Slashdot Mirror
PC Gaming 'a Generation Ahead' of Consoles, Says Crytek Boss
Crytek co-founder Cevat Yerli spoke recently about the growing gap between modern PCs and consoles like the PS3 and Xbox 360, saying that the desire to develop for multiple platforms is hampering creative expression. "PC is easily a generation ahead right now. With 360 and PS3, we believe the quality of the games beyond Crysis 2 and other CryEngine developments will be pretty much limited to what their creative expressions is, what the content is. You won't be able to squeeze more juice from these rocks." One reason this trend persists is because of the perception that PC game sales are not high enough for most developers to focus on that platform. Rock, Paper, Shotgun says this indicates a need for the disclosure of digital distribution sales numbers, which could dispel that myth. Yerli's comments come alongside news of Crytek's announcement of a new military-based shooter called Warface.
Before you start saying that these consoles are essentially tapped out, keep in mind that the PS3 isn't near its full potential yet.
PS3 still not maxed out - Andrew House (SCEE President)
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=248275
PS3 hard to develop for on purpose - Kazuo Hirai (SCEE Chairman)
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=248275
Now, when you've finally "tapped out this rock", then come back and complain. Until then, blame yourselves for your inability to develop good games that take full advantage of these platforms.
Just look at the newest games and how badly they perform on supposedly "powerful" machines. These games are not more creative, just flashy and poorly coded.
Take the Rage game on iOS for instance, it rivals some console graphics but is not running on powerful hardware. It has to run on a machine with less than 512 Mb devoted to the game and no access to Virtual memory. PC games are written by people who could not code on embedded machines if their life depended on it. Sloppy code.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
I haven't seen anything innovative done on a PC that couldn't have been done on a PS2. Crysis 2 is innovative? Oh please. Two extra bullet-points on the back of a box do not make a game "innovative". Portal: innovative. Tower of Goo: innovative. Minecraft: innovative. What do they have in common? They could run on hardware that is 10 years old.
I think the Mr. Crytek fails to see past his own problems: that the shiny that his company specializes in does very little to make a game special.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
And it has happened again as it has happened every single generation of consoles and as it will in every future generation.
One platform is constantly shifting and upgrading, the other doesn't.
What do you think happens in the gap between console releases?
Unfortunately they're currently too busy trying to milk motion controls and using that as an excuse to not release new hardware. Hopefully Nintendo will just out of nowhere drop a magic console developed using their profits from their current gen console.
Either way some games are better on consoles (fighting, local multiplayer, driving games etc) , while other games I prefer my mouse and keyboard support (simulation, rts, fps, etc)
as long as the developers target the consoles and PC then you only have to match the specs of that console generation.
PC is easily a generation ahead right now.
Wii showed that graphical output isn't the only thing that defines a hardware generation. In the seventh generation, while Microsoft and Sony were moving their output forward by a generation, Nintendo moved its input forward by a generation by bundling a Bluetooth handheld pointing device with the console. It took the other guys years to come up with Kinect and Move to match the Wii Remote.
But the major consoles are still ahead of PCs in how many simultaneous players a game will usually support. This is in part because consoles are ahead in what monitor size their makers can encourage their users to connect. Sure, using a TV as a monitor has been easy since HDTV became common starting in 2006, but home theater PCs are still a rarity for some reason. Is it usability, or is it a plain old path-dependent Catch-22?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
There's another thing to blame for the Wii's library limitation: Nintendo's marketing. Like Disney, the company is very dependant upon protecting their image as wholesome and family-friendly now, and must do their best to protect it from the taint of being associated with anything sexual or violent. So they are quite strict about what they allow to be published for the Wii. It's not entirely devoid of violent games, but it has fewer of them proportionally than the other major consoles. If you like U-rated games, on the other hand, it's got loads.
It's also an issue of market. High-end game PCs make up only a small part of the whole PC market. If you indeed did make games that required the horsepower of a $2000 gaming machine, I doubt you would see much profit. Yes, technically consoles are a generation behind, but if you're looking at selling lots and lots of copies, you want stable hardware specs. Most PC games are probably sitting in the generation, or at least half-generation, behind the full throttle systems as well, simply because you want as large a market as possible, and so have to have at least some level of playability on mid-range PCs. The same rules apply.
I fail to see what hardware has to do with creativity anyways. Yes, better specs can certainly improve graphics, but that's only one piece of the puzzle.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Think a lot of people are missing the point here.
They are talking about hardware, not what the current PC games compare to their console counter parts.
See, this is the problem. PC are capable of so more, yet we get a dumbed down console port instead of a game tailored to the extra stuff modern PC's can bring you.
Most PS3 & 360 games are barely 720p, usually less. Crappy AA on them, etc.
Modern PC can do the 1080p, max AA and not break a sweet. And not break your bank. Get a Nvidia 460 1gb card for $200 and you got yourself a nice card that kicks ass.
And yes, I'm a gamer. Been so for 30+ years. I prefer my PC for gaming (even got me 3D Vision, which rocks), but I do have a Xbox 360 (jtag'd), a Wii (softmodded) and will have a PS3 whenever I get enough money for it (ya, and I'll hack it also, because that's how i roll).
It's funny, because I remember when arcade games were the better graphics systems, and computers & consoles tried to be that good. Then the computers surpassed both the consoles & arcade games. And we, the computer gamers have been paying for it ever since.
(sorry, when the PS3 & 360 game out, their graphics weren't really on par with computers, they were already behind, and it's a bigger gap now).
Be seeing you...
Like Disney, the company is very dependant upon protecting their image as wholesome and family-friendly now
Yet explain how a Disney subsidiary green-lit Kill Bill.
I would have thought that was obvious, Miramax was bought by Disney in 1993 in order to allow them to release more adult orientated films without hurting their brand. A disney subsidiary green lit Kill Bill precisely because it was a subsidiary and not the main brand.
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
I promise you it is not the graphics that stop me from playing games on the Wii.
It's the fucking awful games.
It's the controls.
Every Wii game I've played has come in one of two flavours: /without/ standing in front of a TV.
a) Trying to use the Wii-mote as advertised, the result being horribly awkward and ultimately impossible-to-enjoy inconsistent fumblings as the Wii really sucks at motion control.
b) Games where the developers realized the limitations of the Wii, and compensated by making the controller a prop which doesn't actually do anything. "Let's pray pretend! Now you're a sorcerer! Here, hold this stick, it's a MAGIC WAND!" entertaining for five minutes, maybe, but once you realize that your moving the stick around doesn't actually have any more effect on game than sitting on the controller at the appropriate time, it loses its appeal fast. I can play pretend all by myself
I have heard that WiiMotion+ improves greatly on what amounts to Nintendo saying it had a great idea for a console, then getting really hung over and writing its homework out in five minutes before class. I don't have a compelling reason to blow money on it, when apparently all it has going for it is "Makes Wii act like they said it would, on some new games designed for it." Especially when there's a new motion controller for another console which doesn't even need to make wild guesses about where your arms are.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
I can slap a disc in a $300 box with no buttons, and play it.
Unless the game isn't for your $300 console. Imagine that your friend has recommended a PC game to you. You check the developer's web site to see if a version is available for your console, but you find that the developer has posted a rejection notice from the console maker. Various overheads associated with becoming an authorized console game developer are part of why indie games tend to be PC exclusive. Even among major-label games, many are exclusive to a console you don't have, and by the time you've bought all three consoles, you've spent more than a gaming PC costs.
Hundreds of dollars for video cards, extra memory, high-end CPU's? You gotta be kidding me.
Yeah, it is silly, especially when a $300 ION nettop with a GeForce 9400 GPU can run indie games, older games, and even some newer games at lower graphics settings.
I would agree that there is a generational gap between true gaming PCs and consoles. That's always going to be the case. The upgrade and refresh cycles of gaming PCs are going to be much shorter than consoles. However, the console market is much larger than the true gaming PC market. In order to expand the market beyond this niche, game developers have to target "standard" PCs, and that is where the variability is hardware capabilities is an issue. If I develop a game for a console, every user is going to have essentially the same hardware (storage and peripherals may differ, but the core product is the same). Microsoft has tried to address this with WinSAT scores and games for Windows certifications, etc. However, at some point game developers have to compromise on a common denominator for hardware specs. To match the size of the console market, my guess is that the PC specifications would be comparable to or possibly less powerful than the latest generation of consoles (XBox 360, PS3).
Maybe someone should tell him that it's the GAMEPLAY that matters, not flashy graphics. I never did like Crytek's games because they felt more like tech demos that real games. Also, consoles have one more advantage. If I want to play a game I just stick the disk in and that's it. No worries if my drivers are current, or if my combination of mb+graphics would cause a problem etc. Also it's much cheaper to be a gamer on the consoles. Sure, the games are more expensive but ask yourself how often do you have to upgrade you machine? I did it every 6-12 months and each time i spend around $500 on it (new mb, new graphics and usually a new cpu) just so I could play the latest games with details on max
Disney didn't make your TV so the subsidiary doesn't care that Kill Bill is out on DVD. Contrast this with the Wii, where it matters not who made the game, it is known to its users as a "Wii Game", and thus has a direct association with Nintendo's brand and image. You play it on a Wii, it says "Nintendo" on the packaging... you get my drift.
Nintendo's kid-friendly image is a huge part of their business strategy, they automatically win all the overprotective parents who are terrified of the Xbox and its filth-laden Live service, where everyone and everything is a "nigger" and/or "faggot" according to its prominent users. I can't speak of the PS3 since I don't have one, but I would speculate that the it is not much different, due to being marketed to the same adult / hardcore crowd as the Xbox. Hell, there was a (shitty) game on the old Xbox where victory resulted in a "Girls-Gone-Wild" style clip being presented as your reward. You'll never see vodka-doused tits on a Nintendo console, that's for sure!
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Look man there is nothing wrong with liking gameplay. I am a full supporter of the "games need to have good gameplay" idea. However there is also no need to hate on graphics, which seems to common on Slashdot. A kind of techno luddism. "Oh these games would be just as good with older graphics on low end hardware." No, sorry, but that is false. A game is a rich experience. Part of that experience is visuals and good visuals go a long way to making that experience immersive.
So holding gameplay up as the One and Only Thing is no more valid than holding up graphics as the One and Only Thing. Also, guess what? There's more that a PC offers than just graphics. A big one that DOES relate to gameplay is memory. If you want to have a game with a big world, with a lot that goes on, memory is needed. This is part of the reason that the PC still sees the best strategy titles (keyboard and mouse are another). 512MB that you have to share with the video card, or 256MB that you don't (360 and PS3 respectively) is awful tight to try and store a big, active, world in. A PC can easily give you a gig or more for your dedicated use.
I agree that Crytek needs a bit of STFU since their gameplay is for shit they are graphics-only game makers. However let's not get up on the "Fuck graphics," techno-luddism crap. I play many games from many eras. I emulate old games from my youth, I play current high end games. While a good story (where applicable) and fun gameplay are key, good graphics and sound are great too.
Wolfenstein 3D is probably forever the most innovative 3D shooter since it invented the genre. However I'm sorry, but some of its less innovative modern counterparts are far better. Call of Duty 4 was a great game, and part of that was the wonderful graphics and sound. You couldn't do that game on a 286 like Wolf3D. Cut all the graphics, sounds, AI, levels, and so on back to what was required and the game wouldn't even be the same thing.
Progress on ALL fronts in game design is a good thing. Also holding "innovation" meaning doing something that has never been done before, up as the be-all, end-all is also silly. It is hard to be truly original and that isn't really a bad thing. We as a species have imagined a lot of thing, and there is nothing wrong with building on what is out there. Even most innovative things do. They are more original than some things, but you can still point out heavy influence from past works and other media.
I have to agree with Crytek that PCs have it better when it comes to games. They can do any console game out there that someone bothers to port and can do it higher resolution, higher FPS, better graphics and so on. They can also do titles the consoles can't. Look at Civilization 4 and 5 vs Civilization Revolutions. You can't do the full Civ games on a console, they lack the memory to handle it (among other things).
How about large game worlds? Consoles, with their tiny memory amounts, put real limits on that kind of shit. As an interesting study in this, look at Deus Ex 1 vs Deus Ex 2. DX1 was PC only, running on Unreal Engine 1.
Deus Ex 1 wasn't PC only, it was on the PS2 as well.
Also it wasn't streaming,
Streaming worlds is smart, it enables you to have HUGE worlds with 0 load times between zones, like EQOA on the PS2. You could walk/swim from Fayspires to Qeynos and never see a load screen. Who cares if things out of your FOV don't exist and are regenerated.
The consoles are only 720p devices (1280x720). Yes, they do basic upsampling but you gain no detail with that. Other than a few rare PS3 games (which suffer in therms of textures and so on because of it) that run at 1080, they all run at 720, and sometimes even less.
Citation needed.
However I have a hard time plopping down $1000+ for a gaming PC when games on a $300 xbox or playstation look only marginally worse.
However I have a hard time spending $300 on an xbox/playstation when I can buy a $100 graphic card for my PC and get graphics that looks marginally better than any console.
Well you can get a perfectly capable gaming PC for $800, and you can save money in the long term by upgrading individual parts instead of buying a whole new console. Also PC games are often much cheaper than their console equivalents. So I think really it's not true that it's much more expensive to be a PC gamer. :)