By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - Crytek Say The PC Is A Generation Ahead

Slimebeast said:

lol at Yerli.

Come back when you can show a PC game that looks better than Uncharted 2.

At this point PC is not even half a generation ahead of HD consoles. And after all it shouldn't, since this console gen is only 4 years old (PS3) - or 5 if you wanna count X360's very premature headstart - and it launched with the strongest and priciest hardware ever.

Usually a console gen is 6 years, so we won't even see PC hardware on that level until Fall 2011 at the earliest - and when speaking actual PC games we don't even have a powerful next-gen game engine publically shown yet (CryEngine 3 is current gen).

Hahaha, are you serious? PC hardware's blown the current consoles out of the water since the 8800GT was launched, and is light years ahead at the moment. The whole point of the interview is that no one's really taking advantage of it.



Around the Network
Slimebeast said:

lol at Yerli.

Come back when you can show a PC game that looks better than Uncharted 2.

At this point PC is not even half a generation ahead of HD consoles. And after all it shouldn't, since this console gen is only 4 years old (PS3) - or 5 if you wanna count X360's very premature headstart - and it launched with the strongest and priciest hardware ever.

Usually a console gen is 6 years, so we won't even see PC hardware on that level until Fall 2011 at the earliest - and when speaking actual PC games we don't even have a powerful next-gen game engine publically shown yet (CryEngine 3 is current gen).


Your post makes me want to punch babies.

Actually, I always want to punch babies (loud and smelly little bastards, they are), but your post made me want to do it more.

Even when a new generation has started, consumer PC hardware is already years ahead of it. Maybe your EeePC isn't, but it wouldn't cost more than $1000 to build a PC that's more powerful than the next generation of console hardware will be. This isn't a remotely controversial issue; everyone who knows what they're talking about, whether PC gamers or console gamers (like me) agrees that PCs are more powerful and that the best PC games have far better graphics than the best console games. How many console games can you play in resolutions higher than 1920x1080? And how many can be made to look even better with all the neat tricks PC games can pull? I can't work out how anyone could seriously doubt this.

PCs have better hardware and the most graphically capable PC games have more detailed graphics. There's no argument about that. The only argument (and the only thing that matters) is which has the games that are the most fun to play.



Erm...no shit, Yerli. Seriously, if only they gave out captain obvious awards.



Rockstar: Announce Bully 2 already and make gamers proud!

Kojima: Come out with Project S already!

Foamer said:
Slimebeast said:

lol at Yerli.

Come back when you can show a PC game that looks better than Uncharted 2.

At this point PC is not even half a generation ahead of HD consoles. And after all it shouldn't, since this console gen is only 4 years old (PS3) - or 5 if you wanna count X360's very premature headstart - and it launched with the strongest and priciest hardware ever.

Usually a console gen is 6 years, so we won't even see PC hardware on that level until Fall 2011 at the earliest - and when speaking actual PC games we don't even have a powerful next-gen game engine publically shown yet (CryEngine 3 is current gen).

Hahaha, are you serious? PC hardware's blown the current consoles out of the water since the 8800GT was launched, and is light years ahead at the moment. The whole point of the interview is that no one's really taking advantage of it.

You do know that a gaming/console generation is 6 years right? (While a graphics card generation is on average 12-18 months but that's not what Yerli is talking about.)

And hardware power doubles at every 18 months but it hasn't managed to do that in the 4-5 years since this console gen started. So each gen is 16 times more powerful than the last.

But a PC with Core i7 with a GTX 580 is not even close of being 16 times as powerful as a X360 or PS3.



Kudistos Megistos said:
Slimebeast said:

lol at Yerli.

Come back when you can show a PC game that looks better than Uncharted 2.

At this point PC is not even half a generation ahead of HD consoles. And after all it shouldn't, since this console gen is only 4 years old (PS3) - or 5 if you wanna count X360's very premature headstart - and it launched with the strongest and priciest hardware ever.

Usually a console gen is 6 years, so we won't even see PC hardware on that level until Fall 2011 at the earliest - and when speaking actual PC games we don't even have a powerful next-gen game engine publically shown yet (CryEngine 3 is current gen).


Your post makes me want to punch babies.

Actually, I always want to punch babies (loud and smelly little bastards, they are), but your post made me want to do it more.

Even when a new generation has started, consumer PC hardware is already years ahead of it. Maybe your EeePC isn't, but it wouldn't cost more than $1000 to build a PC that's more powerful than the next generation of console hardware will be. This isn't a remotely controversial issue; everyone who knows what they're talking about, whether PC gamers or console gamers (like me) agrees that PCs are more powerful and that the best PC games have far better graphics than the best console games. How many console games can you play in resolutions higher than 1920x1080? And how many can be made to look even better with all the neat tricks PC games can pull? I can't work out how anyone could seriously doubt this.

PCs have better hardware and the most graphically capable PC games have more detailed graphics. There's no argument about that. The only argument (and the only thing that matters) is which has the games that are the most fun to play.

A PC with 580GTX in SLI doesn't represent this generation though.

The absolute top of the line PC hardware never represents a PC generation since games are designed for much weaker PC hardware with Crysis as the only exception.

And why do you even mention resolution? 1920x1080 means almost nothing. None of my PC games in 1920x1200 (which is my PC monitor res) looks as good as Uncharted 2 (which I think is running at 1280x720 or something). Uncharted 2 has more polys and sharper textures than any PC game xcept for maybe Crysis (debatable).

Also, X360 in Nov 2005 has a GPU equivalent of a 7800 GTX who came out only a couple of months before it (in July/August 2005). You can be sure that the X720 will have a stronger GPU than the AMD Radeon 6990 (<----which isn't even out yet).



Around the Network

This is a generation ahead:


vs

Uncharted (PS3) vs Morrowind (Xbox)

 

This is not a generation ahead:


vs


Crysis (PC) vs Uncharted (PS3)



I don't know about you, but that Crysis pic completely crushes the Uncharted 2 one. And that's nowhere near the best Crysis pics.



You're still completely missing the point. One last time for the hard of reading, in bold seeing as it's not getting through to you- he's saying no one's taking advantage of the huge tech advantage of the PC. Here's the rest of his point, in italics this time in case you're still not getting it- that's why you're not seeing the quantum leaps in graphical fidelity you'd expect given the enormous gulf in power.

The pics you're posting are just reinforcing what he's saying and, along with your spectacularly ignorant comments on hardware, making yourself look very silly.



shio said:

I don't know about you, but that Crysis pic completely crushes the Uncharted 2 one. And that's nowhere near the best Crysis pics.

There is that, but let's not laugh too much, his cheeks must be burning.



@Slimebeast: When you compare two gens, you don't take one of the worst from the previous gen and one of the best from the current gen. Oblivion vs. Morrowind would be more fair, or Fallout 3/New Vegas vs. Morrowind. But you didn't do that? I wonder why... Maybe because the difference wouldn't be so huge?

If you do a comparison, at least do it properly, please.

Also, the three-year-old Crysis definitely looks better in the picture... And in reality as well. That is, unless you're for some random reason comparing artistic styles, and even then Crysis looks gorgeous.