New texture mod for Crysis - is Crysis 2 going to look like that?

Violater - 581 days 4 hours ago

Whats sense does it make if I need a $4,000 computer to run it?

Agree(3) | Disagree(15) | Report

Scrooge - 581 days 3 hours ago

It wouldn't be a Crysis thread unless a console boy pointed out the over-exaggerated price of a pc just to make him feel better about the short-comings of his console. Do some research and stop being ignorant.

Agree(13) | Disagree(3) | Report

PR0F3TA - 581 days 2 hours ago

and it wouldn't really be a Crysis thread without a PC fanboy telling us how exactly PC pawns consoles, even though statistics show that PC gaming has fallen to console gaming in the last year.

its a fair trade

Agree(3) | Disagree(3) | Report

kewlkat007 - 581 days 2 hours ago

...

Agree(2) | Disagree(2) | Report

Lotto - 581 days ago

$4,000? before the trend was to say $2,000 and now suddenly it have rose 100%? Even tho hardware have become cheaper and more powerful /boggle

Agree(3) | Disagree(1) | Report

xsteinbachx - 581 days ago

You've obviously have never built a computer before.

Agree(5) | Disagree(1) | Report

m9105826 - 580 days 23 hours ago

I'm gonna have to agree with 1.1, I just built (built, not bought) a $3000 PC a little over a year and a half ago. Core 2 Extreme OCd to 3.4ghz, 3 gigs of RAM, and a 7950GX2. It brings my rig to it's knees at 1280x1024 all on high. There's no way the average person can fully enjoy this game.

Agree(3) | Disagree(4) | Report

scissor_runner - 580 days 22 hours ago

No seriously
8gigs pf ram is $200-300
http://www.pricewatch.com/s...
cpu is easy around $170 yet if you really want to pay for 10 more frames then you can spend $1000 no one will stop you.
http://www.pricewatch.com/m...
an 8800 around $200
http://www.pricewatch.com/v...
MB vary but really those main parts are around $600. hell if your Hdtv is good enough you can just run crysis on that! Now those parts are way more powerful than a PS3 or xbox 360 and you could run cycsis pretty well at that price. Actually a box like this is over kill for some thing like UT3. Unlike crysis there are developers who make good games that don't rely on all of the crysis effects. You can look them up and yes they out sold those guys by a lot.

Also too learning how to build your own PC is priceless man. If you wanted to pay me $4000 I would make like $2000 dollars off of you easy. Also all of those pirated games and porn and even adware slow your box way down.

Agree(3) | Disagree(1) | Report

DanB91 - 575 days 18 hours ago

strange my $500 computer can run crysis on high @ 1360 x 768 fine.....

newegg.com. thats all im gonna say.

i love how people think u have to sell ur car to play crysis or something.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Adamalicious - 581 days ago

Yeah - I don't really care for the mod from an aesthetic standpoint.

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report

SL1M DADDY - 581 days 8 hours ago

The screen of the rock cliff is amazingly better.

Agree(4) | Disagree(0) | Report

Dierus - 581 days 4 hours ago

my friend, it's not possible on the consoles because of the memory limits, if you look at the goodlooking titles on 360/ps3 they all have low res textures, look at kz2, mgs4, bioshock,gow
sorry to ruin your day, but the high end pcs today are way more powerful the ps3/360

Agree(3) | Disagree(2) | Report

Qdog - 581 days 1 hour ago

While I respect your comment as being your opinion, I cannot take it as fact, because.... a texture memory constraint, is mostly set by how optimized the shader code is, hence if a texture branch set is optimized to terminate(or complete) in less clock cycles( which is the advantage of having extra spus, and parallel programming)the need for memory is by far reduced, and that frees up more memory for other textures in the set more efficiently. I think that as the programming and compilers as a whole become more mature, you will see more procedures implemented, that make the lack of memory less existent. Again, as programmers come to terms with parallel processing, you will see consoles (with the cell BE especially) become extremely more efficient with memory, and you will see games that you thought were NOT possible due to memory problems being done on said console(s). Parallel programming is relatively new, and not as explored as conventional processing. So the door is open for improvements, and only time will tell if the programmers will choose to adopt and optimize code, and programming for said platform.

Agree(2) | Disagree(3) | Report

ip-student - 581 days ago

You have to expect that with Moore's observartion and the increased amount of memory a PC with two 512 MB cards could have nicer textures than a console with 256 MB card (running at a slower rate, I might add). In the end, textures are based on the number of triangles and there is no easy substitute for memory when you want to increase the number of triangles.

But as said many times in this thread - the cost isn't worth it. I personally hope the next gen of consoles include an asic chip for ray tracing that can output 60 fps for the intended resolution for highly complex geometry (2-5 million triangles) with shadows and such - based on what I have read it seem completely possible. Such a design would end the need to create art - everything could be procedurally generated and rendered in real time. Time to reduce the cost of making games - IMHO.

Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report

Qdog - 580 days 23 hours ago

First off, I respect your post as being your take on things. Second the standard memory configuration for current gen consoles, is 512 MB, X360 has a unified module 512MB DDR3 running at 800MHZ, with a 10MB EDRAM, while the PS3 has one module of 256MB DDR3 @800MHZ, and one module of 256MB XDR @3.2GHZ.I dont know of the current PC standard for DDR2 DDR3 etc, but I am relatively sure (without overclocking) that it hasnt reached 3.2GHZ. About the memory and capabilities, as I stated in another post, the buzzword is parallel processing, normal textures and specular etc. can be processed at an alarmingly low amount of clock cycles, getting the same return or greater with less compared to dual or quad-core standards, but more efficiently, this also applies to the number of complex geometry and polygons. Think in streams my friend, and not in conventional packets. Such is the nature of the Cell BE. Please if you have any other input, enlighten me my friend, because I'm always willing to observe, and consequently ...learn.As far as I know, optimized code right now for the PS3 has been relatively simple, but has shown the accuracy of theoretical(predicted) returns aka Folding @ Home. You see until the code is optimized on more complicated alghorythims (Game code, shader code etc.) It's hard to benchmark the current state of consoles as the technology(in the PS3) is still a little ahead of it's time, by conventional standards. As I am sure Sony is well aware.

Agree(0) | Disagree(3) | Report

sloth4urluv - 580 days 22 hours ago

dosnt matter how optimised your code and shaders are, if you dont have enough memory to store all the textures its not going to help you any, you have to resize the textures to make them a smaller resolution, or compress them to some format that the graphics processor can handle natively.

And if you want to talk about procedural textures, those still need to be stored in memory after they are calculated, to be able to calculate these textures on the fly would be quite difficult. think about it to be able to calculate and draw a high resolution high detail texture from a set of commands 60 times a second is rather impressive, but to do that with multiple textures then overlay them apply them to geometry and perform shaders and post processing effects.
I dont think that can be done on any current hardware.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

Qdog - 580 days 22 hours ago

Thank you for contributing to my post. About texture sizes..with the addition of more processors(non-scalar) comes the ability to handle more code in parallel, and while I agree that with the current programming standard, memory is a huge issue, but think parallel, in streams, meaning more information handled with way less clock cycles, giving the memory room for more textures, yes they would have to be compressed natively, but seeing as how there is no background OS(ie Vista/XP, less resources are taken and more code(optimized/compressed) can be run natively. I have to be honest, it's not being done yet, but I find it facinating, how Sony left the doors open for it to be done. New frontiers in computer programming are being explored, and unknown avenues of approach are possible. So just like the PS3, you have to think unconventionally to kind of understand the capabilities, of the current generation consoles, and more so where programming efficiencey is going. As always thank you for your reply friend.

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

sloth4urluv - 580 days 21 hours ago

Thanks for being awsome about it qdog. Most of the time if I coment on something I get like 15 disagrees. +bubble

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

Qdog - 580 days 6 hours ago

If you cannot give a valid reason for a disagree with a perfectly logical statement. Then dont disagree, that button is for people with enough intelligence to have a preference disagreeable to mine. Because you disagree without cause, you only validate the fact that you are an opinionless tool, and every disagree after that only further proves my point about you.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

condorstrike - 581 days 2 hours ago

play at that level on a console......lol...lol...lol, please stop fooling yourselfs...
(consoles) = no upgrades; so to play this either buy a new revision "which i doubt" will ever happen and if it does won't be much of a difference.

or wait for the next gen consoles... and even then.

better yet get an upgradable pc...:)

Agree(0) | Disagree(2) | Report

Nytr8 - 581 days 1 hour ago

You have seen the graphical improvements on consoles from one generation to the next right? Or are you the PC ftw type?

When the new Sony and MS consoles come out you seriously believe that they wont be able to pump textures like that? Especially when you consider that they wont be out for another 2-3 years?

I do believe they can and will.
The PS3 and 360 are no laughing matter, they were actually for the first time in history ahead of the mainstream PC in technology upon launch.
And in order to improve on what consoles offer you had and have to spend a far larger chunk of cash on your pc upgrades to make them better.

I understand PC very well, I build them for my friends and family to save them money and I always buy oem components to keep costs down. But even with that saving its still a higher cost compared to consoles.

Ive got nothing against PC gaming and I used to enjoy it a fair bit, I just prefer the fact that I know that every game I buy will look like it does on the back of the box, not to find out that I need another £400 graphics card to get abit more bump mapping and a smoother framerate

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report

levy - 580 days 21 hours ago

This is a really childish view that (unfortunately) a lot of people have. You don't "HAVE" to play on max settings, it's still the most beautiful game even without the game on max (not on low/med duh). And the game is still the same even if you play on low (except if you have physics on low).

And this brings us to one of the more common complaints about this game, and that is: "Buu, it's all graphics and a beautiful presentation. The GAMEPLAY is the most important part in a game."

fair enough, I buy that, since it's true.

Edit: Crysis has an Avg Ratio of 91%. And I don't think it got that from only it's graphics.
BUT! Why in the name of the almighty and ever loving GOD does the same people complain that the game is WAY too demanding to play on MAX!? Why do they bother, since they themselves said that GAMEPLAY is the most important thing!?

I'll say, stop whining, lower the settings and have fun. Because,I think the game is actually very fun, (but I don't want anyone to whine about that it's not, since people have different opinions)and I know a lot of people who does, as well as the reviewers. It has a pretty decent average score.

That's all from me.... *shrugs*

Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report

xsteinbachx - 580 days 19 hours ago

Why would I get a mod that Ups the textures, if I can't even enjoy the them Maxed. No one said nothing about gameplay. It's about New Textures. Read the title of the article, and come back when you're on topic.

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report

levy - 580 days 19 hours ago

In one way, I am off topic. But I'm also right when I say that it doesn't really matter. It wont affect you if you're not completely stupid and choosing the new "Ultra" option on textures when you know your computer can't handle it. And then complaining about it. The game won't get any more Un-playable because of this, but the MAX settings will be.

And I must say that you really can't blame the game for being too advanced for your computer, especially since you can choose lower settings. Crytek said that they indeed maxed it out over the top so it would last longer and so people that had the option could play it with marvelous graphics, but that doesn't mean that the "normal" setting is ugly.

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report

liquidsnake - 581 days 4 hours ago

Wake me up when the torturebox can pull out those graphics.

Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report