Quote from Velociround :

How do you think game developers will manage to make, today, a great game that uses the latest effects and advanced graphics on a 2010 PC if they need to put it on some game consoles with 2005 hardware?

That isn't a real argument.

Even if Crysis2 is PC exclusive they still have to cater for middle lower end PCs, older shader models, direct X 9 and all that.

Games uses graphic options to micro adjust performance for different hardware, and its no different for consoles. You can dish out the same game with fewer shaders, lower resolution and less detailed textures, it won't limit how detailed it is going to be in full detail.

Quote from Shotglass :

well that enforces a lot of the things i think about you and your tastes

Yeah, judge my tastes cause i can't find a better english word for what i want to say. Again, IF you played the damn game, you would know what i mean, the main charachter is one of the best game charachters ever created..

Quote from Shotglass :

well no
i however do expect a little more stimulation and a little more gameplay than button mashing beat em ups (frankly console gameplay has been the same shit for 20 year or so)

And how exactly is 'gameplay', if you scander around for hours, and 'talk' to every NPC you encounter, which throws a 4 page monolouge at you to read.. we all have different tastes, but i'll never say RPG's suck, i respect those games, it's just that i don't like them..

Quote from Velociround :

How do you think game developers will manage to make, today, a great game that uses the latest effects and advanced graphics on a 2010 PC if they need to put it on some game consoles with 2005 hardware? Crysis 1 looked awesome because it was a PC exclusive game and they could do their best to make it look awesome on the latest (2007 - GeForce 8800Ultra 1GB and so on) hardware. But now that they want to put it on 2005 hardware, even Crysis 1 will look bad when ported to the X360 and PS3.

And who's fault is there, why do i care about that? Why haven't they kept it PC exclusive, is that console's fault somehow?

Quote from Boris Lozac :

And who's fault is there, why do i care about that? Why haven't they kept it PC exclusive, is that console's fault somehow?

This reminds me one of the flame war between Xbox and PS3 fanboys over Final Fantasy Whatever the latest one is....

PS3 fanboys accuse Xbox for dumbing down the detail of the game since it is no longer an exclusive.

But before accusing Xbox players, they should first accuse Sony - for making the PS3 such as arse to programme, they should then accuse Square for not sticking up for the PS3 fanbase and bow for more money, and finally they should accuse themselves: because if every PS3 owner buy three copy of the game Square won't have to lower themselves to the Xbox's level for ......yeah more money.

Quote from JJ72 :

That isn't a real argument.

Even if Crysis2 is PC exclusive they still have to cater for middle lower end PCs, older shader models, direct X 9 and all that.

Games uses graphic options to micro adjust performance for different hardware, and its no different for consoles. You can dish out the same game with fewer shaders, lower resolution and less detailed textures, it won't limit how detailed it is going to be in full detail.

But this most likely increases costs of production, requires additional testing and makes development longer as they'd need to make it on two different DirectX. Also, it increases the size of the final game, as you need to bundle the same game for everyone regardless of their hardware specs and everyone will have stored on their HDD low, medium, high and very high (as in Crysis 1) textures, DX9 and DX10 code, etc. For these reasons, having too many graphic options may not always be the case. Just Cause 2 and Stormrise are two examples of DirectX10 only games.

Although I'm pretty sure Crysis 2 will look awful on consoles (specially when compared to the PC), I always thought CryTek would manage to make some kind of balancing so that they'll have (much) better graphics on PC. However, after seeing their CryEngine 3 video in which they edit some game levels on the PC, X360 and PS3 at the same time, I get a bit worried, because by doing so the game will look exactly the same on the three platforms, making the PC game get leveled down because of console hardware.

Nevertheless, I hope they do a good job with it and I seriously hope Crysis 2 looks at least the same, or better than Crysis 1 on the PC.

Quote from Velociround :

But this most likely increases costs of production, requires additional testing and makes development longer as they'd need to make it on two different DirectX. Also, it increases the size of the final game, as you need to bundle the same game for everyone regardless of their hardware specs and everyone will have stored on their HDD low, medium, high and very high (as in Crysis 1) textures, DX9 and DX10 code, etc. For these reasons, having too many graphic options may not always be the case. Just Cause 2 and Stormrise are two examples of DirectX10 only games.

What you mentioned are all STANDARD PRACTICE for anyone making a PC game, it is not "increased cost", not "additional time", not "increased size", it is what every game company developing for PC is expected to do for decades.

You worry about consoles dumbing down your perfect PC version?.....just read what I think about final fantasy a few post up - sometimes elitist should just get over their thick head about stuff like this. It is simply an assumption that time saved for optimization for multi platform will be spend on better production value, in the end all the difference could be that you get the game a bit earlier.

And have you ever thought about that it is the larger market size provided by the console crowd that made it possible for such a large project to happen, and given the production team the resource to try out these new graphic technologies?

really, think about it, there are just as much up side for multiplatforming as the downsides.

Quote from JJ72 :

GTA style games

gta started out on the pc so its just a port really

Quote :

Can't see much difference in terms of game variety in both platforms besides the hardcore simulation and (MMO)RPG sector, but these ain't really "new" gameplay genres in any sort.

well on pcs youve got rts (i dont like blizzard rts' much but sc2 will be one of the biggest titles in quite a long time), simulators, f(or whatever number)ps (lets be honest theyre all rubbish without a mouse and keyboard) and the odd adventure

Quote from JJ72 :

Even if Crysis2 is PC exclusive they still have to cater for middle lower end PCs, older shader models, direct X 9 and all that.

well when crysis 1 came out they didnt care one bit about catering to the low end pc users (and subsequently were surprised it didnt sell too well)
just look at hardocp for a moment it came out almost 3 years ago and even today the latest in graphics harware struggles to get any antialiasing out of it

Quote from Boris Lozac :

Again, IF you played the damn game, you would know what i mean, the main charachter is one of the best game charachters ever created..

yeah a guy who seeks salvation by killing loads of people... very well thought out and makes perfect sense

Quote :

And how exactly is 'gameplay', if you scander around for hours, and 'talk' to every NPC you encounter, which throws a 4 page monolouge at you to read.. we all have different tastes, but i'll never say RPG's suck, i respect those games, it's just that i don't like them..

where did you get this idea that i like rpgs? nevermind that what youre describing is mostly jrpgs which are almost all console exclusives i wouldnt touch and rpg with a 10 metre shit covered barge pole

Well considering they have created the Cryengine 3 to work on all platforms there is no problem with all the lower graphics you are all talking about as they are simplely just lowering the settings for the consoles

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y-vKJ5-6KM

Quote from Shotglass :

yeah a guy who seeks salvation by killing loads of people... very well thought out and makes perfect sense

Keep expressing your prejudices (i don't know if that's a word), it's really amusing to read..
Honestly, what's the problem here? When will you understand that consoles are awesome for games, when will you understand that it's not consoles fault that your Crysis 2 doesn't look 3 times better then the first one..
What exactly is the point of your posts and our argument, what are you trying to say?

Quote from Boris Lozac :

When will you understand that consoles are awesome for games

i cant think of any console exclusive that id like to play (no actually katamari might be one but thats a very rare exception) and any cross platform game that id rather play on a console

Quote :

when will you understand that it's not consoles fault that your Crysis 2 doesn't look 3 times better then the first one..

well for one it is for another i dont really care all that much what crysis looks like but your initial claim that console games look as good as pc games is just preposterous and requires correction
and its not my crysis 2... there hasnt ever been a crytek game that i liked and there likely wont be any time soon

Quote from Shotglass :

i cant think of any console exclusive that id like to play (no actually katamari might be one but thats a very rare exception) and any cross platform game that id rather play on a console

I'm not talking just about exclusives, i'm talking about that whole concept of getting into the game and playing, very easy.. No fcking options and tweaking, and loosing the will to play, whatsoever, only 'options' for graphics are brightness and contrast. And i know you do not understand that, nor do other PC elitists, but you might, if you actually tried it, instead of talking out of your arse..

Quote from Shotglass :

well for one it is

Oh yes, the evil consoles.. the evil 15 year old hardware, the very same hardware that pushes 99% of games you get on much powerfull PC.. As i said, who forced Crytek to go multiplatform with Crysis 2?

Quote from Boris Lozac :

I'm not talking just about exclusives, i'm talking about that whole concept of getting into the game and playing, very easy.. No fcking options and tweaking, and loosing the will to play, whatsoever, only 'options' for graphics are brightness and contrast. And i know you do not understand that, nor do other PC elitists, but you might, if you actually tried it, instead of talking out of your arse..

Enjoy your console, nobody is telling you not to enjoy it or say you can't or anything of the sort... Shot's point is that it's just physically/mathematically impossible for the games to have the graphic potential that a PC game can have. That's all he's saying, and you keep trying to bring up other dreadful points that nobody is talking about.

The rest is subjective, what's completely objective is that PCs are drastically more powerful - and let's just throw versatile in there for shits & giggles

Quote :

Oh yes, the evil consoles.. the evil 15 year old hardware, the very same hardware that pushes 99% of games you get on much powerfull PC.. As i said, who forced Crytek to go multiplatform with Crysis 2?

Feeling a tad dramatic? Of course they "push the same games", as long as the game has been turned into a eunach, had it's hair shaved & replaced with a straw wig and had it's teeth punched out...

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

Feeling a tad dramatic? Of course they "push the same games", as long as the game has been turned into a eunach, had it's hair shaved & replaced with a straw wig and had it's teeth punched out...

Not dramatic.. just sick of that kind of comments. And about that, you wanna say that current games are ugly, that you can't possibly endure those graphics for couple of more years? And the thing is, they won't be the same, if they try and squeeze every last bit of hardware, like they do with console games.. i'm way happier with that aproach. I understand that people upgrade their PC's for a hobby, and i respect that, but in most cases those very same people barely play any games, and only do it for 'benchmarking'. I still don't get what games does Shotglass likes.. you see, same case, but he is somehow appaled and 'angry' of consoles, cause they 'hold back' his imaginary games..

The problem that some poeple don´t get, not the consoles are holding pc games back. The pc gamers are holding PC Games back, the most pc players are not willing to buy every 6 months a new gfx card to be up to date, they just lower the settings and play with their not up to date pc.

The publishers can´t ignore this fact if they bring an pc game that is not playable for the most pc players because of their old hardware then this players arent going to buy it!

So the best thing to do is to invest time and money to optimize the game so that a broad mass of potential players can enjoy it. If the most pc players would have always up to date hardware and buy pc games the consoles wouldn´t have any effect on the games that are published on the pc.

I for example myself have also an old pc c2duo @3Ghz, 4gb ram and GF9600gt and I am pretty happy with the fact that the publisher polish the games and also invest much time in optimizing the games so I can enjoy playing for example dirt2 with nice gfx and a good framerate without having to invest again money to upgrade my pc.

Quote from Boris Lozac :

No fcking options and tweaking, and loosing the will to play, whatsoever, only 'options' for graphics are brightness and contrast.

great i love it in fact i love it so much that every time ive played on a console i got frustrated with the inability to adjust the controls to my liking within seconds

Quote :

And i know you do not understand that, nor do other PC elitists, but you might, if you actually tried it, instead of talking out of your arse..

ive played on pretty much every generation of consoles and none of them managed to hold my interest for longer than a few minutes
the closest anything got to making me have fun with a console was worms on the ps3 but at the end of the day worms is an amiga ie pc game and it suffers greatly from not having a mouse

Quote :

Oh yes, the evil consoles.. the evil 15 year old hardware, the very same hardware that pushes 99% of games you get on much powerfull PC..

at much worse graphics as i and others have been trying to get into your thick head
take crysis for example on my pc it takes up about 1.5gig in ram and probably most of the 1 gig of graphics memory i got as well so thats more than 4 times as much as any console currently available has installed at all
its just not mathematically possible for the textures to look anywhere near as good as they do on a pc

Quote :

As i said, who forced Crytek to go multiplatform with Crysis 2?

if you believe crytek its the amiga effect... more likely its just that if you make a boring game which becomes a steaming pile of shit half way through and wont run acceptably on 90% of the pc installbase you wont make any money with it... but you know how thick companies tend to be

Quote from Boris Lozac :

And about that, you wanna say that current games are ugly, that you can't possibly endure those graphics for couple of more years?

no but the fact of the matter is that the graphics you get on consoles are about 4 years behind already and if the crysis 2 really brings real time global illumination to pc gaming then consoles will have completely lost the connection to what is possible today

Quote from Shotglass :

so thats more than 4 times as much as any console currently available has installed at all
its just not mathematically possible for the textures to look anywhere near as good as they do on a pc

You do not understand that it's a different architechture, it doesn't work like that. Take PS2 for example, and 'translate' it's hardware in PC terms: "299 mhz CPU", "4 mb graphic card".
Can you show me that PC that can run Prince of Persia trilogy, God of War 1 and 2, with that specifications?
Optimisation is the key, if anyone told you the PS2 specifications before it released, and showed you it's games from 2007, you would laugh and would say it's impossible for games to look like that, wouldn't you..

Quote from Boris Lozac :

You do not understand that it's a different architechture, it doesn't work like that.

thank you very much i fairly certain i understand a whole lot more about architechtures and computing than you do

Quote :

Optimisation is the key

optimisation doesnt get around the simple mathematic reality of how big the textures and geometry in a modern game are and theres absolutely nothing you can do about the size whatsoever

Quote :

if anyone told you the PS2 specifications before it released, and showed you it's games from 2007, you would laugh and would say it's impossible for games to look like that, wouldn't you..

have you ever actually looked at a ps2 game on something different than a tv screen which was designed to mask bad quality pictures as much as possible? they look bloody aweful and run at resolutions that had completely died out on pcs before the ps2 was even availble

Quote from Shotglass :

have you ever actually looked at a ps2 game on something different than a tv screen which was designed to mask bad quality pictures as much as possible?

I've played GOW1 via TV card, on my LCD monitor, it looked much worse then on normal TV, but i didn't mind, cause it was fantastic game. And still, 4mb of ram on graphic card, give me one example of PC game that looks like that with just 4 mb.
That's my point here, you just want graphics to push forward, but you have no idea what kind of games do you want, you still haven't told what you like to play, besides LFS.
Ok, PC's are more powerfull then consoles, i'm not denying that, now what, where are the games to push that hardware, besides Crysis which you and i both agree that it's shite..
Bottom line, you hate that consoles are holding back your invisible games, and PC gamers would rather a huge graphics leap every 3 months, then a great game every 3 months.. am i right or am i right..

If PCs were incapable of being upgraded, I'm sure developers would be forced to make obsessively efficient use of 4MB of VRAM on this platform as well. Thankfully, that's not the case so it's therefore a moot point. It's like some guy with a limited budget (can't rebuild anything) doing everything he can to make his 1927 moped fast in the 1/4 mile drag race. Very noble, and I'm sure very skillful but totally irrelevant by modern drag racing standards.

Additionally, pretty much every single modern release has the capability to push modern hardware if you want it to.

One other question I have for you: doesn't it bother you that you're limited to 29.97fps or 25fps? Or do modern consoles output at PAL50 / ATSC 60 these days? Somehow I doubt either a PS3 or an Xbox will fire out 60fps @ 1080p, but correct me if I am wrong. edit: before you even state it doesn't; yes it indeed does matter and makes a difference depending on how much panning or fast motion is occuring. No it doesn't matter if you're playing checkers, but it can matter for pong!

As well, last time I checked, consoles don't have a working 3D solution available, and the one I have, although not perfect all the time, works rather well and indeed pushes my PC rather hard - considering rendering frames twice is a bit of a burden.

PS Shotglass likes Portal!

Plenty of games on PS3 run at 60 fps, but not all are 1080p, Wipeout HD/Fury is 60fps 1080p, MW2 is 60 fps, but 720p, GT5 will be 60fps, etc.. 30 fps is just fine, i play BC2 multiplayer now and it's great, better that it's locked and stable, and i said this before, but people like you two will never get that, there's really something great knowing that all my multiplayer oponents are experiencing the same deal as i do, same fps, same resolution, no one gets the advantage over the other.. that's really awesome in my book, and if i die, i know i didn't die over some cheap advantage, or some cheats, have i mentioned there are no cheats..

And about 3D, PS3 will have it by the end of the year, Killzone 3 will be 3D probably etc..

I stand corrected on the framerates then. And no it's not stable, consoles can drop in framerate too - the output signal doesn't mean it's always being rendered at the max... just playing the demos at the store is enough to notice that.

I haven't run into (blatant enough to notice anyway) cheaters yet on BFBC2 but I agree the propensity there. I can't, however, imagine trying to run around like a tard using a fricken thumbpad and lining up shots that way. They really should make all the multiplayer cross-platform... That way you'd realize that all your awesomeness is offset by a ludicrous control scheme (for an FPS)

And about 3D, I already have been enjoying it for some time...

Long before any console is running any 3D, I'll be able to run it at a jawdropping 5760x1200

I am looking forward to Crysis 2. I enjoyed the first one immensly, although i never did complete it, i couldn't beat that big chuff off alien dude on the aircraft carrier
Never tried Warhead though...

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

I can't, however, imagine trying to run around like a tard using a fricken thumbpad and lining up shots that way. They really should make all the multiplayer cross-platform... That way you'd realize that all your awesomeness is offset by a ludicrous control scheme (for an FPS)

That's the biggest mistake, offcourse you would 'own me' with a mouse, every fool (not meaning, you ), can point and click with the mouse, hell you use it every day, it takes skill to kill someone as it takes skill to double-click on My Computer. I'm exaggerating a bit offcourse, i used to play CS for 6 years non stop, so it's not like i haven't tried both ways. The point is, that everyone is on the gamepad, and everyone is 'strugglin' as you do. And believe me, that struggle lasts for couple of days, now i honestly feel like i was doing this for 10 years. It's not as precise as a mouse, but the mouse is also way more precise then you would ever be in real life... so you can call neither of the methods realistic, but it's a really welcomed change to shoot like this.

Quote from Boris Lozac :

I've played GOW1 via TV card, on my LCD monitor, it looked much worse then on normal TV

which is one of the reasons why pc gamers are obsessed with graphics... a pc monitor was designed to display the input as perfectly and crisp as possible while a tv was designed to hide as many flaws in the frankly rubbish tv signal as possible
you can get away with dated ugly graphics on a tv but you cant on a pc monitor

Quote :

And still, 4mb of ram on graphic card, give me one example of PC game that looks like that with just 4 mb.

apart from being factually incorrect (the ps2 had 32mb of main memory which was partially used to store textures) that is a silly and downright idiotic request
the last pc 3d graphics card that had 4mb of memory was also the first 3d card worth buying (the iconic voodoo graphics)
it was replaced in early 98 2 years before the ps2 first hit the shelves by the voodoo² which came with a full 12mb and by the time the ps2 was on the market the geforce 2 was out which had 64mb of memory... nearly twice the memory the entire ps2 had
point is there simply arent any pc games that were that limited

the closest thing to a game with ~2005 graphics running on barely any vram is this
http://www.3dfxzone.it/enboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1462
once you remind yourself that the textures are just scaled down versions of the high resolution ones and consider that they were never designed to be used at such low resolutions and without the lighting of the doom 3 engine its quite impressive looking

Quote from Boris Lozac :

And about 3D, PS3 will have it by the end of the year, Killzone 3 will be 3D probably etc..

wooooooow
heres an image of a geforce 2 which came out in 2000 with... 3d shutter glasses
http://active-hardware.com/images/v7700pack.jpg
and heres a thread from 3 years ago about a projector 3d setup
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=18585

ironically both of these despite their age will work a lot better than trying to display 120hz on an lcd

Quote from Shotglass :

which is one of the reasons why pc gamers are obsessed with graphics... a pc monitor was designed to display the input as perfectly and crisp as possible while a tv was designed to hide as many flaws in the frankly rubbish tv signal as possible
you can get away with dated ugly graphics on a tv but you cant on a pc monitor

And yet i didn't mind it, cause i played the best hack and slash game. You are clearly avoiding other, much important questions and arguments. If you try to recall some game, what do you remember out of it? A 8000x6000 texture, or you remember the gameplay, epic parts, story, etc?
Have you played Mafia 1? Back in the day, i thought those are some amazing graphics and that hardly any game will beat that any time soon, offcourse i was wrong, now when i load it, i see that current games look much better, but the point is, i remember it as one of the best games i ever played, with great characthers, story, awesome driving etc... i don't remember in what resolution the building was, and how crystal clear the asphalt was..
Having great graphics is awesome, sure, but that's not what games are remembered for, atleast that's not i remember the games for..

Quote from Shotglass :

heres an image of a geforce 2 which came out in 2000 with... 3d shutter glasses
http://active-hardware.com/images/v7700pack.jpg

Holy cow, did that actually work? I didn't know they tried that way back then - what happened between that and 3D Vision?

Quote :

ironically both of these despite their age will work a lot better than trying to display 120hz on an lcd

Despite some flaws it's still something that's ruined me. Playing a game in 2D now feels like sex with a condom installed.