This topic is locked from further discussion.
maybe, i played it on low with Pentium 4 @ 3.4ghz, 1 gig RAM and Nvidia 6600gt 128mb, i beleave it was around 800x 600. Lets say the textures looked like pixels. u can see the pixels changing. it was very lagy game.iam2greenOne gig of RAM is the reason you could "run" it and consoles can't.
consoles could run crysis probley at medium settings with some of the background props cut out to save on memory.LOLDFRTGERGDMIKThe way I understand it, apart from sky and immovable things like mountains, there are no "background" props. Trying to make Crysis work in its full form on a console is like trying to fit a baker's dozen in an egg carton.
I would think so. I will have to start the game and drop all the settings to even see if it would be worth it. But I do think it would be possible.well it been discussed that both consoles wont be able to run crysis at high but i never saw anyone shoot for min would the 360 or ps3 be able to run it at its bare min.
EmperorZeruel
I would think so. I will have to start the game and drop all the settings to even see if it would be worth it. But I do think it would be possible. Regardless, even if it did work that way, the game wouldn't sell well and porting it would be a financial disaster.[QUOTE="EmperorZeruel"]
well it been discussed that both consoles wont be able to run crysis at high but i never saw anyone shoot for min would the 360 or ps3 be able to run it at its bare min.
TheGreatOutdoor
[QUOTE="TheGreatOutdoor"]I would think so. I will have to start the game and drop all the settings to even see if it would be worth it. But I do think it would be possible. Regardless, even if it did work that way, the game wouldn't sell well and porting it would be a financial disaster.Oh stop. You have no clue how it would sell, so stop trying.[QUOTE="EmperorZeruel"]
well it been discussed that both consoles wont be able to run crysis at high but i never saw anyone shoot for min would the 360 or ps3 be able to run it at its bare min.
dgsag
To Emperor: I just looked at the game on lowest settings. Uncharted looks way better than Crysis on lowest settings, so I don't see why Crysis on lowest settings couldn't be done on the PS3 or 360. But while Uncharted looks better than lowest settings, Crysis still has a lot more foliage than Uncharted.
Regardless, even if it did work that way, the game wouldn't sell well and porting it would be a financial disaster.Oh stop. You have no clue how it would sell, so stop trying.[QUOTE="dgsag"][QUOTE="TheGreatOutdoor"]I would think so. I will have to start the game and drop all the settings to even see if it would be worth it. But I do think it would be possible.
TheGreatOutdoor
To Emperor: I just looked at the game on lowest settings. Uncharted looks way better than Crysis on lowest settings, so I don't see why Crysis on lowest settings couldn't be done on the PS3 or 360. But while Uncharted looks better than lowest settings, Crysis still has a lot more foliage than Uncharted.
How are you supposed to market a game that looks worse than some 2002 games, regardless of its features?Regardless, even if it did work that way, the game wouldn't sell well and porting it would be a financial disaster.Oh stop. You have no clue how it would sell, so stop trying.[QUOTE="dgsag"][QUOTE="TheGreatOutdoor"]I would think so. I will have to start the game and drop all the settings to even see if it would be worth it. But I do think it would be possible.
TheGreatOutdoor
To Emperor: I just looked at the game on lowest settings. Uncharted looks way better than Crysis on lowest settings, so I don't see why Crysis on lowest settings couldn't be done on the PS3 or 360. But while Uncharted looks better than lowest settings, Crysis still has a lot more foliage than Uncharted.
Because Uncharted is done on a much much MUCH smaller scale than Crysis.[QUOTE="TheGreatOutdoor"]Oh stop. You have no clue how it would sell, so stop trying.[QUOTE="dgsag"] Regardless, even if it did work that way, the game wouldn't sell well and porting it would be a financial disaster.pyromaniac223
To Emperor: I just looked at the game on lowest settings. Uncharted looks way better than Crysis on lowest settings, so I don't see why Crysis on lowest settings couldn't be done on the PS3 or 360. But while Uncharted looks better than lowest settings, Crysis still has a lot more foliage than Uncharted.
Because Uncharted is done on a much much MUCH smaller scale than Crysis.Thank you Captain Obvious. What was your point in quoting me? :? :shock:[QUOTE="TheGreatOutdoor"]Oh stop. You have no clue how it would sell, so stop trying.[QUOTE="dgsag"] Regardless, even if it did work that way, the game wouldn't sell well and porting it would be a financial disaster.dgsag
To Emperor: I just looked at the game on lowest settings. Uncharted looks way better than Crysis on lowest settings, so I don't see why Crysis on lowest settings couldn't be done on the PS3 or 360. But while Uncharted looks better than lowest settings, Crysis still has a lot more foliage than Uncharted.
How are you supposed to market a game that looks worse than some 2002 games, regardless of its features?Stop, just stop. Don't bother quoting me if all you are going to do is respond with fanboyish responses. 2002...come on. At least keep it real.Because Uncharted is done on a much much MUCH smaller scale than Crysis.Thank you Captain Obvious. What was your point in quoting me? :? :shock: It seemed as though you were using the fact that Uncharted looked better than Crysis on low settings as evidence that Crysis could be done on low settings on consoles.[QUOTE="pyromaniac223"][QUOTE="TheGreatOutdoor"]Oh stop. You have no clue how it would sell, so stop trying.
To Emperor: I just looked at the game on lowest settings. Uncharted looks way better than Crysis on lowest settings, so I don't see why Crysis on lowest settings couldn't be done on the PS3 or 360. But while Uncharted looks better than lowest settings, Crysis still has a lot more foliage than Uncharted.
TheGreatOutdoor
[QUOTE="EmperorZeruel"]
well it been discussed that both consoles wont be able to run crysis at high but i never saw anyone shoot for min would the 360 or ps3 be able to run it at its bare min.
obamanian
They could well run it in medium or high, if the engine was designed from scratch for their architecture and ram limitations
high not a chance. a 8800gt is needed for high and it is 5-6x the power of x360's weak gpu. medium possible with levels the size of hl2. with the current size of levels not possible.I think it could run at high if it was made from ground up on consoles, and not ported, Because Consoles seem to be much stronger than their hardware because of such good coding and optimization, Consoles compete with Pc's with video cards two generations newer than their own.
needs 1gb system ram and 256mb vram just to run consoles have 512mb total ram you do the maths. [QUOTE="obamanian"][QUOTE="EmperorZeruel"]
well it been discussed that both consoles wont be able to run crysis at high but i never saw anyone shoot for min would the 360 or ps3 be able to run it at its bare min.
imprezawrx500
They could well run it in medium or high, if the engine was designed from scratch for their architecture and ram limitations
high not a chance. a 8800gt is needed for high and it is 5-6x the power of x360's weak gpu. medium possible with levels the size of hl2. with the current size of levels not possible.You don't know much, it might say its need 1gb of ram but thats just because operating systems on computers and all the stuff running in the background takes up so much of it, but since consoles are made for gaming they require much less, and odn't have much running in the background and since the developer knows the exact hardware of hte consoles they can optimize for that specific hardware and not for hundreds to thousands of configurations of computers.
I think it could run at high if it was made from ground up on consoles, and not ported, Because Consoles seem to be much stronger than their hardware because of such good coding and optimization, Consoles compete with Pc's with video cards two generations newer than their own.
LordDhampire
Not really... resolution wise and image filtering wise... not a chance.
high not a chance. a 8800gt is needed for high and it is 5-6x the power of x360's weak gpu. medium possible with levels the size of hl2. with the current size of levels not possible.[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"]needs 1gb system ram and 256mb vram just to run consoles have 512mb total ram you do the maths. [QUOTE="obamanian"]
They could well run it in medium or high, if the engine was designed from scratch for their architecture and ram limitations
LordDhampire
You don't know much, it might say its need 1gb of ram but thats just because operating systems on computers and all the stuff running in the background takes up so much of it, but since consoles are made for gaming they require much less, and odn't have much running in the background and since the developer knows the exact hardware of hte consoles they can optimize for that specific hardware and not for hundreds to thousands of configurations of computers.
wrong, crysis.exe uses 800-1500mb ram plus all the vram. the game would hardly run with only 1gb ram in the system. just to run it needs around 800-900mb. in a 4gb system crysis will easily use 2 of those gbs.[QUOTE="LordDhampire"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"] high not a chance. a 8800gt is needed for high and it is 5-6x the power of x360's weak gpu. medium possible with levels the size of hl2. with the current size of levels not possible. imprezawrx500
You don't know much, it might say its need 1gb of ram but thats just because operating systems on computers and all the stuff running in the background takes up so much of it, but since consoles are made for gaming they require much less, and odn't have much running in the background and since the developer knows the exact hardware of hte consoles they can optimize for that specific hardware and not for hundreds to thousands of configurations of computers.
wrong, crysis.exe uses 800-1500mb ram plus all the vram. the game would hardly run with only 1gb ram in the system. just to run it needs around 800-900mb. in a 4gb system crysis will easily use 2 of those gbs.and games on the PC like Grid, CoD 4,5, Mass Effect, andGears of Warand various other multiplatform games require more ram on the pc to run a equivelent quality as their console versions
Thats because console games and pc games are coded differently and optimized more on Consoles to work with less ram, it can be done it just need a little more effort
wrong, crysis.exe uses 800-1500mb ram plus all the vram. the game would hardly run with only 1gb ram in the system. just to run it needs around 800-900mb. in a 4gb system crysis will easily use 2 of those gbs.[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="LordDhampire"]
You don't know much, it might say its need 1gb of ram but thats just because operating systems on computers and all the stuff running in the background takes up so much of it, but since consoles are made for gaming they require much less, and odn't have much running in the background and since the developer knows the exact hardware of hte consoles they can optimize for that specific hardware and not for hundreds to thousands of configurations of computers.
LordDhampire
and games on the PC like Grid, CoD 4,5, Mass Effect, andGears of Warand various other multiplatform games require more ram on the pc to run a equivelent quality as their console versions
Thats because console games and pc games are coded differently and optimized more on Consoles to work with less ram, it can be done it just need a little more effort
Multiplate also look and run better... meaning, they need the extra hardware.
wrong, crysis.exe uses 800-1500mb ram plus all the vram. the game would hardly run with only 1gb ram in the system. just to run it needs around 800-900mb. in a 4gb system crysis will easily use 2 of those gbs.[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="LordDhampire"]
You don't know much, it might say its need 1gb of ram but thats just because operating systems on computers and all the stuff running in the background takes up so much of it, but since consoles are made for gaming they require much less, and odn't have much running in the background and since the developer knows the exact hardware of hte consoles they can optimize for that specific hardware and not for hundreds to thousands of configurations of computers.
LordDhampire
and games on the PC like Grid, CoD 4,5, Mass Effect, andGears of Warand various other multiplatform games require more ram on the pc to run a equivelent quality as their console versions
Thats because console games and pc games are coded differently and optimized more on Consoles to work with less ram, it can be done it just need a little more effort
Well, just how much do they use--just the programs themselves? We've already seen proof of Crysis' memory usage from both debug tools and the Task Manager. We know it needs 1GB at a minimum because it can use over 768MB of RAM all by itself. And that's still not counting the graphics memory.There is no Conslole can run CRYSIS In High QualityDark_prince123There is no console that can run Crysis at any quality.
Hmm whatever you say,but textures,anti aliasing,physics,draw distances won't be the same!With Cryengine 3 they can create a 1000x bigger world than Crysis on consoles, so yes, easilly, at high settings too
obamanian
With Cryengine 3 they can create a 1000x bigger world than Crysis on consoles, so yes, easilly, at high settings too
obamanian
Yes, and if they use Cryengine 3 on PC they can create 1 000 000x bigger world then Crysis...
Anyway... it's not only about how big the level is, it's about the quality. Which from videos, does not compare to Cryengine 2.
and games on the PC like Grid, CoD 4,5, Mass Effect, andGears of Warand various other multiplatform games require more ram on the pc to run a equivelent quality as their console versions
Thats because console games and pc games are coded differently and optimized more on Consoles to work with less ram, it can be done it just need a little more effort
LordDhampire
That has to do with memory speed, consoles use higher speed memory to compensate for its low capacity. That won't make 256mb behave like 1GB or more; but it will let you swap out information fast enough that if designed for it the game appears to run fine. On PC where there is lots of memory but at a lower speed; additional resources are preloaded in advance so that they are already ready to use when encountered.
So you can distribute resources to run better on each platform, but if something takes up more than 256mb at any one time then you have a problem, all the optimized in the world won't get 1GB worth of information in 256mb at once; not without cutting stuff out or changing something.
I know I have already done this a couple of times in the past, might as well give it another go.
Console memory limitations and streaming explained.
In order to get a giant map to work in limited memory, say a continent or larger, the map is divided into cells containing instances of events and content. Only the cells surrounding the player are loaded into memory, as they move around old cells are removed from memory while new ones are added. With this you can make a game world as big as you want, the only real limits is the development budget and disk storage space. To the player the world seems seamless, they may get a performance hiccup as new cells are loaded every now and then but it appears like a vast world to them.
The problem with this is player interactivity is limited by the cells currently present in memory, on a fixed hardware platform like consoles the interactive distance is likely fixed to the exact range of the loaded cells. Anything outside the loaded area (yellow) is none interactive, likely using low resource place holders like LOD objects until they are in interactive range. Any enemies or buildings outside of the players interactive bubbles don't exist until they are in range.
When a game loads the entire level into memory interactivity is now no longer limited to within loaded cells, anything that's in visible range is interactive. The only problem with this is the map sized is limited by the platforms memory amount; with loading screens between each level.
The higher the average memory a platform tends to have the larger the maps can be while supporting Crysis like interactivity, on PC when 2GB ram is typical even on none gaming systems; games can support Crysis sized maps. But you are not going to get that onto consoles, not without dividing the maps into cells suitable for streaming into 256mb ram, which as just explained would remove a lot of large scale interactivity that has come to be expected from Crysis.
How far back you can scale the graphics is irrelevant if you don't have enough memory to even run the game.
No. Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about.With Cryengine 3 they can create a 1000x bigger world than Crysis on consoles, so yes, easilly, at high settings too
obamanian
I know I have already done this a couple of times in the past, might as well give it another go.
Console memory limitations and streaming explained.
In order to get a giant map to work in limited memory, say a continent or larger, the map is divided into cells containing instances of events and content. Only the cells surrounding the player are loaded into memory, as they move around old cells are removed from memory while new ones are added. With this you can make a game world as big as you want, the only real limits is the development budget and disk storage space. To the player the world seems seamless, they may get a performance hiccup as new cells are loaded every now and then but it appears like a vast world to them.
The problem with this is player interactivity is limited by the cells currently present in memory, on a fixed hardware platform like consoles the interactive distance is likely fixed to the exact range of the loaded cells. Anything outside the loaded area (yellow) is none interactive, likely using low resource place holders like LOD objects until they are in interactive range. Any enemies or buildings outside of the players interactive bubbles don't exist until they are in range.
When a game loads the entire level into memory interactivity is now no longer limited to within loaded cells, anything that's in visible range is interactive. The only problem with this is the map sized is limited by the platforms memory amount; with loading screens between each level.
The higher the average memory a platform tends to have the larger the maps can be while supporting Crysis like interactivity, on PC when 2GB ram is typical even on none gaming systems; games can support Crysis sized maps. But you are not going to get that onto consoles, not without dividing the maps into cells suitable for streaming into 256mb ram, which as just explained would remove a lot of large scale interactivity that has come to be expected from Crysis.
How far back you can scale the graphics is irrelevant if you don't have enough memory to even run the game.
AnnoyedDragon
Brilliant explanation :) and anyone who had played Crysis will understand that there are parts in Crysis where you will target a tank or enemy from across the map with your rocket launcher. You could take that draw distanceout and substitute with LOD objectsbut then that is precisely the point at which it becomes Crysis Instincts!
I personally doubt it, with the game's scale.noswearare you kidding me! crysis can be played at min specs on a freaking asus n10j a1 netbook. It could surely be played on a xbox 360 or ps3.
are you kidding me! crysis can be played at min specs on a freaking asus n10j a1 netbook. It could surely be played on a xbox 360 or ps3.streetridaz
Those have 2GB ram so can support Crysis size levels, just not Crysis quality settings because of CPU/GPU performance.
I gave the above explanation in an effort to show that it isn't CPU or GPU performance that's the problem with consoles, it's their memory capacity. Being able to play a scaled version of the graphics doesn't change they don't have the minimum memory requirements.
That's the point PC gamers have been trying to get across to console gamers since 2007.
[QUOTE="LordDhampire"]
and games on the PC like Grid, CoD 4,5, Mass Effect, andGears of Warand various other multiplatform games require more ram on the pc to run a equivelent quality as their console versions
Thats because console games and pc games are coded differently and optimized more on Consoles to work with less ram, it can be done it just need a little more effort
AnnoyedDragon
That has to do with memory speed, consoles use higher speed memory to compensate for its low capacity. That won't make 256mb behave like 1GB or more; but it will let you swap out information fast enough that if designed for it the game appears to run fine. On PC where there is lots of memory but at a lower speed; additional resources are preloaded in advance so that they are already ready to use when encountered.
So you can distribute resources to run better on each platform, but if something takes up more than 256mb at any one time then you have a problem, all the optimized in the world won't get 1GB worth of information in 256mb at once; not without cutting stuff out or changing something.
It's like trying to cram a baker's dozen (13) in an egg carton (that can only hold 12).To help defuse another argument, can someone explain why every part of a Crysis level needs to be in there at once? Explain why you can't, say, remove some of the trees or side assets or simplify the mountains and so on so as to reduce the size of the level itself to within tolerances.I know I have already done this a couple of times in the past, might as well give it another go.
Console memory limitations and streaming explained.
In order to get a giant map to work in limited memory, say a continent or larger, the map is divided into cells containing instances of events and content. Only the cells surrounding the player are loaded into memory, as they move around old cells are removed from memory while new ones are added. With this you can make a game world as big as you want, the only real limits is the development budget and disk storage space. To the player the world seems seamless, they may get a performance hiccup as new cells are loaded every now and then but it appears like a vast world to them.
The problem with this is player interactivity is limited by the cells currently present in memory, on a fixed hardware platform like consoles the interactive distance is likely fixed to the exact range of the loaded cells. Anything outside the loaded area (yellow) is none interactive, likely using low resource place holders like LOD objects until they are in interactive range. Any enemies or buildings outside of the players interactive bubbles don't exist until they are in range.
When a game loads the entire level into memory interactivity is now no longer limited to within loaded cells, anything that's in visible range is interactive. The only problem with this is the map sized is limited by the platforms memory amount; with loading screens between each level.
The higher the average memory a platform tends to have the larger the maps can be while supporting Crysis like interactivity, on PC when 2GB ram is typical even on none gaming systems; games can support Crysis sized maps. But you are not going to get that onto consoles, not without dividing the maps into cells suitable for streaming into 256mb ram, which as just explained would remove a lot of large scale interactivity that has come to be expected from Crysis.
How far back you can scale the graphics is irrelevant if you don't have enough memory to even run the game.
AnnoyedDragon
To help defuse another argument, can someone explain why every part of a Crysis level needs to be in there at once? Explain why you can't, say, remove some of the trees or side assets or simplify the mountains and so on so as to reduce the size of the level itself to within tolerances.HuusAsking
Everything here is an assumption, he only assumes this is the way it works
I can as easilly assume that they load one cell with the near the player stuff and leave some room to load dynamically any distant cell that interation like a rocket exloding happens, eseentially getting exactly the same things Crysis offers, without having everything in ram
To help defuse another argument, can someone explain why every part of a Crysis level needs to be in there at once? Explain why you can't, say, remove some of the trees or side assets or simplify the mountains and so on so as to reduce the size of the level itself to within tolerances.
HuusAsking
The entire level is loaded into memory through a loading screen, but that doesn't mean all the assets have to be there at once. Some foliage and objects are just too far away to be interacted with, even if the area they are sat in is loaded into memory, that and you still have to get it playable within 2GB.
As the CEO of Crytek explains in this video, although the open environment is loaded there is still streaming going on, not cell streaming but individual parts of the level.
So what you just said is already going on, 2GB recommendation is the result.
[QUOTE="Dark_prince123"]There is no Conslole can run CRYSIS In High QualityHuusAskingThere is no console that can run Crysis at any quality. Hell Yes
[QUOTE="obamanian"]
With Cryengine 3 they can create a 1000x bigger world than Crysis on consoles, so yes, easilly, at high settings too
No. Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Yes You must concider Ram And CPU speed[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]To help defuse another argument, can someone explain why every part of a Crysis level needs to be in there at once? Explain why you can't, say, remove some of the trees or side assets or simplify the mountains and so on so as to reduce the size of the level itself to within tolerances.
obamanian
Everything here is an assumption, he only assumes this is the way it works
I can as easilly assume that they load one cell with the near the player stuff and leave some room to load dynamically any distant cell that interation like a rocket exloding happens, eseentially getting exactly the same things Crysis offers, without having everything in ram
That doesn't work for a level like that in Crysis, where something, once interacted, stays interacted. This means everything has to be in memory at once, since unloading it will remove any trace of what happened to it earlier.[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]
[QUOTE="Mr_Nordquist"]
It's more so poor development over anything else. Game looks good, but requires so many **** resources that other engines don't require for similar effects.
o0squishy0o
And what other engines might those be? Before you answer, it needs to be an engine with Crysis-level graphics AND physics AND scale AND post-processing effects and on and on and on.
People claim all the time that Crysis is unoptimized, but I'd really like to know to what games are people comparing Crysis too. Since there is NO game on the marked that even remotely touches Crysis on all those things I mentioned combined, how can people possibly know if the game is unoptimized? Unless you're a 3D game engine programmer I can't see how.
how can you possibly know it is optimized unless your a "game engine developer" it seems to alot of people that the game is under optimized i mean you can shed alot of money lets say £2000 on one mean *** machine.. yet i bet you couldnt have it all maxed i mean 24xAF etc and get a constant 60fps.. now you would have thought with all that tech prowess from the hardware it should run the game no problem.You're wrong, check out this link: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-295,2123-4.html
Crysis at Very High (DX10), with 4xAA, 8xAF with a GTX295 Quad-SLI setup runs at an insanely high resolution of 1920x1200 at 57fps! If you lower the resolution to 1680x1050 (which is still pretty good) you get above 60fps. I've never seen the game running at 1920x1200, Very High, 4xAA, 8xAF, I can only imagine how good it looks.
I agree such a gaming rig is expensive but it is nowhere near £2000.
Crysis on a 64MB video card
Possibly.
Silenthps
Heh those sort of people are weird, people who go to extremes to re-optimize a game rarther than upgrade. I've seen it done with Oblivion and Doom 3.
That said people shouldn't confuse ram and vram.
[QUOTE="Silenthps"]
Crysis on a 64MB video card
Possibly.
AnnoyedDragon
Heh those sort of people are weird, people who go to extremes to re-optimize a game rarther than upgrade. I've seen it done with Oblivion and Doom 3.
That said people shouldn't confuse ram and vram.
Some people could be up against an architecture boundary where any upgrading beyond their point has prerequisites...that themselves have prerequisites...until you suddenly realize that the only way to upgrade your machine is to overhaul it. I know that feeling.Some people could be up against an architecture boundary where any upgrading beyond their point has prerequisites...that themselves have prerequisites...until you suddenly realize that the only way to upgrade your machine is to overhaul it. I know that feeling.HuusAsking
Same.
Back in 06 I was stuck on a crappy processor because I couldn't afford to replace that and the motherboard/memory in the transition to AM2. I do understand why they do it, but they go way way back hardware wise, further back than you would expect them to need to.
I imagine it's a challenge for some of them, get it playable in the least resources possible.
Also annoyed, I don't know why you keep saying 256, the consoles each have about 512 or so, and probably about 480 to use for games
maybe, i played it on low with Pentium 4 @ 3.4ghz, 1 gig RAM and Nvidia 6600gt 128mb, i beleave it was around 800x 600. Lets say the textures looked like pixels. u can see the pixels changing. it was very lagy game.iam2greenGeez, meanwhile a $200 console gets you Call of Duty @ 60fps and RE5 quality graphics. I think a better question would have been, "Can your typical Best Buy/Wal-Mart PC play Crysis at low without like $400 in upgrades?" Looks like the answer is no.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment