Support NeoGAF

[dark10x]

I can't strike that possibility out that, after all I am coming only from seeing lots and lots of videos of both games.

It has nothing to do with platform exclusivity of Uncharted.

That goes to dark10x post as well.

Ah, so you haven't actually experienced either one. That would explain it. Trust me, as someone who has played through Crysis and knows what visuals can look like, Uncharted is the more impressive game. A lot of the best looking bits in Uncharted are not even available in any form of media (video or screenshot) as they didn't want to spoil them.

What you see in AC is, well, the same throughout the game. The visual style is immediately set and it maintains this throughout.

 

[I AM JOHN!]

Ah, so you haven't actually experienced either one. That would explain it. Trust me, as someone who has played through Crysis and knows what visuals can look like, Uncharted is the more impressive game. A lot of the best looking bits in Uncharted are not even available in any form of media (video or screenshot) as they didn't want to spoil them.

What you see in AC is, well, the same throughout the game. The visual style is immediately set and it maintains this throughout.

Truth.

 

[bee]

Those cards are around $300 alone, more for the GTX. How much for a quad core processor? I'm sorry, PC gaming is just too expensive. For the price of a graphics card, I can get a console that I'm not going to have to worry about drivers, upgrading, etc. Some of you PC gamers take this stuff way too seriously, like I insulted you personally or something because I stated that to stay on top of the curve, you have to upgrade every 6 months. Yes, you can get something now and play games for a couple years, but you'll be able to run games on max resolution now if you get top-notch hardware.. Next year and the year after you'll be running games on lower settings. I don't see why PC gamers can argue with this, PC games push the envelope forward constantly which requires new and better hardware every 6 months.

i replied simply cos what you claimed to be true is in fact a complete myth thats posted on this board in various forms probably 20+ times a week and its kinda boring

 

[andycapps]

i replied simply cos what you claimed to be true is in fact a complete myth thats posted on this board in various forms probably 20+ times a week and its kinda boring

You haven't refuted anything. You're telling me that if I buy a 8800GTS that I will be able to play Crysis on max resolutions, and games from a year from now on max resolutions with every setting turned on? I'm making a point that, yes, you'll be able to play games a year from now, but if you want them to be at max resolutions/effects you're going to have to upgrade again.

 

[Mamesj]

Those cards are around $300 alone, more for the GTX. How much for a quad core processor? I'm sorry, PC gaming is just too expensive. For the price of a graphics card, I can get a console that I'm not going to have to worry about drivers, upgrading, etc. Some of you PC gamers take this stuff way too seriously, like I insulted you personally or something because I stated that to stay on top of the curve, you have to upgrade every 6 months. Yes, you can get something now and play games for a couple years, but you'll be able to run games on max resolution now if you get top-notch hardware.. Next year and the year after you'll be running games on lower settings. I don't see why PC gamers can argue with this, PC games push the envelope forward constantly which requires new and better hardware every 6 months.

what you're doing is bitching that you can't always have the best of the best in PC gaming, but you're trying to frame it like PC gaming dies every 6 months. This is one game we're talking about here, one game that may not be well optimized at all. As in, everything else (but Crysis) will probably run at 60FPS, if you have a machine that's just under the rec spec.

I'm sick of people who see one or two current games that won't run on at MAX on their machine and act like their PC is suddenly dead to them. You're spoiled by consoles and can't see the big picture.

 

[bee]

You haven't refuted anything. You're telling me that if I buy a 8800GTS that I will be able to play Crysis on max resolutions, and games from a year from now on max resolutions with every setting turned on? I'm making a point that, yes, you'll be able to play games a year from now, but if you want them to be at max resolutions/effects you're going to have to upgrade again.

i haven't? what i said was you could of bought a combo of e6300 and 8800gts in november 2006 and 15months later right now it can play all games bar 1 on max details at very high resolutions, and the one exception obviously being crysis and it'll still play that extremely well but "only" on high

to me that makes your claim of 6 month upgrades completely untrue yeah, you cant comment on buying now and then say it wont run games in november of this year cos you simply dont know that, whereas my case has proven to be true.

 

[M3d10n]

Hasn't this always been the case with console games? Just look at the system specs for games like Resident Evil 4 or MegaMan X8, they're way higher than a PS2's specs.

 

[Xrenity]

I only miss 1 gig of RAM, so no worries

The fact that they take time for the PC version sounds good. Better than crapfest Double Agent.

 

[Borys]

Ah, so you haven't actually experienced either one. That would explain it. Trust me, as someone who has played through Crysis and knows what visuals can look like, Uncharted is the more impressive game. A lot of the best looking bits in Uncharted are not even available in any form of media (video or screenshot) as they didn't want to spoil them.

What you see in AC is, well, the same throughout the game. The visual style is immediately set and it maintains this throughout.

Interesting, I thought I've seen all Uncharted's locations in the official thread - Castle, Cathedral, Jungle and Ruins. Care to spoil to me what are those unspoiled areas you speak of?

 

[nelsonroyale]

Ah, so you haven't actually experienced either one. That would explain it. Trust me, as someone who has played through Crysis and knows what visuals can look like, Uncharted is the more impressive game. A lot of the best looking bits in Uncharted are not even available in any form of media (video or screenshot) as they didn't want to spoil them.

What you see in AC is, well, the same throughout the game. The visual style is immediately set and it maintains this throughout.

yeah, there is just so much more variety in uncharted...despite not having a great length, they really packed alot in...Also, the levels dont seem small, which I found to be the case in R & C

 

[Kobold]

Is Uncharted also a free-roam world? It really is the one PS3 title that I would like to play!

 

[Blablurn]

I know this game looks great (better than Uncharted IMO

:lol :lol :lol




















no

 

[Zzoram]

Not unexpected for any high end PC games being released in these times. Crysis will still be a more demanding and better looking game when it comes down to it, since the requirements and recommendations on the box are pretty meaningless.

 

[nelsonroyale]

Is Uncharted also a free-roam world? It really is the one PS3 title that I would like to play!

no..it has no loading though...overall, I would say the game world is very large, but it is not free roaming

 

[urk]

Crytek did a really great job scaling their engine for lower end builds. I'm wondering if Ubi simply didn't want to invest the time to really dig in and build an experience that would work for budget rigs. Makes sense too, considering the overwhelming majority of sales are going to remain in the console space.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

"You haven't refuted anything. You're telling me that if I buy a 8800GTS that I will be able to play Crysis on max resolutions, and games from a year from now on max resolutions with every setting turned on? I'm making a point that, yes, you'll be able to play games a year from now, but if you want them to be at max resolutions/effects you're going to have to upgrade again."


If you knew anything about pc gaming you would know Crysis is the exception and not the rule. You can't play it maxed out with those specs since Very High is future ware.

 

[andycapps]

i haven't? what i said was you could of bought a combo of e6300 and 8800gts in november 2006 and 15months later right now it can play all games bar 1 on max details at very high resolutions, and the one exception obviously being crysis and it'll still play that extremely well but "only" on high

to me that makes your claim of 6 month upgrades completely untrue yeah, you cant comment on buying now and then say it wont run games in november of this year cos you simply dont know that, whereas my case has proven to be true.

This is called a straw man argument. Nevermind, cause you just don't get what I'm saying. You're talking about something completely different than what I'm talking about. I am not saying that in six months your top of the line PC will be unable to run games at that time. I am saying that your current top of the line PC will not be top of the line in six months and will most likely not be able to run games at maximum resolutions/effects. That's all.

If you knew anything about pc gaming you would know Crysis is the exception and not the rule. You can't play it maxed out with those specs since Very High is future ware.

O RLY?

Minimum System Requirements:
* Windows XP or Vista
* 2 GB RAM
* Dual core processor (Intel Pentium D or better)
* 256MB Direct3D 10 compatible video card, or Direct3D 9 card compatible with Shader Model 3.0 or higher
* DirectX compatible driver
* DVD-ROM dual-layer drive
* 16 GB free hard disk space
* DirectX libraries (included)
* Vista compatible sound card
* Keyboard, Mouse
* Microsoft Xbox 360 Controller (optional)

Recommended System Requirements:
* Intel Pentium Core 2 Duo, or better processor
* 3 GB System RAM
* ATI HD2900 series, Nvidia GeForce 8800 series, or better video card
* 5.1 sound card
* Microsoft Xbox 360 controller

*Supported Video Cards at Time of Release

DirectX10 compatible cards, recommended ATI HD2900 series, Nvidia GeForce 8800 series

Direct3D 9 card compatible with Shader Model 3.0 or higher

You know that the minimum specs are pretty much worthless, to get it running well you're going to at least get what they put on the recommended list.

 

[Salacious Crumb]

Is a disk space requirement over 10 GB common place now? I've been PC gaming for ages now but I haven’t bought a new game since BF2 and that was like 4 GB max.

And surely the 360 is just a directx box anyway, shouldn't porting any 360 game over be a relatively simple task.

 

[Visualante]

That delay did them wonders. I'll check out the demo, but if it doesn't run well on my crappy Core Duo processor no extra monies for Ubisoft.

I thought they'd try and make this accessible to as many gamers as possible seeing as it was such a phenomenal success on console. DS version will sell more for sure.

 

[Xabora]

3gb of Ram?
:lol

I'm in the green... and then some. >_>


I'm guessing they beefed up the texture resolutions also?

 

[Borys]

You know that the minimum specs are pretty much worthless, to get it running well you're going to at least get what they put on the recommended list.

Welcome to 1990. Location: PC gaming.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

"You know that the minimum specs are pretty much worthless, to get it running well you're going to at least get what they put on the recommended list."


If you knew about pc gaming then you would also know that ubisoft has always made shit requirements like that. Ubisoft always tries to overextend itself with their pc requirements.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

"Is a disk space requirement over 10 GB common place now? I've been PC gaming for ages now but I haven’t bought a new game since BF2 and that was like 4 GB max.

And surely the 360 is just a directx box anyway, shouldn't porting any 360 game over be a relatively simple task."


Around 10 gigs is pretty much the standard now unfortunately :/

 

[andycapps]

Welcome to 1990. Location: PC gaming.

Exactly, I don't see why anyone is even arguing with what I'm saying. It's common knowledge. If you like PC gaming and want to keep up with the Jones's constantly, you know what you're getting yourself into. I just threw something out there without realizing the PC defense force was going to jump down my throat for something I didn't consider offensive. :lol

 

[dark10x]

Interesting, I thought I've seen all Uncharted's locations in the official thread - Castle, Cathedral, Jungle and Ruins. Care to spoil to me what are those unspoiled areas you speak of?

There are enough art assets in the game for TWO games, if you ask me.

You can't just say "jungle" and "ruins" when talking about the locales. There are many types of all areas and they become progressively more cool as the game moves onward. There are a few other areas you missed (a large military facility, the boats, etc.). You spend a lot of time in ruins, but they change so dramatically throughout the game that you can't simply nail it down as a single type of design. The game is very organic and the scenery is constantly changing. Some of the lighting becomes very dramatic towards the end as well (setting sun). There is a lot of the game that has not been shown through media.

It's really incredible stuff.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

"Exactly, I don't see why anyone is even arguing with what I'm saying. It's common knowledge. If you like PC gaming and want to keep up with the Jones's constantly, you know what you're getting yourself into. I just threw something out there without realizing the PC defense force was going to jump down my throat for something I didn't consider offensive. "


No one ever argued about minimum requirements being worthless but even now with the specs (I think bee was the one who said them) you can max out pretty much all the games or come really close except for something obvious like crysis. It was just a pointless statement is what annoyed some. Ya if you want absolute maxed res, aa, af and everything else sure you will have to upgrade more often but what does that have to do with anything? It still performs extremely well and looks better than the console versions of games, so it is only necessary because the option is there? It's just a tired argument that really doesn't matter just because you can play at a higher res, aa, af, etc. doesn't mean you have to and you have to upgrade every six months. That's all :/

 

[andycapps]

No one ever argued about minimum requirements being worthless but even now with the specs (I think bee was the one who said them) you can max out pretty much all the games or come really close except for something obvious like crysis. It was just a pointless statement is what annoyed some. Ya if you want absolute maxed res, aa, af and everything else sure you will have to upgrade more often but what does that have to do with anything? It still performs extremely well and looks better than the console versions of games, so it is only necessary because the option is there? It's just a tired argument that really doesn't matter just because you can play at a higher res, aa, af, etc. doesn't mean you have to and you have to upgrade every six months. That's all :/

It's all good, I think we're all saying the same thing. I've just gotten jaded with PC gaming because I don't have the money for it. When I do, I'm going to get back into it though.

 

[godhandiscen]

bad optimization?

 

[Zzoram]

"Is a disk space requirement over 10 GB common place now? I've been PC gaming for ages now but I haven’t bought a new game since BF2 and that was like 4 GB max.

And surely the 360 is just a directx box anyway, shouldn't porting any 360 game over be a relatively simple task."


Around 10 gigs is pretty much the standard now unfortunately :/

Really? Because Company of Heroes, Orange Box and The Witcher took anywhere from 5ish to 8.5GB installed, and all fit on a DVD. As I understand, Crysis and Assassin's Creed are also single DVD games (a quick check shows Crysis is ~6gb on disc), and I doubt that their installs would be 10gb+.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

"Really? Because Company of Heroes, Orange Box and The Witcher took anywhere from 5ish to 8.5GB installed, and all fit on a DVD. As I understand, Crysis and Assassin's Creed are also single DVD games (a quick check shows Crysis is ~6gb on disc), and I doubt that their installs would be 10gb+."


There are some that are lower but it's starting to creep up to that realm. I can't remember off hand but there were a couple I installed recently that were 8-10 gbs. There are definately those that installer lower which is nice.

"It's all good, I think we're all saying the same thing. I've just gotten jaded with PC gaming because I don't have the money for it. When I do, I'm going to get back into it though. "

 

[Linkup]

Time to bust out my $900 computer.

 

[saelz8]

Ubisoft rocks at making console ports run terrible on PC's.
Remember RS:V? Remember Double Agent? Remember Chaos Theory? etc.

I'm guessing not fake, and if fake, these specs are probably not far off.

Chaos Theory was fine, UE2.

 

[Kabouter]

It's all good, I think we're all saying the same thing. I've just gotten jaded with PC gaming because I don't have the money for it. When I do, I'm going to get back into it though.

What I think is weird though, with multi-platform games, often they don't quite look as good on consoles as they do on PC. Why accept that and not accept clicking the 'high' button instead of the 'very high' button on PC? There's quite a chance that when Crysis appears on consoles, it'll look far more like 'high' than 'very high'.

 

[Zzoram]

Have the "Uncharted looks better than Crysis" people seen Crysis on Very High? What about custom Ultra High?

From the Crysis thread:

 

[Zzoram]

What I think is weird though, with multi-platform games, often they don't quite look as good on consoles as they do on PC. Why accept that and not accept clicking the 'high' button instead of the 'very high' button on PC? There's quite a chance that when Crysis appears on consoles, it'll look far more like 'high' than 'very high'.

I would imagine Crysis on consoles would be a 720p Medium-High mix with at most 2xAA but realistically 0xAA.

 

[FordStang]

Geeeeez, they want you to have a SuperComputer to run these games

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

"What I think is weird though, with multi-platform games, often they don't quite look as good on consoles as they do on PC. Why accept that and not accept clicking the 'high' button instead of the 'very high' button on PC? There's quite a chance that when Crysis appears on consoles, it'll look far more like 'high' than 'very high'."


I don't really understand it either but it seems a lot of people who don't play pc games use the argument it's not worth it if it's not maxed out for some reason. :/ (Not meant towards anyone specifically)

 

[dark10x]

Have the "Uncharted looks better than Crysis" people seen Crysis on Very High? What about custom Ultra High?

Who the hell is saying that? People are suggesting that Uncharted looks better than Assassin's Creed, not Crysis.

However, I will say that Crysis DOES NOT look like most of those screens you posted. Those shots with the insane AA (due to downsampling) are impossible on modern hardware. Not only that, the edge AA (for foliage) isn't even compatible with regular AA (for other things) and regular AA kills the framerate anyways. Most of those shots were taken from higher resolutions and decreased in size to give the appearance of additional clarity.

 

[Zzoram]

"What I think is weird though, with multi-platform games, often they don't quite look as good on consoles as they do on PC. Why accept that and not accept clicking the 'high' button instead of the 'very high' button on PC? There's quite a chance that when Crysis appears on consoles, it'll look far more like 'high' than 'very high'."


I don't really understand it either but it seems a lot of people who don't play pc games use the argument it's not worth it if it's not maxed out for some reason. :/ (Not meant towards anyone specifically)

The average PC gamers mostly play games on low to medium settings, then replays those games when they upgrade 3 years later. The enthusiast upgrades every 1-1.5 years and plays on High to Very High.

 

[Zzoram]

Who the hell is saying that? People are suggesting that Uncharted looks better than Assassin's Creed, not Crysis.

Trust me, as someone who has played through Crysis and knows what visuals can look like, Uncharted is the more impressive game.

Him.

 

[Kabouter]

The average PC gamers mostly play high-end games on low to medium settings, then replays those games when they upgrade 3 years later. .

Yup.
Luckily, there's only a handful, and sometimes not even that, of those every year. Hell, most of the gaming I've been doing lately doesn't even get my GPU out of the 2D mode it uses in Windows .

 

[dark10x]

Him.

You misread me. I was drawing comparisons between Assassin's Creed and Uncharted. As I was talking to Borys, I wanted to again note that I've played through Crysis with very high settings to qualify my judgement of two lesser games.

If you took that statement by itself, however, I can see where you'd come to that conclusion. Poor choice of words, I suppose.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

"The average PC gamers mostly play games on low to medium settings, then replays those games when they upgrade 3 years later. The enthusiast upgrades every 1-1.5 years and plays on High to Very High."


No, I definately understand that but I just don't understand when people but down pc gaming because they can't play it at max but they find it perfectly acceptable to play it at a mediumish spec that looks worse on consoles than pcs. Like I said it's usually people who don't play pc games it seems say it but I just never really understood why much like Kabutor seemingly didn't understand either :/

 

[Zzoram]

However, I will say that Crysis DOES NOT look like most of those screens you posted. Those shots with the insane AA (due to downsampling) are impossible on modern hardware. Not only that, the edge AA (for foliage) isn't even compatible with regular AA (for other things) and regular AA kills the framerate anyways. Most of those shots were taken from higher resolutions and decreased in size to give the appearance of additional clarity.

It is possible to get it to run like that at ~40fps average at 1920x1200... if you have the 780i chipset motherboard and triple-SLI with 3x8800Ultras and a 3.33GHz Core 2 Duo. The high resolution makes ailiasing a much smaller issue, especially with motion blur.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3183&p=4

 

[Zzoram]

"The average PC gamers mostly play games on low to medium settings, then replays those games when they upgrade 3 years later. The enthusiast upgrades every 1-1.5 years and plays on High to Very High."


No, I definately understand that but I just don't understand when people but down pc gaming because they can't play it at max but they find it perfectly acceptable to play it at a mediumish spec that looks worse on consoles than pcs. Like I said it's usually people who don't play pc games it seems say it but I just never really understood why much like Kabutor seemingly didn't understand either :/

It's because PC games are different from console games. They have always been more complicated and customizable and had better online communities and mods. There is a reason PC gamers complain when games get "consolized", the interface suffers, the complexity suffers, all to make the game more mainstream to sell more copies, which is great for the dev/pub but criminal to PC gamers.

Oblivion, if designed as a PC-centric game, would've been a better game. They simplified many elements from Morrowind, which was a PC-centric game, to make it more mass market friendly, and the game suffered for it. KOTOR, while possibly the best Bioware RPG on console to date, is still a pale imitation of Baldur's Gate 2, the previous great PC RPG Bioware made.

 

[BelligerentOC]

Have the "Uncharted looks better than Crysis" people seen Crysis on Very High? What about custom Ultra High?

From the Crysis thread:
Pretty Pictures...

I constantly forget how good that game looks...

 

[Zzoram]

I constantly forget how good that game looks...

Probably because only 1% of PC gamers can run it that well, if not less :lol

 

[dark10x]

It is possible to get it to run like that at ~40fps average at 1920x1200... if you have the 780i chipset motherboard and triple-SLI with 3x8800Ultras and a 3.33GHz Core 2 Duo. The high resolution makes ailiasing a much smaller issue, especially with motion blur.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3183&p=4

No, I disagree. The high resolution does nothing for it. That is the main difference between CG image quality and realtime (rendered at insane resolutions and downscaled).

You do realize that the resolution used to make this shot was like 5000x3000 (made up number, but in that region), right? Motion blur does nothing for the actual image quality either. NOBODY is playing the game with image quality like this...

Still, the game can look awesome without any of that. Here's the game running on my system without any doctoring...

 

[Zzoram]

No, I disagree. The high resolution does nothing for it. That is the main difference between CG image quality and realtime (rendered at insane resolutions and downscaled).

You do realize that the resolution used to make this shot was like 5000x3000 (made up number, but in that region), right? Motion blur does nothing for the actual image quality either.

Still, the game can look awesome without any of that. Here's the game running on my system...

You should do that one shadow/lighting tweak they have in the thread, where they change some value from the default of 1 to 2 or 3. The comparison shots looked way better.

What are your specs anyways?

 

[vertopci]

Probably because only 1% of PC gamers can run it that well, if not less :lol

I can run it on my Celeron D processor on high settings at easily 50 to 60 FPS :lol

AA is off though.