Crytek: PCs Are a Generation Ahead of Consoles

[ImprovizoR]

He is right. But graphics aren't everything. PC gaming is also a generation ahead in gameplay as well. There is so much more that you can accomplish with a keyboard and mouse than with a simple joypad. Just imagine all of the gameplay elements that can be added in a game if you have enough buttons to press.
Now when I say that graphics aren't everything that is true in most cases because in most games graphics are only there to make the game look nice. In Crysis great graphics were actually a part of the gameplay experience. It just wouldn't be the same game if it wasn't visually stunning. Everyone who played the game knows what I'm talking about.

 

[ph0b0s123]

Thanks to Yerli for saying with some authority what we all already knew. I don't want to have another PC vs console debate, but it is nice to get some facts straight.

I have been a PC gamer since 1988-89. I have been through the lot. This cycle where a new console generation is released and everyone rushes to it since it is initially on par with the PC's of the time but then while the consoles are out the PC increases a lot in performance has been happening since the master system.

But this time that has changed. In previous generations a new company or two will come to market with PC elusive games / engines that use all of that extra PC power to make a name for themselves. A game that would not be possible on the generation of console of the time. Like for example Crytek did with Farcry and Crysis. These games then start attracting users and games sales back to the PC while that generation of console starts looking long in the tool. Then the next console generation arrives again and the whole cycle starts again with media stories that PC gaming is dead.

But this has not yet happened with this generation. Which is odd since due to the long life of this current gen of consoles the performance difference between them and PC's has never been so much. So maybe it is really the end?

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....

 

[Sheinen]

snip

I doubt MS and Sony are for Deeper plots and characters, or variety, just squeezing their as much money form their consoles as they can with gimmicks...

That's not the part they know...well they do they just don't care yet. It's that there's still a lot more that can be done with the tech. Sorry if I didn't make that clear, I thought I did but whatever.

The 'gimmicks' of motion control systems are actually a pretty clever way to diversify out of graphic's oriented design. Over the next 5 years there'll be a lot of that! Not new add-ons necessarily, but new avenues of game's design and production, like the ones I previously stated.

 

[m@]

when you think about it all a console is is a motherboard with everything integrated so i really don't see why 1 of the console makers doesn't release a console where you can upgrade the gfx card or the ram etc, hell you can buy hard drives for consoles now why not graphics cards. All they'd need to do is load it with the same gpu/OS as a console and it'd be problem solved, just plug in and play!

oh wait i know why they don't, they'd lose money... my bad

Currently I have a 1gig graphics card in it, cost about £350 when I bought it. The shocking thing is for me to be able to play most modern games I need to fork out more for a graphics card than I would for a console and thats not counting all the other things you have to buy. Motherboard, processor, RAM, hard drive.....

sorry but thats a load of cr*p, i've only got a 512mb ATI HD4870 and i can play black ops etc on highest settings easy, and my pc's 3 years old and only cost £500, it's about what you know not how much you can spend

 

[gorfias]

Guys, I think this is the last console generation. Everything is going, dang, brain freeze on the word... convergence?

For under $500, I'm building:
Athlon II X4, 1 GB DDR5 video card, 4 Gig DDR RAM, 1 TB hard drive, Bluray player/DVD burner with 7.1 fiber optic out surround sound. A PS3, which I love, can't touch this for gaming. More important to me: I can play movies, music, store photos, stream HBO and Netflix, etc. or just surf the web. (OK, I can also get computer viruses and have bloatware snuck onto my PC).

I think even this gen console is something of a last gasp. To my mind, they perfected the gaming experience in Gen 6 (I still have and play last gen consoles as well as this gen) which is why Nintendo went so far with the motion stuff. The other two consoles just deliver Hi Def graphics, but, are largely the same gaming experience.

Even the hand held market is going convergence. Instead of carrying around a MP3 player, cameral, phone and portable gaming console, you'll carry one device that does all that.

My prediction: PS3 and 360 will be around for another 5 years. Then, PC manufacturers will own the market on new hardware. Developers will follow.

What I'm really looking forward to is when a developer like Crytek goes for gold and trys to make a true Gen 8 game that could not be dumbed down for console. Make it good, make it look amazing, publicize what you are trying to do and the money will come.

 

[Pandora92]

Never quite got all this "COMPUTERS ARE TOO EXPENSIVE OMG!!!111!1111!11" stereotyping running around, I built mine two years ago for a around £500 and it's still running every modern game I can through at it fine with decent settings, in fact that's one of the benfits OF PC games, if you can't run a game with the maximum settings available then you can just TURN THEM DOWN, it actually gives you a choice and it lets the game developers push technical limitations as much as they want since people with lower end hardware can just turn down the settings.

Plus factor in the fact that most PCs games retail for cheaper than their console equivalents, the fact that PC games tend to have a longer "shelf-life" (look at CS:S or BF2), and the fact that you don't need to pay for online play (not counting the PS3's free online play obviously) and you can use your computer for other things both work and leisure related as well, really I'm convinced it's a lot cheaper in the long run to be a PC gamer.

 

[jamesworkshop]

Been ahead for a few years now, once PC hardware surpasses the console all it is left to do is continually drop price

GTX 460 £120
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/09/07/asus_engtx460_top_768mb_video_card_review/3

lowest resolution tested 1680x1050

Xbox 360 Call of duty: Black ops 1040x608
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-call-of-duty-black-ops-faceoff

 

[felixader]

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.

That's the only type of game Crytek has ever made, and they seem to be doing pretty well.

Crysis failed Sales wise.
Also the Gameplay was widely bashed for not beeing as good as was told, same for writing.
Also only a few had the machines to run the game on "Full potential" wich didn't probably help either.

Besides that: Consoles have a fixed Price, wich i am happy for. To have a decent gaming rig you need to pay nearly twice or thrice the price, wich by the way doesn't free you from checking the facts everytime you buy a new game.

Console games you just buy and put in and many look and much more important play awesome.
Also you don't need to shut off half of the features you payed for.

Don't missunderstand me, i am not bashing PC-Gaming since i really love me games like Minecraft, Machinarium and torchligth and especially not the PC itself since many of my creative activitys like Drawing, Pixelart and the likes are taking place with the help of a PC.
But when it comes to the newest generation of gaming the PC often demands a price in money, time and complexity just to set up the Game, that i am not willing to pay.
I don't want to upgrade my PC with a moneyshot of several hundred bucks just so i can play the next generic shooter just cause it has more bling than the last.

It also doesn't help Biasehead Yearli's Point that for the most innovative games on PC, and i am not talking high tech features that no one can actually use, you actually DON'T NEED those high Quality Rigs.

 

[Vykrel]

captain obvious strikes again...

seriously though, the next generation of consoles (excluding Nintendo's next waste of talent) will likely be capable of what PC's were a few years ago. obviously, theyll never catch up with what PC's are capable of, but they will still improve every generation

 

[Trogdor1138]

That's just crazy, how can hardware that was created a week ago be superior to hardware that was created five years ago?!

This made me lol. I find it funny when developers like this forget the system is five years old, plus now they'll look like fools if the game comes out and isn't amazing and perfect. Which seems to be what every developer does now...

 

[ph0b0s123]

Never quite got all this "COMPUTERS ARE TOO EXPENSIVE OMG!!!111!1111!11" stereotyping running around, I built mine two years ago for a around £500 and it's still running every modern game I can through at it fine with decent settings, in fact that's one of the benfits OF PC games, if you can't run a game with the maximum settings available then you can just TURN THEM DOWN, it actually gives you a choice and it lets the game developers push technical limitations as much as they want since people with lower end hardware can just turn down the settings.

To this and quotes like it. This is because this gen of consoles long lifetime is holding back the requirements of PC games. Out of the total PC games at the moment, how many use the latest Direct 10 or 11. Hardly any. The majority are stuck at DX 9 because that is the level consoles are at. This is why you can get away with a lower spec PC.

That's good for users like yourself and should be good for publishers since it means the ratio of the large PC base that can play their latest games is probably the largest it has been for a while. They don't seem to be taking advantage of it though...

 

[The Wykydtron]

I find this article quite lolworthy

1. Complain about Consoles in general
2. Release Crysis 2 on PC and Consoles
3.????
4.PROFIT!

 

[dghjdgdjf]

Blizzard seem like they are doing fine in spite of this.

 

[Hoplon]

I guess the rather long console cycle has also let PC's go even further ahead graphically - since console cycles were shorter before, I guess they might have been able to 'catch up' (so to speak) with PC's more frequently in the past... Though, I hastened to point out this is an amateur speaking who has only really been following the gaming industry since this generation of consoles

Still, I remain a console player at heart (even though my PS3 is far away at home and I have no TV at uni... *sniff*) - I honestly don't have £5000 or however much to invest in a big gaming powerhouse of a PC, and my little 13" MacBook Pro can't really compete against my PS3 graphically speaking

Also, graphics aren't everything Crytek! In many cases high-end graphics themselves can hold back games too - just look at Minecraft!

I'm going to be honest here, if Crytek are hampered in creativity terms because of the hardware/graphical limitations of the console systems... then I fear for the innovation department in Crytek =\

Try £500 to £800 for a good gaming rig. though if you a laptop boy more in the region of a £1000 to £1300.

 

[corrupt]

I miss those times, when in order to play a game you did not even need an OS.

 

[BENZOOKA]

The technical limitations of the Xbox 360 and the PS3 are holding the PC back, says Crytek CEO Cervat Yerli.

This is so incredibly true nowadays. I'm so sick and tired to see PC games obviously suffering because the same games are also on consoles.

It's not just about visuals. It's also about the controls, as well as it dictates a whole lot of content and features in the game, difficulty and so on.

PC has always been better than consoles. The only better thing with consoles is that they've got some exclusives.

 

[qeinar]

I guess I agree, to an extent, yeah sure the best most amazing PCs can play really big games, but the thing is not many people have the best PC in teh world as itll probs cost quite a bit and then theres the cost of maintaining it and upgrading it
I think they can be much more advanced but a generation ahead ... I dont really think so.

actually he said generations, not only a generation. : p my 2 years old cheap school laptop can still play any new games without lag. my 1 year old gaming pc can probably do that 3 years from now. : p

 

[Murderiser]

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.

I remember when Crysis first came out. Fantastic game! Can anyone actually play it without spending the equivalent of small car? No!

 

[qeinar]

I can appreciate that pcs are stronger, but at the same time there is a certain security in having a high end gaming pc. I won't have to drop 2 grand every time they come out with a new video card because I know games are still going to look good for a couple years due to this console limitation.

well that's the thing, you don't have to do that since consoles holds the games back. : P you probably only really have to update every third year or so.