Crytek: PCs Are a Generation Ahead of Consoles

[SimuLord]

You know what cutting-edge gets you on the PC? Rampant piracy and lost sales to people who don't want to upgrade for your game. Which is why core gamers are the loudest about "PC gaming is dying" (happily, since 1985).

What was it Brad Wardell said about developing PC games for people who buy PC games, not for game reviewers and graphics whores (the latter of whom tend to be pirates)?

 

[Callate]

Yeah, it's true. The current crop of PCs is more powerful than the current crop of "next-gen" consoles. Even many PCs that are a couple of years old overpower the XBox 360 and PS3, so long as they were relatively high-end when they came out (i.e. having multiple cores and a graphics card designed with games firmly in mind.)

That said, I'm really rather glad that the consoles have held back on releasing a new generation for much this reason. It's tiresome and ridiculous to have to buy a new PC every three years, not to mention wasteful. Every generation, we clearly see that the most technically sophisticated games come out near the end of a console's life. Programmers complain endlessly about the limitations placed upon them by having to program for particular platforms, but then they find ways to stretch and cheat those limitations. That's wonderful. That's how things ought to be, and we never achieve this kind of spartan genius when we allow them to program for "what next year's machine will be capable of."

With all due respect to Crytek- who are in their own way very innovative- I'm perfectly content to see people continuing to design with DirectX 9 and 10 in mind. A lot of the results are awesome, and the last few years haven't done much to convince me that the next generation of awesome is going to be worth the price tag. Assuming, at least as far as consoles go, that the manufacturers can even create significantly more powerful consoles at a price point that the consumer will accept, which I have to confess I'm no longer certain is a given.

 

[Super Toast]

Meh you can build a 500-600$ PC that can keep up with the 360 or PS3 for at least 4 more years.

The trouble is at the core of the amtter is PC gamers are 10 generations ahead of console gamers as its hard to sell cheap uninspired wank to PC gamers easily(and yes I am calling out you Fallout "I'mashooter" 3 and Bio"retarted"shock) So why even bother making stuff for the PC its not configured for customizing the keyboard or mouse and worse yet its a port me down with no work done to optimize it for PC.

Sucks to be a Gamer that likes PC controls and qaulity these days its all shiny bright bloom and explosions to keep the drooling other half happy with crap....

ALso most PC devs have stopped making new gaming rig centered games as its cheaper to make it for the console.. not to mention dumbing it down so much saves alot on the budget and bug testing....

You may be the biggest elitist I've ever seen. Thank you for the unintentional comedy, at least.

 

[Krantos]

"a decent gaming PC"

Yeah, I'll get right on that. And then, a year from now I'll invest another couple hundred. ANd the year after that, and the year after that...

Honestly, I prefer PC gaming (gotta love mods, and having a mouse and ~100 buttons), but you can't deny that not having to upgrade is a mark in console's favor. Considering the types of things you can do with the current gen, I doubt that PC's are being held back that much.

Uh, so what, you think the console hardware magically upgrades itself every night while you're asleep? That's how newer games manage to work on them? 'Fraid not. It's called engine scaling, and it works on PC too. Meaning, you don't _have_ to have the settings at maximum on the PC version. The games still run fine, if they didn't, they wouldn't run on console anyway.

NSS

My point was that a game written for a console is specifically programmed to run well on that exact setup. It's not going to require a better Graphics card, or an increase in ram. Or another processor. You don't even need to increase your clock speed or FSB. No tweaks required, no formatting. You don't even have to worry about patches, because if you're connected to XBL or PSN, they get applied automatically.

Yes, you can tweak the settings to improve frame rate et al., but the fact remains that it only goes so far. Games released 3 years ago will work fine on a computer, but one released now might not. You don't have that problem with consoles.

As I said, I prefer PC gaming, for a lot of reasons. The fact that it eats up a lot of $ to stay current obviously isn't one of them.

 

[Rajin Cajun]

The Aryan PC Gaming Master Race marches forward once again into prosperity while the plebeian filth called console gamers scrounge through the shit we left behind! HUZZAH FOR GAMER SUPREMACY! GAMER SEGREGATION FOREVER!

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Meh you can build a 500-600$ PC that can keep up with the 360 or PS3 for at least 4 more years.

The trouble is at the core of the amtter is PC gamers are 10 generations ahead of console gamers as its hard to sell cheap uninspired wank to PC gamers easily(and yes I am calling out you Fallout "I'mashooter" 3 and Bio"retarted"shock) So why even bother making stuff for the PC its not configured for customizing the keyboard or mouse and worse yet its a port me down with no work done to optimize it for PC.

Sucks to be a Gamer that likes PC controls and qaulity these days its all shiny bright bloom and explosions to keep the drooling other half happy with crap....

ALso most PC devs have stopped making new gaming rig centered games as its cheaper to make it for the console.. not to mention dumbing it down so much saves alot on the budget and bug testing....

You may be the biggest elitist I've ever seen. Thank you for the unintentional comedy, at least.

I dunno most PC gamers care more about qaulity than graphics,brands,trends and fads if it dose not have solid and polished game play.(Bioshock and FO3 are a joke both bugy, both unfinished,unbalanced and horribly paced, BSs story is the worest one yet of modern gameing to be put on a stool, FO3 has great stories but other than that its a frakking mess).
Then again the game industry is doing what the film industry is doing sell to the lowest common denominator there are more of them than fans or consumers that give a damn about qaulity, well paced ,polished content and them releasing games with more bugs by the day show the trend will not end as the suits will push crap out faster so the public can buy more of it.

I know I am right(least on this one... I think...lulz) and a bastard for it but so what? we are all sheep either a mindless throngs or introverted net rats with a minor superiority complex that can not stand the system and the men in suits in the corner office that screw things up for all of us.

PS: And I more cat than rat BTW I haz a flavor ^_~ .....

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

NSS

My point was that a game written for a console is specifically programmed to run well on that exact setup. It's not going to require a better Graphics card, or an increase in ram. Or another processor. You don't even need to increase your clock speed or FSB. No tweaks required, no formatting. You don't even have to worry about patches, because if you're connected to XBL or PSN, they get applied automatically.

No, sorry, you're wrong, the only way you would be correct is for console exclusives. The rest start their lives on PC, and as such have scaling embedded into the engines design. Very very few, if any games currently made, are designed/built across all 3 platforms at the same time with different engines.

Yes, you can tweak the settings to improve frame rate et al., but the fact remains that it only goes so far. Games released 3 years ago will work fine on a computer, but one released now might not. You don't have that problem with consoles.

As I said, I prefer PC gaming, for a lot of reasons. The fact that it eats up a lot of $ to stay current obviously isn't one of them.

By tweak settings, you mean select 'default' or 'auto-configure according to your hardware'? You mean those kind of tweaks? Otherwise, you're getting into overclocking your machine, which is hardly something people should just jump into.

It only eats up your money if you're unwilling to research what it is you want to do. There are a great many people who simply want things delivered to them on a silver platter without ever having to lift a finger.

Again, you're simply whitewashing the fact that all multi-platform game engines scale. They all do, they have to. The amount of hardware out there demands it. And no matter what you say, my point still remains. PC's games do not require the best of hardware to play. Yes, you will miss out on some of the bells and whistles, but no more than you do on console. My brother conquered Crysis on a Pre-DX10 machine, without _any_ problems.

Now, as for ease of use...well, that's really up to each person individually, what they prefer is all that really matters. But, please, don't try to sell me a song and dance about consoles being relevant for longer than a PC. That's just silly.

Any AM2+ thats over 1.9Ghz and a 100 video card(70$ ram,60$CPU or 120 for really good CPU, 60 for good PSU,50$ case, 100 for KB,mouse,speakers and a power strip) so 500-600 for a PC that will run good for 4-5 years, most HDTVs have HDMI, VGA or DVI and DVI to HDMI cable or adpater will plug right into a HD TV with little effort.

PCs are half the cost of getting all the system, but at the end of the day you want good games and the PC just dose not have them it has media and a ton free sht but it con not realistically compete with the consoles on a game to game basis for a normal gamer.

 

[Super Toast]

snip

You've got to remember that plenty of people like those games. Also, BioShock was considered ground-breaking at the time. And although you claim that console players only care about graphics, hardware and brands and PC players only care about innovation, it's the other way around 90% of the time.

PS: Please use spellcheck. I could barely read that.

 

[gorfias]

I just can't imagine that 6 or 7 years from now, people are going to buy a PS3 or 360 at any price when a PC is going to be about 32 times as powerful. And if such a PC can be bought for $600, what would a console have to offer to be attractive?

Probably coming in really late to this discussion, but, because I am alpha as fuck, I will say this anyways.

Keep in mind a good gaming PC can only be bought if it is custom built.
And, too the general populous, this is too much to understand.

So they pay 1500$ for something that should be 1000$.

Also, if you do build preset, don't forget that you still need a monitor (any decent monitor isn't less than 300$, keep in mind) And Windows unless you pirate it.

So, you are really looking at 900$ total.

Just throwing that out there. I kinda agree with your point, still

The PC I'm building now I'm attaching to my 55" LED/LCD. You buy a console, you still have to attach it to something as well.

You are correct that, to get the best bang for your buck, sans bloatware, you gotta build it yourself.

 

[Balobo]

snip

You've got to remember that plenty of people like those games. Also, BioShock was considered ground-breaking at the time. And although you claim that console players only care about graphics, hardware and brands and PC players only care about innovation, it's the other way around 90% of the time.

PS: Please use spellcheck. I could barely read that.

Console gamers care about innovation? HAHA

 

[Super Toast]

snip

You've got to remember that plenty of people like those games. Also, BioShock was considered ground-breaking at the time. And although you claim that console players only care about graphics, hardware and brands and PC players only care about innovation, it's the other way around 90% of the time.

PS: Please use spellcheck. I could barely read that.

Console gamers care about innovation? HAHA

PC elitists aren't retarded neckbeards? HAHAHA!

Face it kid; you're fighting a losing battle.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

snip

You've got to remember that plenty of people like those games. Also, BioShock was considered ground-breaking at the time. And although you claim that console players only care about graphics, hardware and brands and PC players only care about innovation, it's the other way around 90% of the time.

PS: Please use spellcheck. I could barely read that.

PCs are half the cost of getting all the system, but at the end of the day you want good games and the PC just dose not have them it has media and a ton free sht but it con not realistically compete with the consoles on a game to game basis for a normal gamer.

Say what? PC's have 95% of all games that are released multi-platform, and 95% or more of so-called 360 'exclusives', additionally, PC's also boast the IP that simply can't be done on console at this time (Arma, Stalker, Crysis, World of Warcraft, Company of Heroes, the list goes on and on). Hell, the only time a game isn't released on PC is when console developers want to give people even the remotest of reasons to buy their hardware. And even then, the games typically hit PC anyway, with very very few exceptions. Only Sony and Nintendo really have any strong argument to a solid exclusive line that never hits PC.

I realize you're not exactly for or against either, but seriously, what you're saying is pretty inaccurate. A PC will last every bit as long as a console, even with as much use as it gets (which is much more than a console, because PC's are multi-purpose). And the dropoff in performance of hardware isn't nearly as drastic as you're inferring. Think about it, both the 360 and PS3 run off of not last gen, but LAST last gen technology, we're talking a hybrid 7950 for the PS3 at most, and that's still way pre-DX10 technology. Exactly how many games out there utilize DX10 lately?

er quality>innovation, better vrs solid new re arranged gimmicks. A port me down from the console(Bioshock,MOH:AA,Prototype) is not "better" the WII is not reall solid it still is gimmick and as much as I love me WII they built it for kids non gamers, precision is 2nd to mechanics and the WII as a whole system is lagging behind, hell even Metroid was toned down in mechanics,ect which is down right scary....

Not that the PS3 and 360 are better they just have more games, more games more options, the PC can not compete on the mainstream stage because they have chosen to serve consoles, its nice flash games have become so popular its nice some independents have found a strong footing, but that's not bringing us alot of solid content, and neither really is the mainstream industry as they are focused on brands, and a select few themes the "understand" not to mention getting the least amount of content out as fast as possible.

BTW Transformers was critically acclaimed and it sucked so meh no matter what it is if I can't find quality in it or fun(like Infernal or Bullet witch) I will rip it to shreds...well...even the ones I like I will tear to shreds becuse those 2 were a bloodly mess! AS a primarily FPS/ RPG/action adventure gamer the last FP game that tried to be something more than the rotten corpse in its branded box was Dark messhia(call of cuthulu was awesome as was Clive Bakers undying, working on amnesia the decent . Unreal 2, DOOM 3,Q3, UT 2003 all were pathetic games as content and quality shrunk and its still shrinking , most FP games between 00 and now suck but for halo 1 and only then on the PC . Don't even get me started on the trends in RPGs with the less content and quality or more repetitive or lack of filler ala Dragon Age or worse yet FF13, WTF happened square 12 only needed better paced equipment and skills and a skill system that did not suck and better characters. . . *sigh* )

Mornelithe, you can't play Halo,Resistance,Demon Souls, Castelvina, and a slu of other mainstream games you can play flash and indie but the void of content is still a void and thats why the PC is not the best gaming option anymore mainstream dose not really support it and when it dose its half assed, if you can deal with that then PC is great. Hardware price will always be over rated, it helps not to buy everything day one boys and girls so you know can eat well and buy things other than games..... LOL(I don't buy a console over 300 or a game over 30$...well maybe but for that rare PSX/Saturn title... *clings to his 80$ guardian heroes*)

 

[Super Toast]

snip

I disagree with some of your points, and agree with others. Nonetheless, we should probably stop before this turns into a flame war. Agreed?

 

[Bre2nan]

Oh and before being accused of being a die-hard, fanatic, PC fan-boy. I say this, if console makers allow a mouse controller for certain games on a console - I will drop the PC tomorrow. In fact if console makers did this the PC games market would be dead over night....

You can already connect a keyboard and mouse to the PS3. The hardware is there, it just needs the software to follow suit.

As for this whole debate, I've never been a graphics whore ... ever ... so I fail to see how a slight increase in screen resolution and rendered polygons makes for a better gaming experience. Part of that might be that I've never owned a high-end gaming PC, or even touched one. The hardware was always too expensive for me, and I'd rather spend that money on a one-time console purchase and some games. I'm happy with my current PC, even though I can't run anything newer than Half-Life 2 without it sputtering out.

Really, we're at around the apex of what can be done graphically with the medium, so can we cut this shit out and focus on the games already?!!!

 

[zehydra]

The thing is, not that many people have super-powered latest tech PCs. You could make a game for such crazy-ass PCs but it wouldn't sell too well.

it would sell, you would just have a lot of disgruntled consumers afterwards, which is no good either.