• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

The Making of Crysis 2 - DF interview

subversus

I've done nothing with my life except eat and fap
"My highest praise goes to the amazing work they did for their performance profilers, with Xbox 360 PIX and PS3's GPAD. The PC industry has a lot to learn from such tools. I think it's great to see NVIDIA's NSight trying to raise the bar once again on this area. Both platforms also benefit greatly from their vast documentation and support."

"My finger-pointing at Microsoft/Sony would really be on the memory side. It's way too low, and the biggest crippling factor from a visual perspective. I would really like to see next-gen console platforms with a minimum of 8GB."


"We learned a lot with the consoles, especially how to make smarter and efficient usage of scarce rendering resources. In Crysis 1 times, our attitude was, 'oh what the heck, what's one more additional full resolution FP16 target or a couple of full-screen passes, let's just add it.' You can't take such a naive approach for consoles," Sousa says, harking back to the 'open spec' he had to play with on the previous PC-only Crysis titles.


"I'm a strong believer that we should already be at Avatar quality in real-time, but the mass market (not everyone has the highest end cards or CPUs for example) is significantly delaying this next step," observes Tiago Sousa.

"The transition to a new console generation that is far less memory-bound, will allow for less painful QA/maintenance of PC assets versus console assets from an art perspective. Ideally, you want to have the same asset everywhere and not have artists making custom assets, or even levels, for specific platforms."


http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-the-making-of-crysis-2
 
Nothing he said is wrong but please push PC further like Crysis did...i enjoyed Crysis 2 but it was no where as enjoyable as Crysis due to console limitations
 
Metalmurphy said:
Avatar is the new Toy Story...


Are we supposed to take this guy seriously?

He says games should look like Avatar and blames consoles after releasing a downgraded engine made for consoles.
 
Metalmurphy said:
Avatar is the new Toy Story...


Are we supposed to take this guy seriously?
Why not? It's a justifiable comparison, considering Crytek specializes in real-time vegetation rendering and that's something that Avatar does well. Heck, modders are already achieving that level in CryEngine 2:
rframe000252cfg.jpg
 
Darklord said:
He says games should look like Avatar and blames consoles after releasing a downgraded engine made for consoles.

I think you got your "action" and "cause" chain messed up, think this through again.
 
Darklord said:
He says games should look like Avatar and blames consoles after releasing a downgraded engine made for consoles.


I don't see how he could possibly make that statement with a straight face.

NotTarts said:
Why not? It's a justifiable comparison, considering Crytek specializes in real-time vegetation rendering and that's something that Avatar does well. Heck, modders are already achieving that level in CryEngine 2:

Cool pic, bit it's not even kind of close to the quality of rendering in Avatar. I mean... really.
 
So, let's see.... he is saying the market is pushing them back because not a lot of gamers can afford a very powerful PC, and in the same time he asks for a 1999,99 console, that a lot less people will buy?
If he is disappointed on how they had to cut the performance because of the console release then they should have kept it pc exclusive, duhrr!
 
NotTarts said:
Why not? It's a justifiable comparison, considering Crytek specializes in real-time vegetation rendering and that's something that Avatar does well. Heck, modders are already achieving that level in CryEngine 2:
[]http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/9346/rframe000252cfg.jpg[/]
Still no where near Avatar.

And is that even in real time? With that IQ? What FPS?

Possibly you can get good FPS in a closed environment. You won't see a full game that looks like avatar even in the next 2 to 5 years. Most likely even more.

And quite obviously I'm not even talking about consoles. That would be laughable.
 
Eversynth said:
So, let's see.... he is saying the market is pushing them back because not a lot of gamers can afford a very powerful PC, and in the same time he asks for a 1999,99 console, that a lot less people will buy?
If he is disappointed on how they had to cut the performance because of the console release then they should have kept it pc exclusive, duhrr!
He is disappointed, but it might not have been his decision to make.
 
What a shame ... so many lies in slides "we are using realtime GI on consoles" and now? NO GI! no SPU only RSX ... "we have not enought of RAM" "we would be happy for 8GB" - typical lame developer stuff


CRYTEK YOU FAILED
 
These Crytek guys are clueless when it comes to console development. The fact that they started with a PC only single thread, sequential operation engine didn't helped them at all. Its even more ironic when you think they are trying to license their stuff...
 
Now maybe the people who concede it's not the best looking console game but defend it based on real-time GI claiming it's the most 'impressive' can shut up.

I thought MLAA was SPU based on PS3? Why does it have a heavy GPU cost?

The Avatar claim is absurd I think, however an approximation which 95% of people couldn't tell the difference probably isn't that far from the truth.
 
Jeseus said:
What a shame ... so many lies in slides "we are using realtime GI on consoles" and now? NO GI! no SPU only RSX ... "we have not enought of RAM" "we would be happy for 8GB" - typical lame developer stuff


CRYTEK YOU FAILED

Astonishing.

Someone want to translate this for me?
 
Jeseus said:
What a shame ... so many lies in slides "we are using realtime GI on consoles" and now? NO GI! no SPU only RSX ... "we have not enought of RAM" "we would be happy for 8GB" - typical lame developer stuff


CRYTEK YOU FAILED

Use words to make sentences.
 
Jeseus said:
What a shame ... so many lies in slides "we are using realtime GI on consoles" and now? NO GI! no SPU only RSX ... "we have not enought of RAM" "we would be happy for 8GB" - typical lame developer stuff


CRYTEK YOU FAILED


lol that's really a big fail :D...

We should pray to god that the next generation of consoles has 1-2GB of ram lol xD
 
So it does NOT actually have global illumination on consoles?

Bummer.

It also appears that they left some spare cycles on the SPUs unused due to multiplatform concerns and and split memory headaches. These seems like what every other non-first party developers are encountering, so CE3 is probably not the cross platform engine solution that we were all expecting after all.
 
StuBurns said:
Now maybe the people who concede it's not the best looking console game but defend it based on real-time GI claiming it's the most 'impressive' can shut up.

I thought MLAA was SPU based on PS3? Why does it have a heavy GPU cost?

The Avatar claim is absurd I think, however an approximation which 95% of people couldn't tell the difference probably isn't that far from the truth.
Memory.

"The SPUs do indeed allow for easing the workload for the RSX. We decided not to go too crazy in this direction as it requires render targets and assets to reside in main memory. We are able to run skinning for example on SPUs as well, but we could not afford the additional memory required in the end," Glück explains.

"It is possible to use the SPUs to support deferred shading, run post-process effects and do triangle culling. But again, it all requires main memory we did not have as our levels are fairly large compared to other games and our SPUs were in fact pretty loaded with particles, animations, physics, low-level rendering and culling already."
 
danwarb said:
So it's not that it is SPU heavy, it's that the SPUs were too busy already and they would have had to do a GPU based alternative to the Sony provided SPU MLAA and that was too costly?

Sorry if it's a confusing question, I'm a little lost.
 
I'm not a super tech guy, but there have always been complains about the lack of memory with pretty much every single consoles released (and we've even seen some memory upgrades on Saturn and N64). And when I look at the PC hardware market, it seems like memory isn't that expensive. So why do console maker insist on putting so little RAM in their console? Or maybe it's just the devs never happy and always want more?
 
MS and Sony probably didn't quite imagine the effect HD resolutions would have on the assets created for the games, so they cut costs where they could.
 
StuBurns said:
So it's not that it is SPU heavy, it's that the SPUs were too busy already and they would have had to do a GPU based alternative to the Sony provided SPU MLAA and that was too costly?

Sorry if it's a confusing question, I'm a little lost.
There's a memory cost with MLAA, and they were hampered a bit by the limited memory.

"On the PS3, due to the extremely limited system memory we resorted to downloading memory into video memory," Sousa continues, explaining notes left in the PS3 config files saying that the resolution downgrade saved a relatively immense 14MB of RAM.

"We bumped into severe video memory limitations, so it was a good compromise to save a big chunk of video memory for other usages. Plus, while on consoles we are CPU-bound during combat due to physics, AI, etc, on less intensive situations on the PS3 we are GPU-bound, so the additional quick 10 per cent performance gain was also very welcome."
 
NotTarts said:
Why not? It's a justifiable comparison, considering Crytek specializes in real-time vegetation rendering and that's something that Avatar does well. Heck, modders are already achieving that level in CryEngine 2:
rframe000252cfg.jpg
That shot looks great.
 
I didn't bother with the console versions, but Crysis 2 is amazing on PC. It bugs me how obnoxious the PC Master Race became about this game. As they have said repeatedly since Crysis 1, you can't make big budget PC only games anymore. I'll take whatever was lost from Crysis 1 to Crysis 2 if it means more games from them.

I've played through it twice, something I can't say about my forgettable experiences with Crysis and Warhead.
 
NotTarts said:
Why not? It's a justifiable comparison, considering Crytek specializes in real-time vegetation rendering and that's something that Avatar does well. Heck, modders are already achieving that level in CryEngine 2:

What mod is that? Link please?
 
Jeseus said:
What a shame ... so many lies in slides "we are using realtime GI on consoles" and now? NO GI! no SPU only RSX ... "we have not enought of RAM" "we would be happy for 8GB" - typical lame developer stuff


CRYTEK YOU FAILED


Damn dude, forget games and go back to first grade.
 
NotTarts said:
Why not? It's a justifiable comparison, considering Crytek specializes in real-time vegetation rendering and that's something that Avatar does well. Heck, modders are already achieving that level in CryEngine 2:
rframe000252cfg.jpg

Which mod is this from? I want to see this.

BTW does CryEngine 3 come with all you need to make jungles a la Crysis 1? I might buy it to play in the editor instead of Crysis 1. I just need it to do some jungle tests, so if Crysis 2 comes with the CryEngine 3 editor, I'll just get that.
 
Top Bottom