• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Crytek: Striving to achieve "DX11 level" visuals on consoles with Crysis 3

Riggs

Banned
Lots & lots of bitter tears of DX11 users posting here.

cartman_tears.gif

What are you talking about? Yes so jelly this game will run horribly on consoles.
 

-GOUKI-

Member
Not a big surprise. The whole direct x pipline upgrades seem like a big gimick nowadays to sell graphics cards. Godrays was once a dx10 exclusive feature. As always everything can be done with software.
 

SapientWolf

Trucker Sexologist
Much more linear game design as I recall. What I played in a rental wasn't CoD-esque linear, more like Halo, but the first game had MASSIVE levels to roam.
Half Life 2 and Doom 3 are pretty linear as well. Not sure how linearity can be construed as a console only thing.
 
Much more linear game design as I recall. What I played in a rental wasn't CoD-esque linear, more like Halo, but the first game had MASSIVE levels to roam.

Ya in the first one, you could really choose one of a bunch of different ways to go through a level and choose how you wanted to tackle it. You could use a jeep that was there, or not, or use a boat, or not, etc.. where as in the second one, it was more like Halo2. You see a tank, you have to use it and its very linear. Levels were A LOT smaller too. Second one was also a glitchy mess, on 360 anyway.
 

kinggroin

Banned
How did Cry 2 suffer?

Level design and environment interactively took a step back from the first. Less ambitious overall.

On the plus side (for console gamers), it allowed for more visual parity between all platforms, and the smaller scale played well to the memory constraints of the "HD twins".
 
Not a big surprise. The whole direct x pipline upgrades seem like a big gimick nowadays to sell graphics cards. Godrays was once a dx10 exclusive feature. As always everything can be done with software.

Try doing something like Direct compute what i think will be important on the next Xbox with a directX 9 card. You can do everything in software but why choose to do stuff way slower when you have specialized hardware for it.

But whatever thisisneogafdude.jpeg
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
Level design and environment interactively took a step back from the first. Less ambitious overall.

On the plus side (for console gamers), it allowed for more visual parity between all platforms, and the smaller scale played well to the memory constraints of the "HD twins".
Then they went ahead and ported Crysis 1 to console proving that the scale of the game didn't need to be reduced for consoles.
 

kinggroin

Banned
Half Life 2 and Doom 3 are pretty linear as well. Not sure how linearity can be construed as a console only thing.

I'm not sure what you're arguing against at this point. You're right, a game being linear isn't an exclusive property of console gaming.

I'm taking about how horsepower and playing to the strengths of certain hardware, can alter level design and certain gameplay mechanics that tie in to the visuals (physics being one for example).
 

AzaK

Member
OK, if they are trying to do DX11 style stuff on current gen consoles, why say "Not a fat chance" of it coming to Wii U? That just sounds mental.
 

sp3000

Member
Then they went ahead and ported Crysis 1 to console proving that the scale of the game didn't need to be reduced for consoles.

Yeah, it was not the fault of consoles as people may think. Crytek just became stupid and had not the slightest idea why people enjoyed the first game so much. That, and the COD money was just too good to resist.

On the other hand the physics were vastly reduced in the console version, just as they were in the PC version of Crysis 2. Overall, Cryengine 3's physics engine is much more primitive than Cryengine 2.
 

kinggroin

Banned
Then they went ahead and ported Crysis 1 to console proving that the scale of the game didn't need to be reduced for consoles.


And you proved my point.

The difference between crysis 1 on the 360 vs the PC is about the same difference HL2 had between the og xbox and PC.


Edit: I'd like to correct myself here. Its not a console thing as far as anything being compromised. Its a horsepower thing.
 

Eusis

Member
Half Life 2 and Doom 3 are pretty linear as well. Not sure how linearity can be construed as a console only thing.
It can be harder to make areas THAT big and open on consoles. Of course, they also likely could have if they accepted a visual compromise, but these are people who seemingly are far more interested in pushing visual boundaries than gameplay ones.
 

Tzeentch

Member
Well if Crytek is true to form they will waste a lot of time trying to get these features implemented, and then during development crunch will go "oops can't get it to work!" and cut it last minute leading to wierdness in Sandbox with features that don't work, code that is broken as hell, and artifacts in the game because they can't be assed to clean up.
 
Yeah, it was not the fault of consoles as people may think. Crytek just became stupid and had not the slightest idea why people enjoyed the first game so much. That, and the COD money was just too good to resist.

On the other hand the physics were vastly reduced in the console version, just as they were in the PC version of Crysis 2. Overall, Cryengine 3's physics engine is much more primitive than Cryengine 2.

What, it's kind of stupid to judge a engine on a game where the developer chose not to use all functionality..
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
And you proved my point.

The difference between crysis 1 on the 360 vs the PC is about the same difference HL2 had between the og xbox and PC.

Edit: I'd like to correct myself here. Its not a console thing as far as anything being compromised. Its a horsepower thing.
I disagree.

Half-Life 2 on XBOX had additional loading times that were even longer than the PC version and a VERY low framerate that tanked constantly.

Crysis on consoles features the same map sizes as the PC version with smart changes made throughout that do NOT sacrifice the game experience while delivering (at least on 360) a fairly consistent framerate that is smoother than what most people experienced back when the game was first released. It's a solid port, unlike HL2 on XBOX.

I have played Crysis on 360 as well as Crysis 1 downscaled from 2560x1440 with extra foliage and objects cranked up. The XBOX360 version is still very solid.

Yeah, it was not the fault of consoles as people may think. Crytek just became stupid and had not the slightest idea why people enjoyed the first game so much. That, and the COD money was just too good to resist.

On the other hand the physics were vastly reduced in the console version, just as they were in the PC version of Crysis 2. Overall, Cryengine 3's physics engine is much more primitive than Cryengine 2.
1) I don't think it's fair to compare Crysis 2 to Call of Duty as they are nothing alike.

2) The physics of CE3 are just as advanced as CE2. It's Crysis 2 the game which featured reduced physics. Anything CE2 was capable of is possible in the latest iteration. I can agree that physics were scaled down for consoles, though Crysis 1 does retain all of the same interactions (though with lower quality effects when things break apart).
 

Nizz

Member
So the framerate will get even worse? I really liked Crysis 2 and didn`t understand the hate it got here, but the framerate was not good at all.
This is what's worrying me. Crysis 2 was playable, but the framerate was not ideal. I'd rather they pared back where they can and concentrate more on the framerate.
 

kinggroin

Banned
I disagree.

Half-Life 2 on XBOX had additional loading times that were even longer than the PC version and a VERY low framerate that tanked constantly.

Crysis on consoles features the same map sizes as the PC version with smart changes made throughout that do NOT sacrifice the game experience while delivering (at least on 360) a fairly consistent framerate that is smoother than what most people experienced back when the game was first released. It's a solid port, unlike HL2 on XBOX.

I have played Crysis on 360 as well as Crysis 1 downscaled from 2560x1440 with extra foliage and objects cranked up. The XBOX360 version is still very solid.


1) I don't think it's fair to compare Crysis 2 to Call of Duty as they are nothing alike.

2) The physics of CE3 are just as advanced as CE2. It's Crysis 2 the game which featured reduced physics. Anything CE2 was capable of is possible in the latest iteration. I can agree that physics were scaled down for consoles, though Crysis 1 does retain all of the same interactions (though with lower quality effects when things break apart).


We disagree then, fair enough. I respect your points and appreciate that you took the time to respond with some thought.



...and there ARE android 3D apps that run at consistent 60fps (not letting this one go, lol)
 

LiquidMetal14

hide your water-based mammals
Crysis 2 was sub hd and had inconsistent frame rate on consoles. I have little faith unless we get a next gen port on PS4/XB.

Not that I won't be buying it on PC as I have all my Crysis games on PC.
 
Eh, I'd say what they are achieving here is more impressive than what developers delivered on the original XBOX when it was more recent. I mean, Doom 3 and Half-Life 2 were equivalents back in 2004 yet both of those games were heavily compromised on XBOX.

Crysis 1 and 2 were much more accurate on 360 and PS3 than those games were on XBOX. Of course that ignores the fact that Doom 3 and HL2 would have been impossible on PS2 or even Gamecube.

So, despite their age, I'd say the current consoles are still pretty capable.



Doom 3 and HL2 were PC games and took full advantage of those. Crysis 2 on the other hand was a console game with console hardware in mind. That`s a complete different case.
Crytek even kept the terrible weak console textures in the PC version.

And i highly disagree with you that the current consoles are still pretty capable. It about time for new hardware.
 
Doom 3 and HL2 were PC games and took full advantage of those. Crysis 2 on the other hand was a console game with console hardware in mind. That`s a complete different case.
Crytek even kept the terrible weak console textures in the PC version.

And i highly disagree with you that the current consoles are still pretty capable. It about time for new hardware.

Ya the consoles are pretty much tapped out at this point. Its really time for new ones.
 

squidyj

Member
Not a big surprise. The whole direct x pipline upgrades seem like a big gimick nowadays to sell graphics cards. Godrays was once a dx10 exclusive feature. As always everything can be done with software.

I don't think you're well informed enough about the subject to be making comments like this.
 

lowrider007

Licorice-flavoured booze?
wow I didn't realise Crysis 2 was hated so much, surely it's in the top 10 at least for best looking console game?, I was very impressed with it graphically on the 360 and the framerate really wasn't that bad, the motion blur helped a lot in that respect, I don't think you can discount it just because it was sub HD, look at Alan Wake for example, one of lowest resolutions in a console game this gen and looks perfectly fine, and outside of gaff I haven't heard one person complain about the frame-rate.
 
So its going to look awesome but play like
Hour of Victory
..color me excite

I really wished they would just launch in the next gen with this game. Both versions'll suffer keeping it bound in this slowly dying gen.

*rage vomits, facepalms and then runs away from thread screaming*
 
wow I didn't realise Crysis 2 was hated so much, surely it's in the top 10 at least for best looking console game?, I was very impressed with it graphically on the 360 and the framerate really wasn't that bad, the motion blur helped a lot in that respect, I don't think you can discount it just because it was sub HD, look at Alan Wake for example, one of lowest resolutions in a console game this gen and looks perfectly fine, and outside of gaff I haven't heard one person complain about the frame-rate.
I don't understand it either. I mean I literally just can't fathom it.
 

AzaK

Member
I love this part at the end of each gen where devs really turn out amazing stuff that would have been thought impossible at the consoles release.

BTW here's a new video interview with Crytek's Director of Creative Development Rasmus Hoejengaard saying Crysis 3 won't be on WiiU.

http://www.destructoid.com/-fat-chance-of-crysis-3-coming-to-the-wii-u-226413.phtml

If people actually watch the video it's a much more balanced statement from him than what that stupid "article" states in it's headline.

He says "Not a fat chance" but then goes on to say that the launch platforms are PC and consoles and he doesn't think "it's in the cards to do a Wii U version of it".
 
Crysis 2 was sub hd and had inconsistent frame rate on consoles.

Not only that, but I remember during the development of Crysis 2, Crytek were talking the same big game and making the same big promises about how Crysis 2 would be the best looking game on consoles and blow everyone's minds. So yeah, fool me once...
 

RoboPlato

I'd be in the dick
They did some Tiled deferred rendering i saw someone playing with it in Cryengine 3.0 sdk in a forum post somewhere.

Do you have a link to a good description of what tiled deferred rendering is and its benefits? I've heard it mentioned quite a few times but haven't been able to find anything laymen enough for me to understand it.
 
Wasn't Crysis 2 like an average 29 FPS? Hardly what I would call "unplayable".
Exactly. Not gonna mention names because they already know who they are...

but basically there are a couple of people in this thread who actually have no idea what they're talking about. The game was not only playable but I hardly noticed any slowdowns. People using words such as "unplayable" are not only exaggerating but are flat out lying.
 
Do you have a link to a good description of what tiled deferred rendering is and its benefits? I've heard it mentioned quite a few times but haven't been able to find anything laymen enough for me to understand it.

Took a while to find it again. Slide 20
http://s09.idav.ucdavis.edu/talks/04-JAndersson-ParallelFrostbite-Siggraph09.pdf

From what i understand you have a lower res texture where you store how many lights intersect that part of the screen.
Its a easy way to know what section you can skip lighting calculations when rendering the frame.

A picture says more then i could.
slide20kek0d.png
 

Nizz

Member
Exactly. Not gonna mention names because they already know who they are...

but basically there are a couple of people in this thread who actually have no idea what they're talking about. The game was not only playable but I hardly noticed any slowdowns. People using words such as "unplayable" are not only exaggerating but are flat out lying.
The game's framerate does chug every once in a while. I played it on PS3 and while I loved the game it did have slowdown in spots.
 
Top Bottom