Star Citizen Dev: Consoles Couldn't Handle The Game

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Gue1
#151 Edited by Gue1 (12171 posts) -

@AM-Gamer said:

Except visually there is nothing special about the game. It reminds me when Cevat from Crytek was blabbering about how Cryisis couldn't run on consoles and years later he was talking about how awesome it was on consoles. This is the best way to sell a game to PC gamers so at least he knows how gullible they are.

lol so true. And the worst part is that Crysis on Ultra looked nearly identical to the console version even though herms talked so much shit.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-crysis-face-off

Avatar image for kinectthedots
#154 Edited by kinectthedots (3383 posts) -

@system-reboot said:

@gpuking said:

@BldgIrsh

But there will be plenty open world games on consoles to choose from.

MGS5, TW3, DA3, ACU, Batman AK, GTA5 remastered, FC4, Dying Light, ME4, Mad Max. I probably missed a few too.

but none of them looks even close to Star citizen graphically.

lol indeed...none of those games look like the jagged mess of overhyped graphics massive pop-in and glitchy effect transition that Star Citizen shows.

Loading Video...

lol, Dat crown jewl of PC graphics on display right here, it's so beautif....oh wait, my eyes..

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
#155 Posted by foxhound_fox (96690 posts) -

@StrifeDelivery said:

(typical indie price range)

No such thing.

Avatar image for faizan_faizan
#156 Edited by faizan_faizan (7869 posts) -

@scottpsfan14 said:
@faizan_faizan said:

@scottpsfan14 said:

Best looking game? There are lots of 'good looking' games out there for me. Crysis 3 is one of them actually. They really have some great looking environments and lighting going in that game. I would have to say Ryse is the most visually spectacular game i've seen on any platform. And no I'm not talking about image quality, I mean the whole look of the game. It truly looks like CGI. People are really impressed by how that Uncharted 4 trailer looks, but I say that Ryse isn't that far behind in actual looks.

Quite honestly, this is Cryteks best graphics work to date. Especially the actual assets themselves and the use of PBR that makes it look real.

It's just a shame it doesn't get much recognition by PC/PS4 gamers for graphics since it's on the weaker console. The fact is, it's probably the most technically impressice games out there. If this was on PC in super high resolutions with perhaps better textures here and there, hermits would probably agree.

Justice is blind with Ryse visually.

Ryse looks good, I wouldn't say it's technologically the best game, though. So far only the character models have impressed me. If you read their whitepaper, they actually explain how hard it was to push some of tech and how they never achieved some of the effects they originally hoped for. Lots of effects have been omitted from the gameplay and only have found their way in the cutscenes (they also have been bastardized). The waves for example.

So again, because Ryse doesn't have the daunting list of rendering tech that Crysis 3 does, it's inherently an inferior graphics game? Fair enough. Well in that case, Crysis 3 >>>>> All forever. As it has a lot of unneccecary things if I'm honest like real-time GI. All I know is that Ryse looks more realistic. The lighting is better overall. Much more natural and less like a video game. Isn't that what matters? Or is it what ever stresses the GPU more that's more 'advanced'?

As I said before, If Ryse got a future PC release, with more of those effects found in Crysis 3, it would hands down beat it graphically. Because the core game itself is actually on another level to C3. You couldn't possibly run Ryse on PS3/360 without using a totally different graphics pipeline which would result in a different game. As you know, C3 is a game inherently limited by PS3/360 because of the pipeline being one in the same.

What are you talking about? I'm not here to argue who's opinion is better. What "looks" good is subjective. Granted, I should have been more elaborate about my question. The fact is real-time GI is an absolutely necessary tech that immensely improves the lighting of a game. In my opinion modded GTA IV is the most realistic looking game ever, and less "game-like" you keep recalling, but its contrast adjustments don't make it better than Crysis 3.

That depends on whether the assets are improved or not. If the PC gets the same Ryse game on the Xbox One but with a higher screen resolution then it won't automatically be the best looking game. You say Ryse would be impossible on the PS360? Well it depends what resolution the developers would be trying to achieve. The graphics pipeline would have to be altered in the sense that it would need to fit the GPU architecture in those consoles.

Avatar image for FreedomFreeLife
#157 Edited by FreedomFreeLife (3948 posts) -

@scottpsfan14 said:
@FreedomFreeLife said:

@scottpsfan14 said:
@system-reboot said:

@sam890 said:

UC4 & The Order still looks better.

1. Linear corridor cinematic action game vs fully open space.

2. CGI footage vs In game gameplay

try again

Lol you are just ignorant. UC4 is not CGI footage. It was real time on PS4. It said on the beginning "captured on PS4".

It was CGI footage. Captured on PS4

Deep Down and Uncharted 3 had same case

Captured on PS4:

REAL GAMEPLAY ON PS4:

Right. The best way to judge this is by USING THE SAME SCENE! That is discriminated and you know it. You are the most clueless person ever. It's unbelieveable.

Fact is, that top one was running in real time on a PS4. Wether that scene still looks the same today, we'll find out.

The GTA V trailer at E3 was also "Captured on PlayStation 4" but no one said that was pre-rendered.

Also, you say that the UC3 trailer of Nathan Drake in the sand was CGI? Lol, you see that part of the game in real time on PS3.

See the beginning of this vid lol. You are a hopeless lemming ashamed of Xbox. There's no reason to be, it's getting some great games. Is power all you care about? Fact is, Uncharted 4 trailer was confirmed to be real time in engine, not pre rendered CGI and even an in game level. Let the butthurt flow.

Loading Video...

Trailer:

Gameplay:

Or this:

Trailer:

Gameplay:

Avatar image for SambaLele
#158 Posted by SambaLele (5552 posts) -

@ladyblue said:

@lostrib said:

@FreedomFreeLife said:

PLAYSTATION 4 IS WEAK CONSOLE FOR NOOBS!!!

Why only mention PS4?

Lems exist to moan about the ps4.

This gen is turning out to be depressing...

Avatar image for SambaLele
#160 Posted by SambaLele (5552 posts) -

@FreedomFreeLife: There is a downgrade in both, but not as huge as you're implying. In fact, the downgrade is worse in Watch Dogs.

Avatar image for gpuking
#161 Edited by gpuking (3914 posts) -

KZSF Trailer

Gameplay

Infamous SS trailer

Gameplay

This is next gen, this is real, this is PS4!

Avatar image for CroidX
#162 Posted by CroidX (1555 posts) -

@megaspiderweb09:

SC developers aren't working for Crytek and we know nothing about where the developers used to past work although some did work on the wing commander series. The genre the game they are developing is far niche than what the original crysis ever was.

Avatar image for Wasdie
#164 Posted by Wasdie (53456 posts) -

@scottpsfan14 said:

So you think the game will end up being able to be maxed out 1440p on 1 single 780 in the end? A game that the consoles are apparently totally incapable of synthasizing? Something tells me it will be fare more demanding in future the way the devs are talking. Remember Crysis 1 first level? Quite easy to run compared to the next level with more enemies. I remember on my GTX 560 I usedto get 30-40fps maxed out 1080p on the first level. On the second level it was averaging at 15 fps. And it only got worse at certain points.

Don't use a single part of the unreleased game as how it will be in the end. This game will be running on DirectX meaning the GPU's will be in atrophy anyway. Which is what I meant by what the GPU's physically could handle. A lot more than what DX will ever show. Which is also a reason I think it could be squeezed on to PS4. Not with a bunch of Direct X coders though.

If they optimize the game properly then it will be fine. Your Crysis example makes no sense, generally performance was the same throughout the game until you hit the flying level. Big problems early on were the fact that most GPUs didn't have enough vRAM and they loaded the memory up too much. Things easily avoidable. Don't use Crysis as an example of performance, it's a DX9 native game which has tons of bottlenecks not present in DX11.

By the time Star Citizen releases they'll be on the DX12 renderer which means way better CPU utilization and far less bottlenecks on existing systems. Right now, as I said, there is no real LoDing going on and the culling on the ships is just not there. They are also not utilizing nearly the most optimized rendering that the CryEngine has to offer and they haven't been doing tons of optimization passes on the art. Right now they are just throwing everything and the kitchen sink into the client and we're play testing it.

The PS4 and Xbox One don't have enough CPU power to push out the crazy level of physics that they are utilizing in addition to the crazy amount of network operations that will be done. Furthermore they are fully utilizing modern GPUs and pushing more polygons even on the "low" spec than I think the PS4 and Xbox One could handle well.

I don't know if my GTX 780 will be able to max the game at 1440p, but I'll be able to play it. I know the game struggles to play on low at 1080p with GPUs comparable to that of the PS4. By the time they actually get everything optimized and implemented, you are right, the game will be more demanding, and thus even with the new optimization I don't know if a PS4 or Xbox One's GPU could handle it at 1080p30.

Avatar image for faizan_faizan
#165 Edited by faizan_faizan (7869 posts) -

@scottpsfan14 said:

One thing about Real time GI is that it allows for more dynamic light sources. I agree there. But you did ask what game I think looks the best graphically. I said Ryse. And it's a good contender.

It's funny how hermits call Crysis 3 beyond next gen consoles will ever have when it's the same damn game as the 360 version. Extra cosmetic overlays don't warrent a next gen game in my opinion. It's graphical pipeline must be significantly better also.

You may be wondering what I think 'next gen' means? Well I'll tell you. For a game to be called 'next gen' it should be a game that can't be done on last gen consoles without changing the pipeline massively. And if they change the core rendering pipeline, it ceases to be the same game. That's why you hear devs talking about their next gen games and they say 'if this game was released on the PS3, it wouldn't be the same game'.

Now it might be worth mentioning that Ryse is built for Shadermodel 5 GPU's. Crysis 3 is built for Shadermodel 3. Of course Crysis 3 features real time GI, and other effects that Shadermodel 3 GPU's simply don't have the silicon for. But that is all provided by the Cry Engine. It's already there. At this point, it depends on what people prefer. Do you want a 360 port with a million bells and whistls added on top, or a next gen game, with perhaps less of those bells and whistles on top?

The core things you find with 8th gen games are a more advanced rendering pipeline (better character models, animations, world geometry, objects, props, etc). And Physically Based Rendering. This has added a lot of realism to games. Look at DriveClub and how light reacts to the smear on the windsheild.

These are enhancements that could not even be implamented in Crysis 3 because of last gen console restraints. They would have had to tailor the game art to use PBR in the PC version and they didn't have the budget or the time to do so. Ryse has a lot of those next gen qualities. Just because it's missing the odd effect Crysis 3 has, and it's on a weak console, doesn't mean it's not as 'advanced'. Crysis 3 was like a breadboard of rendering technologies all crammed on top of a 360 game.

Crytek have stated that Crysis 3 PC has pushed the limits of certain technologies such as DOF and post processing effects in general. That means, expect Crysis 4 (if it's ever made) to have very similar post processing effects to Crysis 3. If all this is the case, then how will people tell the immediate difference between the two if Crysis 3 is already pushing rendering technologies as far as they know how? The difference will be that the core next gen elements (PBR and pipeline), will be next gen. And it will show. You just wait and see. Crysis 4, if released, will look much better than Crysis 3. Put it this way, it will be a bigger difference between Crysis 3 and 4 than Crysis 2 and 3. C2/3 made for PS3/360. C4 made for PS4/XB1 (assuming).

It's a case of having different views of course.

While I do think you know a lot about tech than most people here (and in certain areas, more than me), your knowledge for some PC games development is limited.

Crysis 3 is specifically developed for pixel/vertex shader 5.0 (since all GPUs have a unified shader architecture now, developers refer to it as shader model). There is simply no way the PC version of the game can be ran on DX9/10 or shader model 3/4 cards without altering its engine. Crysis 3 is actually using a physically based shading model (Cook-Torrance). Crytek moved to physically based specular lighting since Crysis 2. Only their diffuse approach wasn't physically based so that's why the non-shiny areas of Ryse look good than Crysis 3's. In Crysis 3, the shiny areas look fantastic, the less-shiny areas are not in the same league.

DriveClub looks phenomenal, I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out looking better than Project Cars. But in my opinion, there's much more to a game than shading/lighting models and geometry. Textures are as important as geometry, if a game has good geometry and bad textures then it's not a graphically consistent game, if it has good geometry and bad textures then it's not any more consistent than the latter.

Avatar image for FreedomFreeLife
#166 Posted by FreedomFreeLife (3948 posts) -

@gpuking said:

KZSF Trailer

Gameplay

Infamous SS trailer

Gameplay

This is next gen, this is real, this is PS4!

those are cut-scenes not gameplay

Avatar image for MonsieurX
#167 Posted by MonsieurX (36731 posts) -

@Gue1 said:

@AM-Gamer said:

Except visually there is nothing special about the game. It reminds me when Cevat from Crytek was blabbering about how Cryisis couldn't run on consoles and years later he was talking about how awesome it was on consoles. This is the best way to sell a game to PC gamers so at least he knows how gullible they are.

lol so true. And the worst part is that Crysis on Ultra looked nearly identical to the console version even though herms talked so much shit.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-crysis-face-off

Nope.

The rules are simple enough: patched up to Version 1.21, we're running Crysis at 1280x720 on PC to match the 360 version's 1152x720 internal framebuffer as best we can, albeit mercilessly reinforced by 8x multi-sample anti-aliasing (MSAA). Meanwhile, Very High settings are selected across the board in the graphics options menu, with absolutely no mods or custom tweaks in play - to make this a "fair" test, the game must be running in the best case scenario, within all the original parameters laid out by Crytek

Avatar image for tormentos
#168 Edited by tormentos (26634 posts) -

@FreedomFreeLife said:

http://www.worldsfactory.net/2014/07/14/star-citizen-dev-consoles-couldnt-handle-game

Cloud Imperium‘s Eric Peterson, currently working on Star Citizen, was recently featured in an interview with an Italian site called PC Gaming. In the article, he revealed his thoughts about the game being ported to consoles such as the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One: apparently, he believes that they couldn’t handle the game’s massive galaxies and complicated systems.

He also sees gaming PCs as more capable than console, which are using already old components in PC terms. Star Citizen is, in a way, a response to the industry “pushing aside” PC gaming and not taking advantage of gaming PCs real power.

Here’s a translation from Italian:

First and foremost, consoles couldn’t possibly handle a game like Star Citizen. Chris and I grew up with PC games and in the last few years we had the feeling that PC had been pushead aside, with most games coming out as mere console ports with graphics that didn’t really exploit the power of PC. Gaming PCs right now are formidable, with powerful CPUs and GPUs. Even next generation consoles cannot be compared, their internal components are already older than what I could add to a gaming PC today. We wanted to create a game that showed everyone the capabilities of PC, for those that have fun building configurations with double GPUs and liquid cooling, who no doubt were frustrated to not be able to fully use the potential of their machines.

PLAYSTATION 4 IS WEAK CONSOLE FOR NOOBS!!!

So what happen to those who don't have a PC stronger than the PS4 which is basically 88% of steam.?

The PS4 not been powerful enough mean PC with similar spec or under will suffer running this game or not run it at all.

Star Citizen will run like sh** on average PC.

Avatar image for melonfarmerz
#170 Posted by melonfarmerz (1294 posts) -

@AM-Gamer said:

@melonfarmerz said:

@AM-Gamer said:

@CroidX: You do realize just about every professional preview said AC unity looked amazing visually.

I don't think we've seen any "gameplay" of Unity yet...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpJ6GICqQyc

Again. Gameplay. Not Ubisoft pre planned PC gameplay they will most likely get gimped.

Avatar image for KillzoneSnake
#171 Posted by KillzoneSnake (2239 posts) -

By the time PC gamers play this i will be on PS5 lol

Avatar image for tormentos
#173 Edited by tormentos (26634 posts) -
@lostrib said:

@FreedomFreeLife said:

PLAYSTATION 4 IS WEAK CONSOLE FOR NOOBS!!!

Why only mention PS4?

Come on isn't it obvious.? The sad dude is a lemming who is cheering for PC now because its xbox one got owned by the PS4..lol

@Jankarcop said:

10% of PC's is still more than the current number of PS4's sold.

Doesn't mean they can run Star Citizen either at least not without looking like a console peasant.

Quad core i5 + 670GTX Star Citizen

By this holiday the PS4 will be over the number of players on steam with better specs than the PS4,the PS4 is already like at 9 million.

That GPU is stronger than the PS4.

@foxhound_fox said:

You are reading way more into what I was saying than what I intended. I'm merely saying that my laptop is in the same "technological generation" as the PS4 and Xbone (not comparing actual performance) and it struggles to even run a simple aspect of the game.

The PS4 and Xbone could easily run the CryEngine 3 (as evidenced with Crysis 3 on PS3/360) but that doesn't mean they would ever run Star Citizen. The level of fidelity that Cloud Imperium are shooting for is well beyond even the "next-gen" consoles.

Look at the benchmark up neither can PC..

Will be beyond what 90% of PC gamers have as well..lol

Is a game basically for elitist..lol

1080p man 1080p and the Titan can't hit 60FPS and drops into 24 FPS man that is worse than Tomb Raider on PS4 and worse than Sniper Elite 3 as well,which Hermits bombard all day long,basically this game turn hermits instantly to peasant...hahaha

How much are those GPU alone.?

Start Citizen turned 90% of the already 12% of hermit with stronger hardware out there than the PS4 into peasants,i guess lowering assets to hit 60FPS will be ok now....lol

Avatar image for deactivated-583e460ca986b
#174 Posted by deactivated-583e460ca986b (7240 posts) -

@tormentos: Star Citizen is in alpha still. The games release may be a ways off. It isn't exactly fair to judge it's performance.

And why do you fight so hard to compare PS4 to PC? Your obsession with the Steam survey vs PS4 specs is unhealthy.

Avatar image for naz99
#175 Edited by naz99 (2803 posts) -

@scottpsfan14 said:
@system-reboot said:

@Gue1 said:

@FreedomFreeLife said:

First and foremost, consoles couldn’t possibly handle a game like Star Citizen. Chris and I grew up with PC games and in the last few years we had the feeling that PC had been pushed aside, with most games coming out as mere console ports with graphics that didn’t really exploit the power of PC. Gaming PCs right now are formidable, with powerful CPUs and GPUs. Even next generation consoles cannot be compared, their internal components are already older than what I could add to a gaming PC today. We wanted to create a game that showed everyone the capabilities of PC, for those that have fun building configurations with double GPUs and liquid cooling, who no doubt were frustrated to not be able to fully use the potential of their machines.

"PC had been pushed aside, with most games coming out as mere console ports"

finally someone admits it. Herms you have been owned.

Do you realize that even console port on PC play better than console version..

Yeah that is true. But games that are ported from PS3/360 often get hailed as graphics king by hermits (Crysis 3). They say Crysis 3 is more than the consoles will ever do despite the fact it's a game made to run on last gen consoles.

Ahh i was not aware the 360/PS3 version of Crysis 3 was made to work with High End Directx 11 features like it was with the PC.......oh thats right it wasn't

Avatar image for clyde46
#176 Posted by clyde46 (49048 posts) -

@tormentos said:

@FreedomFreeLife said:

http://www.worldsfactory.net/2014/07/14/star-citizen-dev-consoles-couldnt-handle-game

Cloud Imperium‘s Eric Peterson, currently working on Star Citizen, was recently featured in an interview with an Italian site called PC Gaming. In the article, he revealed his thoughts about the game being ported to consoles such as the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One: apparently, he believes that they couldn’t handle the game’s massive galaxies and complicated systems.

He also sees gaming PCs as more capable than console, which are using already old components in PC terms. Star Citizen is, in a way, a response to the industry “pushing aside” PC gaming and not taking advantage of gaming PCs real power.

Here’s a translation from Italian:

First and foremost, consoles couldn’t possibly handle a game like Star Citizen. Chris and I grew up with PC games and in the last few years we had the feeling that PC had been pushead aside, with most games coming out as mere console ports with graphics that didn’t really exploit the power of PC. Gaming PCs right now are formidable, with powerful CPUs and GPUs. Even next generation consoles cannot be compared, their internal components are already older than what I could add to a gaming PC today. We wanted to create a game that showed everyone the capabilities of PC, for those that have fun building configurations with double GPUs and liquid cooling, who no doubt were frustrated to not be able to fully use the potential of their machines.

PLAYSTATION 4 IS WEAK CONSOLE FOR NOOBS!!!

So what happen to those who don't have a PC stronger than the PS4 which is basically 88% of steam.?

The PS4 not been powerful enough mean PC with similar spec or under will suffer running this game or not run it at all.

Star Citizen will run like sh** on average PC.

Upgrade your PC then...

Avatar image for faizan_faizan
#177 Posted by faizan_faizan (7869 posts) -

@scottpsfan14 said:

Crysis 3 had certain elements of physically based lighting such as image based lighting that was used from Crysis 2. And yes, the cook torrence effect is very present in Crysis 3. But the lighting of the whole scene isn't as natural as Ryse. Crytek said Ryse was the transition into the full fledged physically based rendering paradigm. And you can clearly see from first glance the difference between Ryse lighting and Crysis 3's. There is a lot of individual rendering tech in Crysis 3 to achieve it's lighting. Because Ryse is using PBR, graphics artists needn't use specular maps like what Crysis 3 uses. It's more seemless and natural. Which is the whole point of PBR in the first place.

Actually, you can use specular maps even in PBR. It's all up to the artist. If I was a developer, I would prefer using specular maps than metalness maps because I'm more familiar with them.

Just a tip: there's no difference in using either specular maps or metalness maps in PBR.

Avatar image for SambaLele
#178 Edited by SambaLele (5552 posts) -

I find that hard to believe.

Of course PCs are stronger by definition, but how can any dev say something like that before releasing any title on the platform they're attacking? Before actually working on it? It just sounds like a marketing move to me.

Avatar image for Wasdie
#179 Posted by Wasdie (53456 posts) -

@SambaLele said:

I find that hard to believe.

Of course PCs are stronger by definition, but how can any dev say something like that before releasing any title on the platform they're attacking? Before actually working on it? It just sounds like a marketing move to me.

Because any computer programmer can look at the specs of a platform and know if their software will run on it or not.

Avatar image for clyde46
#180 Posted by clyde46 (49048 posts) -

@SambaLele said:

I find that hard to believe.

Of course PCs are stronger by definition, but how can any dev say something like that before releasing any title on the platform they're attacking? Before actually working on it? It just sounds like a marketing move to me.

Why give false hope?

Avatar image for aroxx_ab
#181 Posted by aroxx_ab (13236 posts) -

Hermits can have this Hangar Simulator while Ps4 get the exclusive No Man Sky :D

Avatar image for undeadgoon
#182 Posted by undeadgoon (706 posts) -

theres not much to do in this game yet.... so who cares...

Avatar image for melonfarmerz
#183 Posted by melonfarmerz (1294 posts) -

@scottpsfan14 said:
@melonfarmerz said:

Again. Gameplay. Not Ubisoft pre planned PC gameplay they will most likely get gimped.

It's gameplay. End of story.

No. That really isn't end of story. If you choose to accept that, then please, continue drinking the kool aid.

Avatar image for lawlessx
#185 Posted by lawlessx (48753 posts) -

@Motokid6 said:

@aroxx_ab: Has No Mans Sky been officially announced as exclusive?

some cows are still holding on to that pipedream

Avatar image for TheFadeForever
#186 Posted by TheFadeForever (2649 posts) -

@lawlessx:

Are they actually thinking No Man Sky is in league with Star Citizen

Avatar image for TheFadeForever
#187 Posted by TheFadeForever (2649 posts) -

@tormentos:

The game is in its early stages you moron its not going to have the best performance.

Avatar image for miiiiv
#188 Edited by miiiiv (900 posts) -

@scottpsfan14 said:

Best looking game? There are lots of 'good looking' games out there for me. Crysis 3 is one of them actually. They really have some great looking environments and lighting going in that game. I would have to say Ryse is the most visually spectacular game i've seen on any platform. And no I'm not talking about image quality, I mean the whole look of the game. It truly looks like CGI. People are really impressed by how that Uncharted 4 trailer looks, but I say that Ryse isn't that far behind in actual looks.

Quite honestly, this is Cryteks best graphics work to date. Especially the actual assets themselves and the use of PBR that makes it look real.

It's just a shame it doesn't get much recognition by PC/PS4 gamers for graphics since it's on the weaker console. The fact is, it's probably the most technically impressice games out there. If this was on PC in super high resolutions with perhaps better textures here and there, hermits would probably agree.

Justice is blind with Ryse visually.

Well I guess If one prefers cgi-look, Ryse is actually among the best looking games out right now but personally I'm usually not impressed by linear games with small confined environments. Running under such premises, I expect even better graphics.
I think games like BF4 on max settings with it's large areas and 64 multiplayer action is more impressive. Even the ps4 version is pretty good, maintaining a decent frame rate with no screen tearing during the most hectic multiplayer sessions and BF Hardline will probably run and look better on the consoles now when Dice has had more time to work with the hardware.

Avatar image for stuff238
#189 Edited by stuff238 (2173 posts) -

LOL simply for the fact PC games are created for the lowest common denominator. So they either decide to get sales by releasing on console, or he is just a stuck up guy happy with 100k sales on PC. I honestly don't care about his game. It looks like crap. I would rather play No Man's Sky anyway.

Avatar image for faizan_faizan
#191 Posted by faizan_faizan (7869 posts) -

@scottpsfan14 said:
@faizan_faizan said:

@scottpsfan14 said:

Crysis 3 had certain elements of physically based lighting such as image based lighting that was used from Crysis 2. And yes, the cook torrence effect is very present in Crysis 3. But the lighting of the whole scene isn't as natural as Ryse. Crytek said Ryse was the transition into the full fledged physically based rendering paradigm. And you can clearly see from first glance the difference between Ryse lighting and Crysis 3's. There is a lot of individual rendering tech in Crysis 3 to achieve it's lighting. Because Ryse is using PBR, graphics artists needn't use specular maps like what Crysis 3 uses. It's more seemless and natural. Which is the whole point of PBR in the first place.

Actually, you can use specular maps even in PBR. It's all up to the artist. If I was a developer, I would prefer using specular maps than metalness maps because I'm more familiar with them.

Just a tip: there's no difference in using either specular maps or metalness maps in PBR.

Yes but the main point of PBR is that there is much less need for specular maps. So what components generally found in PBR are in Crysis 3? I know image based lighting is, but what else?

What do you mean there is less need for specular maps? You need specular/metalness maps to instruct the engine that which part of your material should be more shiny, then (in most newer games using PBR) a glossiness map is created to define the intensity of your specular highlights. Without a specular map, any object in screen-space would look unnatural and completely flat.

You could've just read my previous posts. I've already posted what's physically based and what's not, I have no idea about IBL, though.

Avatar image for CrownKingArthur
#193 Edited by CrownKingArthur (5262 posts) -

so keen to have a go on this middleware. https://docs.unrealengine.com/latest/INT/Engine/Rendering/Materials/PhysicallyBased/index.html

(i know sc is in ce3, but the above conversation prompted me to look at other engine workflows)

Avatar image for tormentos
#194 Posted by tormentos (26634 posts) -

@clyde46 said:

Upgrade your PC then...

What make you think they want to.? And upgrading for one game specially when many just buy shinny new R260x,r265 and the likes will not go well with a user base that tend to carry its components for long long time.

@GoldenElementXL said:

@tormentos: Star Citizen is in alpha still. The games release may be a ways off. It isn't exactly fair to judge it's performance.

And why do you fight so hard to compare PS4 to PC? Your obsession with the Steam survey vs PS4 specs is unhealthy.

Dude this game is aimed a people with powerful GPU,is not the game been alpha the problem,in fact one of the screen could even read lighting no final,man which mean it could be even more demanding when done,much like Crysis use to bring PC to their knees.

No why do you people hide so hard on PC when so few people even go for powerful GPU,steam stats is basically a measurement of what people have out there i don't think there is a hardcore PC gamer who doesn't have steam on its PC.

@TheFadeForever said:

@tormentos:

The game is in its early stages you moron its not going to have the best performance.

That is not what is bringing the performance down you idiot,the game is aimed and people with strong hardware,what the fu** do you expect if the game doesn't run on PS4.? The PS4 is basically an R265 GPU,if the PS4 can't run it there is a big chance PC with that GPU or lower and some even with better GPU like the 7870 will not run it well either.

I think the game can run engines are scalable and Cry engine showed that Crysis 3 bring PC to its knees and the PS3 runs it when the 7800GTX will not run it which is stronger than the PS3,so yeah i say it can obviously water down like any PC with the power equivalent to the PS4 will.

Avatar image for clyde46
#195 Edited by clyde46 (49048 posts) -

@tormentos said:

@clyde46 said:

Upgrade your PC then...

What make you think they want to.? And upgrading for one game specially when many just buy shinny new R260x,r265 and the likes will not go well with a user base that tend to carry its components for long long time.


What makes you think they won't? Besides, you are balancing this whole argument on a very poorly optimised alpha. SC is not finally until 2015, we are already one year into the 8th gen so current games are once again hitting that "early gen stride" of where they really start to amp things up. Chances are, people will be playing games on much better kit than what is on the market today.

Now, your second post of your post.

"And upgrading for one game specially when many just buy shinny new R260x,r265 and the likes will not go well with a user base that tend to carry its components for long long time."

Whether you like it or not people upgrade. Whether its by choice or necessity, people always upgrade. This is not 1999 where you had components that had a shelf life of 6 months before being outdated. A 270x today has no issues running games at console level or above, that card will last at least 3-4 years before needing to be replaced. As I mentioned earlier technology changes and improves. Take the GTX660 for example, a mid range card that had the same performance as the GTX580 which was Nvidia's previous generation top tier card. By the time SC rolls around, the mid ranges will have performance levels equal to or greater than a R290x with added thermal and power usage improvements.

Its people like you who fail to see the bigger picture, you take those Steam Stats at face value without digging deeper to actually find out what those stats actually mean. Yes most people machines according to Steam are running with dual-cores still but you are not seeing that those people play. Most of those machines are used to play games like Garrys Mod, Minecraft and LoL/Dota2 which don't require GTX Titan Blacks to run. If I'm only playing Minecraft, why should I spend over £2000 on a Titan Z. We can say the same thing about car enthusiasts. Why do they spend thousands on fast cars when a Prius can do the same. Sure it can but it doesn't do what a Zonda can, looking good and sound good whilst traveling to the store.

Avatar image for faizan_faizan
#196 Edited by faizan_faizan (7869 posts) -

@scottpsfan14 said:
@faizan_faizan said:

@scottpsfan14 said:
@faizan_faizan said:

@scottpsfan14 said:

Crysis 3 had certain elements of physically based lighting such as image based lighting that was used from Crysis 2. And yes, the cook torrence effect is very present in Crysis 3. But the lighting of the whole scene isn't as natural as Ryse. Crytek said Ryse was the transition into the full fledged physically based rendering paradigm. And you can clearly see from first glance the difference between Ryse lighting and Crysis 3's. There is a lot of individual rendering tech in Crysis 3 to achieve it's lighting. Because Ryse is using PBR, graphics artists needn't use specular maps like what Crysis 3 uses. It's more seemless and natural. Which is the whole point of PBR in the first place.

Actually, you can use specular maps even in PBR. It's all up to the artist. If I was a developer, I would prefer using specular maps than metalness maps because I'm more familiar with them.

Just a tip: there's no difference in using either specular maps or metalness maps in PBR.

Yes but the main point of PBR is that there is much less need for specular maps. So what components generally found in PBR are in Crysis 3? I know image based lighting is, but what else?

What do you mean there is less need for specular maps? You need specular/metalness maps to instruct the engine that which part of your material should be more shiny, then (in most newer games using PBR) a glossiness map is created to define the intensity of your specular highlights. Without a specular map, any object in screen-space would look unnatural and completely flat.

You could've just read my previous posts. I've already posted what's physically based and what's not, I have no idea about IBL, though.

PBR, in essence, is lighting that is physically accurate to the real world and reacts to materials and surfaces more naturally. I don't know the ins and outs of PBR lol, but I do know that it negates the need for specular maps for things like reflections and creates a much more mathmatically accurate reflection based on physically realistic conditions. This is just what I heard. I read up on these things quite a lot but I am not aware of the full process.

That's not how it works, LOL. You should first look up what specular maps are.

Avatar image for deactivated-583e460ca986b
#197 Posted by deactivated-583e460ca986b (7240 posts) -

@tormentos: Again with the Steam survey stats. I've not taken part in the survey since before my old rig with a GTX690 and now with 2 Superclocked Titan Blacks. For the 100000th time the steam survey is not a representation of all the users. It's a sample. But you will continue to use it for your argument so what's the point?

Avatar image for SambaLele
#200 Edited by SambaLele (5552 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

@SambaLele said:

I find that hard to believe.

Of course PCs are stronger by definition, but how can any dev say something like that before releasing any title on the platform they're attacking? Before actually working on it? It just sounds like a marketing move to me.

Because any computer programmer can look at the specs of a platform and know if their software will run on it or not.

Since when are developers omniscient? Just specs are enough? They don't get obstacles they didn't foresee when programming? They can't get impressed when working with a hardware hands-on?

Or what they say is set in stone? Certainly, it can't be a marketing move, righ?