Quick Jump Daily Digest
Thank you for your interest in the Quick Jump Daily Digest. Get notified of all new content on QJ in our free Daily Digest. To subscribe, enter your email address below and click the subscribe button.
Crysis to take full advantage of PS3's power |
Listed in: PS3, PC Gaming Tags: crysis 2, Crytek
When it comes to setting the standard in graphical superiority, few games can step up to that plate. Among the best that the PS3 has seen so far are Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2 - two games that, quite frankly, look better than your girlfriend. But hold up - another sequel from the PC realm is out to challenge both: Crysis 2 is coming to take full advantage of the PS3's power.
Let's see now. Killzone 2, as fantastic as it looks, isn't even close to maxing the PS3 - that one checked in at 60%. Then there's Uncharted 2, which sought to max out all of the PS3's SPUs.
The first Crysis, already a very sharp game by any standard, had quite a heavy system requirement list for its time. Since the sequel is coming to the PS3, they won't have that same problem. PlayStation Official Magazine editor-in-chief Gary Steinman shares a bit of what he knows:
Yes, it’s a PC franchise. But when it’s widely regarded as one of the greatest shooters to ever grace the big gray box, it matters.
But that’s not the only reason I put Crysis 2 on the cover. A few months back, an old friend at EA snuck in to PTOM towers and showed me top-secret footage of the game in action. It was stunning – better looking than almost anything I’ve ever seen on PS3. and here’s the best part: All the glorious wreckage, the metropolitan carnage, the dynamic lighting and the realtime destruction, was generated not on a PC, nor an Xbox, but PS3.
He goes on:
Yep this baby is being built to take advantage of the massive power the PS3 offers – which is nothing to scoff at, considering Crytek’s original Crysis was almost unplayable on anything but the highest-end PCs when it was released.
Five minutes after my pal left, I began the push to be the first magazine to reveal Crysis 2’s true glory. And here we are.
That must be a sight to behold - guess we'll have to wait for its Fall release with anticipation.
Thanks to Peter Bauer
[via PlayStation Lifestyle]
| 75% of voters think this story ROCKS! |
|
|
Comments
Reply
Reply
Reply
Still, the game looks great, I loved the 1st one on PC, and NO!!!!! you didn't need a good PC to play it. I was playing the game with my old dual-core 2.4ghz, with 1GB RAM, with the really poor ATI Radeon 1300 Pro videocard, lol. And I was playing without any kind of lag. Ok, I din't have maxed graphics, but I also didn't have the lowest (I was really impressed by this, lol.). By the way, I could play crysis without any lags but I couldn't play mass effect at all, it was like seeing a diaporama at 1slide/4seconds... The important thing is HOW the game is coded.
Still, I don't think it's gonna looks better than killzone2.. And it can't match the PC, so the graphics should be under crysis1. But anyway, I'll surely buy it, I loved the game!
PS: I'm pretty sure they'll make TONS MORE PROFITS on console than they did on the PC (PC means Pirate's Computer).
Reply
ermm you did at first untill it was optimised and even then whats the point in playing a game thats essentially eye candy with out the eye candy?
you needed a good pc to make "playing" it worth the effort.
..and with that set up you must have been almost min settings why lie about it
Reply
Reply
Reply
Then your system is JACKED UP!!!
I played Crysis on a Core2 Duo (forget the speed), 2GB of mem and dual 9800's. I ran the game at MAXIMUM @ 1920X1200 with absolutely no problems. I think I had to turn the AA down one step because of the resolution.
Reply
Well yeah, you've got two video cards.
Reply
Dual doesn't really mean squat. When I added the second card I gained about 9 frames per second. The CPU is such a BS bottle neck it's disgusting. When I move the two cards to a core i7 system or better (waiting for 6 cores) then I'll see more advantage.
Reply
The reason mass effect probably didn't run was it didn't have many changeable options (I can't say for sure, havn't played it it on PC).
This is the reason Modern warfare looks the same on PC (except for a higher resolution and AA) as it does on PS3 and 360.....there are basically no options for either dumbing down or raising any of the details/shaders/textures.....and when I saw that at my buddies I was disappointed.
Still, take this with a grain of salt, it's a Sony exec speaking. It would be nice to see though...
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I never checked on this article that the game is going for 360...prolly be ps3 PC only as FFXIV current status is
Reply
I had a girl once that cleaned up after me, made me food (mostly every day), played any game mulitplayer for hours on end, and put out at least once a day. To me it did not matter that she was gorgeous.
Now I only have girls that come to my apartment, expect food, make a mess, and seldom put out. Don't care how they look, locking the door and turning on Crysis rather than taking their brain moshing crap any day.
Reply
The game will most likely not run at 720P. Some of the best looking games on the PS3 do not run at 720P simply due to the PS3 not having enough power to be able to do so. Also doesn't help that tech in the PS3 is very old now by PC standards.
Game will be locked at 30 frames per second. To up the texture count & the quality of detail in the game, it will be locked at 30 frames per second. This will give if better image quality at the sacrifice of a slightly sluggish feel.
Software lighting. A major problem with the PS3 is that it is not capable of doing HDR & Anti Aliasing simultaneously. The cell processor can't do it & the RSX GPU can't do it. It wouldn't exist until Nvidias 8 series & the GPU in the PS3 is a 7 series. The Xbox 360 will have a edge here since the ATI GPU in the 360 is able to do this form of light rendering.
Standard AA/AF vs advanced AA/AF. The PC will have a huge advantage here as it can use multiple forms of AA/AF while the PS3 is stuck with a maximum of 4x AA/ 2X AF. The PC can do up to 32X AA, FSAA, MSAA, etc & 32X AF (Just introduced with AMDs HD5000 series.
PS3 Direct X 9 vs PC Direct X 11. Going from DX 9 to DX 11 will be a huge leap in how the overall game will look on a PC compared to the PS3.
Opinion: Keyboard + Mouse -> Shitty PS3 pad.
The only advantage the PS3 will have is the pricepoint for the system but I would rather play it on near 3G PC build than have to settled for a dumbed down console version =P.
Reply
Reply
There are two scenarios: You are carrying apples, all by yourself. You are holding about 50 apples, and it's very very heavy. You get tired, have to take breaks, and takes much longer to reach the final output: eating the apples.
Now, let's say you have a friend there too. You give him 25 apples, maybe even 30, and you carry the rest. It's so much easier, less tiring.
Now, let's change this into you being the CPU, and your friend being the GPU.
You see? AA is so much easier with a steady, good GPU. Allowing the CPU to do it is much simpler, but is it more efficient?
I don't think so. Morphological AA is a VERY VERY unique technique, it's intelligent in design, and in theory. However, from a development standpoint, it's a pain in the ass. The Saboteur was delayed time after time, at-least internally. In this time, they used MLAA very very sparingly, and very very experimentally. Instead of edge "smoothing", it uses edge "blur". The results are very very similar, but smoothing can produce a much cleaner effect in the long run.
For a console gamer, MLAA is something that is fantastic, but, for a PC gamer, it's something that isn't practical at all. If you watched the demos for CryEngine 3, the console versions were very jagged. This is because of the fact that they weren't using AA at ALL. Considering the fact that it IS multiplatform, (I swear I heard it's coming to 360 too) I don't believe there will be AA. At-least not significantly. Now, you can all bitch and complain about it, but I believe in the environment that they are using the game in, I don't think it's necessary, maybe not entirely. Remember, I don't think MW2 used AA... The game still looked beautiful.
It is all about what you do effects wise. Crysis 2 will DEFINITELY have bloom in it, and if they implement motion blur? AA is not needed at all. It will still look fine.
Maxing out and optimizing are two different things though folks. They may be using all the cores, but are they using it efficiently? Possibly, only time can tell. I really want to see this in motion.
Reply
This is quite a good thread listing alot of games and their resolution and level/type of AA....hasn't been updated in awhile tho :(
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241
Reply
Anyways, DarkLegacy you make all valid points. The only one I will argue is that there is nothing wrong with software lighting and rendering. The same things can be performed in software as in hardware, it's just super CPU intensive, but this is something that PS3 has lot's of.
ZBrush, which is a professional modeling tool, works best in software rendering mode and performs the same tasks as if you use hardware (and with less complication and more consistency).
Computers will basically always have the opportunity to make crazier looking games than consoles. It's just you have to pay out the ass for upgrades and keep paying that is the main drawback.
Also, some games like Modern Warfare 2 are giving PC gamers the shaft, as there are no advanced options other than Res and AA to make the game any better looking than it's console counterparts. Crysis could go the same way, then everything you mentioned doesn't matter anyways.
Reply
Reply
Still can't wait for the pc version.
My specs
A Phenom quad at 3.0ghz unlocked
2 9800gtx's 1gb, sli, water cooled, overclocked. Still in wait for the Nvidia 300gt to come out.
4gb of ddr3
oh and a ssd drive 128gb ocz
Oh and DarkLegacy is a fanboy grr Obviously didn't look at the current ps3 specs.
http://playstation.about.com/od/ps3/a/PS3SpecsDetails_3.htm
it has a cell processor with 8 cores at 3.2ghz
most capable of going 1080P, with Crysis 2.
Reply
Amazingly detailed games at 1080P was a huge myth for this generation. Both companies thought they could do it, both failed miserably. As there are only a handful of native 1080p games, and most are fairly simple as far as model/level/texture detail goes...
Gran Turismo 5, 1080P, looks f'ing amazing, but then look at the crowds as you drive around the track, they are sprite cutouts just like you see back in PS1 days. If they had gone 720P, those could be decently modeled 3D characters. 1080P was probably also why they did not want deformable cars, it's extra work for the PS3, now they are trying to implement it and the game is delayed out the ass.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I personally would do without the antialiasing and filtering, as IMHO it is just a bit of polish for a lot of processing power (a whole SPE) - I would free up the CPUs and use them all for lighting and shading and effects, and AI! I'm not a programmer, but this makes sense to me.
On the other hand, some games have been playing with lower resolution and using advanced filtering to achieve better graphics than what the 1080p results show (Tekken 6). I'm not expecting to see anything too much better than Killzone 2 or COD MW2's graphics, but if they do achieve it then it will be using clever tricks or using hardly any AI.
Reply
Reply
Reply
"ps3 can't do hdr and aa?" well PS3 is infact using aa but its called mlaa and killzon3 is using it sooooo changing subject to XBOX360 wont have steam and PS3 will the fat guy in the red t-shirt said so at sony E3 conference about portal 2 Oh and im typing this on my PS3 web browser something u cant do on xbox 360
Reply