i wonder what will happen in 2 or 3 years or when (if) crysis3 comes out
i really doubt they will be able to improve even more the engine in consoles, maybe a bit more but there are limits, but pc's will keep evolving and getting much better than consoles
so either consoles get updated or pc's will have no reason to keep increasing their power cause if games, in general, have to be made for console and pc at same time, then pc will have much more resources than necessary

i really doubt they will be able to improve even more the engine in consoles, maybe a bit more but there are limits, but pc's will keep evolving and getting much better than consoles

That is so true!

Well said Shinanigans, I also say "booyah" to that Optimisation on performance and graphics is what Crytek are doing for us PC gamers, im glad for that. And Im still just amazed at how Crytek will be running their CryEngine 3 on consoles, its gonna be awesome.

And @ perleffekt, it says that 3D will require a dedicated 120 Hz LCD monitor. Unfortunately my 60Hz laptop monitor wont cut it
"Instead of rendering each picture twice (half the framerate!) and projecting it on a dedicated 120 Hz LCD monitor, Crytek simply uses the back buffer and the depth information in the graphics card: The renderred frame is practically being cloned and the fractum shift procedure makes two out of it. Thus, on the one hand there is nearly no performance drop and on the other hand stereoscopic 3D might be possible on any display - no matter if it's on PC or consoles. Crytek calls this technology 'Screen Space Re-Projection Stereo'."

Maybe they were just saying that the stereoscopic image could be rendered on any display and not that you could get the 3D effect.

No, the 3D effect will work on any TV or monitor.


There is a modded shader for Crysis 1 that enables this same technique and it can be used on any monitor.

The 3D effect can be used on any screen, but not with polarized or LCD shutter glasses! on "normal" screens I assume the user would have to choose between options such as Red/Cyan colored glasses and such

The 3D effect can be used on any screen, but not with polarized or LCD shutter glasses! on "normal" screens I assume the user would have to choose between options such as Red/Cyan colored glasses and such

I thought they were included in a 3D set kit?

You just need regular 3D glasses you get when watching a 3D movie in theaters. If you don't have any, they're very cheap. Like $3.

I think:
Texture: max. 512x512
Polys: About half of the PC version
Destructable and Physics: Less Destructable parts of objects and not that good physics
Resolution: only Hd ready: 1280x720
Effects and filters: Lower Effect resolution and not that much filters but the same Color Granding
Gameplay and Multiplayer: Much better!
Anisotrophy: Don't know. Could be everything from x0 to x16
Anti Alaising: That's a joke =D About: -16AA xD

So...
One of my friend will by Crysis 2 for PC and I'll buy it for Ps3.
I hope my GTS 250 will got it. And i don't think it will run that perfectly on the
GTX 480 of my friend.
Anyway, the Game will be one of the best for the next 2 years

You just need regular 3D glasses you get when watching a 3D movie in theaters. If you don't have any, they're very cheap. Like $3.

I might be mistaken, but i think those 3d glasses from theatres work by polarization, so the screen needs to be polarized as well, which doesnt happen in common LCDs cause its very expensive, so its only profitable when you have a big screen and many viewers

Nope, the theater screens are using a projector, so they can't be polarized.

It's just plain stereoscopic 3D. The 3D glasses you get work fine.

a projector which supposedly has a special lens that polarizes the light beams (image), thats why they dont use it in screens
i remember reading that somewhere
and the lcd's use alternate frame sequencing so they need active shutter glasses and 120 hz rate to avoid sickness

a projector which supposedly has a special lens that polarizes the light beams (image), thats why they dont use it in screens
i remember reading that somewhere
and the lcd's use alternate frame sequencing so they need active shutter glasses and 120 hz rate to avoid sickness

It's done differently here, and I can 100% confirm that regular 3D glasses you get from theaters work for this method.

It's even been stated in Crytek interviews.

Its kinda sad to hear that too much different hardware "really" would cause trouble for optimizing a game.
With only 3 major companies left ( AMD,Intel and Nvidia) and a common standard (Direct X) i thought this would have been prevented.
My opinion is that most of the valueable time is spent for the optimization of the console versions ( because of the old and static hardware) and less time for converting and optimizing the PC versions.Like you said Shin. the consoles hardware is static and needs a lot of optimization.. and because of that the Pc suffers for its optimization time. Thats the cause for **** console ports.

With only 3 major companies left ( AMD,Intel and Nvidia) and a common standard (Direct X) i thought this would have been prevented. A HD5450 is very different in power to a HD5970 just as a GT240 is very different to a GTX580.

the consoles hardware is static and needs a lot of optimization.. and because of that the Pc suffers for its optimization time. Console's ability to be optimised well has no effect on PC optimisation. Poor PC optimisation is a result of too many combinations available for PC. That was my whole point; you can't optimise as well for PC because they have to cover a broad range of hardware performance levels, whereas console is one specific set of hardware components, which gives the developers knowledge of exactly what they're dealing with and how best to optimise it.

@1stkarken

The gtx480 will blitz crysis 2, just like the hd5870 because both of them max crysis 1 . it's been stated several times that crysis 2 is less demanding than crysis 1 due to engine optimizations and smaller maps to render.

Also, your gts250 will run the game better than a ps3

And finally, console multiplayer, better? seriously?
Oooohhh, you mean easier since everybody can't shoot anything smaller than a barn door, therefore allowing you to make millions of movement errors and survive (don't worry, i understand what it's like being taken down a peg from having 7/1 k/d ratios in games like mw2 on 360 then having 1.5/1 on the pc version:D)

@ Shin

The great defender of consoles huh?

So in your opinion everything is just fine... Pcs gamers need to be happy with the crap they get right now and consoles will probably wipe out the whole Pc gaming industry in about 3-4 years

Okay.. that wasnt serious.

Anyway.. you can adjust the bar of detail by yourself in pc games. Therefore we have options.
The more options i see..the more i can think of a way the developers tried to work with strong hardware as well as give older hardware a chance to come along with their game. But nowadays options ( the **** console ports) dont even give me a choice to use better textures or higher aa. Just buy Need for Speed hot pursuit and you`ll have it! This game is an insult to the Pc community!!
Its just a fact for me that no one has seen the true power of modern gaming Pcs right now! and thats because of the console market.

Hehe, i don't do fanboi stuff I try and stick with the facts.

I see your point in your last paragraph and agree. I think a big problem with a lot of PC games these days is that there isn't enough scale involved. The lowest setting should look horrible but run excellent. The highest should be the absolute best that the studio can deliver and expectedly, run pretty bad but as you said, allows it to grow with new hardware.

The problem with that perfect scenario is time and resources. The more a developer has to scale, the more time they have to spend altering/creating assets. I'm not implying that it's not possible but i can understand why it's not feasible in many cases.

Especially when a publisher is breathing down their neck saying 'release the game nao!'.

You do have to remember that the PC market at times is a fickle one due to it's connection to a whole host of sources of (mis)information. Look at crysis, it has excellent scaling. You could run the game on a crappy 8400GS on low and still quite enjoy the whole thing. But what was the reaction? 'waaaah my 8800GTX can't max it waaaah', even on high it blew every other game away beyond beleif. But no, the net spods with neckbeards spent all day fecking complaining about it, putting many a purchaser, that crytek deserved, off for a good few years.

So making a perfectly scalable game that punished pc hardware is a huge waste most of the time. You can spend millions making the game scale to intel i3 graphics, yet those morons won't buy it because 'zomg i can only run low, but modern warefare runs on medium! waaaah', making it a waste of time. But if you don't scale down you lose a huge market. The solution? make a game that has mediocre to somewhat decent graphics that pleases all but those packing sli gtx480's (recent example is black ops, it has some pretty moments but is hardly demanding and no crysis). While you're doing that, make it on console too! There's no reason why not!

Also remember that the aforementioned neckbeards also want 1920x1200 minimum. So if you make the best looking game ever and forces them to 1280x720, you once again get a negative reactions 'zomg unoptimised, zomg!'.

Dealing with the pc community is harder because they actually have a voice. When console gamers complain their views are all but silenced by having no real way to communicate back for most of them. Some things get through, but comparatively the PC crowd has a megaphone down the developers ear.

Overall, if we want amazing games, we've got to realise that we probably won't run it maxed out on our hardware, just like in the old days. But it seems everyone is starting to become a self entitled ass hat who wants their gtx260 to max every game for 5 years.

Dealing with the pc community is harder because they actually have a voice. When console gamers complain their views are all but silenced by having no real way to communicate back for most of them. Some things get through, but comparatively the PC crowd has a megaphone down the developers ear.

Overall, if we want amazing games, we've got to realize that we probably won't run it maxed out on our hardware, just like in the old days. But it seems everyone is starting to become a self entitled ass hat who wants their gtx260 to max every game for 5 years.
This part is just too negative to imagine. and Yes, a GTX 260 won't last in this kind of environment and age any longer. That's why we have the new GTX 5xx series on its way.

But nothing compares to a Gtx 8800!
Even today you can play most games in a very high setting even with AA at acceptable framerates.
For over 3 years now this card could hold up to the top 15 high end grfx cards!

I'll just leave this console screenshot here...

http://images.bit-tech.net/content_images/2010/11/crysis-2-xbox-360-preview/2.jpg

I'll just leave this console screenshot here...

http://images.bit-tech.net/content_images/2010/11/crysis-2-xbox-360-preview/2.jpg

That shot is over 6 months old.

Although I am a PC gamer and I know you're just trying to put down the consoles, but you need to know the source of your reference before you can actually use it.

I'll just leave this console screenshot here...

http://images.bit-tech.net/content_images/2010/11/crysis-2-xbox-360-preview/2.jpg
That image is very old. It was featured in articles going all the way back to April and possibly earlier.

EDIT: Beaten!

I'll just leave this console screenshot here...

http://images.bit-tech.net/content_images/2010/11/crysis-2-xbox-360-preview/2.jpg
That image is very old. It was featured in articles going all the way back to April and possibly earlier.

EDIT: Beaten!
For an old pre-alpha shot. Was this taken in a low-Gaming type Pc by any chance?
There is No way a shot from an Xbox360 or Ps3 would look this low.

It was on the console, since it was the first debut of 'crysis 2 is coming to consoles!'.

However, i wouldn't expect too much more than those graphics on consoles. Smooth out some (but not all) rough edges, add some shadows and you've basically got the console version.

But nothing compares to a Gtx 8800!
Even today you can play most games in a very high setting even with AA at acceptable framerates.
For over 3 years now this card could hold up to the top 15 high end grfx cards!

Not really, a hd5870 is about 3-4 times faster for example, the hardware side of pc gaming has advanced nicely, and the 8-9 series cards are now regarded as low end in the scheme of things by this point!

Still, this isn't the problem if they run the games to your standard, it's cool that cards last so long. It's only annoying when people bich about replacing them. If you want to max a newer, demanding game at 1920x1080 you sometimes need to spend money.