E3: Crysis 2 pushes PS3 to "limits"

By Robert Purchese Published 3 June, 2009

Crytek: "Not much more you can do."

Crytek has said the multiplatform Crysis 2 is "touching the hardware limits" of PlayStation 3, and that "there's not much more that you can do".

"The interesting thing is we did run a performance analysis on the PS3 devkit, and you know the funny thing is the occupation on all the CPUs, the Cell and the SPUs, is pretty much - the needle is at the limit," Crytek boss Cevat Yerli told Gamasutra.

"There's not much more you can do, and frankly the breakthrough was very recent, and otherwise we would've had a compromised strategy on the consoles, which we don't have now.

"So I think we will still have an upside, but we're touching the hardware limits already," he added.

Crysis 2 will head to PC, PS3 and Xbox 360. There's no date, which means we're unlikely to see the game this year.

This will be the first of the series to use CryEngine 3, which promises to deliver more visual benchmarks that melt computer innards and turn us gooey inside.

All we've seen so far is a teaser video from E3, which pieces together the logo amid scenes of rioting and pictures of the fancy suit from Crysis 1, which let players throw cars around and camouflage to near naked-eye invisibility.

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.

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

You may also like...

Comments (92) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Bloodhunter #1 3 years ago

    what about 360?

  • jim1975 #2 3 years ago

    the 360's not even broke into a sweat

  • Physically_Insane #3 3 years ago

    360 more powerful than PS3 confirmed!

  • Milk #4 3 years ago

    How long has it taken devs to stop talking about the "limitless possibilities" & "Imagination is the only barrier" and started saying "there's not much more that you can do"?

    About 2 years?

    Oh well, roll on teh next gen . . .

  • crazyhorse174 #5 3 years ago

    Thought the original Crysis was a bit boring to be honest!

  • JediMasterMalik #6 3 years ago

    I'm surprised that people even care about the power of the consoles anymore.

  • Arwin #7 3 years ago

    It's great that you max out all SPEs, but of course that doesn't actually mean you coded the most efficient way. Anyone (well, ok, most Cell programmers) can create little empty loops on each SPU that just run circles around themselves and burn electricity, which makes the analyse tools say I've maxed out the SPEs. Let alone that I've used the most efficient intrinsics code or algorithms to achieve what I need for my engine.

    What do you take us for, N00bs? ;)

    (just yanking your chain - I'm always happy when people seem to at least try to use the SPEs :p )
    Edited by 1 at 03/06/09 @ 13:30

  • berelain #8 3 years ago

    Interesting that he doesnt make any mention of the 360's prowess, but notes that they were planning on a compromised strategy for consoles until they got extra performance out of the PS3. Evidently they were being held back by the PS3's hardware, or the PS3 version will be equivalent to the PC and the 360 won't. I'd take a stab at the former.

    Just hope its a better game than the utterly generic Crysis.

  • monkeylite #9 3 years ago

    After Crysis, why would anyone care about this?

  • PearOfAnguish #10 3 years ago

    How is Crysis 'utterly generic'? It has enormous maps, reasonably decent AI, a cool nanosuit gimmick, nice use of physics, and some great set pieces. That puts it a step ahead of many other FPS titles.
    Edited by 1 at 03/06/09 @ 13:36

  • Dizzy #11 3 years ago

    >How is Crysis 'utterly generic'

    I think people were a bit bored by the "alien" bit.

  • Psiloc #12 3 years ago

    Didn't they say Crysis 1 was impossible on all the current consoles due to RAM limitations?

    (Not a rhetorical question, I can't remember)

  • Spekingur #13 3 years ago

    Tomorrow we shall see news from Sony about them opening up some new can of coding for the PS3. "We intentionally hide possibilities from coders so we can gurantee the 10 year lifecycle!" is what Kaz would once have said.

  • rhubarbandcustard #14 3 years ago

    Isn't this just marketing spiel?

    The most powerful games engine in the world!

    You won't believe your eyes!

    Your PS3 will weep as we blow your mind!

  • PearOfAnguish #15 3 years ago

    "I think people were a bit bored by the "alien" bit. "

    Yeah, that was crap, but it wasn't the whole game and still doesn't make it 'generic', just has a poorly designed ending.

    "Didn't they say Crysis 1 was impossible on all the current consoles due to RAM limitations?"

    Crysis exactly as it is on PC probably is impossible, simply due to the size of the maps, textures, amount of physics and all that other stuff. Either Crysis 2 has smaller maps and slightly less detail and is identical across all formats, or the console versions will be different in some way to allow for the memory.

  • GamerG #16 3 years ago

    Interesting, it seems to imply that if they had not got the breakthrough on the PS3 they would have compromised the 360 version so that one was not any better than the other!

    Why are devs doing so keen to make both versions identical, they never were in the past..

  • Wastelander #17 3 years ago

    RAM-PAK unveiling at next E3 CONFIRMED!

  • owl #18 3 years ago

    because if they exposed the true power of ps3 this early, developers would be reduced to quivering piles of jelly unable to even tie their shoelaces let alone make games.

  • Doctor_What #19 3 years ago

    In a recent interview in Edge, Crytek said something along the lines of: "with lots of physics going on then the PS3 is slightly better, with lots of textures then the 360 has the slight edge, but otherwise they perform exactly the same". (I might have got the platform attributations mixed up but the conclusion was the important bit.)

    It's not surprising they had to push harder to get equal performance from the PS3 as the 360, because the 360 architecture is a lot closer to the PCs that Crytek have always worked on. That's not a reflection on machine performance, just their field of expertise. Now they have these optimisations they can get on with ignoring the 'which machine is better' arguments and just make the games.

    The result is exactly what we already knew: the 360 and the PS3 seem to be capable of pretty similar things in the hands of a good codeshop, with slight variations in different areas, but the PS3 is more difficult to optimise for. So... Nothing new at all.

    As Arwin says though, there's always room for code optimisation. It may be that the 360 code is running on pretty-well-optimised PC code, and perhaps the PS3 code still has more room for optimisation because it's newer. Then again, maybe this really is the best it can do.

  • AphoticCosmos #20 3 years ago

    Crysis is a bitch on my RAM, I'll lol when Crysis 2 explodes my mate's 360 but my PC can run it fine :p

    That said, I hope it looks as gorgeous and plays as well as the last one. Absolutely love Crysis and Warhead, and the multiplayer is sometimes amazing [looks just as good but plays MUCH better]

  • owl #21 3 years ago

    sorry, i left >sony fanbot mode< on when i wrote that last post, apologies to all concerned.
    Edited by 1 at 03/06/09 @ 13:58

  • mashk #22 3 years ago

    Push it to the limit! walk along the razor's edge, don't look down just keep your head or you'll be finished.

    Yeah.

  • jmg123 #23 3 years ago

    Crytek: "Not much more you can do."


    Yes there is - fire you entire troup of coding monkeys and hire a team that actually knows about optimisation and getting the best from the hardware. look what people can do with the 4k demo scene, now scale that skill and visual effects vs proceesing power/code size up to the ps3 and then you'll have something mindblowing that will look amazing and push the limits with "Not much more you can do"

    (This comment is applicable to most games on all the consoles)
    Edited by 1 at 03/06/09 @ 13:59

  • dsmx #24 3 years ago

    Just because your using all the ps3's processing power doesn't mean there's no room for improvement, it's about the efficiency of your code. Since the ps3's cell is still relatively new in processor design very few people have worked out how to code for it properly and since crytek is a PC company it's a pretty safe bet they don't have the best people to code for the ps3 on their staff.

  • berelain #25 3 years ago

    @ PearOfAnguish

    Apart from pretty graphics, Crysis did little that hadn't been seen before. It trod the same old FPS ground that so many other games have followed, and whilst it packs technical merit, the artistic design was lifeless and uninspired. Generic doesn't necessarily make for a bad game, but it makes for one that I don't have any real lasting memory of, pretty graphics aside.

    @ JMG

    That works for visuals alone, but remember that modern console games often have to run complex environments, physics and AI scripts that demo scenes don't have to contend with.
    Edited by 1 at 03/06/09 @ 14:04

  • dsmx #26 3 years ago

    To be fair to crysis though it will be the benchmark for PC graphics for a long time. and of course the timeless but will it run crysis joke.

  • Katsumoto #27 3 years ago

    What other FPS allows you to leap on top of a house and kill the guard inside by punching the roof, causing it to collapse on top of him? For instance.
    Edited by 1 at 03/06/09 @ 14:09

  • Vistrix #28 3 years ago

    Of course it pushes it to its limits if you arent going to properly optimise the code for the platform.

  • Eraysor #29 3 years ago

    Crysis was great. The aliens were boring to fight, but the set pieces once the aliens had arrived were brilliant. And the nanosuit made it a lot more freeform than the average FPS.

    The only thing about it that really annoyed me was the atrocious ending.

  • Xerx3s #30 3 years ago

    "I'm surprised that people even care about the power of the consoles anymore. "

    Oh you. ;)

  • drumbaby #31 3 years ago

    Are Crytek saying that they're now the best PS3 programmers and that their game will be the best looking PS3 game ever?

    Sounds like it....

  • PearOfAnguish #32 3 years ago

    "Apart from pretty graphics, Crysis did little that hadn't been seen before. It trod the same old FPS ground that so many other games have followed,"

    Could apply to almost every FPS out there, of course it's not that original but Crysis still stands out in a very crowded genre.

  • GamesConnoisseur #33 3 years ago

    Doctor_What said it all really, just glad that Crytek decided not to limit consoles version and will get a more closer experience to the PC version.

    PC version today will always outpowers console and on a different planet, but the problems of PC is not everyone is on the same footing or will get the same exact kind of experience, the market more fragmented and the consoles market is where all the easy money can be made.

    So a GAME of balancing the resources and ensuring the experiences are not 'dumbed' down for the mass market, as hardcore console gamers today complains of Wii casual mainstream gamers is the same as PC gamers complaining that their gamers get dumbed down/checkpointed etc along the line of consoles version.

    X360/PS3 is more closer in term of capacity to PC than previous consoles and eventually people wont be able to differate between PC and consoles at some point in future.

    PC and Console, them and us.... we all are gamers!

  • spekkeh #34 3 years ago

    The fact that most FPSers are formulaic and generic doesn't mean that Crysis is exempt from those labels. I wouldn't know, I only played the demo, and was already bored stiff with so many cliches.

  • space_ace #35 3 years ago

    still at 1/2 of xbox power? :)

  • Darren #36 3 years ago

    I think you only have to look at a random selection of Xbox 360 and PS3 games to realise that they are reaching their technical limitations as developers strive to create larger and prettier games than their competitors. Wildly fluctuating framerates, screen tearing, poor or non-existent anti-aliasing, sub-720p resolutions, etc, etc... they're all indications, IMO, of hardware that is being pushed beyond its limits.

  • Nesfyl #37 3 years ago

    'using all the processing power' a system has to offer is a good thing because we get to see what these consoles can really do. I subscribe to the opinion voiced here that this does not necessarily mean the the coders are using the power in the most efficient way, but we should not forget that this does not make Crysis 2 necessarily a good game... We have all played great games in lesser systems and older PCs that had us in awe. So wait until the it come out first, it might be a very good-looking bore

  • GamesProgrammer Verified Games Team Programmer, Eutechnyx Ltd. #38 3 years ago

    Still doesnt really mean anything, i could write a text editor that made all the spus and gpu run at maximum, called shit coding. Not saying they havent done well, buts just cos the perfomance anlyser says your raping the system to its max, doesnt mean you cant do more

  • UncleLou #39 3 years ago

    Yes there is - fire you entire troup of coding monkeys and hire a team that actually knows about optimisation and getting the best from the hardware

    /facepalm

  • trixter©ú #40 3 years ago

    Aye...Crysis on a console - why? PC still sells a lot of titles (and often more than the console titles at most retail outlets) - that's because PC titles are still cheaper and they don't have "Not much more you can do" ever associated with them. Anyway not meant to be a "PC Fanboy" comment but rather just a rant against FPS and RTS games on consoles...the controllers just weren't made for them and while you can get away with playing them on a console it just sux in comparison.

  • Darren #41 3 years ago

    @Zero_Cool - Well I'll deffo be getting Crysis 2 for the PC as I played the original on that platform. Besides I wasn't that impressed with the Crysis 3 Engine tech demo, there were just a few too many jagged edges and too much screen tearing for my liking. I doubt either will be addressed for the actual game.

    That aside, it's very admirable that Crytek have got the engine running on the consoles but it seems to have been compromised in the process. Still you can't argue that it's great news that console owners will finally be able to experience Crysis. It's an amazingly good game IMO.

  • teabagger #42 3 years ago

    "Yes there is - fire you entire troup of coding monkeys and hire a team that actually knows about optimisation and getting the best from the hardware "

    lol!

  • AphoticCosmos #43 3 years ago

    @ Darren, did you see the GDC trailer for CryEngine 3?

    It really does look even better than CryEngine 2 IMHO. Truly stunning stuff. It's alleged that it can be much better optimised, as well, so hopefully medium-high rigs will be able to blitz it as well as the real high-end stuff.

  • andromeda #44 3 years ago

    yep crysis was boring, looked splendid but those frozen monster bits, urrgh .

    Far Cry 1 (up until the silly aliens) is the best of the lot

  • persus-9 #45 3 years ago

    @ Zero_cool: Why? Why not play it on the best machine you've got? I mean sure it'll look better if you've got the hardware but I'm sure it'll still look pretty fine on a 360 or PS3 and if you've only got a laptop and a console I'm sure it'll be worth while playing it on the console even if you're not getting the top of the range experience. I'd be truely amazed if the PC version on max setting won't be the best version because even if everything else is equal I'm sure the max settings PC version will be able to do the same tricks at twice the resolution. So if you've got a monster PC then I'm sure the PC version will be the way to go but that doesn't make it foolish to play it on a console if that's what you've got. Personally I'm a PC gamer at heart so there's no way I'll be playing this one on console but if it's a good game then playing it on the best system you've got seems like a pretty good policy.

    Having said that I love my PC and I do wish PC wasn't being so ignored. It's a huge platform (the biggest gaming platform in may ways) that deserves more love then it gets. I got particularly annoyed at Sony's Jack Trenton yesterday when on a couple of occations he said things could only be done on PS3 when however it might compare to a 360 it's simply a matter of technical fact that a PS3 can't hold a candle to really good PC.
    Edited by 1 at 03/06/09 @ 15:24

  • nutellapr #46 3 years ago

    Just because the devkit might say the CPU is maxed out DOES NOT mean they've coded in an optimal manner. Crappy coding will show a high CPU utilization as well. The proof is in the end product so let's see how Crysis 2 stacks up to other games on the market.

  • photoboy #47 3 years ago

    @persus-9

    Not only that, I was also annoyed at Tretton's claim that Final Fantasy XIV was PS3 exclusive, when what he really meant was "not coming to the 360".

    The comments from Crytek are interesting, but I'd be willing to bet their familiarity with DirectX and PC development in general means they will have had a much easier time with the 360 version and will have been struggling with the PS3 code. Still, good for them if they've got it up to scratch, and I'm sure Richard Leadbetter will have plenty of comparison videos for us to discover the strengths and weaknesses of each version when it comes out. ;)

  • BadBoyBonner #48 3 years ago

    The 360 launched in November 2005 - with the power of a hish-ish spec PC of the time.

    The PS3 launched in November 2006 - with the power of a mid range PC of the time.

    Crysis launched in November of 2007 - and made even the highest spec PC's of the time whimper like a puppy that had just been hit with the business end of a rolled up newspaper.

    Crysis will now run on consoles that weren't even as powerful as the best PC's of their day - How is this possible?

    1) Crytek were a little too far ahead of the curve, in regards to the machine spec they guessed would be available when their game launched.

    2) Some argue that the engine was highly unoptimised - after reading the many SIGGRAPH papers and presentations it's hard to imagine they couldn't be bothered to optimise it - they clearly went for quality over quantity.

    They now know the result they want and have decided which corners to cut to get close to the same result with much less power.

    And offer visuals pretty far below what anyone can run today on a GFX card costing less than 78 quid i.e. ATi 4770.

    Digital Foundry stated the demo's were all running at 720p so that's not one of the corners (yet - which is surprising as the Cryengine2 simply loves having the resolution dropped to speed rendering).

    Even with highly optimised texture streaming it's hard to imagine they will be close to their PC counterpart when up close - and you spend a lot of time in Crysis very close to those leaves! lol.

    It will be most interesting to see what's been cut and what hasn't, what's the same or better and what's (inevitably worse).

    However I think this is one area that Carmack has once again predicted the future with unerring consistency i.e. that we were going to plateau for a few years due to console penetration (with consoles offering static PC based (Nvidia/ATi) GFX solutions for 5-7 years).

    I expect to see the Cryengine3 for many years to come - and the fact that it already works well on machines with much higher spec than the current consoles bodes well for a smooth transition to the new consoles.

    To see the quality of images the Cryengine2 can produce check out this link [link url=http://www.incrysis.com/index.php?option=co m_content&task=view&id=793
    ]http://ww w.incrysis.com/index.php?option...[/link]

    As for the artistic direction of Crysis/Warhead - well it's much easier to create an island with bugger all infrastructure on it than it is a bustling city - so could Cryengine2/3 cope with a city?

    Cryengine seems to cope with a virtual London - without any texturing or people/vehicles etc lol <a href="http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=4jH8dikLHcM
    ">http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=4jH8dikLHcM
    </a>

    I think it is only called Cryengine3 to catch up with the Unreal engine is much the same way MS ensured the Xbox had a 3 after it instead of a two.

    There's nothing that I have seen so far that would make me think this is an upgrade from Cryengine2 at the moment(not even seen any PC footage to be honest though - has any been released?) - and if Crytek has sacrificed visual fidelity for speed am not to sure most PC enthusiasts would see that as the type of progress they embrace.
    Edited by 2 at 03/06/09 @ 15:57

  • Darren #49 3 years ago

    @persus-9 - I know exactly what you mean about the PC being ignored.

    I've pretty much swapped over from the consoles to my PC for multiformat gaming now that I have a system that totally obliterates the 360 and PS3 hardware wise. The thing is that I've noticed a worrying tendency for many of the big name multiformat games to arrive weeks or even months after the console versiosn. Resident Evil 5 has yet to arrive on the PC (surely to be the definitive version?), Bionic Commando still isn't out and Red Faction Guerilla isn't coming out this week either. It's only the fact that the games are much cheaper and knowing that they'll look and run better which stops me from buying the console version really (although I do have Resident Evil 5 already for the 360 and PS3 but I'm trading them in once I have the PC version).

  • Seoh #50 3 years ago

    lets not forget that the team at crytek realesed crysis then released a patch that improved performance by at least 15% thats more than a new graphics card will buy you. As always optimizing the engine is the hard part and the thing that yeilds the biggest result.

    The PS3 is capable of doing some pretty clever stuff (take killzone 2) if you know how to code to its strengths but this approach would lead to different versions for each system with different engines, its just not feasable.

  • PearOfAnguish #51 3 years ago

    "Crysis will now run on a consoles that weren't even as powerful as the best PC's of their day - How is this possible?"

    Well, aside from the optimisation of the code and (presumably) more knowledge of the inner-workings of the consoles, there's the fact that the game will probably be running at 720p - a lower resolution than most PC players use - and that old chestnut of idiots who whacked the detail levels up to max then whined that their mid-range system couldn't run the game. Crysis ran just fine on your average inexpensive gaming PC at the time, so long as you didn't try to run it at the very highest settings.

  • Darren #52 3 years ago

    @BadBoyBonner - Crysis 2 coming to the consoles is less about optimisation and more about profitability. The PC original was one of the most pirated games of all time (reputedly) and sales were considered disappointing. This in turn has led to the publishers, EA, wanting to market the game on a larger number of platforms to maximise profits. Who can blame them, it seems to be the trend with third-party publishers these days as games development escalates in cost?

    Any game can run on any console with compromises. Even the Wii could run a version of Crysis if Crytek wanted, it just wouldn't look very good! Far Cry was a cutting edge PC game when it was released, it brought many systems to their knees like Crysis did, but it didn't stop the game appearing on the Xbox albeit with smaller levels, poorer graphics and a more linear level design. Who's to say that the same fate won't befall Crysis 2 on the consoles? I can't imagine for one second that Crysis 2 will look and run as well as the original on high-end PCs nor have levels as massive and detailed. For one thing the consoles only have 512 MB of memory for both code and graphics.

    What I'm sure we will see is a fairly decent approximation, as hinted by the Crytek 3 engine tech demo, which will surely be enough for those people who've never played the original anyway? PC owners will be buying the PC version regardless so really it doesn't matter what the game looks like on the consoles, it just needs to play well. I'm sure it will.

  • PearOfAnguish #53 3 years ago

    "sales were considered disappointing"

    That was bollocks, they sold something in the region of 2 million copies (and that was a few years ago and didn't included DD versions) which is pretty fucking healthy for a game that allegedly couldn't run on anything but a super-computer. The problem was the unrealistic expectations of EA and CryTek.

  • BadBoyBonner #54 3 years ago

    "sales were considered disappointing"

    And the game has been released a few weeks ago as an ultimate colletion called Crysis: Maximum Edition [link url=http://www.play.com/Games/PC/4-/88259 48/Crysis-Maximum-Edition/Product.html
    ]http://ww w.play.com/Games/PC/4-/8825948/...[/link]

    Which will no doubt do quite well with people drifting back to the PC after seeing how much better the PC version of things like Burnout, Pure and Codemasters EGO engine etc run on pretty inexpensive PC hardware - and all supporting the 360 pad.

    Must admit I finished Crysis just the other day using a 360 pad all the way through and on my projector - awesome experience!



    Edited by 1 at 03/06/09 @ 16:11

  • SeesThroughAll #55 3 years ago

    Considering they just ported their engine to the PS3, maybe they'll be able to optimize it further.

    Having said that, I think I'll pass. Never cared to try in the PC either.

  • Doop #56 3 years ago

    360 users might want to have a fire extinguisher at the ready.

    I'll be getting this on PC ;)

  • Darren #57 3 years ago

    @BadBoyBonner - I play almost all of my PC games now with a wireless 360 controller... even Crysis and Warhead. Controllers rule! It makes it feel like I'm playing games on an uber-Xbox 360 really, one that is capable of true 1080p graphics and 60 fps framerates in the vast majority of my games. No more is this apparent than when I'm playing Games for Windows LIVE games and the Achievement notification pops up! :)

  • Widge #58 3 years ago

    Where is the PSP version?

  • zarglu #59 3 years ago

    They're maximizing CPU & GPU usage?
    So what? I'd rather they claimed 60 FPS, true 720p and with top notch visuals, physics and AI.

    There is another piece of software that can maximize CPU and GPU routinely on the PC, it's called Vista...

  • BadBoyBonner #60 3 years ago

    Seems the PC is about to get even further ahead...

    ATi are already fabricating DX 11 Hardware http://ww w.semiaccurate.com/2009/06/03/a...

  • Weezer #61 3 years ago

    You can almost hear Richard Leadbetter winding up for a massive techspec wankfest over this...

  • Calgon #62 3 years ago

    Why are devs doing so keen to make both versions identical, they never were in the past..

    GamerG you will probably already know the answer to that but if not take a look at the reactions the 'knowitall's' have when its even hinted by a dev that 360 is more than a match for PS3, either by their comments in previews/hands on sessions or simply by releasing their game with the 360 version having any clear advantages. This is Sony's doing and if I were a dev Id resent Sony for that, its the devs who have to take the flak for Sony's hyperbole when people are dissapointed.

    I think some of you need to just calm down, he basically said there would have been compromises if they didnt use ALL the optimizations they could get for the PS3 code. Also anybody who says anything along the lines of "the 360 is basically a PC anyway, so doesnt need code optimisations as much" has automatically discredited themselves because thats complete rubbish to anyone who knows even the basics of the insides and how it works. Finally I will also remind these people that CELL isnt all that new any more, it was difficult to begin with and developement will probably continue to be slower on the platform but devs are familiar with the architecture now so stop pretending its "some alien technology too advanced for their feeble minds".

    Also theres more reasons than just efficiency why these console are able to suprise people with the specs they have to work with compared to PCs... and I will repeat this every time its mentioned you cant compare the specs like for like. A console is a closed system, lower overheads on the CPU side(probably one of the biggest differences), lower overheads on the GPU side and basically less seperation of game code from the hardware all around and the ability to optimise and take shortcuts to a much much greater degree than they could ever hope for on a PC version... meaning more can be done with less.

    I see some of you have only just realised PCs are in general alot further ahead than consoles are... this has been the same every generation, if anything consoles have closed the gap slightly performance wise(or maybe devs have just got alot more adept in handling mutiple formats or porting and developing for consoles than they were in the past).
    Edited by 5 at 03/06/09 @ 17:03

  • PearOfAnguish #63 3 years ago

    Trouble is, Bonner, that like DX10 when it was first introduced the vast number of systems out there will not support DX11 yet, so all it does is complicate matters. They'll need to support DX9 (for Win XP and older cards), DX10 (for Vista and newer cards) and DX11 (for the very latest hardware). Would be simpler if there wasn't this XP/Vista divide.
    Edited by 1 at 03/06/09 @ 16:51

  • Ryze #64 3 years ago

    There'll always be another tiny optimisation that can take place - a different technique to do the same job that saves a few (million) processor cycles.

    But I know what they mean. They're maxing out the processors.

    That's lovely, Crytek.

    Game?

  • onyxbox #65 3 years ago

    @Arwin

    spot on.

  • BadBoyBonner #66 3 years ago

    Agreed Anguish

    That said - it's standard practice for the latest greatest card to batter last years Speed Queen into the ground.

    Rumour is Nvidia haven't even tapped their card out and ATi is already mass producing the silicon for it's next gen cards at 40nm.

  • septimus #67 3 years ago

    I have a suspicion that Uncharted 2 will look better than Crysis on PS3 and make their claim BS. There is no way they will have achieved the efficiency they have on the 360 on the PS3.

  • YourMessageHere #68 3 years ago

    "What other FPS allows you to leap on top of a house and kill the guard inside by punching the roof, causing it to collapse on top of him? For instance."

    Or, indeed, allows you to leap on top of a house and kill yourself by punching the roof, causing it to rebound into your face at hypersonic velocity? Or alternatively jumping on top of a house, damaging the roof by landing on it and falling through, then dying as the house falls on you? It had a lot of amazing physics interaction, but it didn't always work quite right. Which, in its own way, was sometimes kind of cool. Not when after an arduous firefight you casually grab a passing chicken and instead of propelling it into the low stratosphere as you intended, accidentally bounce it off a tree and into your own face, though, that's less cool.

  • Marshall2008 #69 3 years ago

    You only get amazing results and push the hardware if you build the engines from the ground up around the target hardware. I seriously doubt that they will have done this with Cryengine and merely ported it to the target platforms. Without ongoing heavy development on the console version of the engine it will appear much weaker than other titles built solely PS3 and 360.
    Edited by 1 at 03/06/09 @ 20:22

  • Law07 #70 3 years ago

    I'm really disappointed we haven't seen an apperance from farticusmaximus in this thread :(

  • septimus #71 3 years ago

    I can't see it looking as good as this on PS3 : [link url=http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-09-uncharted-2/503 66
    ]http://ww w.gametrailers.com/video/e3-09-...[/link]

    360 is going to be the better option for this engine.

  • Weezer #72 3 years ago

    I don't get all the pant-creaming over Uncharted 2. Looks nice and all, but it's not super amazing or anything. And a lot of the stuff in that video is cut-scene or set-piece. I'm sure it'll look great, but it's not epoch-making or anything.

  • AphoticCosmos #73 3 years ago

    @ evilfoxhound

    You obviously didn't see their GDC CryEngine 3 trailer.

    It thrashes Uncharted 2 IMHO. The original trailer was bollocks for CryEngine 3, but it's looked a LOT better more recently.

  • Spekingur #74 3 years ago

    Isn't Uncharted 2 supposed to be fairly linear rather than the open world engine that CryEngine is?

    As for optimisation and 4k demo competition.. I do know that Avalanche Studios have at least one of the competitors working for them. So I am excited to see how Just Cause 2 turns out - actually much more so than Crysis 2 or Uncharted 2.

  • Gmannn #75 3 years ago

    what the hell arer you guys talking about? Have any of you ever created a video game? Of course crytek can say that they pushed the ps3 to its limits. Systems have specs for a reson ya know. If a system can only output a certain amount of polygons (eg. 100 million) thats all it can do. No exceptions. If a system only has 512MB of RAM thats all the ram you will get (unless you have a pc). No exceptions. The only thing that makes a better in terms of graphics (achieving unreached graphical heights) is optimization. The truth is the 360 has more RAM and the better GPU. Which is enough to do more with. Read on and i will explain why.

    I have never seen a game that runs soley on a proccessor. If you look at the recommended specs for crysis you would see a recommendation for 1gig of ram or more and a powwerful GPU (preference to a graphics card with 768MB of ram, proccessor 2.0 or higher. Why so much ram and so little proccessing power. Games are made of ram for those of you who don't know. If you have 512MB of ram you must first decide a few things. In the case of the playstation 3 they have 256MB of ram dedicated to coding. Plus the SPEs also handle code what would explain why playstation games can handle more physics, more on screen motion and AI. But the other 256 is dedicated video ram. This is where the problem comes in. 256mb is not enough for next gen gaming. the truth is most next gen games run on 512mb of video ram. Crysis pc version being one of the exceptions. Although video ram is called video ram sound is a part of it. From the remainig 256mb of ram you must 1st decide if you wanna run the game in high def (which starts ata resolution of 720p). It takes 32mb of ram to convert a game into native 720p. Which means that 256 is automatically decreased to 224mb. Most video games today use 10mb or justa little more for sound (in games that have plenty of A.I, music, gunshots, voice, and other sounds going on it would be more than 10mb). Which means that 224 is now 214 which is not alot of ram to make a next gen title. If you do the same thing to the 360s 512 mb of ram you would be left with 470 which is more than twice as much memory. Which means developers can actually put twice as much detail on screen with the 360.

    Do you wanna know how developers get around this? They do it one of 2 ways. Either they drop the entire game down to 256mb accross both platforms or they setup load points. The trick is that in most video games (closed games like tennis or a fighting game being the exception) you never get to see the end of the stage the same time you get to see the beggining. Lets imagine it would take 512mb of ram to put a stage in gears of war. Because the playstation has half the amount of video ram they would create a point in the game where it loads halfway through. So when the game reaches 256 or very near to it the ram before it will be deleted and then they will load or cache (this is why most games on ps3 cache to hard drive. to ensure that this info transfers very quickly) in the other 256 as quick as possible. This allows a system with half the ram to be able to do the same as a system with twice as much. You being the consumer might not notice it, especially if the developer is good at hiding it (loading at cinematic intervals eg). The next time you play Killzone you will see what i am talking about. During gameplay you will notice that the game freezes and loads for a second or 2 (eg. the 1st level of killzone after you are boosted up on the platform and you pull your friend up and enter then exit the elevator). This is known as optimizing. The truth is that developers make playstation 3 games equal with 360 games, they really are'nt. And for those of you that say Crytek is a PC developing company and know nothing about developing for a console you are talking garbage. All games are made on PC, but made in a code that the console can handle. Then it is moved from the computer and put onto a console. The ps3 or 360 makes no games. Dev kits are there just to create an idea of specifications.

    iF ANYBODY HAS QUESTIONS FEEEL FREEE TO ASK. I WILL SAY MORE IF NEEDE.

  • Gmannn #76 3 years ago

    Also coding has nothing to do with looks. So the better the code does not mean the better the game looks. Code handles only movement. Without code a game would be a bucnh of images or pictures on screen. Codes makes them interactive. Everybody who knows alittle about developing knows this. When you are talking about actual looks are are referring to polygons, graphics engine (which limits the amount of polygons since an engine is only made to fit the specification of the system), art design, color and lighting. All of the above are limited depending on GPU (art design being the exception). You should never sacrifice GPU for CPU. CPU is important, but not nearly as important as GPU. Even as far as regular computer applications are concerned. I am an MCSE (also studying game design) and 1 thing we know in the computer world is that if you wanna increase your performance on your PC as far as running applications as well as speed you increase your ram. Adding ram is always good. You very rarely hear the need to increase proccessing.

  • GamerG #77 3 years ago

    @ Gmannn & @ Calgon

    Thanks for your very informative posts

  • MeBrains #78 3 years ago

    I do not know if this is relevant, but Crytek also mentioned:

    Many have said that the CryEngine 3’s capabilities will be able to fully utilise PS3 hardware. Is this true, and do you feel Crysis 2 will be able to explicitly show a difference in hardware power between PS3, PC and Xbox 360?
    I believe with Crysis 2 both the PS3 and 360 versions of the game will perform to their limits, until there is no more water in the rock.
    [link url=http://www.developmag.com/interviews/497/E3-Intervie w-Crytek
    ]http://ww w.developmag.com/interviews/497...[/link]


    So, the title should read "Crysis 2 pushes both PS3 and 360 to their "limits", no?

  • Postumo #79 3 years ago

    Sorry guys at crytek but

    FarCry >>>> Crysis

  • jmg123 #80 3 years ago

    @Gmannn
    Better code means that you can use your limited polygons effectively

    "The truth is the 360 has more RAM " 360 has 512mb shared GPU/CPU PS3 has seperate 256mb for each. xbox could dedicate more to the gfx but it would be at the expense of physics ai etc, all about trade offs really.

    "And for those of you that say Crytek is a PC developing company and know nothing about developing for a console you are talking garbage."

    Depends on their staffs experience, if they are all well versed in the intricases and naunces of the ps3 hardware then they will be well versed to know what they are doing. If they are a bunch of x86 programmers who know what to do with a system with an infinite combination of hardware parts (PC) then I doubt they will be the best at developing ps3 engines/games. I suspect it is the later.

    "All games are made on PC, but made in a code that the console can handle" written on a pc? yes, written to run on a pc then put on a console? You'd get a much better implementation by writing it for the actual instruction set you intend to run it on. Skip the high level languages, if you really want to say you have reached the limit of the system you'd use a lot of highly optimized low level routines suited to the cell.

    All I'm saying is that I doubt they have the experience in console development to truely get the best from the systems (ps3 and 360)

  • des #81 3 years ago

    Ah poor PS3,will it explode?

  • Bigglesworth #82 3 years ago

    @Gmannn: "Also coding has nothing to do with looks. So the better the code does not mean the better the game looks. Code handles only movement."

    Do you work in the games industry? I'm not trying to be dick but your points, while essentially good, are a little naive - or perhaps just outdated. Regarding the quote above, you're aware of shaders, right?

  • Gmannn #83 3 years ago

    You are very wrong jmg 123. Polygons exsist if there is code or not. If you don't know Polygons are used in computer graphics to compose images that are three-dimensional in appearance. It is used to ensure that images have the same surface all around (in a complete circle 360 degrees or known as 3D). The implementation of polygons can be done with the most primative of codes.
    Coding comes with interaction nothing else. Code is what makes a building seperate into many pieces when a bomb is thrown. Code is what makes person move onn screen or trees blow in the wind. Code creates Artifcial Intelligence. Polygons are initiated before all of that is done. While a character is still a motionless picture polygons are implemented. Even before he makes it to the 3D world. The same for the environment.

    And to bigglesworth. Of course I am awre of shaders. Shaders have more to do with color pallet than anything else. How much code you think it takes to implement color? Come on man, lets be real. There are 3 things that affect the way a game looks. Graphics Engine (which is made based on the system. this is tailored to the specs of the system. If a developer eg. Crytek, knows that a system can only handle 100million polygons an engine is made to fit those specs for example), RAM which determines
    exactly how much data can be loaded at a time (example on screen elements) to the GPU, and last of all there is anti-aliasing. There are other elements that have to do with the designer of course (eg. art design) an can not be limited by system specs. But the truth is any developing company can know if they have reached 512MB of ram. Any developing company will know if they used all of the space on a Blue-Ray disk. If a cup can only hold 8ounces of fluid thats all it can hold, no exceptions. The only thing that matters is the type of fluid (eg. water, juice, rum etc.)

    CRYTEK HAS THE RIGHT TO SAY THEY REACHED THE SYSTEM'S LIMIT.

  • Gmannn #84 3 years ago

    And one more thing jmg123. "

    All games are made on PC, but made in a code that the console can handle" written on a pc? yes, written to run on a pc then put on a console? You'd get a much better implementation by writing it for the actual instruction set you intend to run it on. Skip the high level languages, if you really want to say you have reached the limit of the system you'd use a lot of highly optimized low level routines suited to the cell.

    What do you think is done? Of course they write an actual instruction set.

  • Gmannn #85 3 years ago

    Both the xbox and playstation have been used to their limits before. Why do you think gears of war has loading points inside the game? Thats because a level is to massively detailed for the entire thing to be loaded at one time. Why do you think frame rates drop in game? There is never a drop or slow down in performance unless you have reached near full capcity. Either there is to much code or environmental aspects or action eating up the ram going on at one time. The reason games are progressing now is because of optimizing, not becuse the system is getting more powerful (or unlocking potential). We as consumers never give complements to the creativity of developers. Instead we give the props to the creator of the system (example, a fanboy saying "wow the playstation is oohh so powerful" or " man the 360 is so powerful";) when the creator of the game put so much hard work into making it look beautiful. Thanks to good developing we have good games.

  • jmg123 #86 3 years ago

    @Gmannn
    "You are very wrong jmg 123. Polygons exsist if there is code or not. "
    Indeed they do, but all the pretty models with 100k polygons don't magically appear on the screen, you still need code algorithms to work out which ones need displaying, which polygons are connected, which ones you can ignore as they are hidden. which ones have moved. Likewise you need code to apply texture and shaders, to work out reflections etc. If the engine is ineffcient then system resources will run out well before you hit the polygon count limits.

    "What do you think is done? Of course they write an actual instruction set. "

    I think they have systems people who write in higher level object orientated langauges, rather than using assembler or c. It takes a lot of skill, time and knowledge of a platform to be able to write highly optimised code that uses many wierd and wonderful tricks to reduce execution times or system resources. I doubt Crytek are the worlds experts on PS3 coding, In fact I doubt anyone has got close to that yet, it will take a few more years for people to have enough understanding to really push the system, it's the same story for all consoles in all grenerations. so crytek have the right to say they have reached the current level of their ability to get performance from the console based on their current levels of understanding/skill. But in the future this will be surpassed, cryteks boundaries will be beaten maybe by crytek probably by others. But to say they have hit the limit already? well that just says they need to try harder.

    You are just being a bit to simplistic anf high level about things.

  • Calgon #87 3 years ago

    Sorry Gmann I dont agree with everything you said there or maybe Im reading you wrong, I do agree that "untapped potential" a term that previous hardware manufacturers in this industry never tried to say before Sony arrived... is a PR gimmick in the same way "this one is 32 bit" was back in the day but I dont agree with the term "Maxed out" either which is a PR gimmick for the developers rather than hardware manufacturers in some ways.

    Both platforms have room for improvements and optimisations to acheive better performance, I cant tell you how annoying it is to see people claiming Uncharted 2 is "proof" of anything except some people really are desperate to beleive the PS3 is more powerfull than 360.(it looks good but theres nothing it does that you can attach the term "blows away" or "amazing" to... get real fanboys) Even theoretical arguements can go on and on because they remain theories untill the hardware has proven it, sometimes its not possible there are bottlenecks, things that make certain targets physically impossible. Based on real world performance you really cant say PS3 has shown anything that suggests it more powerfull than the 360, if anything its been the other way around, even though cases can be made for the difficulty of developing for each platform has been a reason for that... that excuse will have to die sooner or later.(I'd say its already dead all thats left now is who has the best devs on board or who's willing to spend more on the software *time/money* because its just getting the most out of what you've already got for the most part from here on in)

    There are sometimes features, hardware features that go unused so although you could make the arguement that every 1st party game released for each platform is probably using 100%(theres no reason they wouldnt use 100% of what they could acheive even on their 1st generation software) they just arent using it efficiently, its not quite as simple as that. On the 360 side there's VMX128 which has had less attention from devs than the the SPUs... much less, on the PS3 side they used to have the excuse that not all SPEs were being used(but the claims that none at all were being used were laughably going on way too long) which was kind of valid up to a point but often exagerated but that doesnt matter any more because we have seen games using all SPEs already and theyve been working on optimising for the SPEs from day one for the most part(which are kind of similar to VMX in some ways this was one of IBMs contributions, without that I think CELL may have been considered a complete flop because theyd have been even simpler than they are now without many instructions/features at all), so how long do these idiot fanboys think they need? The PS3 isnt by any means the clear winner this generation in terms of performance and never will be so just accept it, sure it has its advantages here and there but so does 360.(even more so IMO or atleast the advantages it has are more significant but we dont need to get into that)

  • EvilBob_leeds #88 3 years ago

    This really is bollocks. If you want to say "I need to carry out x many binary additions per second, and that operation is pushing console Y to its limit", then that's in some way quantifyable. This isn't. Not even close. There's that many components, that many possible ways of approaching a solution, that many different ways of getting multiple light sources and particle effects going, that many different ways of implementing a physics engine that this is ultimately meaningless. What it really boils down to is "we've hit a wall with the Crysis 2 engine, due to our poor choice of an engine model that won't shoehorn as easily onto the PS3 as it does the XBox. Boo hoo hoo.".

    Crysis 2 is an arbitary engine written to arbitary standards, following an arbitary paradigm. Is it the going to be the be all and end all of engines? Fuck no. Is it effectively attempting to push a set of requirements best suited to a PCs capabilities onto the PS3s hardware? Most likely. Is this more or less complete gibberish, presumably pushed out to get a bit of media coverage going? Fuck yes.

  • Calgon #89 3 years ago

    Nah Evilbob, using terms like "maxed out" and "to its limits" might not have much worth but to suggest they've just ported a PC engine to the PS3 is a bigger pile of bullshit on your part(for a start the PC's capabilities are better accross the board than the PS3 however you choose to do it so lets not be confused, history will tell you the PS3 would probably be sitting around 10 fps at a lower res if they tried it the sloppy way) its a true multiformat engine, the PS3 version has all the latest optimisations from the Sony camp judging by the developers comments and the engine has been built to get the most out of each platform.

    The question is can other devs do better on PS3 and 360 performance wise? For Multi platform engines I wouldnt like to say untill we've had a proper chance to compare. Compared to first party devs on either platform building proprietary engines, I think it would be a first if that wasn't the case(ie if they wont beable to exceed it), I think it is PR talk but they have raised the bar in alot of ways so deserve more credit than some of you are giving them.(they do have a talented team there, certainly not the types who will forget that "the PS3 isnt a PC" like some of the fanboys seem to beleive of even the most respected/talented devs in the industry, its getting beyond the joke... almost ;) )

  • EvilBob_leeds #90 3 years ago

    its a true multiformat engine

    Whatever. That really is a load of bollocks. And what does that mean exactly? The square root of fuck all. Does it mean that they've definately chosen the optimum path for each of the engines, offering a varied SDK for all 3 platforms according to their relative strengths and weaknesses? Chosen different rendering engines and strategies and written the whole thing from ground up in each instance with a paradigm well suited to the chipset in question? Tailored the physics? And ended up with 3 very different engines, each super optimised, but each with a different set of tailored abilities?

    Or does it mean that they've tried to spec something out that so that their engine can offer a common set of libraries? It's not built to get the most out of each platform. It's built to offer a common SDK to lazy developers. If it was truly built to get the most out of each platform then it couldn't offer a common SDK. Not for 3 chipsets where 2 vaguely resemble each other and one is way out in the left field. They've tried to write something that they can plonk onto all 3 platforms, and will behave in exactly the same way on all. A one size fits all strategy. And all the respected/talented devs in the world aren't going to make that anything close to an optimal engine.

    I'm not claiming any platform is better than any other. Except for a decently specced PC obviously being the beefiest of all. If you want to believe the Xbox is better than the PS3 or the other way round, then whatever, good luck to you. What's got my goat is meaningless PR guff like this being foisted on us like news of some description. That is all.
    Edited by 2 at 05/06/09 @ 19:26

  • Calgon #91 3 years ago

    EvilBob_leeds please you could have spared me that utterly meaningless rant, I did get the impression of someone scared of admitting the PS3's "power" is one of the biggest blags this industry has seen on such a scale... thats my biggest problem people eating tripe out of Sony PR's hands and spitting it back into decent devs faces because they can't accept the truth that the PS3 wasnt all it was cracked up to be(by no means am I saying its a crap console but its getting beyond the joke).

    Does it mean that they've definately chosen the optimum path for each of the engines, offering a varied SDK for all 3 platforms according to their relative strengths and weaknesses? Chosen different rendering engines and strategies and written the whole thing from ground up in each instance with a paradigm well suited to the chipset in question? Tailored the physics? And ended up with 3 very different engines, each super optimised, but each with a different set of tailored abilities?

    Its a multi-platform engine(means a damn sight more than your bizarre rant which should really be common sense when you remember what we are talking about here) its no more fair on one than the other, I even spelled it out that it could NEVER hope to compete with proprietary engine(or atleast it would be a first if they did) so why you went off in that direction is puzzling...

    They can still offer optimisations, rendering techniques and "strategies"(whatever that means) on the same engine though and the chips themselves share enough similarities to make "oooh its not fair on the poor PS3 being treated like a PC" comment seem an utterly braindead fanboy ridden thing to say so soon and they can(I'm not saying they have because that would mean a dedicated team for each version) custom tailor the engine (once they have it) for each platform too.

    Maybe thats not what you were trying to say(ie you're not one of those butthurt "PS3 will blow 360 away when it comes out so Im gonna wait and spend a fortune on it and troll 360 boards every opportunity I get"... I simply detest PS3 fanboys like that, they may have taken some stick for looking a bit foolish in hindsight and fanboyish but theyve took all their frustrations out on everyone but the source... which should be Sony if they had any sense), Ive said my peice already about where I thought the dishonesty was, its no worse than you've heard from the hardware manufacturers though.

    Think about it...

    One side says "we've built uber elite hardware there's even untapped potential to be unlocked by elite devs and fairy dust... buy our machine now, its expensive but worth it so work extra hours ;)"

    The other says "this is the limit we've maxed it out, we are elite, this game is gonna rock dont wait for reviews or bargain bin its worth it for the best graphics you'll see on the platform alone ;)"

    I say devs should say that, if hardware manufacturers are going to make their lives harder by over promising what the hardware can do and thus making them look "lazy" as some have humorously put it, then perhaps they should be more open about what the machines limits REALLY are than you are going to get from Sony exclusive devs, who will tell you "our crystal ball machine says theres still 90% untapped potential left and we are on our 3rd generation software, so stick with Sony so you can buy our sequel ;).." *turns around to Kaz Hirai* "did I say it right Kaz? ;)".

    I just get annoyed that people dont look at the wider picture sometimes and lash out at the devs.
    Edited by 3 at 06/06/09 @ 20:19

  • EvilBob_leeds #92 3 years ago

    blah blah ... utterly meaningless rant, I did get the impression of someone scared of admitting the PS3's "power" is one of the biggest blags this industry has seen on such a scale .. blah rhubarb blah

    Ah... I get it. You're a 360 fanboy trying to expound the evils of Sony. Right. Let me get my troll whacking hat on. Oh wait! EAs president has just sunk your entire fucking argument. So it is a limitation of the approach the Crysis team have taken, rather than the hardware itself.

    Its a multi-platform engine

    You said true multi platform engine. As opposed to.. what? A phoney multi platform engine? A sack of potatoes masquerading as a multi platform engine? True multi platfrom engine frankly sounds like PR drone bollocks, and means nothing.

    strategies"(whatever that means)

    Do you not understand what the word means or not get how it could be applied to the subject of a dev shop choosing which path to go down when writing something? Either way that's a pretty dumb comment.

    and the chips themselves share enough similarities to make "oooh its not fair on the poor PS3 being treated like a PC"

    Your argument seems to hinge around this point - that ultimately all consoles are much the same in terms of chipset. What precisely do you base that assumption on? And even if that where true of the chips (and it isn't) a considerable part is how they're assembled on the green board, the buses between them and the available IO resources. Again, I'm not saying one is any better than the other but you need to get your head around the fact that they are very different. Sufficiently different that a few platform specific tweaks thrown on the top isn't going to cut the mustard.