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

Forums - Sony - What's Sony going to do about Crysis?

Garnett on 25 March 2011
hikaruchan said:
Garnett said:

Maybe, Sony was over exagerating about the graphic potential of the PS3?!?!!?!? Nevermind they would NEVER Do that...

 

Seriously, Everyone has been saying PS3 wont have super duper 1000x better graphics than 360, i doubt it will even have the same graphics as the 360, because the weaker GPU. 

 

My opinion

 it's 2006 all over again!

I came in here expecting a post full of technical one sided BS,
 but you did quite the opposite! 1 for you :)

 

@Disolitude

Thanks for saying that, i would of replied to him (with info like that) but i didnt feel like it.



*Remember when the world was supposed to end on May 21st, 2011? Well click here to see our short parody video of it [not]ending*

Around the Network
Wagram on 25 March 2011

People are so obessed with graphics when we should be obssesed with the quality and stability of a game.



Reasonable on 25 March 2011

Why do they need to do anything about it?  It's on their platform, it's reviewed well and - a few odd examples like IGN aside - the general consensus of LOT and DF (for what they're worth) is that the experience as an end user is almost identical.

I'm not in the "it's the best evah" camp but even if it was I fail to see the problem for Sony unless it was a 360 exclusive.



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

mundus6 on 25 March 2011

Troll? PS3 graphic king? Sure since 2008 (you said always) it has had better graphics than 360 on the exclusives (usually behind on the multi plat though) but King? No there is PC. Also Rage > Crysis 2 and im sure Codename Kingdoms will have GOW 3 like graphics as well.

But really now, both PS3 and 360 is inferior to PC and if graphics ever was a selling point for you, your playing the wrong platform. The reason why you should buy PS3 (the reason i did), is because of the great exclusives and not because of the graphics, since PC out did it in 2007 (Crysis 1).



leatherhat on 25 March 2011
easyrider said:

ethomaz, seems you get away with everthing all the time. You flame all the time, don't add anything to the conversation and biased soooooooooooooooo

GFYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IT'S CLEAR THAT CRYSIS PISSED OFF PEOPLE THAT FAVOR THE PS3. YET THEY CAN COME FLAME BECAUSE THATS WHAT GOES ON ON THIS SITE. THEN PEOPLE THAT ANSWER BACK GET BANNED. LOVE THIS SITE. BIASED POS


I don't think you understand where I'm coming from



ǝןdɯıs ʇı dǝǝʞ oʇ ǝʞıן ı ʍouʞ noʎ 

Ask me about being an elitist jerk

Time for hype

Around the Network
goforgold on 25 March 2011
disolitude said:
goforgold said:
Garnett said:

Maybe, Sony was over exagerating about the graphic potential of the PS3?!?!!?!? Nevermind they would NEVER Do that...

 

Seriously, Everyone has been saying PS3 wont have super duper 1000x better graphics than 360, i doubt it will even have the same graphics as the 360, because the weaker GPU. 

 

My opinion.

but the GPU isn't weaker

 

 

FACT


The Xbox360 GPU is close to the X1950 but enhanced with 48 unified shaders, tessellation support, 10MB on chip RAM and other goodies.  The PS3's RSX is  a 7800GT and only 8 ROPs instead of 16. Combined that disadvantage with only 256 mb of dedicated ram VS 360s unified RAM structure...

Thats whats called a FACT Jimmy...

 

that's true.......on it's own, but the rsx isn't on it's own now is it?



goforgold on 25 March 2011
disolitude said:
Garnett said:

Maybe, Sony was over exagerating about the graphic potential of the PS3?!?!!?!? Nevermind they would NEVER Do that...

 

Seriously, Everyone has been saying PS3 wont have super duper 1000x better graphics than 360, i doubt it will even have the same graphics as the 360, because the weaker GPU. 

 

My opinion.

Everyone knows thats the case. But Sony had to do the "we have premium graphix" pr cause of the cost of the console.

The fact that PS3 came out a year later and is on par with the 360 tech wise is quite a bad planning decision by Sony. A year is an eternity in R&D time...3DO to PS1, Dreamcast to PS2, PS2 to Xbox 1.

I believe the cost of the Cell processor screwed them. The initial yields on that processor were like 25% successful and I don't think they got much better for a few years. They couldn't afford to use a better GPU and add more ram (as well as other promised features which were missing or cut like dual HDMI outputs and backwards compatibility).

If sony were to use a less powerful, over the counter available CPU and a 8800GTX GPU (most powerful GPU at PS3s release), the console graphics race would have been a slaughter.

 

 

but the difference between the ps3 and all those other consoles was the ps3 specs weren't built to those specification, all the bottle necks with the architecture was a result of cut backs, the original specs for the ps3 didn't even have a gpu. Sony's eyes were bigger than their stomach, the end result of the ps3 was WAY to much for Sony to produce and distribute effectively, I mean we all know how much they lost on the current ps3 design, if they had stuck with the original the current losses would look like profit.

judging by what they've done with the NGP they look to be changing that mentality. who knows what the future holds for Playstation, but one thing we know for sure, it will be powerful as hell



Grandia on 25 March 2011

I think Sony couldn't care lesser about this, why do you think that Sony cares about wich Game the best looking is? This issue only interest Sonyfanboy Nerds, Sony is a global player there only interest is to make as much  money as they can with there produkts. Some times people here are so wired and unworldly they truly belive that such a concern cares about Fanboy issues.



disolitude on 25 March 2011
goforgold said:
disolitude said:
Garnett said:

Maybe, Sony was over exagerating about the graphic potential of the PS3?!?!!?!? Nevermind they would NEVER Do that...

 

Seriously, Everyone has been saying PS3 wont have super duper 1000x better graphics than 360, i doubt it will even have the same graphics as the 360, because the weaker GPU. 

 

My opinion.

Everyone knows thats the case. But Sony had to do the "we have premium graphix" pr cause of the cost of the console.

The fact that PS3 came out a year later and is on par with the 360 tech wise is quite a bad planning decision by Sony. A year is an eternity in R&D time...3DO to PS1, Dreamcast to PS2, PS2 to Xbox 1.

I believe the cost of the Cell processor screwed them. The initial yields on that processor were like 25% successful and I don't think they got much better for a few years. They couldn't afford to use a better GPU and add more ram (as well as other promised features which were missing or cut like dual HDMI outputs and backwards compatibility).

If sony were to use a less powerful, over the counter available CPU and a 8800GTX GPU (most powerful GPU at PS3s release), the console graphics race would have been a slaughter.

 

 

but the difference between the ps3 and all those other consoles was the ps3 specs weren't built to those specification, all the bottle necks with the architecture was a result of cut backs, the original specs for the ps3 didn't even have a gpu. Sony's eyes were bigger than their stomach, the end result of the ps3 was WAY to much for Sony to produce and distribute effectively, I mean we all know how much they lost on the current ps3 design, if they had stuck with the original the current losses would look like profit.

judging by what they've done with the NGP they look to be changing that mentality. who knows what the future holds for Playstation, but one thing we know for sure, it will be powerful as hell


I agree...I am not here to slander Sony for what they did with the PS3.

I am sure there is a PS3 out there with 2 HDMI out ports, better GPU, full 8 SPE based cell processor, more ram and a faster bluray drive. A prototype which sony made, and then realized that there is no way they can get the cost of this device under 2000 dollars. Hence why the cutting began...I bet It wasn't easy for them to do this. Cut the bluray for DVD and lose the HD format war. Cut the cell for an off the shelf chip and lose billions in R&D. They probably did the best they could.

I do think it shows a lack of strategy and leadership however as they are a hardware company. They should have had the cost to performance balance in their back pocket. Microsoft is always going to beat them when it comes to software development tools with the SDKs, DirectX, and PC architecture...so for Sony to get the hardware right is a must.



goforgold on 25 March 2011
disolitude said:
goforgold said:
disolitude said:
Garnett said:

Maybe, Sony was over exagerating about the graphic potential of the PS3?!?!!?!? Nevermind they would NEVER Do that...

 

Seriously, Everyone has been saying PS3 wont have super duper 1000x better graphics than 360, i doubt it will even have the same graphics as the 360, because the weaker GPU. 

 

My opinion.

Everyone knows thats the case. But Sony had to do the "we have premium graphix" pr cause of the cost of the console.

The fact that PS3 came out a year later and is on par with the 360 tech wise is quite a bad planning decision by Sony. A year is an eternity in R&D time...3DO to PS1, Dreamcast to PS2, PS2 to Xbox 1.

I believe the cost of the Cell processor screwed them. The initial yields on that processor were like 25% successful and I don't think they got much better for a few years. They couldn't afford to use a better GPU and add more ram (as well as other promised features which were missing or cut like dual HDMI outputs and backwards compatibility).

If sony were to use a less powerful, over the counter available CPU and a 8800GTX GPU (most powerful GPU at PS3s release), the console graphics race would have been a slaughter.

 

 

but the difference between the ps3 and all those other consoles was the ps3 specs weren't built to those specification, all the bottle necks with the architecture was a result of cut backs, the original specs for the ps3 didn't even have a gpu. Sony's eyes were bigger than their stomach, the end result of the ps3 was WAY to much for Sony to produce and distribute effectively, I mean we all know how much they lost on the current ps3 design, if they had stuck with the original the current losses would look like profit.

judging by what they've done with the NGP they look to be changing that mentality. who knows what the future holds for Playstation, but one thing we know for sure, it will be powerful as hell


I agree...I am not here to slander Sony for what they did with the PS3.

I am sure there is a PS3 out there with 2 HDMI out ports, better GPU, full 8 SPE based cell processor, more ram and a faster bluray drive. A prototype which sony made, and then realized that there is no way they can get the cost of this device under 2000 dollars. Hence why the cutting began...I bet It wasn't easy for them to do this. Cut the bluray for DVD and lose the HD format war. Cut the cell for an off the shelf chip and lose billions in R&D. They probably did the best they could.

I do think it shows a lack of strategy and leadership however as they are a hardware company. They should have had the cost to performance balance in their back pocket. Microsoft is always going to beat them when it comes to software development tools with the SDKs, DirectX, and PC architecture...so for Sony to get the hardware right is a must.

I totally agree, Which is why I hardly blame developers for multiplat short comings, because truthfully it's Sony's own damn fault. They over engineered and it cost them this gen, no as much as some make out, but better choices could have yielded greater results. But you live to learn I always say, and who knows what the future hold