What game is on the horizon to be the next Graphics Champ?

[EvilComputer92]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK


CryEngine3 won't look worse. There's two different major developments on the CryEngine3.

1-Refinement of the engine
2-Ability to port work to XBOX360/PS3

It's a common misconception about the CryEngine3 that it is MADE for consoles. It is not. It's the next verion of CryEngine, better than 2, with functions that strip out graphics/functions to make the games playable on XBOX/PS "when" you render your work for that platform. For Instance, if PS3 can do some shading that the XBOX can't, that particular shading function won't be included when you mix down the levels to xbox, but it would be included in PS3 version.

The big deal about consoles and CE3 is that they apparently did alot of fine tuning on how the games are mixed down for the consoles, so that the consoles will get milked for everything they are worth.

BUT...... It's not going to look any worse on PC. PC will still get full rendering capabilities.

The E3 Demo was for CONSOLES. They haven't released a PC demo yet. Cevat Yerli just wanted the console demo done to show that they were going to be able to make games for those platforms. So if you are judging CE3 based on the console demo, you're not comparing apples to apples.

I think your right, but the ability of an engine to scale only goes so far. The vast levels of Crysis simply could not be done on a console because of the memory constraints. What it will ultimately depend on is whether Crysis 2 is developed for PC and ported to consoles or the other way around.

It's easy to disable things like shaders and use lower resolution textures and models. What is note easy is trying to fit the gigantic free form open maps of the original game onto a console. It's possible Crytek will pull it off, but I'm in doubts since no other developer in the history of PC or console gaming has done it successfully. That doesn't mean it can't be done, but it requires far more time and effort on the developers part that could be used doing something else.

Yeah right. at the the second pic. I think the majority of people would think that is a real photograph. Damn I really wish they released high def texture packs for other games besides Half Life 2 and Crysis. Evil, do you know of any such mod for Doom III?

Parallax Mapping Mod along with Ultra High quality will get you the best results with that.

Also, here are some more Crysis screens to reaffirm that it is still the undisputed king of graphics two years later and will probably remain so for a while unless Crysis 2 proves to be better

One
Two
three
Four
Five

Nothing comes close.

 

[Henrah]

The grass still looks flat. It lacks specular highlighting, and bump/normal/parallax/alloftheabove mapping too.

The rocks in Four look amazing though. And Twp is the best overall. I'm just being nik-pik-nikky-argle-blarg-full.

 

[StinkyPinky]

Yeah, Crysis still looks the best. Especially with those mods Evil has. holy shit!

 

[minmaster]

it looks nice and all but cmon you can't play a game and get decent fps with that level of quality. i'd rather give up a bit in the visual dept. for improvement in performance.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: minmaster
it looks nice and all but cmon you can't play a game and get decent fps with that level of quality. i'd rather give up a bit in the visual dept. for improvement in performance.

Some of the newer systems are pulling it off.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: EvilComputer92

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK


CryEngine3 won't look worse. There's two different major developments on the CryEngine3.

1-Refinement of the engine
2-Ability to port work to XBOX360/PS3

It's a common misconception about the CryEngine3 that it is MADE for consoles. It is not. It's the next verion of CryEngine, better than 2, with functions that strip out graphics/functions to make the games playable on XBOX/PS "when" you render your work for that platform. For Instance, if PS3 can do some shading that the XBOX can't, that particular shading function won't be included when you mix down the levels to xbox, but it would be included in PS3 version.

The big deal about consoles and CE3 is that they apparently did alot of fine tuning on how the games are mixed down for the consoles, so that the consoles will get milked for everything they are worth.

BUT...... It's not going to look any worse on PC. PC will still get full rendering capabilities.

The E3 Demo was for CONSOLES. They haven't released a PC demo yet. Cevat Yerli just wanted the console demo done to show that they were going to be able to make games for those platforms. So if you are judging CE3 based on the console demo, you're not comparing apples to apples.

I think your right, but the ability of an engine to scale only goes so far. The vast levels of Crysis simply could not be done on a console because of the memory constraints. What it will ultimately depend on is whether Crysis 2 is developed for PC and ported to consoles or the other way around.

It's easy to disable things like shaders and use lower resolution textures and models. What is note easy is trying to fit the gigantic free form open maps of the original game onto a console. It's possible Crytek will pull it off, but I'm in doubts since no other developer in the history of PC or console gaming has done it successfully. That doesn't mean it can't be done, but it requires far more time and effort on the developers part that could be used doing something else.

Yeah right. at the the second pic. I think the majority of people would think that is a real photograph. Damn I really wish they released high def texture packs for other games besides Half Life 2 and Crysis. Evil, do you know of any such mod for Doom III?

Parallax Mapping Mod along with Ultra High quality will get you the best results with that.

Also, here are some more Crysis screens to reaffirm that it is still the undisputed king of graphics two years later and will probably remain so for a while unless Crysis 2 proves to be better

One
Two
three
Four
Five

Nothing comes close.

I read somewhere on CryMod that if you try and render down to a console, but the level will take too much memory, you'll get an error. I suspect that if you are going to be developing a level and want it to be playable on console, you'd probably have to set some guidelines (map size, etc.) before starting the level, because yes, the engine can only scale so far. Eventually, it just needs memory.

 

[BenSkywalker]

We are very firmly in the realm of diminishing returns at this point, the next major jump in graphics isn't going to be visible in screenshots, it will be in how objects move and interact with their surroundings. DX11 should help out here, CS will force IHVs who are behind the times to support GPU accelerated physics if they want to or not. That will allow developers to plan on a basic level of support.

When developers start to take advantage of the core level improvements of DX10 we should see a noticeable jump in geometric complexity, but that will require removal of support for DX9 and earlier(Vista and Win7 only). That won't be a major jump however, and you would still be staring at fine details to spot the difference between it and Crysis. Hardware tesselation can help out a bit also, its' biggest impact will likely be in reducing overhead for larger draw distances though, not so much improving finer details.

Another issue wiith trying to surpass Crysis in terms of visuals, asset development. Unless you plan on seeing a lot more tropical environments(which are actually very, very simple in asset terms as you reuse things to a staggering degree) the simple cost of developing all the art assets is going to prevent all but the top tier of titles budget wise from exhibiting anythingi like Crysis level visuals. Even if they all had Crytek3.0 for free, it doesn't mean they have the budget to push anything approaching the limits of the engine.

The vast levels of Crysis simply could not be done on a console because of the memory constraints.

Nurbrugring, the singular level, dwarfs the entrie game of Crysis in terms of size, by a large margin, and was done with 32MB of RAM in GT4. Developing for consoles has several advantages over PCs when it comes to optimizations, streaming data is significantly easier when you know exactly how much RAM you have, exactly how fast you can stream data and what your access time is. There are technical aspects of Crysis that can't be done on the consoles, the size of the game isn't remotely close to approaching being one of them. Because of the platform, the PS3 could handle a single level of a bit over 60GB in the theoretical sense(not that anyone would approach actually doing it, just pointing out that the size of Crysis isn't remotely close to an issue- pulling off DX10 shader effects would be another matter entirely though ).

read somewhere on CryMod that if you try and render down to a console, but the level will take too much memory, you'll get an error.

If this is the case you can expect CryTek3.0 to fail in no uncertain terms in the console space. If they can't handle memory management on the consoles(which has an entirely different approach then on the PC) they don't stand a chance against the console native devs or even weaker console engines like Unreal3.

 

[F1refly]

Originally posted by: EvilComputer92

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK


CryEngine3 won't look worse. There's two different major developments on the CryEngine3.

1-Refinement of the engine
2-Ability to port work to XBOX360/PS3

It's a common misconception about the CryEngine3 that it is MADE for consoles. It is not. It's the next verion of CryEngine, better than 2, with functions that strip out graphics/functions to make the games playable on XBOX/PS "when" you render your work for that platform. For Instance, if PS3 can do some shading that the XBOX can't, that particular shading function won't be included when you mix down the levels to xbox, but it would be included in PS3 version.

The big deal about consoles and CE3 is that they apparently did alot of fine tuning on how the games are mixed down for the consoles, so that the consoles will get milked for everything they are worth.

BUT...... It's not going to look any worse on PC. PC will still get full rendering capabilities.

The E3 Demo was for CONSOLES. They haven't released a PC demo yet. Cevat Yerli just wanted the console demo done to show that they were going to be able to make games for those platforms. So if you are judging CE3 based on the console demo, you're not comparing apples to apples.

I think your right, but the ability of an engine to scale only goes so far. The vast levels of Crysis simply could not be done on a console because of the memory constraints. What it will ultimately depend on is whether Crysis 2 is developed for PC and ported to consoles or the other way around.

It's easy to disable things like shaders and use lower resolution textures and models. What is note easy is trying to fit the gigantic free form open maps of the original game onto a console. It's possible Crytek will pull it off, but I'm in doubts since no other developer in the history of PC or console gaming has done it successfully. That doesn't mean it can't be done, but it requires far more time and effort on the developers part that could be used doing something else.

Yeah right. at the the second pic. I think the majority of people would think that is a real photograph. Damn I really wish they released high def texture packs for other games besides Half Life 2 and Crysis. Evil, do you know of any such mod for Doom III?

Parallax Mapping Mod along with Ultra High quality will get you the best results with that.

Also, here are some more Crysis screens to reaffirm that it is still the undisputed king of graphics two years later and will probably remain so for a while unless Crysis 2 proves to be better

One
Two
three
Four
Five

Nothing comes close.

Well now we're all just leading down the road of best guestimates of our imaginations. Why dont we also discuss leprechauns and unicorns existing too while were at it cause there is no guarantee that Crytek will attempt to push PC Crysis 2 graphics any further beyond what Crysis is now. Crytek publically admitted that having the "very high" option turned out to be a bad idea. So few to this day can really max it out so what incentive do they really have? All their thinking about now is $$$$ and mega graphics on the pc is NOT where its at.

The issue that becomes a problem here is that too many gamers "want" to believe that Crysis 2 on the pc will surpass everything before it. It is a nice pipe dream and no doubt the first pics of the game will be enhanced and geek everyone out into hype land all over again....suckers.

Originally posted by: Henrah
The grass still looks flat. It lacks specular highlighting, and bump/normal/parallax/alloftheabove mapping too.

The rocks in Four look amazing though. And Twp is the best overall. I'm just being nik-pik-nikky-argle-blarg-full.

Come over to my house so you can stare and analyse my grass and tell me whats wrong with it. i can't find anyone to do it cause most people prefer to just walk on it and pay it no mind. Meanwhile you can tell me how nice the shadows on my driveway look as well.

doesnt anyone actually play the games anymore or does everyone study pictures of them?

 

[Pelu]

Crysis is a nut sucker... dunno why some people call it the GFX champ.. is more like the LAG CHAMP!!!!

Crysis dont have ton of stuff other games have,, even before it....

 

[skyofavalon]

Battlefield 3 will be the new graphics champ next year.

 

[EvilComputer92]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
We are very firmly in the realm of diminishing returns at this point, the next major jump in graphics isn't going to be visible in screenshots, it will be in how objects move and interact with their surroundings. DX11 should help out here, CS will force IHVs who are behind the times to support GPU accelerated physics if they want to or not. That will allow developers to plan on a basic level of support.

When developers start to take advantage of the core level improvements of DX10 we should see a noticeable jump in geometric complexity, but that will require removal of support for DX9 and earlier(Vista and Win7 only). That won't be a major jump however, and you would still be staring at fine details to spot the difference between it and Crysis. Hardware tesselation can help out a bit also, its' biggest impact will likely be in reducing overhead for larger draw distances though, not so much improving finer details.

Another issue wiith trying to surpass Crysis in terms of visuals, asset development. Unless you plan on seeing a lot more tropical environments(which are actually very, very simple in asset terms as you reuse things to a staggering degree) the simple cost of developing all the art assets is going to prevent all but the top tier of titles budget wise from exhibiting anythingi like Crysis level visuals. Even if they all had Crytek3.0 for free, it doesn't mean they have the budget to push anything approaching the limits of the engine.

The vast levels of Crysis simply could not be done on a console because of the memory constraints.

Nurbrugring, the singular level, dwarfs the entrie game of Crysis in terms of size, by a large margin, and was done with 32MB of RAM in GT4. Developing for consoles has several advantages over PCs when it comes to optimizations, streaming data is significantly easier when you know exactly how much RAM you have, exactly how fast you can stream data and what your access time is. There are technical aspects of Crysis that can't be done on the consoles, the size of the game isn't remotely close to approaching being one of them. Because of the platform, the PS3 could handle a single level of a bit over 60GB in the theoretical sense(not that anyone would approach actually doing it, just pointing out that the size of Crysis isn't remotely close to an issue- pulling off DX10 shader effects would be another matter entirely though ).

read somewhere on CryMod that if you try and render down to a console, but the level will take too much memory, you'll get an error.

If this is the case you can expect CryTek3.0 to fail in no uncertain terms in the console space. If they can't handle memory management on the consoles(which has an entirely different approach then on the PC) they don't stand a chance against the console native devs or even weaker console engines like Unreal3.

I'm not saying that it's not possible in the console space. Also the Nurbrugring is a bad example since it's a race track that is linear by design. It doesn't work to compare a racing game to a FPS game like that. It hardly compares to a game where there are multiple pathways with different objectives.

This is beside the point, since I know games like GTA IV and Crackdown have a much larger worldspace on the consoles. The point is that it takes months of optimization to acheive this, which is why multiplatform games typically end up screwing over one platform.

Take a look at a few of the older examples of PC games made on consoles. Deus Ex 2, Oblivion, UT3. All had significant corners cut and bloat added because the developers were too lazy to spend more time on optimization. This is why exclusive games usually have a graphical edge also. It's also why Cryengine 3 will most likely end up looking worse than Cryengine 2.

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: Pelu
Crysis is a nut sucker... dunno why some people call it the GFX champ.. is more like the LAG CHAMP!!!!

Crysis dont have ton of stuff other games have,, even before it....

Best post evar,,,,!!,!

Seriously though i remember saying this before, cry engine looks better than real life engine, those are some very impressive screenshots and one of the main reasons i will replay crysis at some point, my 7900GTO didnt cut it on the first playthrough A lot like my POS FX5200 didnt cut it with farcry.

 

[minmaster]

games like crysis don't really do it for me. i'd much rather see a game that runs well on midrange systems and looks good. once i turn down everything in crysis to make it playable, it looks much WORSE than other games that are years older than crysis.

 

[DannyLove]

Originally posted by: minmaster
games like crysis don't really do it for me. i'd much rather see a game that runs well on midrange systems and looks good. once i turn down everything in crysis to make it playable, it looks much WORSE than other games that are years older than crysis.

This thread discussion isn't for you.

 

[CottonRabbit]

A gtx260 can be had for less than $120, that's 2 console games. Expensive hardware isn't an excuse for not being able to run Crysis on stock very high settings nowadays.

 

[minmaster]

Originally posted by: DannyLove

Originally posted by: minmaster
games like crysis don't really do it for me. i'd much rather see a game that runs well on midrange systems and looks good. once i turn down everything in crysis to make it playable, it looks much WORSE than other games that are years older than crysis.

This thread discussion isn't for you.

ha! and it is for you?

i have better specs than your comp (in your sig) anyways.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: minmaster

Originally posted by: DannyLove

Originally posted by: minmaster
games like crysis don't really do it for me. i'd much rather see a game that runs well on midrange systems and looks good. once i turn down everything in crysis to make it playable, it looks much WORSE than other games that are years older than crysis.

This thread discussion isn't for you.

ha! and it is for you?

i have better specs than your comp (in your sig) anyways.

Then what are you playing it at so that it looks worse than games that are years older than crysis? That's not right. I have a simple AthlonXP 5000x2 and an 8800GT. The game on lower settings still looks better than most games.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: EvilComputer92

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
We are very firmly in the realm of diminishing returns at this point, the next major jump in graphics isn't going to be visible in screenshots, it will be in how objects move and interact with their surroundings. DX11 should help out here, CS will force IHVs who are behind the times to support GPU accelerated physics if they want to or not. That will allow developers to plan on a basic level of support.

When developers start to take advantage of the core level improvements of DX10 we should see a noticeable jump in geometric complexity, but that will require removal of support for DX9 and earlier(Vista and Win7 only). That won't be a major jump however, and you would still be staring at fine details to spot the difference between it and Crysis. Hardware tesselation can help out a bit also, its' biggest impact will likely be in reducing overhead for larger draw distances though, not so much improving finer details.

Another issue wiith trying to surpass Crysis in terms of visuals, asset development. Unless you plan on seeing a lot more tropical environments(which are actually very, very simple in asset terms as you reuse things to a staggering degree) the simple cost of developing all the art assets is going to prevent all but the top tier of titles budget wise from exhibiting anythingi like Crysis level visuals. Even if they all had Crytek3.0 for free, it doesn't mean they have the budget to push anything approaching the limits of the engine.

The vast levels of Crysis simply could not be done on a console because of the memory constraints.

Nurbrugring, the singular level, dwarfs the entrie game of Crysis in terms of size, by a large margin, and was done with 32MB of RAM in GT4. Developing for consoles has several advantages over PCs when it comes to optimizations, streaming data is significantly easier when you know exactly how much RAM you have, exactly how fast you can stream data and what your access time is. There are technical aspects of Crysis that can't be done on the consoles, the size of the game isn't remotely close to approaching being one of them. Because of the platform, the PS3 could handle a single level of a bit over 60GB in the theoretical sense(not that anyone would approach actually doing it, just pointing out that the size of Crysis isn't remotely close to an issue- pulling off DX10 shader effects would be another matter entirely though ).

read somewhere on CryMod that if you try and render down to a console, but the level will take too much memory, you'll get an error.

If this is the case you can expect CryTek3.0 to fail in no uncertain terms in the console space. If they can't handle memory management on the consoles(which has an entirely different approach then on the PC) they don't stand a chance against the console native devs or even weaker console engines like Unreal3.

I'm not saying that it's not possible in the console space. Also the Nurbrugring is a bad example since it's a race track that is linear by design. It doesn't work to compare a racing game to a FPS game like that. It hardly compares to a game where there are multiple pathways with different objectives.

This is beside the point, since I know games like GTA IV and Crackdown have a much larger worldspace on the consoles. The point is that it takes months of optimization to acheive this, which is why multiplatform games typically end up screwing over one platform.

Take a look at a few of the older examples of PC games made on consoles. Deus Ex 2, Oblivion, UT3. All had significant corners cut and bloat added because the developers were too lazy to spend more time on optimization. This is why exclusive games usually have a graphical edge also. It's also why Cryengine 3 will most likely end up looking worse than Cryengine 2.

Why do you keep saying CryEngine 3 will look worse? It's CryEngine2+refinement+ability to dumb down levels for xbox and ps3. It won't look any worse on PC.

 

[EvilComputer92]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: EvilComputer92

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
We are very firmly in the realm of diminishing returns at this point, the next major jump in graphics isn't going to be visible in screenshots, it will be in how objects move and interact with their surroundings. DX11 should help out here, CS will force IHVs who are behind the times to support GPU accelerated physics if they want to or not. That will allow developers to plan on a basic level of support.

When developers start to take advantage of the core level improvements of DX10 we should see a noticeable jump in geometric complexity, but that will require removal of support for DX9 and earlier(Vista and Win7 only). That won't be a major jump however, and you would still be staring at fine details to spot the difference between it and Crysis. Hardware tesselation can help out a bit also, its' biggest impact will likely be in reducing overhead for larger draw distances though, not so much improving finer details.

Another issue wiith trying to surpass Crysis in terms of visuals, asset development. Unless you plan on seeing a lot more tropical environments(which are actually very, very simple in asset terms as you reuse things to a staggering degree) the simple cost of developing all the art assets is going to prevent all but the top tier of titles budget wise from exhibiting anythingi like Crysis level visuals. Even if they all had Crytek3.0 for free, it doesn't mean they have the budget to push anything approaching the limits of the engine.

The vast levels of Crysis simply could not be done on a console because of the memory constraints.

Nurbrugring, the singular level, dwarfs the entrie game of Crysis in terms of size, by a large margin, and was done with 32MB of RAM in GT4. Developing for consoles has several advantages over PCs when it comes to optimizations, streaming data is significantly easier when you know exactly how much RAM you have, exactly how fast you can stream data and what your access time is. There are technical aspects of Crysis that can't be done on the consoles, the size of the game isn't remotely close to approaching being one of them. Because of the platform, the PS3 could handle a single level of a bit over 60GB in the theoretical sense(not that anyone would approach actually doing it, just pointing out that the size of Crysis isn't remotely close to an issue- pulling off DX10 shader effects would be another matter entirely though ).

read somewhere on CryMod that if you try and render down to a console, but the level will take too much memory, you'll get an error.

If this is the case you can expect CryTek3.0 to fail in no uncertain terms in the console space. If they can't handle memory management on the consoles(which has an entirely different approach then on the PC) they don't stand a chance against the console native devs or even weaker console engines like Unreal3.

I'm not saying that it's not possible in the console space. Also the Nurbrugring is a bad example since it's a race track that is linear by design. It doesn't work to compare a racing game to a FPS game like that. It hardly compares to a game where there are multiple pathways with different objectives.

This is beside the point, since I know games like GTA IV and Crackdown have a much larger worldspace on the consoles. The point is that it takes months of optimization to acheive this, which is why multiplatform games typically end up screwing over one platform.

Take a look at a few of the older examples of PC games made on consoles. Deus Ex 2, Oblivion, UT3. All had significant corners cut and bloat added because the developers were too lazy to spend more time on optimization. This is why exclusive games usually have a graphical edge also. It's also why Cryengine 3 will most likely end up looking worse than Cryengine 2.

Why do you keep saying CryEngine 3 will look worse? It's CryEngine2+refinement+ability to dumb down levels for xbox and ps3. It won't look any worse on PC.

Look at what BenSkywalker said. It takes months of extra optimization for the specific platform to be able to squeeze every bit of power out of it.

It goes beyond simply refinement and ability to dumb down levels. You simply cannot just scale down entire levels like that without making some compromises.

Again It is possible, but no other developer has done it before without significantly limiting one platform.

 

[minmaster]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Then what are you playing it at so that it looks worse than games that are years older than crysis? That's not right. I have a simple AthlonXP 5000x2 and an 8800GT. The game on lower settings still looks better than most games.

that's your opinion, i think it looks like crap on low settings. older games like doom 3 look better than crysis on low, for example. perhaps we have different standards.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: minmaster

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Then what are you playing it at so that it looks worse than games that are years older than crysis? That's not right. I have a simple AthlonXP 5000x2 and an 8800GT. The game on lower settings still looks better than most games.

that's your opinion, i think it looks like crap on low settings. older games like doom 3 look better than crysis on low, for example. perhaps we have different standards.

Whatever

Crysis is the best looking PC game to date on Very high with 4xAA/16xAF and it is just playable on TriFire and Tri-SLi

 

[EvilComputer92]

Originally posted by: minmaster

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Then what are you playing it at so that it looks worse than games that are years older than crysis? That's not right. I have a simple AthlonXP 5000x2 and an 8800GT. The game on lower settings still looks better than most games.

that's your opinion, i think it looks like crap on low settings. older games like doom 3 look better than crysis on low, for example. perhaps we have different standards.

That your opinion. I think Super Mario Bros looks better than Doom 3 on high. Perhaps we have different standards.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: EvilComputer92

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: EvilComputer92

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
We are very firmly in the realm of diminishing returns at this point, the next major jump in graphics isn't going to be visible in screenshots, it will be in how objects move and interact with their surroundings. DX11 should help out here, CS will force IHVs who are behind the times to support GPU accelerated physics if they want to or not. That will allow developers to plan on a basic level of support.

When developers start to take advantage of the core level improvements of DX10 we should see a noticeable jump in geometric complexity, but that will require removal of support for DX9 and earlier(Vista and Win7 only). That won't be a major jump however, and you would still be staring at fine details to spot the difference between it and Crysis. Hardware tesselation can help out a bit also, its' biggest impact will likely be in reducing overhead for larger draw distances though, not so much improving finer details.

Another issue wiith trying to surpass Crysis in terms of visuals, asset development. Unless you plan on seeing a lot more tropical environments(which are actually very, very simple in asset terms as you reuse things to a staggering degree) the simple cost of developing all the art assets is going to prevent all but the top tier of titles budget wise from exhibiting anythingi like Crysis level visuals. Even if they all had Crytek3.0 for free, it doesn't mean they have the budget to push anything approaching the limits of the engine.

The vast levels of Crysis simply could not be done on a console because of the memory constraints.

Nurbrugring, the singular level, dwarfs the entrie game of Crysis in terms of size, by a large margin, and was done with 32MB of RAM in GT4. Developing for consoles has several advantages over PCs when it comes to optimizations, streaming data is significantly easier when you know exactly how much RAM you have, exactly how fast you can stream data and what your access time is. There are technical aspects of Crysis that can't be done on the consoles, the size of the game isn't remotely close to approaching being one of them. Because of the platform, the PS3 could handle a single level of a bit over 60GB in the theoretical sense(not that anyone would approach actually doing it, just pointing out that the size of Crysis isn't remotely close to an issue- pulling off DX10 shader effects would be another matter entirely though ).

read somewhere on CryMod that if you try and render down to a console, but the level will take too much memory, you'll get an error.

If this is the case you can expect CryTek3.0 to fail in no uncertain terms in the console space. If they can't handle memory management on the consoles(which has an entirely different approach then on the PC) they don't stand a chance against the console native devs or even weaker console engines like Unreal3.

I'm not saying that it's not possible in the console space. Also the Nurbrugring is a bad example since it's a race track that is linear by design. It doesn't work to compare a racing game to a FPS game like that. It hardly compares to a game where there are multiple pathways with different objectives.

This is beside the point, since I know games like GTA IV and Crackdown have a much larger worldspace on the consoles. The point is that it takes months of optimization to acheive this, which is why multiplatform games typically end up screwing over one platform.

Take a look at a few of the older examples of PC games made on consoles. Deus Ex 2, Oblivion, UT3. All had significant corners cut and bloat added because the developers were too lazy to spend more time on optimization. This is why exclusive games usually have a graphical edge also. It's also why Cryengine 3 will most likely end up looking worse than Cryengine 2.

Why do you keep saying CryEngine 3 will look worse? It's CryEngine2+refinement+ability to dumb down levels for xbox and ps3. It won't look any worse on PC.

Look at what BenSkywalker said. It takes months of extra optimization for the specific platform to be able to squeeze every bit of power out of it.

It goes beyond simply refinement and ability to dumb down levels. You simply cannot just scale down entire levels like that without making some compromises.

Again It is possible, but no other developer has done it before without significantly limiting one platform.

Yea, but I read in an interview with Cevat that says otherwise. I'll try and find it.

CE3 isn't for consoles. It's going to be a better, more advanced version of CE2.

They've also added the ability to render the levels/games to PS3/XBOX and have functions built in tweak the levels for those consoles.

He said explicity that they weren't making any sacrifices for the PC.

Unless he's lying and they truly are working retroactively on the engine.

I think in terms of console resources, it would be up to the developer to take those limitations into consideration when designing the level, not relying on the CE3 to dumb it down.

 

[TechBoyJK]

http://www.gametrailers.com/vi...c-09-cryengine-3/47410

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

The thing is that even though Crysis 2 will most likely look better on pc, it will still be on consoles. So when console gamers ask what game do you have that we don't, we won't have anything to say. Battlefield 3 looks like it will be an exclusive, but beyond that and Blizzard games, where are the exclusives?