Crytek: All hardware has limitations

In wake of 1080p vs. 720p Call of Duty: Ghosts story, Ryse: Son of Rome developer says "every project has their own cross to bear."

224 Comments
No Caption Provided

All hardware has limitations, Crysis and Ryse: Son of Rome developer Crytek has said. Design director PJ Estevez told OXM that in the wake of the high-profile 1080p vs 720p Call of Duty: Ghosts story, all projects must make trade-offs when working with new hardware.

"Definitely," Estevez said. "I mean honestly, the truth is, it doesn't matter what generation you're developing for, you'll always have constraints. And I think, you know, the thing we were fortunate about is we had a great partner in Microsoft in getting the hardware, and kind of really digging into it, and having a back and forth dialogue."

Ryse: Son of Rome will be released for Xbox One as a launch title on November 22, running in 900p, upscaled to 1080p. That lower resolution rate fit Crytek's ambition for Ryse: Son of Rome, Estevez said, because it allowed the developer to focus on improving other areas of the game.

"When it comes down to it, every project has their own cross to bear, and you've got to figure out what you want to do and what's the best way to use the tech," Estevez said.

The power of the Xbox One allowed Crytek to create assets that are so believable that players will remain engaged in the world, Estevez said.

"I think we've crossed the line from making video game art to just making really beautiful art," he said. "Because everything is so high-res, you're not pulled out of that experience, you really feel like 'holy crap this world is amazing, it's really alive,' you know."

For more on Ryse: Son of Rome, check out GameSpot's previous coverage.

The fact that Call of Duty: Ghosts runs natively at 1080p on PlayStation 4, while the Xbox One versions runs at 720p (upscaled to 1080p) has drawn much discussion and debate about the importance of resolution since the announcement was made last week. Developer Infinity Ward has not explained why specifically the resolutions differ from platform to platform.

However, executive producer Mark Rubin told GameSpot this week, "The differences are probably more subtle than some people would notice, but some people will notice. It's such a hard thing to talk about."

Please use a html5 video capable browser to watch videos.
This video has an invalid file format.
00:00:00
Sorry, but you can't access this content!
Please enter your date of birth to view this video

By clicking 'enter', you agree to GameSpot's
Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email news@gamespot.com

Join the conversation
There are 224 comments about this story
224 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for Algearond
Algearond

This game could have been so much cooler then it really is.

Avatar image for shredenvain
shredenvain

The gpu in the xbox one is not the same as an amd 6670. The xbox one gpu has 2 memory buses one is 256bit and the esram bus is 1024bit compared to only a 128bit bus on the 6670. The xbox one gpu outputs 1.31 tflops compared to 768 gflops on the hd 6670. The X1 gpu has 2 geometry engines and outputs 1.7 billion polygons a second. The hd 6670 only has one geometry engine. The sea island cores in the xbox one gpu is a completely different architecture than the 6670. Sea islands is much more efficient at data and lower power. Then you add in the fact that consoles have a closed box advantage meaning that it would take a pc with a gpu capable of 2.6 tflops to equal the performance of the gpu in the xbox one. Most of these things apply to the ps4 gpu except it does 1.8 tflops and has 32rops.

So the next gen consoles absolutely destroy the amd hd 6670. The fact they are closed systems with custom buses means they will even out perform the amd hd 7790 and hd 7850. So these next gen consoles are not equal to 3 year old desktop gpus. They wont perform like a nvidia titan or a R9 290x but they are a big leap from last gen and the amd hd 6670. So you do get good performance for the money

Avatar image for Maxxgold
Maxxgold

Did anyone not read that the PS4 playing COD Ghosts stutters and freeze's compared to the Xbox One version played flawlessly ? I'll take 720p flawless over 1080p stuttering and freezing any day. Both consoles will have consistent 1080p once they figure out how to optimize everything but in the meantime I'll go with the system that plays games without hiccups and freezing just to say it can do 1080p

Avatar image for advocacy
advocacy

Moral of the story: get a 3DS.

Avatar image for klugenbeel
klugenbeel

Yeah and Ghosts at 1080p was also causing the PS4 to lag severely if not crash/freeze in another article that his the world.

Avatar image for revlux88
RevLux88

"All hardware has limitations." - Captain Theodore Obvious Esquire III

Avatar image for lostn
lostn

What's worrying is that my few years old PC has been handling 1080p gaming for a long time now, and if the new consoles which are going to be here for the next 8 years right out of the gate can't handle that, what's it going to mean for the next 8 years? That these consoles that haven't released yet are already outdated compared to a 4 year old PC?

I am concerned that these new consoles just aren't good enough. If these new consoles are being outdone by something I already have, and have had for years, what's the point in shelling out $500?

Avatar image for Algearond
Algearond

<< LINK REMOVED >> Because sometimes it is nice to just laze-about on the couch playing on a big ass flat screen, and I am a die-hard PC gamer.

Avatar image for gamespotpanayis
gamespotpanayis

@lostn You are not comparing like with like. The games that will be run on the next gen of consoles (and hopefully will also be on PC's) have a lot more detail in them. A game with an incredibly rich world running at 1280 x 720, will require much more power than say Counter-Strike Source (CSS) running at 1920 x 1080.

Ultimately a richer virtual world requires more resources.. which is why when Crysis first came out most people could only run it at 800x600 at high detail.. there weren't even graphics cards out that could run it in high settings on a 1920x1200 monitor (which is what I used to have). But CSS ran as smooth as butter at that res with no hiccups on my system.

So don't think about it in terms of your 4 year old PC being more powerful than this coming gen of consoles.. it's not, nor in terms of pure resolution. The new games are just going to be vastly more demanding.

Avatar image for lostn
lostn

<< LINK REMOVED >> This is utter nonsense. There are games released YEARS ago on PC that look better than anything I've seen on next gen consoles, with Crysis being one example. And you're also wrong about people only being able to handle 800x600 when Crysis came out. I was running on 1680x1050 (higher than Ryse btw) on my 2007 PC with max settings. It was around 30 fps.

Crysis 3 on my PC looks superb at 1080p and max settings, and it is better than anything I've seen on X1/PS4. And obviously blows the 360/PS3 versions out of the water.

CSS is an ancient game on an ancient engine. It's not even worth mentioning. There are more recent games in the past few years that still look better than anything you'll find on consoles. Witcher 2 and Metro are some good mentions. I doubt the new consoles could handle them at the same settings as my PC can at native 1080p, and my PC is a few years old. And I think I'd even throw in BF3. Yes BF3, not BF4. I highly doubt an X1 can make that game look as good as it does on my PC and at 1080p. That is because spec for spec, my few year old PC has better hardware than what is inside next gen consoles.

Avatar image for themc_7
themc_7

<< LINK REMOVED >> that's fine. Stick with your PC. I play consoles because of the games. I think games look amazing in the current gen, if they can get a little better in the next...sure sign me up.

Avatar image for lostn
lostn

<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >> I will. I like games too. And most of what's available to you is also available to me, but looking and running better.

Avatar image for lostn
lostn

<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >> The $1000 plus is way overblown. If you actually tear down an X1 or PS4, the hardware inside is not cutting edge at all. It's actually years old. The graphics card is equivalent to a 6770, which was considered a mid range or below mid range card even 3 years ago. If you were to buy a PC today with the parts equivalent to a next gen console, it wouldn't cost $400 or 500. For that amount of money you can get a far better PC than what is inside the consoles. I'm not kidding, just look at prices on the internet.

The Wii U's graphics card is equivalent to a 4850 which was a mid range card in 2008.

Unlike in previous gens where the consoles at time of release were equivalent to PCs that cost much more than it, these consoles are years outdated and you can build a system like that for less than the price of a console.

Any hardware that can't handle a game as outdated as CoD Ghosts at 1080p is ancient IMO. I hesitate to call Ghosts a next gen game, which does not bode well for the future of the consoles when they actually do make next gen games. I am sincerely hoping to god that the reason X1 can't handle 1080p is because Infinity Ward or Crytek are lacking in talent, and not because the hardware isn't good enough.

Avatar image for themc_7
themc_7

<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >> Going from console to PC is a large jump for people (figuratively speaking I mean). In order to be able to play PC games with high settings, good framerates, etc you need to have a good system. So you either need to be able to build your own machine (buy the components, assemble the rig, do all the installs, etc.) or drop like $1000+ on a prebuilt machine. Consoles are convenient, and convenience sells. People are willing to spend $400-500 for a gaming console that will just work straight out of the box.

Avatar image for theKSMM
theKSMM

Maybe my TV isn't as clear as some gamers' or maybe my vision isn't as sharp, but I don't think I'm gonna give a rip about 720p or 900p or 1080p when I'm playing a good game. If there were gameplay differences forced by differences in the consoles (like Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter -- there was no doubt that you wanted to play it on the XBOX 360 rather than the XBOX or PS2), then sure, I'd be concerned. But at this point, we're still debating whether it's worth the wait to play Assassin's Creed 4 on the PS4 rather than the PS3. For all but the most graphics-hungry gamers, I doubt that it will matter.

Avatar image for themc_7
themc_7

<< LINK REMOVED >> yeah this isn't really a deal breaker for me. If you're playing a good game, you won't notice the difference between 900p upscaled and 1080p native. It's early still, give developers some more time with the hardware. Both consoles will be running everything 1080p @ 60fps soon.

Avatar image for wristbreaker
wristbreaker

lets hope that Ryse and Titanfall goes multiplatform so that I could buy it on PS4... can't afford to buy 2 consoles...


Avatar image for MatthewSnyder86
MatthewSnyder86

<< LINK REMOVED >> No M$ can keep RYSE.

Avatar image for revlux88
RevLux88

<< LINK REMOVED >> Ryse will likely make it to p.c. and Titanfall 2 will almost certainly be multi platform. As far as getting Ryse and the first Titanfall on ps4, it's just not going to happen.

Avatar image for themc_7
themc_7

<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >> In this battle for console dominance, why are you so sure MS would sell proprietary IP's? Both consoles need all the exclusives they can get!

Avatar image for themc_7
themc_7

<< LINK REMOVED >> lol sorry man. There's no way MS is going to start giving away exclusives to Sony.

Avatar image for wristbreaker
wristbreaker

@themc_7
hmm... you have a point there commander shepard...

Avatar image for themc_7
themc_7

<< LINK REMOVED >> I'm not sure I follow....All the Mass Effect games were multiplatform. MS never sold that as an exclusive.

Avatar image for renerak
renerak

Actually ghosts is optimized pathetically, therefore it runs at 720p.

And seriously why are consoles struggling for just 1080p still, I have been playing games at 900p (1600x900) since 2008, and still consoles are struggling for just a slightly higher resolution? If it was 4k then I could have understood, but this is pretty pathetic on both ps4 and Xbone.

Avatar image for themc_7
themc_7

<< LINK REMOVED >> imo, Ghosts is made by a bad developer, therefore they haven't figured it all out. Dice on the other hand, has BF4 running 1080p @ 60fps on both PS4 and XboxOne. Everyone is mad at MS because COD doesn't run at 1080 on the X1, well it's not Microsoft's fault, it's the makers of Call of Duty for not knowing how to optimize their game for the nextgen console.

Avatar image for vacas5oi
vacaS5oi

I would buy a X1 if my wife would not beat me up for getting two consoles. The game looks great even at 900p. I just wish it was not exclusive, however I am sure Crytek will make their next game multi, or at least I hope.

Avatar image for theKSMM
theKSMM

<< LINK REMOVED >> My old lady isn't so oblivious that I can slip a new console into the entertainment center without her noticing...maybe if I tell her that she's off the hook for getting me a Christmas gift...

Did your wife allow you to have more than one current-gen console?

Avatar image for zintarr
zintarr

Xbox One is really looking like the ultimate gaming fail.

There must be a logical reason for this difference in video.

Avatar image for GalvatronType_R
GalvatronType_R

Again, native resolution is ALWAYS > upscaling.

Also, this is the 8th generation of gaming, 720p/30 is unacceptable.

Avatar image for onixevil
onixevil

If you don't like 720p don't buy it. It's common for Crytek to release PC version of the game.

Avatar image for TitanPolaris
TitanPolaris

<< LINK REMOVED >> I don't think Crytek will release Ryse with 4K res on PC, even though current GPUs can handle Crysis 3 on 4K res. Crytek is just about making things for consoles just like activision is with COD.

Avatar image for MrAVKV
MrAVKV

I find it funny that people always say Crytek's Crysis series were just tech demos. Take Call Of Duty or even Battlefield. It's basically a linear corridor shooter. Crysis 3 gave us gameplay options during encounters yet people complain? They complain about COD and BF being too linear yet when a shooter that actually gives us gameplay options gets released, they pan it?! Honestly, it seems that "gamers" these days don't want options but instead the normal lame, generic, linear shooters. The Crysis series is great and the gameplay is great too. Crysis 3 also had nice sized maps.

Avatar image for onixevil
onixevil

<< LINK REMOVED >> Cause they were in COD BF MOH circle for long time and they want to exit this routine that's why they were skeptical on every current gen franchise.

Avatar image for dark_sith_
dark_sith_

<< LINK REMOVED >> First Crysis was awesome. Freedom to move around and engage enemies in whatever way you want. Game looked great too. Storywise it was nothing special but good enough for sandbox FPS. Alien bits were a bit too much scripted on occasion. Expansion pack, Warhead was great as well.

Crysis 2 went multiplatform and it started to show. Smaller locations connected by corridors. Gone was the sandbox gameplay of the original. Story started taking itself seriously and was pretty dumb. It seems they were starting to yearn for COD of their own.

Can't comment on Crysis 3 as I've never bothered to play it. But from what I heard it seems to have gone full tilt down the road Crysis 2 stepped on.

Avatar image for tomservo51
tomservo51

<< LINK REMOVED >> Are you sure youre not getting it confused with Far Cry?

Avatar image for deactivated-58270bc086e0d

Allowed them to focus on other areas of the game. So graphics, since this is Crytek. Game is probably dull as wood like Crysis but it will look good. Still won't be buying it though as a result.

If any developer should go bust it is Crytek. Graphics is literally their only selling point.

Avatar image for MrAVKV
MrAVKV

<< LINK REMOVED >> Nope. Their shooters are actually less linear than games such as COD and BF and offered more gameplay variety but people hate it because they prefer the linear, corridor shooters such as COD and BF.

Avatar image for deactivated-58270bc086e0d

@MrAVKV Hmm funny I also hate corridor shooters and yet I also hate Crysis with every fibre of my being.

Most likely because Crytek are so shit at making games that have any character or substance what so ever, that even when the game isn't linear they still can't capitalise enough to make a fun game.

If COD made an open world game it would potentially be one of the greatest things to hit console in years, yet Crysis had that chance and still blew it.

Do you seriously think that just because something isn't linear it is automatically awesome?

Avatar image for Kjranu
Kjranu

It's really comical how game developers struggle to achieve 1080p, even on the latest consoles, whereas PC has been doing it since what? 2007?

Avatar image for hystavito
hystavito

<< LINK REMOVED >> I remember when HD hit consoles and people went nuts. I was like well great, I've been playing games at 1600x1200 on my CRT monitors for years. :)

Avatar image for revlux88
RevLux88

<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >> Which is why I've always said that you, Hystavito, are special for playing p.c. games. Here is your cookie. Enjoy.

Seriously though, I've played p.c. games for years as well and yet also love console exclusives. I've never understood why people feel so special simply b/c they decide to only game on p.c. b/c the graphics are better. As if that is all that matters in gaming.

Avatar image for ray1man2hot
Ray1man2hot

On pc they make a game and say of u cant play this get a better pc

Avatar image for deathstream
deathstream

<< LINK REMOVED >>

The 1080p games of 2007 don't look NEARLY as good as the 720 p games of today. Asinine comparison.

Avatar image for McGregor
McGregor

<< LINK REMOVED >> That is a good point. While the architecture is a bit different, these consoles are more powerful than the PC's that were doing 1080p in 2007. There isn't any reason they both shouldn't do it easily. Then again, they are shooting for 60 fps at 1080p.

Avatar image for Kjranu
Kjranu

Guess I should have just saved money and got a 900p TV instead.