michael Khaimzon is saying he's confident that Crysis could be ported. "I don't think there would be any problem to convert anything we work on to the next-gen consoles," Khaimzon told GamesIndustry.biz ...

but what does he know compared to the legions of elitist PC fanboys here?
:Q



EXPECT Crysis to wind up on the Xbox360 and probably looking nearly as good at the same resolutions. ... and of course my opinion ...

... and 'you'll see'

no it "can't" be *ported* to a cellphone
:thumbsdown:

here is an opinion from some who should know
http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/11651/Cry...-Gen-Consoles-Are-Too-Weak-for-Crysis/

Speaking at the Games Convention in Leipzig, Bernd Diemer, senior game designer of Crytek, explained that next-generation consoles don?t offer enough computational power to run Crysis, German publication Heise reported.

Although Crysis will support both current and the next version of DirectX, Crytek claims that only DirectX 10 allows the game to run as it was intended by the developers because the next-generation DirectX API, which will ship along with Windows Vista, allows more effects and more objects to be drawn on the screen with a smaller computational cost for the hardware.

Diemer explained that ?next generation consoles like the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3 do not offer the sufficient power? to assure the quality of gameplay Crytek demand for Crysis.

Crytek reiterated at GC 06 that currently, Crysis in only in development for Windows. We haven?t lost hope that we?ll eventually see an Xbox 360 version of this first-person shooter.

yours is OLD news
and Incorrect
:Q

that quote was CLARIFIED by the SECOND one ...
... Crysis *Can* be ported to the NextGen consoles

yeah, he SHOULD have known

:roll:

it can yes, but they are not saying it will look as nice as a dx10 version, it will be limited somewhat

they are not saying it will be *limited* or look *worse*
--YOU are

and *i* am saying you are premature in any judgement you make about a future port

they are

First they say
"Crytek claims that only DirectX 10 allows the game to run as it was intended by the developers"
"?next generation consoles like the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3 do not offer the sufficient power? to assure the quality of gameplay Crytek demand for Crysis"

Meaning, to run the game as we design it then you need dx10 hardware and thats something the consoles dont have, but ofcorse not everyone has a pc that can do that we will settings to scale it down a bit.

Then they say

"I don't think there would be any problem to convert anything we work on to the next-gen consoles"

Meaning, ofcorse we can port it to the consoles, but like with non dx10 pc's it would be scaled down abit.

Both statements stand on their own and they do not contradict one another.

 

[apoppin]

it is still premature to make any judgment about any future ports ... i.e. 'how it looks'

Crysis will be launched as a DX9c game with DX10 *features* ...

... eventually it will be patched to resemble a *full DX10 game*

DX10 will support higher resolutions and textures initially in these games and also feature 'efficiency' over the same DX9c games ... we'll *see* how it actually "compares" on the 360

 

[Czar]

I suggest you read what someone wrote in the original story comments

The Xenon GPU in the Xbox 360 has some unusual features but is at heart a DX9 device. The console presented ATI an opportunity to try out some ideas that would be too great of a support hassle to unleash all at once in the PC market where so many other variable are involved. Yes, the Xenon is a nice bit of kit but it isn't even the top of the heap for DX9 devices. If implemented as a PCIe board for a PC it would produce scores only around the 80% mark for single GPU setups currently available for purchase. We're talking about a device that went into production just over a year ago. (There was an attempt to sell the Dreamcast's video processor as a PC part but by the time it reached market it was viewed as pathetic compared to where standards had reached in the PC realm.)

Xenon isn't the end-all, be-all of GPUs. It isn't even that for DX9 devices. Meanwhile, DX10 adds many new elements to the developer's toolkit. This includes enabling operations that are very difficult to perform under DX9, which is a major contributing factor to the existing GPUs being thoroughly exploited by just a handful of titles to date. Many of those things that are difficult under DX9 are far more easily achieved under DX10, and much of that can under be had with fully compliant hardware. (ExtremeTech had a good series of interviews with developers discussing some of this a while back.)

A high-end DX10 system is going to have some pretty hefty hardware aside from the GPU. A quad-core CPU using Intel and AMD's latest architectures, for starters. These will easily match or outperform the 360's CPU cluster. These systems will also have typically 2GB or greater RAM in addition to at least 256MB dedicated to the GPU.

A game intended to push such machines are going to offer visual splendor the latest consoles cannot match. Nor should they. The PC in question is bleeding edge hardware and has a cost substantially higher than the production cost of those consoles and far higher still than their heavily discounted retail prices. PC gamers assembling top of the line systems are already accustommed to paying as much for a single video board as a console shopper would pay for an Xbox 360 Premium System. If they're going really high-end they need two of those video boards. The CPUs alone can exceed $1,000.

If the software exists to really push that high-end PC it damn well better exceed the range of the 360. People spend a big premium to get premium results. Console buyers seek less spectacular but far more affordable and consistent results. They can count on seeing the same graphics at home as shown on the box, not an approximation affected by myriad system variables and finding the balance between graphics quality and playability.

When the original Xbox launched, DX8 was still pretty new and there was little out for PCs beyond the GeForce 3 and derivatives. Nobody else was yet shipping GPUs with hardware shaders. So the support in the PC market was limited while developers of Xbox games didn't have the same issues. Every machine would have an identical XGPU and there was no reason to do whatever shader tricks they could devise.

By the time the Xbox was a couple years old the PC market had caught up and pulled ahead. So long as a developer was willing to target the limited number high-end systems for their showcase they could easily do far more than an Xbox. They had big advantage in CPU, memory, and GPU performance. With the Xbox 360, DX9 was already established in PC gaming. The 360's primary advantage is in ease of use and low cost of entry but it cannot make any great claims against today's PC capabilites. Trying to suggest it will be comparable to a gaming PC of 2007 is just silly and misses the intent of game console design.

The PS2 is ancient in terms of capabilities but it can still managed to be visually pleasing while offering publishers an astonishingly large number of machines that will all run the same game identically. Consoles lose the cutting edge almost immediately but those big numbers are a joy to any publisher's hopes of making big sales.

There will likely be an Xbox 360 version of Crysis. It will be very much like the PC version in gameplay and have a great deal of visual appeal, but nobody sane will for a moment expect it to be a spot-on replica of the game on the targeted high-end PC setup.

basicly sums it up

 

[apoppin]

you DO realize that Crysis is a DX9C game with DX10 *features*

and it will be patched -- after a year -- to RESEMBLE a full DX10 game

now you Re Read 'your' article

 

[titan7]

Originally posted by: apoppin
Crysis will be launched as a DX9c game with DX10 *features* ...

What do you mean by that?

Originally posted by: apoppin
DX10 will support higher resolutions and textures initially in these games and also feature 'efficiency' over the same DX9c games ... we'll *see* how it actually "compares" on the 360

Yes, DX10 has less overhead than DX9, but textures still take the same amount of ram. 1024x1024 dxt5 texture still takes a meg regardless of dx9/dx10/opengl, so don't expect higher resolutions or more textures just from a different API.

 

[titan7]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
The 360 should have no problem handling a game like C&C 3 either.

I see you haven't tried the battle for middle earth 360 RTS from EA

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: titan7

Originally posted by: apoppin
Crysis will be launched as a DX9c game with DX10 *features* ...

What do you mean by that?

Originally posted by: apoppin
DX10 will support higher resolutions and textures initially in these games and also feature 'efficiency' over the same DX9c games ... we'll *see* how it actually "compares" on the 360

Yes, DX10 has less overhead than DX9, but textures still take the same amount of ram. 1024x1024 dxt5 texture still takes a meg regardless of dx9/dx10/opengl, so don't expect higher resolutions or more textures just from a different API.

exactly what i said ... Crysis started off as a DX9 game ... it has been in development for years

since Vista and DX10 were released in the end of its development, the devs decided to add DX10 *features* ... these features are limited and will evidently expanded in PATCHES over the course of a years or so.

the POINT of DX10 is for your *uber-rig* to have more textures and resolution then is possible in DX9 ...

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Thraxen
Will this ever end? Anyone else get tired of the same PC vs Console debate all the time? It comes down to more than just graphics and M/KB. It has a lot do with with how most people use/place their PCs compared to how they use consoles. If you don't understand this most basic point just GTFO and STFU.

And I'm tired of the PC-only gamers always jizzing over KB/M controls. Yes, it's faster and better suited for FPS and RTS, but it's like PC-only gamers don't realize other genres exist and a controller trounces KB/M in many of them. They also don't seem to realize that dual analog works just fine for most FPS, it's just takes more skill to be as accurate. A mouse is point-n-click. That's it. It's the least realistic of the various control methods for FPS games other than perhaps using a stylus on a DS. IMO, this lends itself great to twitch shooters like UT3... which I am anticipating greatly for the PC. But that really doesn't make the mouse "better", just faster and less realistic. Slower paced shooters like R6 and like work great on controllers... in fact, having analog movement is a good thing.

Me... I'll game on anything. I tend to focus on one PC game at a time while I play the most games for the consoles due to the variety, Live, and the fact I like to sit in my recliner and game. My PC lives in the office upstairs... this is where my consoles live:

There are things you can do with KBM in an FPS game that you will never be able to do with a controller at all. I understand the crux of your post but if you had changed some of your wording you would have had a much more agreeable result. KBM is clearly better for some game types, one of those being FPS, just like controller is clearly better for some game types, one of those being jrpgs. I'd say fighting games, but frankly the arcade stick is the best for a fighting game.

But I do understand the point where it comes down to where you want to play a game. Or more likely, what setup you've put the most money into. Someone with an unlimited spending amount would make both their pc and console solution equally enticing to be around. But nobody has unlimited spending and preference is going to set in, justifying more money spent around a specific setup and thereby becoming the preferred area.

 

[titan7]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: titan7

Originally posted by: apoppin
Crysis will be launched as a DX9c game with DX10 *features* ...

What do you mean by that?

exactly what i said ... Crysis started off as a DX9 game ... it has been in development for years
since Vista and DX10 were released in the end of its development, the devs decided to add DX10 *features* ... these features are limited and will evidently expanded in PATCHES over the course of a years or so.

Yeah, it started in DX9 and DX10 was added after. So will all games that support the 360 or what to run on XP.

I'm asking specifically what you mean by 9.0c game with 10 features as opposed to a 'pure' dx10 game. e.g. if you were talking about d3d8->d3d9 you could mention geometry instancing in farcry. Actually that would be a bad example since you can enable or disable instancing in dx9. So come up with a good example of why you said a 'dx9 game with dx10 *features*'

And a second question, also being very specific, what new dx10 only features are they going to add over the course of a year?

Originally posted by: apoppin
the POINT of DX10 is for your *uber-rig* to have more textures and resolution then is possible in DX9 ...

If you have a 1 gigabyte video card you can have one gigabyte of textures, simple as that. API doesn't matter. I guess you're pointing out future cards will both support DX10 and have more memory? Well that's obvious. As obvious as the fact you can still use all that memory in DX9...

 

[apoppin]

why ... because Crysis IS a DX9 game with ADDED DX10 features

a dx10 game build from the ground up with DX10 would be rather different ... it would probably not have a DX9 pathway at all ... or if it did, the emphasis would be on DX10 not DX9. Crysis Devs are wisely catering to their biggest fanbase - DX9 owners and ADDING in DX10 features as the HW base grows ... in patches ... much as they added in SM3.0 into FarCry ... also in patches.

actually gaming Crysis in DX10 on Vista will allow for higher resolution and textures than with the DX9 game on a DX9 card ... DX10 is more efficient than DX9.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

lol this really wasnt about the merits of the hardwares or the API's

this was basically...... what will an RTS such as CnC be like on the 360s controller, its a good controller but i cant see it being as fluid in use as a mouse. also i believe the controller wont be too bad at all in Ut3, with practice. UT has always been a fast twitch type of game, the 360 controller is very good when using it with R6:vegas and SC: DA.... but they are slow paced shooters, its easy to be slow and accurate with a controller, its easy to be slow an accurate with a KBM setup..... but will you be able to be accurate and extremely quick at the same time? will the controller allow you that ?

and the next query was mainly about how will they go about handling such scenarios as 8 player skirmishes or at least 32 player onslaught type matches in UT3. i know the 360 is free from overheads you'd find on a PC, but at the end of the day, its got 512mb of ram....shared for graphics and the game. ill admit that i know little about how they make these games, but for me i am struggling to see how a 8 player skrimish with 100's of units and buildings each is going to run smoothly on the 360.


heh i remember carpet nuking my friend.

even my 2 gig of ram, x1900xtx, A64 2.5ghz machine was brought to its knees when i sent about 20 nukes his way. when everything started to blow up it just crunched.

i wonder if they'll maybe put a limit on players... maybe the max will be 4 player online. or maybe they'll impose unit caps so you cant horde 10 battalions of tesla tanks or something.

 

[apoppin]

actually my last reply was rather vague as it has been discussed *to death*

if titan7 wants to do his own research i have a few links:

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/crysi...99%E2%88%82=rss&tag=gs_pc&subj=6154899

"Crysis will feature out-of-the-box 32-bit, 64-bit, DirectX 9, DirectX 10, and multithreading support," he said. That's a lot of technical jargon, so we'll go over each point one by one. ...
Yerli told us that if you have Windows Vista and an older DirectX 9 card, you should still see better performance with Windows Vista than Windows XP, even if the hardware remains unchanged. "DirectX 9 on Vista will run faster throughout due to the better device driver model...which is a great thing because just upgrading the operating system on the same rig, you get a better gaming experience," he said.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1982033,00.asp ... is a a GREAT series of articles in 4 or 5 parts

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1989495,00.asp ... is DX10 and the Devs

http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200701/N07.0126.1423.58507.htm?Page=1 ... is Mark Reins interview on Vista [unreal3]

http://www.actiontrip.com/features/whatcangamersexpectfromvista.phtml ... self-explanatory

http://www.shacknews.com/extras/2007/011607_crysis_1.x .... worth a read

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/crysis/news.html?sid=6163791

In general, we utilize the new interface of D3D10 to get better performance. We also use geometry shaders with texture arrays to accelerate shadow map and particle generation. We now can develop render algorithms easier because of the big guaranteed feature set of D3D10. For example, with DX9, the limited number of interpolators often prevented shader optimizations. There are many more useful features we want to utilize as well, such as texture lookups in vertex and geometry shader, stream out, and integer math. D3D10 hardware is now required to do high-quality texture filtering, which can result in better shading quality (such as specular effects or reflections)

catch up !