next gen console not powerfull enough for crysis , LOL

porkrind · 30 Aug 2006 at 17:59

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/08/30/Crytek_devs_say_new_consoles_too_weak_for_Crysis/

the power of the PC didn't take long untill the console can't hack it did it .

Nieldo · 30 Aug 2006 at 18:00

PC - 1, Consoles - 0.

DaveyD · 30 Aug 2006 at 18:18

Cost of a PC to run Crysis on full detail when it comes out: £1500+
Cost of console, £300, though both PS3 and 360 would be able to run it, just a little downgraded in detail, where only the hardcore gamer would probably notice/care.

I know which my wallet prefers

Adam Senior · 30 Aug 2006 at 18:35

correctttttt. Crysis would run on the 360 and the ps3 if time was put into developing it. FACT............

Hamoodii · 30 Aug 2006 at 18:38

even though at least I can say to my console mates: IN YOUR FACE!!!

porkrind · 30 Aug 2006 at 18:54

whatever I prefer the Multi tasking power of pc

Tute · 30 Aug 2006 at 18:54

DaveyD said:
Cost of a PC to run Crysis on full detail when it comes out: £1500+
Cost of console, £300, though both PS3 and 360 would be able to run it, just a little downgraded in detail, where only the hardcore gamer would probably notice/care.

I know which my wallet prefers

PLUS

One HD capable screen.

£2000.

porkrind · 30 Aug 2006 at 18:57

Tute said:
PLUS

One HD capable screen.

£2000.

yer the console Fanboys often forget that titbit

DaveyD · 30 Aug 2006 at 18:57

porkrind said:
whatever I prefer the Multi tasking power of pc

Yes, have you not read what I said? You can turn graphics settings down, otherwise you'd be having people with cheapo PCs crying they can't run their game as it's forced on detail settings.

james.miller · 30 Aug 2006 at 18:58

or that fact that you can 'downgrade' the grpics on the pc version and still run it at half decent framerates. with a keyboard and mouse.

Robert · 30 Aug 2006 at 18:58

Hamoodii said:
even though at least I can say to my console mates: IN OUR FACE!!!

Oh well. I'll just keep the 360 and have a good PC :shrugg:

DaveyD · 30 Aug 2006 at 18:59

Tute said:
PLUS

One HD capable screen.

£2000.

porkrind said:
yer the console Fanboys often forget that titbit

Yeah, we all spend £2000 on a HDTV don't we. Many owners of 360s on here are using their plain old TFT monitors, as they would do for PC gaming, so, you're talking about adding an extra £300 to £1000, still, cheaper. It's something you can't directly compare, unless all PC gamers decided to play their games on £2000 HDTVs, then they'd have to spend £3500++.

I'm hardly a fanboy, I prefer PC gaming, but all I'm saying, the big issue is finance, sure, a PC can pull out all that power, but at a heavy cost that the vast majority of casual gamers are not going to be willing to spend.

Tute · 30 Aug 2006 at 19:03

Surely it defeats half of the point of a console if you have to lug a TFT around with you?

Boogle · 30 Aug 2006 at 19:04

Tute said:
PLUS

One HD capable screen.

£2000.

A 28" LCD HD TV costs about £700 on average, with 32" being no more than £1000.

Hell my projector was £1000, and can display rather large images.

DaveyD · 30 Aug 2006 at 19:05

This is a reasonable analogy I've just come up with, think anyway, though it's a quickie and probably a little flawed: You have a £20,000 Lotus Elise, and a £105,000 Ferrari 430. Sure, you'll get the most performance, top speed and all the sexyness from the Ferrari, but you're going to have a sodding good time legally in the Lotus, it wont got the same top speed, but it'll certainly handle on par and be quick at legal speeds, and also be incredibly economical compared to the Ferrari.

Tute said:
Surely it defeats half of the point of a console if you have to lug a TFT around with you?

No? It's a gaming machine, a TFT is just another form of TV. You play games on a PC monitor, but you can if you want go out and plug your PC into a HDTV if you want.

Majik · 30 Aug 2006 at 19:10

They probably could run it if time was spent developing it properly for the console.

Still PS3 is more like £500 not £300. Then the games are like £49.99 and to be honest Id rather spend the £1500 on a PC that can do so many things than blow £500 on something that just plays games.

Old Wino · 30 Aug 2006 at 19:17

It's a first person shooter so:

Mouse+Keyboard>Thumbpad thingy

DaveyD · 30 Aug 2006 at 19:17

Majik said:
They probably could run it if time was spent developing it properly for the console.

Still PS3 is more like £500 not £300. Then the games are like £49.99 and to be honest Id rather spend the £1500 on a PC that can do so many things than blow £500 on something that just plays games.

Well I was comparing the pricing for the 360, and could have said £250 for Core, Memory card and game, but I do agree with you, and that's the main reason I still sit at my computer that consoles can't do very much, but the 360 is a big step in the right direction regarding internet connecting and communication, and the over the top PS3 will have build in web browsing, apparently, and the 360 will probably follow also.

Jabbs · 30 Aug 2006 at 19:41

My 360 ended up sitting unused gathering dust as all consoles do with me and i don't think it was quite as good as they kept saying. You only have to look at oblivion it runs poor on the 360 compared to the pc version.

You may pay more for pc stuff but you save a hell of a lot on the price of games so in the end it all works out the same.

DaveyD · 30 Aug 2006 at 19:45

Jabbs said:
...
You may pay more for pc stuff but you save a hell of a lot on the price of games so in the end it all works out the same.

Depends on how much you pay for a PC, and how many games you buy. I rarely buy a new game every 2 months for a PC personally, and it'll take a while for that to start making financial sense to me, but knowing me, I'll still spend silly money on an upgrade I will hardly use on my PC, as I'm still a PC gamer.