"PC easily a generation ahead" - Crytek

By Robert Purchese Published 26 November, 2010

But consoles are handicapping it.

In terms of raw grunt, the PC is "easily a generation ahead" of consoles, Crysis maker Crytek believes.

But games can't tear ahead because publishers are self-inflicting handicaps in order to satisfy the living room.

"PC is easily a generation ahead right now," Crytek boss Cervat Yerli told Edge Magazine (via CVG). "With 360 and PS3 we believe the quality of games beyond Crysis 2 and other CryEngine developments will be pretty much limited to what their creative expression is - what the content is. You won't be able to squeeze more juice from those rocks.

"As long as the current console generation exists and as long as we keep pushing the PC as well, the more difficult it'll be to really get the benefit of both."

Crytek is renowned/infamous for Crysis' demanding PC system requirements. The result was a fantastic visual treat, but the barrier to entry was high. As a result, Crytek opted to make Crysis 2 a multi-platform endeavour.

"If you're working on blockbuster productions then you have to sell blockbuster numbers, and those are only made nowadays in the living room," he said. "As long as PC gaming doesn't have its approval from gamers there, I think it's going to be difficult to push next-gen gaming on it."

"This is a commercially driven industry. If you want next-generation technology-driven games, you'll have to wait for next-generation home entertainment devices that can power better graphics and more computation time."

"A lot [of developers] don't consider PC a big issue any more," Yerli added. "Their expectations are nowhere near what they are for the console versions. Until the PC market creates comparable revenues, companies are not going to spend enough on the PC SKU of the game."

Crytek isn't shy, and confidence in Crysis 2 is sky-high - at least publicly. Executive producer Nathan Camarillo told Eurogamer Crysis 2 can be as big as Call of Duty - "We say why not?" - before blabbering on about how hard it will be to reach the assumed 90 per cent review score.

Crysis 2 will be released in March 2011. Christian Donlan took a long, hard look at the game earlier this year.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds. @Clert on Twitter.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (85) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • altitude2k #1 2 years ago

    Graphic improvements a new generation does not make.

  • Freek #2 2 years ago

    The most popular PC game for a long time (StarCraft 2) has nothing to do with visuals and everything to do with gameplay.
    Edited by Freek at 26/11/10 @ 12:19

  • ZizouFC #3 2 years ago

    *BEEP *BEEP*

    EVERYBODY TO THE VAULT! THIS IS NOT A DRILL!

    "daddy I'm scared..."
    Edited by ZizouFC at 26/11/10 @ 12:20

  • geeza2020 #4 2 years ago

    more flamebaiting by EG. jeez, get a grip guys.

  • phycus #5 2 years ago

    upgrading hardware every 6 to 8 months to play the latest games sucks dogs balls, not to mention too expensive.

  • StolenGlory #6 2 years ago

    I smell a pre-emptive excuse for poor forthcoming console conversions of Crysis 2.

  • Bitkari #7 2 years ago

    I suppose this is true, but I don't really mind too much.

    It means I can build a gaming PC fairly cheaply, and run most games at 1080p, 60fps.

  • Bealsy #8 2 years ago

    they have games on PCs now?

  • bad09 #9 2 years ago

    "But games can't tear ahead because publishers are self-inflicting handicaps in order to satisfy the living room."

    Grrr. My PC works in the living room perfectly well, even on the big TV, it's 2010 FFS can we please get over this nonsense!!!!!

    Anyways, glad someone has said it as much as the console guys hate it it's true, but consoles are where the money is. PC will be held back until the next round of consoles, then pull away again. etc, etc....
    Edited by bad09 at 26/11/10 @ 12:22

  • Bahumet #10 2 years ago

    Does this mean Sony and MS fanboys can finally gang up on PC lovers?

  • bad09 #11 2 years ago

    "upgrading hardware every 6 to 8 months to play the latest games sucks dogs balls, not to mention too expensive.

    Yes that does suck dog balls...good job that stereotype is bollocks ;)

  • SixFootHalfling #12 2 years ago

    upgrading hardware every 6 to 8 months to play the latest games sucks dogs balls, not to mention too expensive.

    Can we please fuck off saying this, I upgrade roughly once every 3 years, spending £300 and my current 3 year old computer can play anything on max @ 1920x1200

    or what bad said
    Edited by SixFootHalfling at 26/11/10 @ 12:25

  • Mkwone #13 2 years ago

    PC may be a generation ahead, but how many people have such a PC and regularly improve it to stay at such a level?

    I'd personally prefer to buy a console, and be able to go into a shop buy a game and know it will work, than worry about if my PC will run it. Granted for some people this is a simple as doing a heating microwave pizza, but for me i may as well be trying to defuse a bomb.

  • Ryboy #14 2 years ago

    For fucks sake. Here we go...

  • Dismiss #15 2 years ago

    Yep, love this state of affairs. My 3 year old desktop is just fine for the occasional game I throw at it.

  • ZuluHero #16 2 years ago

    "Can we please fuck off saying this, I upgrade roughly once every 3 years, spending £300 and my current 3 year old computer can play anything on max @ 1920x1200"

    Only if you have the knowhow and know where to get the parts. Your average person will only go to overpriced places like PCWorld and spend twice that easy. And its not just that - The sheer variety of parts is a minefield. Then you have set up and trouble shooting.

    Specs and ignorance aside, thats a pretty big barrier for entry.
    Edited by ZuluHero at 26/11/10 @ 12:42

  • PlugMonkey #17 2 years ago

    "upgrading hardware every 6 to 8 months to play the latest games sucks dogs balls, not to mention too expensive.

    Yes that does suck dog balls...good job that stereotype is bollocks ;)

    Yup. And it's not as annoying as having to write down lengthy codes just to save your game!

    (Hopelessly outdated misconceptions FTW! \o/)

  • bad09 #18 2 years ago

    @PlugMonkey

    LOL I remember Doom on PS1, I had a whole A4 sheet of save codes ah the good old days :)

  • mr2ange #19 2 years ago

    It really doesn't matter how much the PC crowd say "but my X year old pc is fine for all games"

    -PC's get gradually left behind as the specs become less and less potent for the games that come out each year
    -Constant maintenence = Money, sorry but my console works and doesn't need a new graphics card every 2 years
    -Often getting driver issues - when i put a game in my console it fucking works - ok, sometimes there is a patch early on, but atleast i dont have to go hunting around on the internet for it.
    -For online its never a fair platform - e.g. player x has a tri-screen setup running twice the resolution of other players
    -The vast majority of different genre's are better played with a PAD, (obviously FPS + RTS are so much better on pc)
    -Lastly, most of the high quality games on pc have been made for the consoles, there are so many pc games that suck ass so bad just because its a cheap platform to develop for.

    Nice negative there... but no answer i see... some people just dont like the truth...
    Edited by mr2ange at 26/11/10 @ 13:14

  • Evolution #20 2 years ago

    What's with all the hate here? All he says is that PCs have better hardware available but for economic reasons it isn't worth pursuing that avenue for now. It has been happening for the past few years that PC ports aren't getting the attention they require, simply because they don't make the same money as consoles do. This lack of care simply leads to more software/hardware issues which in the past would have been noticed and fixed.

  • orangpelupa #21 2 years ago

    @zulu
    completely agree :D

    even many people confused by PS3 when they got many SKU at once (40GB fat, and 2 kind of slim).
    with PC the "choice" is "limitless".

    and if the average person want to make a choice in PC spec, usually they got very wrong.

    many of my friends and family ask me why their PC/laptop cant run A B or C game, or feel slow in SketchUp.

    the answer is :
    usually they think that "Bigger VGA RAM =faster", "Higher series in CPU = faster".

    "Bigger VGA RAM =faster" resulting they buy ultra slow bad Vga card but with crazy high vga RAM (like 512MB to 1024MB). Rather than buy HD 4670 with 1GB RAM, my friend who do gaming should just buy radeon 4770 512MB.

    "Higher series in CPU = faster" resulting they buy slow cpu but expensive. Rather than buy a laptop with 1.7GHz i7, my friend who do SketchUp should just buy a laptop with Core 2 Duo in 2.5GHz.

    but the average person wont understand that....

  • StolenGlory #22 2 years ago

    Oh and also, Crytek, take a look at RAGE and idTech 5 - THAT is how you effectively and efficently engineer cross-platform technologies.

  • mr2ange #23 2 years ago

    @SixFootHalfling

    The answer is in your post - £300 every three years,

    So basically i can buy a ps3/360 and get 3 times the usable life out of it...

    Or spend £900 on a pc over the consoles life span... pretty easy choice there :p



    Ooh more negatives... well i guess some people dont seem to be able to justify wasting money
    Edited by mr2ange at 26/11/10 @ 13:15

  • geeza2020 #24 2 years ago

    One of the things MS could do if they were at all worried about the PC getting further and further ahead is introduce some PC functionality into the 360. LIKE A FUCKING INTERNET BROWSER YOU CUNTS! I pay for xbox live gold, and they still don't even put the most basic of internet functions into the package. Wherease the Wii, with its completely free online experience, has its own (granted a bit rubbish) browser and iplayer. It just seems like Microsoft dont want 360 owners getting ANYTHING for free.

  • arcam #25 2 years ago

    but the average person wont understand that....

    And that's why they invented consoles. Luckily the glorious PC gaming master race is far from average.

  • Doctor_What #26 2 years ago

    Boo hoo hoo Crytek. Work with the limitations and improve your gameplay, not the graphics. There are always optimisations to be made in code, how about doing that instead of just expecting everyone to upgrade their kit?

    Every developer I know doesn't want a new generation of consoles - they can barely afford the scale of development to get a half-decent result on this generation.

  • PlugMonkey #27 2 years ago

    Honestly, this is such a non-story.

    Consoles have to lock down their specs, what? 2 years before their release? At which point they can only be as powerful at the cutting edge PCs of that time. Then, 2 years later they come out, already 2 years behind. Then, 5 years after that, they're going to be a "generation behind". It's around this part of the cycle that the difference is most marked, and it's purely down to the fact that consoles are generational, where PCs really aren't. They're much more incremental.

    The real question is, what can Crytek do with all that power that will actually drive people to upgrade? I don't think that consoles are holding back the PC developers, it's that most PC owners (as shown on this thread) are still perfectly happy with the performance of their 3 year old PCs. The law of diminishing returns is starting to bite, and Crytek have yet to show me anything that makes me think "Wow! I need THAT!".

    It's the same reason the next generation of consoles aren't appearing on the horizon yet even though, historically, they really should be by now. There's nothing currently that Sony or MS could show me that would be THAT much better than what the current consoles do.

  • kendoji #28 2 years ago

    I'm not a PC gamer, never have been, and probably never will be. But I would be quite happy to upgrade my console every three years if it meant cutting edge tech and graphics.

    I probably should be a PC gamer. 8-|

  • ZuluHero #29 2 years ago

    @kendoji

    There is obviously a market for it if people are happy to splash out £300 every 3 years :)

    @Plugmonkey

    Really well said :)

  • CaptainKid #30 2 years ago

    I don't believe this.

    Every new generation of consoles gets closer to PC power.
    When the Xbox360 was released the games looked (almost) better on that then on PC.

    I think the next generation of consoles will have games looking (much) better then on PC, at release off course.

    Perhaps the power of PC's now is a generation ahead of consoles but the games certainly don't look it.
    The games do look better on PC right now but certainly not a generation ahead.

  • yegon #31 2 years ago

    But what about the dormant power of the PS3 that will manifest in 2012?

  • StooMonster #32 2 years ago

    Time to roll out the Steam Hardware Survey, the average game player PC specs aren't all that:

    [link url=http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/?platform=pc
    ]http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/?...[/link]

    Most PC gamers evidently do not upgrade hardware "every 6 to 8 months to play the latest games"

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #33 2 years ago

    "PC easily a generation ahead" - Crytek But consoles are handicapping it..

    Good. That way people with reasonably priced machines can still join in.

  • rudedudejude #34 2 years ago

    This has been the case for years.

  • FooAtari #35 2 years ago

    Jesus chrsit, can't we all just get along?

    It's the same tired old arguments from both side of the fence every bloody time.

    I have a Gaming PC, 360 and PS3. My preferred platform is the PC but get a lot of enjoyment from my consoles.

    If you exclusively console guys don't like or don't get PC Gaming, thats fine, but why the need to knock it at every opportunity? Does it's existence and people getting enjoyment from it somehow effect your life?? Whats really annoying is that many of the same tired old comments are now no longer a problem.

    And whats amusing as come the next console related news story all the people bemoaning the PC in here, will then be in there arguing over why the Xbox/PS3 (whichever side of THAT fence your on) is a piece of shit.

  • SilverInfinity #36 2 years ago

    "upgrading hardware every 6 to 8 months to play the latest games sucks dogs balls, not to mention too expensive. "

    I remember when I paid £60 for a 1MB RAM module for my Amiga 600 back in the 90's ... I think that was the last time I ever "upgraded" anything myself lol

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #37 2 years ago

    It's quite funny, a mate of mine just bought a moderately high spec new desktop PC. It cost him about £700, and has Core i7 and a Gtx 260 in it. We tried playing the demo of THREE YEAR OLD Crytek game Crysis on it, and it managed less than 30fps at 1280*1024*4xMSAA at full detail. Between 30 and 60 at just high.

    Of course the other thing that's happening is that more and more people are buying laptops to use as their main computer these days, and it's perfectly possible to spend upwards of 500 quid on a machine that would struggle to play Half Life 2 at 720p. And that's to say nothing of the atom-powered netbooks...

  • TheTingler #38 2 years ago

    This is hardly news. This has always been true. But consoles do keep things stable. I love my PC, but I do understand the appeal of the simplicity of consoles. However console fans - the time of just putting a disc in and running it is officially over, and the next generation will become more complicated. You're already having to worry about installs and hard drive space, not to mention add-ons like Kinect, Move, or indeed hard drives in general with the early cheap 360s. Memory packs, graphics card updates... they MUST be on their way.

    Moreover, I think Crytek is just experiencing sour grapes over Crysis flopping. They marketed it as a game no one could run, of course it failed! It's all very well pushing the boundaries, but don't make it so advanced no mid-level PCs can get it!

  • Utopolitan #39 2 years ago

    I remember when I bought my PC maybe 5-6 years ago. I got all the latest and best parts, assembled and tested by professionals, and the machine couldn't even run the most graphically demanding games at the time properly.

    PC gaming can kiss my f***ing ass.

  • Darren #40 2 years ago

    PC technology usually drives console technology which results in new consoles being released, usually every six years or so. At the moment the consoles are holding back the PC and it doesn't help that both Microsoft and Sony are talking about their machines being around for another five years (by then both will look as dated as the PS1 and N64 do now).

    With both manufacturers pushing HD gaming not to mention 3D in Sony's case I personally can't wait for the successors to the 360 and PS3; the sooner they arrive the better then everyone benefits. PC owners will get multiformat games that aren't crippled by using the dated DX9 (with no AA) and console owners will finally have hardware that can run games natively at 720p and likely 1080p too without ugly compromises like screen tearing, sub-HD rendering and wobbly framerates.

    Not that the next generation is all about graphics but unless the hardware is more powerful then there are limitations as to how far developers can go with game design. More memory and fast processors mean bigger, more realistic worlds, better physics and A.I. and all that jazz. Exciting times I think.

  • dingo75 #41 2 years ago

    Hey Crytek!
    Guess your console builds of Crysis 2 suck right now as they did at E3.
    Better start making apologies already that the lack of console power held you back right?

  • Kami #42 2 years ago

    *twitch*

    *twitch twitch*

  • des #43 2 years ago

    Why are you making Crysis 2 for consoles then?

  • Aradiel #44 2 years ago

    RE #21: PCs don't need a new GFX card every two years. If you actually buy well, you only need one every 4 or 5 years, roughly the same lifespan as a console (apart from this generation)

    [edit] In fact, I only do a major upgrade every 5 years or so, each time costing me £250 at most. In between times there are minor upgrades, e.g. replacing a faulty dvd drive for £10

    [edit2] Not to mention that comparing PCs and consoles is a bit of a false comparison, since consoles are pretty much just for games with maybe a bit of web browsing, but PCs are used for much much more.
    Edited by Aradiel at 26/11/10 @ 13:53

  • Mono_X #45 2 years ago

    What! No one seems to realise which platform has actually pushed the boundaries the most.

    It's the Wii, which introduced motion controls technology. It's actually the Wii that's being held back by the other platforms and developers stubborn refusal to fully accept the waggle!

    Seriously, if everyone had embraced motion controls 5 years ago like they should have, then imagine how much more refined developed motion controls would be now.

  • apoc_reg #46 2 years ago

    So true!!!

  • shogo10 #47 2 years ago

    Why do consoles gamers care so much? I see more people bashing pc gaming here than the other way around tbh.

  • bratmandu #48 2 years ago

    Sorry Crytek - it's not the 90s anymore, and joe public ain't big on expensive bi-monthy graphics card upgrades these days. The only thing consoles are 'handicapping' is your ability to pass off graphics tech demos as games. Boom, I went there.

  • Raiten #49 2 years ago

    The amount of pure ignorance and platant bs/lies in these threads just baffles me everytime, even more so i can't for the life of mine understand console fanboys attacking pc's every chance they get, but then again they do it against consoles they don't like as well so let's leave it there. Tis the headache of all of us who own multiple platforms.

    The first poster of the thread made the most typical and foolish comment you can, when discussing about hardwares power.
    For example, even if sony/ms/ninty decided on this second to release consoles with specs equaling those of fastest pc's, it wouldn't necesarily mean huge graphic improvements, no, having more power opens more doors to creating much more vast and complex games, aka it gives more creative freedom to the developers. Basicly if dev were to take full use of PC's prowess atm, they'd effectivly make it near impossible to make a multi-platform game and that won't hapen because multi-plat games is where the money's at, hence why PC are being held back by consoles.

    Lastly, i'll never understand why your "avarage" person has so much hard time with running a pc, honestly my lil bro is the best example of "avarage" person with not much of idea about how pc's work, actualy he's quite the dimwit, yet he's able to change/get new parts and maintain his pc without any problems, does that mean the "avarage" person mentioned in these threads is at the intellectual level of a 2 year old? tbh, you can never go wrong with running pc if you use common sense even a little bit, most functions aren't any harder than plugging in your favourite console.

  • bratmandu #50 2 years ago

    @Raiten

    It's more about cost, there's a recession on ya know?

  • PearOfAnguish #51 2 years ago

    "It's quite funny, a mate of mine just bought a moderately high spec new desktop PC. It cost him about £700, and has Core i7 and a Gtx 260 in it. We tried playing the demo of THREE YEAR OLD Crytek game Crysis on it, and it managed less than 30fps at 1280*1024*4xMSAA at full detail. Between 30 and 60 at just high."

    Your friend bought a high end CPU with what is now a low midrange graphics card. But it runs the game at over 30FPS on high detail, so what's the issue? I bet you can't even tell the difference between high and very high.

    "-The vast majority of different genre's are better played with a PAD, (obviously FPS + RTS are so much better on pc)"

    That's a personal preference. And, er, you do know that there are vast numbers of game pads available for PC, not to mention 360 pads which work on Windows?
    Edited by PearOfAnguish at 26/11/10 @ 14:51

  • dfooster #52 2 years ago

    I can't see current consoles lasting another 5 years as predicted. I think games have reached a technical plateau on consoles. Playing assassins creed brotherhood you can see the xbox struggling under the strain of the game. Forza 3 wasn't capable of running more than 8 cars, gran turismo not many more. Once yearly franchises stop improving technically and graphically then that generation of consoles is dead for me. We are almost there. Obviously gameplay is most important but people will be less inclined to buy the next instalment of assassins creed if it looks identical to the last two regardless of content.

  • fizzyfish #53 2 years ago

    A game can only be as fun as the clarity of the world with which you need to interact - and nothing to do with how pretty it is. Little spoils your enjoyment like the animation dipping below 20fps or finding yourself squinting at the screen to make things out. I'm happy for there to be any pause in the march toward photorealism if it means I can continue to pump the processing headroom of a modern PC into a smoother framerate and a higher screen resolution, instead.

  • bad09 #54 2 years ago

    "That's a personal preference. And, er, you do know that there are vast numbers of game pads available for PC, not to mention 360 pads which work on Windows?

    Oh that's another cliche that grinds my gears, they cry "oh game X isn't "suited" to PC" yet the PC has had pads forever and for the last 5 years has had officially supported windows controllers that ARE the 360 controllers!!!???
    Edited by bad09 at 26/11/10 @ 15:07

  • jack24 #55 2 years ago

    Herpa derp derp

  • Pehmu #56 2 years ago

    I've thought about upgrading my almost 3 year old rig but I really don't have any reason to. Actually, I'm honestly quite happy I can run modern games at 1080p resolution without lowering graphics too much.

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #57 2 years ago

    Something that hasn't particularly been touched on yet in this thread is the cost of developing games for more powerful systems. It almost seems to be as if the 360/PS3 tech level has reached a development cost / revenue equilibrium (and even that is shaky - just ask Bizarre Creations). A new generation of hardware would come with an expectation of a new generation of production values, and I just don't think studios are geared up to take account of that.

    Since four years on, it seems the mass market are only just being convinced that they want somehting more powerful than an overclocked Gamecube, I think that very few people outside of video game forum commenters really want more powerful gaming devices.
    Edited by MENTAL1ST at 26/11/10 @ 15:51

  • Zephro #58 2 years ago

    "It's quite funny, a mate of mine just bought a moderately high spec new desktop PC. It cost him about £700, and has Core i7 and a Gtx 260 in it. We tried playing the demo of THREE YEAR OLD Crytek game Crysis on it, and it managed less than 30fps at 1280*1024*4xMSAA at full detail. Between 30 and 60 at just high."

    No idea what your mate is up to but I have a GTX 260 and an i7 I've got the game running on 1080p, Max settings and it's smooth as anything. Anyway tell him to try Crysis Warhead the code was more optimised.

    Also this isn't just about graphical grunt. It affects map/level size and detail due to memory constraints and all that extra horse power on the CPU that is being totally ignored these days could have been spent on AI or more opponent cars etc. etc. etc. Things that make a game qualitatively better.

    Also how come the latest console prices don't involve people upgrading to slim models every 3 years or having to buy a new HDTV? Or how come all the other value from a PC, like web browsing and posting on forums is ignored?

  • Jamiesan #59 2 years ago

    Holding back, my arse. I still have shitloads of PS1/PS2 games that I play from time to time. Games are meant to be fun, and hardware will not hold that back unless you're making an interactive benchmark like Crysis.

    I have a gaming laptop (I use for work debugging my own games) but choose to use my 360 because that is it's sole purpose and is a much more streamlined experience. All games support the party chat function, every piece of downloadable content from gamerpics to full games use the same service. It's just easier.
    PC master race will probably call that lazy - especially since I have the know-how to build and run a monster rig effectively. But consider this: If I ride the bus to work instead of walking, is that lazy or simply a more efficient use of my time?

    I think the whole "cost of buying a HDTV" is moot for both sides these days. Every home has a TV, and modern graphics cards have multiple outputs to connect to them as well as consoles. The main difference being that a pad is easier to hold on a sofa compared to a keyboard&mouse which usually requires you to be sitting up. PC can use either control method to get the best out of their space. One thing I'm not sure of - if you're using a 360 pad connected to a PC, can you use the headset connector? That is one thing I really like about the 360, both the controller and the headset are not connected to the main unit
    Edited by Jamiesan at 26/11/10 @ 16:08

  • Rens11 #60 2 years ago

    I'm happy with the current graphics of ps3 and xbox 360 and with tv's only 1080p (obv pc monitors can go much higher) games will be limited by how much sexier than can look in the home!

  • Utopolitan #61 2 years ago

    The sad truth is that so few developers seem to prioritize gameplay elements over graphical fidelity when it comes to hardware capabilities.

    Take AI for instance. Why is it that, given the fact that AI is such a fundamental part of a videogame, not one developer seems to really care about improving the technology. It seems like developers believe that as long as they keep pushing the graphical boundaries we will all be happy.
    I just wonder what games would be like if developers utilized all that processing power packed in, for example, a high end PC today to design and power an extremely compotetent AI, instead of wasting it on state of the art graphics which will look like garbage the next day anyway.

  • mAc062 #62 2 years ago

    Most of the console only guys on here dont know what their talking about neither do some of the pc guys. I think its pointless arguing over stuff you don’t get or understand and I based this on the comments I’ve read here and elsewhere on this site on this subject. I have got all the current gen consoles and build my own PCs.

  • Raiten #63 2 years ago

    @Jamiesan, you don't need to know how to build a pc to get a good pc, if you want a customized pc ask the store clerks to do it for you, maintaining pc doesn't require more than few button presses, if you're too lazy to click a program.. i'd say you'd be too lazy to drive a car also.
    Btw, ever heard of wireless headsets to complement your wireless sofa consuming pc gaming life? no? didn't think so.

    @Utopolitan, your points are sad but true, AI in fps games especialy hasn't proggressed much from unreal 1 times on pc, but then again you don't need massive amount of processing power to create devious little AI opponents, take the original quake1 (quake world more precisely) which recieved deviously evil bots that learned from the player, they're the smartest AI controlled opponents i've seen in all these years.

  • bad09 #64 2 years ago

    " if you're using a 360 pad connected to a PC, can you use the headset connector?"

    Yes they do work (although I'm not sure about the wired ones as I use the wireless model), but obiviously on PC there are far superior headsets you could use.

  • memeroot #65 2 years ago

    "a mate of mine just bought a moderately high spec new desktop PC. It cost him about £700, and has Core i7 and a Gtx 260"

    lol....

    that was a mid range (technically a binned 280) card that was released June 26, 2008

    either upgrade or drop in another 260 for sli.

  • Collymilad #66 2 years ago

    No consoles aren't handicapping the PC.

    Dev's who can't be arsed taking the time to properly optimise and change a game for the PC platform are handicapping the PC.

    @Raiten - it's not that average joe has a problem running a PC. I have a friggin degree in Computing and I gave up on PC gaming years ago, because I can't be arsed. You can say all you want about PC gaming but it's still not as easy as "stick disk in, play"
    Edited by Collymilad at 26/11/10 @ 17:01

  • memeroot #67 2 years ago

    copy protection is killing the PC - but when it works the consoles aren't even close

  • Rack #68 2 years ago

    I'm glad consoles are "holding back" the PC. Means I get new games that not only work on my 5 year old system but do so at a high res and with decent framerate. Much better than having flipiminy bling mapping that makes the game run 20x slower and has no visual impact until you turn it off wherein it makes the shiny new game look worse than Quake III.

  • MrSpadge #69 2 years ago

    Most of the comments in this thread are just pure ignorance; ignorance is what is holding us back as a species, let alone in pushing the technological boundaries of gaming.

    The most recent call of duty game is essentially the same game as that three versions prior to it, but in this last generation of consoles the revenue generated has become comparable and in some cases far more dominant than that of major Hollywood movie releases. As we saw in the movie industry beginning in the mid to late 70s and escalating through the 80s into 90s, the quality of film became dumber and dumber, but the dumber it got the more money it made. See the high-concept movie; COD is a high concept game.

    I've been playing crysis again recently, a game that came with "enthusiast" settings in 2007 that were not supposed to be used on release; just play it on gamer settings, but no one did; then came the flames. People need to chill the fuck out.

    Its good to push the boundaries of technology and crysis remains the finest engine developed; finest, as in attention to detail. Type "Cysis mods" into youtube. There is some beautiful work.

    These statements from Crytek sound like excuses for Crysis 2 not being as technologically advanced as Crysis, even on the PC. I sincerely hope it has enthusiast settings that wont run on anyone's rigs so that in another 3 years we'll still be able to notch it up and admire it as a work of art.

    Remember, on a PC, the only part that truly matters is the GPU. A GPU that costs the same price as a console will play crysis at a higher resolution than any Console can play Call of Duty. These are simple facts.

    Please people; calm down. Progression is good, or we will have nothing but unreal, unreal, unreal, unreal.

    I'm really looking forward to some new engines.
    Edited by MrSpadge at 26/11/10 @ 17:32

  • Luk333 #70 2 years ago

    There's are two things you are forgetting in this price conflict:

    A) right now most of you are posting on this site from a computer, maybe some from a phone, none from a console. Some of you own a console, but everybody here has a computer. The price for 1 powerful computer = the price for 1 normal computer + 1 console. A console player invests his money in two different kinds of hardware, while a PC one is focusing on only one. It equals up if you plan from the beginning.

    B) PC games are cheaper. Buying a console is like buying a cell phone tied to a price plan. The consoles are under-priced, but you're still going to pay the difference through the games you buy. Of course, you could just buy 3-5 games, but that wouldn't quite justify the investment in a console.

    Also, If you own a X-Box 360, well, you know...you need to pay for multiplayer.


    As a side thing, the only reason I changed my GeForce 9600GT for a GeForce 460 is because I went from a 17" screen to a 24" one.

    *edit: typo
    Edited by Luk333 at 26/11/10 @ 18:58

  • UncleLou #71 2 years ago

    Why do consoles gamers care so much? I see more people bashing pc gaming here than the other way around tbh.

    Baffling, isn't it. It'll be the same ones who get into huge flamewars over minor graphical differences in the 360/PS3 face-offs as well.

    I for one think it's a shame that we hardly see stuff anymore that really pulls away technologically, like the original Crysis did. Variety and all that, but I think some people can't cope with feeling left behind.

  • IneptPercy #72 2 years ago

    You will find you can upgrade a gaming PC in line with the console generations if you wish.

    EG build a PC now which is better than the consoles and it will remain better than those consoles forever, next consoles come out, build a better PC and it will remain better etc.

    I can see why PC gaming isn't for everybody, there is drawbacks and advantages. To me personally I know what I am doing spec'ing a PC and can build a balanced system without spending a fortune so the advantages do outweigh the disadvantages. Likewise if you don't know what you are doing it can be a pain, with that google if you friend and you can find all the answers you need if it interests you.

    We are all gamers so can't we all be friends?

  • Andeus #73 2 years ago

    Just read what Raiten said, cause its spot on. The meaning of the article was about multiplatform games. PCs are at least one generation ahead, anyone arguing with that is either an idiot or some other system's fanboy.

    A medium priced pc or a 3-5 year old one can easily run games in 1280x720 with just 4xMSAA (max on consoles) and 30-60 FPS. That's what people have been playing on consoles all these years. There are very few 1080p games out there and those have other graphical drawbacks.

    But, but..my TV is Full HD so they run in 1080p.

    No they don't, it's just upscaling. 720p on the PCs is getting close to extinction. The norm these days is at least 1080p and the most common found resolution is 1280x1024. Hell, there's even 2560p but that is extreme and, indeed, expensive. If you think about it some of this year's most popular games (Black Ops, Alan Wake) don't even hit the 720p mark. It's like we're stuck in 2007.

    Yes, to some people it hurts that their consoles are so "weak" (for lack of better word), but it's the truth. And technical specifications are not subjective. And it's not necessarily a bad thing, I mean we are talking about 5 years old hardware here, there is nothing wrong with that. The sad part is that due to the coming of Kinnect/Move they want to extend the current generation's life for another 5 years, while it has reached it's peak. We won't get better graphics or bigger, more complex environments than what we've seen this year.

    Also as I said in a previous comment, Crysis 2 looks exactly like the first one. And the first one achieved those graphics years ago.

    Disclaimer: I own all 3 gaming mediums.
    Edited by Andeus at 26/11/10 @ 20:34

  • Rack #74 2 years ago

    I played Crysis on Enthusiast settings at 1920x1080 and at min settings at 800x600. There was barely any performance difference. Despite playing it on a pretty beefy machine at the time Far Cry looked vastly superior.
    Edited by Rack at 26/11/10 @ 21:31

  • epiazk #75 2 years ago

    In this thread : Fanbois.

  • hiddenranbir #76 2 years ago

    "Graphic improvements a new generation does not make."

    64-bit processing and several gigs worth of memory, does.

  • AOFanboi #77 2 years ago

    Crytek are making games for the TINY fraction of PC owners who build themselves a "gaming rig". (A fraction consisting of arrogant tech nerds, if the comments here are to be believed.) Those that actually want to sell to a large number of PC owners make games that can meet the demands of their less powerful hardware instead.

    Too many PC owners have been burned by getting a game in a store, taking it home, just to discover that their machine did not support some nerdy feature like "PixelShader 2.0" they had no clue about when they bought the PC to do email and surfing. So they return the unusable game (if the store even takes PC games back) and stick with getting their entertainment from Flash game portals instead. OR get a console where they KNOW when they buy a game it will work, without having to read a list of tech requirements in small type on the back.

    (Like when Crytek complained about lacklustre sales of Crysis - maybe they were due to the excessive system requirements - which meant an upgrade for most people - more than the standard excuse of "piracy"?)

    Also, high system requirements does not a good game make. One of the best-selling PC games of all time, Diablo II, ran at 640x480 with 256 colours (increasing to 800x600 in the expansion) for instance. Age of Conan is not necessarily better than World of Warcraft just because the polygon count is higher.

  • metatron197924 #78 2 years ago

    I dont blame consoles for the poor conversions,i blame ati and nvidia because sell hardware without support it in the way meant to be played.The pc hardware at least is cheap nowdays and a lot of people play games at 60fps 1080p at mediocre pcs,its a same from microsoft and hardware developers of pc that let such a great hardware and cheap to play low graphics games due to console limitations,i cant imagine the future in 5 years with this generation of consoles wtf 15fps at 800x600 to show us good graphics.its a same for the people who bought hd tv and cannot enjoy it with today consoles.

  • Machiavellian #79 2 years ago

    Time to roll out the Steam Hardware Survey, the average game player PC specs aren't all that:

    [link url=http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/?...
    ]http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/?...[/link]

    Most PC gamers evidently do not upgrade hardware "every 6 to 8 months to play the latest games"

    But the latest games are not pushing the top end hardware. The latest games are either ports of Console games and thus do not make PC gamers have to worry about getting the latest greatest card in order to play the latest games at top resolutions.

    Crytek tried pushing PC hardware to the max and what they got was a lot of people downloading their game with the excuse of the gmaes ability to make those moderate PC GPUs melt.

  • TwitchyMcTwitch #80 2 years ago

    It's true! The pc is ahead with almost everything! With 3d, with graphics, hell, even with motion control.

    [link url=http://www.nvidia.com/object/3d-vision-main.html
    ]http://www.nvidia.com/object/3d-vision-m...[/link]
    http://www.sixense.com/
    http://www.razerzone.com/motionsensing/

  • NHDave #81 2 years ago

    I am a PC Elitist and I approve of this article!

  • knightmt #82 2 years ago

    And if we were all the same there would only be one of us.

  • Andeus #83 2 years ago

    @BuckoA51 That's the point of the article. Due to the limits of consoles, the PC ports get games made for 720p most of the time. I think, and correct me if I'm wrong here, that it's not easy to tell the difference because even at 1080p+ resolution some game assets remain 720p. Some games offer extra more-HD textures just for the PC versions but most of them don't. You just get the extra sharpness and image quality that additional AF, AA provide along with some amazing upscaling from the much higher resolution.

    When all is said and done, I'm looking forward to 64-bit gaming applications. That will make things interesting again and hopefully the Next Generation of consoles will use that too.
    Edited by Andeus at 28/11/10 @ 20:12

  • Lord_Gremlin #84 2 years ago

    They've mistaken "games" with "graphics" it seems. Also, when will game will look like shit on 360 compared to Gears 3 and on PS3 compared to Killzone 3 they will start explaining how their game is more technically advanced than those exclusives.
    A preemptive answer: nobody gives a fuck about how technologically complex your game if it looks and plays like shit compared to technologically inferior ones.

  • Dapper_Dan #85 2 years ago

    "Graphic improvements a new generation does not make."
    Actually, that's exactly what makes a new generation.
    As far as gameplay goes, 360/PS3 games aren't any better than Xbox 1/PS2 games in most cases, the only difference is the shinier graphics.
    A new generation of hardware SHOULD mean more than just better graphics and sound, but unfortunately it doesn't.