dragonelite
Member
Crytek's problem is that instead of focusing on "what I can do with what I have.", they focus on "What I could do if I had more."
That is kinda why their engine is top of the line.
Crytek's problem is that instead of focusing on "what I can do with what I have.", they focus on "What I could do if I had more."
That is kinda why their engine is top of the line.
I'm out.
We don't need random drive comments either. Feel free to explain why it's embarrassing.Exactly why I don't pay heed to all of the armchair analysts around here. That thread is embarrassing to the Nth degree.
For a launch title on an 'underpowered' console, I'd say its still quite an accomplishment.Ryse fps it's not exactly encouraging.
Yea, I realized that afterwards.You just got Horse Armour'd.
Looking to the Second Son or KZ yeah seems fine to me.I love how everyone in that thread is laughing at the idea of 8GB and saying things like half of that being fine. How far we've come since 2011.
Any examples?
You wut m8?
I give you crysis 1
Let's what Halo 5 what will be then. I doubt Crytek will be the master race on console .For a launch title on an 'underpowered' console, I'd say its still quite an accomplishment.
Yea, I realized that afterwards.
Crysis 1 still runs like shit even now. Crysis 2 has a pretty good graphics/performance ratio if you use Maldo's mod.Crysis 1? That game ran like shit on every system back then; Crysis 2 had fewer issues and Crysis 3 was shit again
They always aim waaaay to high with their target specs - even back then with FarCry 1
Crysis 1? That game ran like shit on every system back then; Crysis 2 had fewer issues and Crysis 3 was shit again
They always aim waaaay to high with their target specs - even back then with FarCry 1
..................what?Let's what Halo 5 what will be then. I doubt Crytek will be the master race on console .
Crysis 1? That game ran like shit on every system back then; Crysis 2 had fewer issues and Crysis 3 was shit again
They always aim waaaay to high with their target specs - even back then with FarCry 1
Okay, yeah. Crysis 1 is an unoptimized shit, we all know this.
In not trying to play the PC master race card here, but it's relevant to point out that most people in the PC building thread still suggest people only build PCs with 8gb.
Owned himself. That Roboplato first post . Those were the days lol
I don't know, I mean looking to the console developers like ND they never have issue with barely 512 MB. TLoU is damning impressive to be on ps3 & it run at higher fps/ res than Crysis on console. Maybe it's time to learn to use better what they have indeed to wait another hardware upgrade?Well.. they actually only got about 5GB, so they're in the right??
Sounds like Crytek will make shit console ports for PS4/XB1 in the future regardless of specs available to them and are just lowering the expectations so they dont get much flak when they release their shit "limited by hardware" games.
No Crytek, the limiting factor is you in this care. Im sure ND/SSM will beat any technical feats you can do easily without spewing such BS.
Crytek: We want 8GBs of RAM in our next-gen consoles.
Microsoft: Fine, here's 8GBs.
Sony: Hell, we'll give you 8GB GDDR5. Happy?
Crytek: It's not ENOUGH!
We don't need random drive comments either. Feel free to explain why it's embarrassing.
Crysis 1? That game ran like shit on every system back then; Crysis 2 had fewer issues and Crysis 3 was shit again
They always aim waaaay to high with their target specs - even back then with FarCry 1
I bet Halo 5 will be better than their games on xbone. Graphically...................what?
Only on its very highest settings. And by unoptimized, that can just mean that the sample counts are high, not necessarily that the coding could be replaced with something that gives the same result.
I swear people misuse the word "optimized." Sometimes optimizing, and it generally means actually, turning down the quality.
It makes perfect sense to me.Read the comments in that thread, then read the tech specs on the X1/PS4. Hopefully you'll figure it out.
How so? People in that thread are talking about GDDR5 RAM. Since 8GB DDR3 RAM would be dumb gaming wise as demonstrated by the xbox one. It is good non-gaming purposes, which is what MS was going for.
Sony made a bet a by going 8GB GDDR5 it was unclear that 8GB GDDR5 at the time whether it would be doable on a consumer level. It was even unclear for MS, otherwise they would have opted for it as well. Since MS is now stuck with a harder to code for, more expensive and slower solution (for most purposes of the consoles).
You can talk all cool in hindsight, but a lot of the predictions where based on logic.
On console? What exactly is a nonsense? Crytek games run shit on console. I'm surprise people who gives a fuck for games below 1080p 60 fps find impressive 20-25 fps in a game.Satire? I get people may not like their games, but to say ND/SSM can easily beat Crytek on the technical side is nonsense...
Not really. In Crysis 2 many things had tessellation applied to them, even if they were underground or in things were tessellation didn't make sense, like those road barriers, which led to bad performance on many rigs.Crysis 2 and 3 were very well optimized on PC, what are you talking about?
I don't know, I mean looking to the console developers like ND they never have issue with barely 512 MB. TLoU is damning impressive to be on ps3 & it run at higher fps/ res than Crysis on console. Maybe it's time to learn to use better what they have indeed to wait another hardware upgrade?
So wait, a Dev wants more power and says the obvious, that at some point the memory will be a limiting factor.
of course it will. At some point we'll want 16gb or 32gb... And the other thread they said they'd want a minimum of 8gb, and they got that. The minimum.
Are some so in love with these boxes that even obvious truths like "at some point 8gb won't be enough" get ridicule?
Or is the 8gb supposed to be the pinnacle of the future? I really don't get some of your posts y'all.
and yeah... What SparkTR said. Absolutely true.
Crytek: We want 8GBs of RAM in our next-gen consoles.
Microsoft: Fine, here's 8GBs.
Sony: Hell, we'll give you 8GB GDDR5. Happy?
Crytek: It's not ENOUGH!
On console? What exactly is a nonsense? Crytek games run shit on console. I'm surprise people who gives a fuck for games below 1080p 60 fps find impressive 20-25 fps in a game.
Halo 5 will come out 2 years after Ryse.I bet Halo 5 will be better than their games on xbone. Graphically.
I've never understood why console manufacturers don't give devs access to all the RAM in system from the start. Why do they start out only giving them a portion of the RAM, and slowly give more? They only have access to what, 5GB on PS4 and X1?
1.Not really. In Crysis 2 many things had tessellation applied to them, even if they were underground or in things were tessellation didn't make sense, like those road barriers, which led to bad performance on many rigs.
2. In Crysis 3 they applied physics to some ropes that no one even noticed which made the game perform worse in those parts than it should have.
I've never understood why console manufacturers don't give devs access to all the RAM in system from the start. Why do they start out only giving them a portion of the RAM, and slowly give more? They only have access to what, 5GB on PS4 and X1?
yes.....
I'm purely talking of ND games tech wise versus Crytek on the same. I can put another example: shadowfall vs ryse. Shadowfall it's more impressive & smoother. I know ps4 it's more powerful to the xbone but I doubt crytek will be 30 steady fps on console.The Last of Us has a static world though. I'm not saying this as a bad thing, it was perfect for their game. But if devs want a more dynamic world, things might need to be cut. Of course there will be improvements and they can do a lot more than TLoU technically, but games will also keep getting more demanding. That's what I think his concern is.
I'm still glad they chose 8 over 4 GB.