Crytek has a pretty awesome engine in CryEngine 3. If you've ever seen it running on a decked out computer you know that console graphics, physics, shading, etc., etc. are a decent step behind this baby. Of course that machine that can do all that costs a crap ton of money, so Crytek has brought CryEngine 3 to the consoles. In a recent interview in Edge Magazine Mark Atkinson, Crytek’s director of technology says they've done something pretty incredible.
“Everyone said we couldn’t do this on a console. We did it,” he told Edge before backing that up with the facts that the console versions are “equivalent to medium- to high-spec PC settings” and come complete with that fancy dynamic scenery and destructible stuff from the computer version. Getting it to run on both consoles wasn't all that easy though, and while he says the two will run equally well each will have its own things it will do better than the other.
“It’s been tricky, but we’ve got a strong PS3 engine with all the major systems running on SPUs. With middleware, what you want is for someone else to do all that so the developer can just concentrate on making games. We have parity between the platforms now: both run at the same speed ... If the game’s shader-heavy it runs a bit faster on 360; if it’s compute-heavy with physics and particles, then the SPUs take over and it’s a bit quicker on PS3.”
Hear that? Quickly, every 360 fanboy become a rapid fan of shading and every PS3 fanboy immediatley fall in love with compute-heavy physics and particles. You can check out a comparison of the two from GDC below.
Contest:
10:00 PM on 05.17.2009
| 
It's how the system was built at it's core. But that's just me....
Shading is done on the GPU while the physics and calulations for particles are given to the CPU.
Most publisher's don't want to spend the extra money or don't want to piss of either side, by enhancing the game of a rival.
@WickedSwagger Actually contrary to what other people are saying. The PS3 engine runs off of OpenGL where as the Xbox 360 runs off a proprietary shader engine (software) designed by Microsoft for Microsoft products.
OpenGL is an entire generation (maybe even two generations) behind DirectX technology.
Technically the CELL engine can off hand calculate the data, however it still looks worse than the 360 because the software is not there to support the graphics.
It's just not financially reasonable for PS3 to use DirectX, nor engineer the OPEN Source product.
One is a software issue the other is a hardware issue. You can't upgrade major console hardware.
I wish that video was in High Def, though. It looks kinda blurry, even though you can still make out parts of the detail.
As for the shaders - I might be wrong, but I guess they're still thinking in the PC manner, where you put all the graphics onto video card's GPU. With PS3, SPUs can do most of the job PCs usually do with the GPU, and PS3's got 6 of them.
...then again most games aren't Crysis.
PwnanObrien: You should really read more about what shaders are and how they work. They're programmable rendering instructions (think we can all safely ignore fixed-instruction shaders like the Wii has in this discussion) that determine how a surface is rendered, not just what color the pixels on that surface are (which is usually a photographic or painted bitmap anyway).
And for all of those who are confused by the talk of SPU and GPU and shaders and shit (even those who think they're not confused), just remember, "shaders" are what gives us that fun super shiny space marine look and physics and AI is what makes a game fun to play.
Please tell me we aren't approaching Uncanny Valley ever so quickly.
You claimed that most games don't use shaders that much, which is not only completely false but absurd to even suggest. They use them on EVERYTHING! Even the full screen filter effects are shaders. Take a look at the Killzone 2 bullet time commercial thing on PSN even you need an excellent interactive demonstration.
If the argument you were trying to make is that a slight edge in shader performance is significantly less important that a healthy advantage in sheer number crunching that can be arbitrarily thrown at whatever problem needs solving, as is the case with the PS3's SPUs, then we've got no disagreement.
If I were making the call I'd definitely have gone the route Sony did, though in a perfect world I would have put in a bit more memory just in case. But I can understand why they didn't given the cost of the components as it is.
Also lol at people commenting on technology they don't have the slightest clue about how it works (well one person does, but that's about it).
So to really get the most out of crysis, you need to spend a lot.
Ironically, it'd probably run better on 360 - not that it'd run at all. An engine isn't a game, alas.
Having said that, CE is one of the best engines around, so fuck yes.
You’re the best!
Around!
Nothing’s gonna ever keep you down
You’re the Best!
Around!
Nothing’s gonna ever keep you down
You’re the Best!
Around!
Nothing’s gonna ever keep you dow-ow-ow-ow-own
When did an article about the engine mean it's about the game?
not really. considering we all need pc's in general, and gaming is just one of the many advantages to having a nice PC. the PS3 costs 400 dollars. the average standard level PC costs 1000, and to buy a high level pc is about 1400 and lasts a long time with slight updates ever 3-4 years (about the average lifetime of a console). so you break that down and its about 300 dollars per console generation for a PC, which is not only less expensive than a console, but also more advanced, faster, more customizable, and more useful.
im sick of this argument that pc's are so expensive. dont get me wrong, consoles and pc's both have their merits and ultimately its a choice of the consumer about what they want in their gaming experience. but the argument that pc's are more expensive is kind of ridiculous. especially since most people drop 600-900 dollar for a crap pc just to surf the internet and could get a good gaming pc for 200-300 dollars more.
"Crytek has a pretty awesome engine in CryEngine 3. If you've ever seen it running on a decked out computer you know that console graphics, physics, shading, etc., etc. are a decent step behind this baby."
No one has ever seen CryEngine 3 on a decked out computer because CryEngine 3 hasn't been released on any platform. You've seen CryEngine 2 on decked out computers.
And, to the gentleman above: I agree with your statements, except to say that the average standard level PC can cost as low as 800, and you can build desktops that will run games on pretty decent settings for 600, which to my mind is way cheaper than consoles, because you're going to pay at least 400 for a computer of some sort, unless you're going to go without a computer which in this day and age is pretty unheard of. So if you're already plunking down 400 for a crappy computer, you can also add a game console on to that for 200 - 400 more dollars.
Shading has very little to do with DirectX and OpenGL (for the bettter). The reason is probably the way the pipeline works in CryEngine 3, not in OpenGL or DirectX. Think of it this way, they created a distributed physics system, but not a shading pipeline. On the 360 they maybe had to tone down the physics a bit, but because of the designed of 360's graphics (on the same bus) they have a lower overhead for shoving shaders to the graphics card.
By the way, the pipeline is a guess. So, if any of you CryEngine 3 developers read this and I'm worng just tell me to shove it.
I'm a little tired of the "Crysis needs a monstrous PC to play it" routine.
see? even i, a pc gamer, have fallen into this over-pricing nonsense haha. thank you for the correct information. its been a while since ive looked into updating my pc.
the only thing that pc's really require are knowledge and maintenance. some people are willing to do that, some people arent. it is the gamer's / consumer's choice. but to say that PC's cost a ridiculous amount more than a 500 dollar ps3 (after all we are talking about NEW consoles and pc's, not consoles and pc's from 1998) is simply untrue.
consoles are easy. no installations, no upgrading components, no building etc. but in the long run, they dont cost less.