Crysis on PS3 could it?

If crysis were ported to the PS3 do you think they could make the AI more intelligent? That was the biggest complaint about Crysis Dumb AI so if they can, if they do port it could they put better AI?

If crysis were ported to the PS3 do you think they could make the AI more intelligent? That was the biggest complaint about Crysis Dumb AI so if they can, if they do port it could they put better AI?

Wave360

I know I'm gonna be in for it, but I still stand by my idea that Crysis WILL indeed eventually be ported to the next-gen consoles. It would be foolish to not do so. Crysis sales on a console would totally pwn pc game sales, I think that's a no-brainer IMO. It won't matter if the game won't run as fast or look quite as sharp as it's pc counterpart. Go ahead, flame on.xboxdevil

I sure won't be the one to flame you. I own both a PC and console - to me gaming is just gaming and I enjoy both. With the amount of piracy that goes on in the PCgaming community developers are giving a closer look at consoles. I'm not saying piracy doesn't happen on consoles but if anyone is to honestly look at how much piracy does happen in the PC world, I am amazed that developershaven't abandoned the PC format completely.

Have you actually played the game? The game literally requires no less than a Geforce 8800 merely to maintain the framerate at 30 fps at the highest setting. It's currently the only game which cannot achieve 60 fps even with the best rig. ps3 has no chance. ps3 is currently running UT3 on a mere 30 fps while a PC with an 8800 card can run it at 60 fps with ease. And the ps3 is like what.... a pc with 6800 SLi? okay, ill be generous, to the ps3's merit, let's say it is equivalent to a Geforce 7950. Have you any idea what kind of settings on Crysis a Geforce 7950 will get you? Medium...and low.jhcho2

True and True. It aaint possible on a ps3.
Sorry

the crysis devs were very stupid. compare the amount of people who have gaming pc's to the amount of people who own next gen consoles. there is gonna be a big difference if they had any brains they would have made it for the next gen consoles and then port it to the pc. but its too late now and i bet the devs are kicking themselfs that they spent so much time making a great game that isnt selling

eh...it's possible...would just cost tons finding a way to optimize it all on the cell instead of the gpu...which is possible...but...no one will do itCosmoKing7717

Exactly

The RAM issue isn't anymore more of an issue than the cell or the graphics card. Its stupid to compare the ps3 hardware to the pc requirements.

Imean try running COD4 at the settings the ps3 does on a pcwith 512mb RAM

I honestly think it could happen. I think that it could be done on the PS3, as getting the same treatment that Unreal Tournament II got. Keyboard, Mouse, and Mod support. Its just a question of how it could look.

I remember reading an article that Crytek hired PS3 coders. I don't think they will make Crysis(ifthey do, it will probably be a Crysis Instincts kind of thing.) Chances are if they do make a game for consoles, it will be something different, and designed to take advantage of the consoles abilities. Meaning a possibility of more linear levels, changes in gameplay, and other tweaks to make Crytek have a great looking game on consoles.EMERlCa6969

yeah i forgot that its been confirmed by crytek they are working on a game for both consoles at the moment and all they said was that it is not crysis.

the crysis devs were very stupid. compare the amount of people who have gaming pc's to the amount of people who own next gen consoles. there is gonna be a big difference if they had any brains they would have made it for the next gen consoles and then port it to the pc. but its too late now and i bet the devs are kicking themselfs that they spent so much time making a great game that isnt selling

d_ano

Sorry but your reasoning is whats stupid. What crytek set out to do was make a realistic gaming ENGINE with very dynamic AI as well as good physics. and obviously amazing graphics, that are practically CG looking. They did that with the CryENGINE 2. That was the main focus. Crysis was just the game to introduce the engine. And in that they are succesful.

[QUOTE="EMERlCa6969"]I remember reading an article that Crytek hired PS3 coders. I don't think they will make Crysis(ifthey do, it will probably be a Crysis Instincts kind of thing.) Chances are if they do make a game for consoles, it will be something different, and designed to take advantage of the consoles abilities. Meaning a possibility of more linear levels, changes in gameplay, and other tweaks to make Crytek have a great looking game on consoles.clarkportmanken

yeah i forgot that its been confirmed by crytek they are working on a game for both consoles at the moment and all they said was that it is not crysis.

They didnt say anythign about making a game. They said they were working on porting the engine to consoles. A game will obviously come after, but considering they arent even done porting the engine. Id say 2009 for a game at the EARLIEST

Have you actually played the game? The game literally requires no less than a Geforce 8800 merely to maintain the framerate at 30 fps at the highest setting. It's currently the only game which cannot achieve 60 fps even with the best rig. ps3 has no chance. ps3 is currently running UT3 on a mere 30 fps while a PC with an 8800 card can run it at 60 fps with ease. And the ps3 is like what.... a pc with 6800 SLi? okay, ill be generous, to the ps3's merit, let's say it is equivalent to a Geforce 7950. Have you any idea what kind of settings on Crysis a Geforce 7950 will get you? Medium...and low.jhcho2

With 512MB of Memory? I hope not.l8bitz

[QUOTE="l8bitz"]With 512MB of Memory? I hope not.CosmoKing7717

lol so maybe it would be worse though :P I'd probably just stick to it on the computer though.

dont forget the pc uses from 1gb of ram almost 264 sololy to the operating system that means allocated and used only by windows and part of the cpu keeps an eye on the operating system in the background (when u press ctrl.alt.del u can see the apps in the background) and those decrease performance of the hardware by a min of 40 to 50% of their potential on the other hand the PS3 is made only for gaming so all the resources and hardware are used with all their capacities for the rendering of images.NIGHTHAWKAK47

Sorry to say but your tatement is completely flawed. The ps3 has an operating system just like any other electronic device out there. All electronic devices have operating systems. That xmb is jsut a part of the operating system. DAMN, why must these threads continue to appear.

Don't listen to what some people are saying, bottom line is if they really wanted to do it, they could, may be difficult, but its possible, could probably even do it on 360 if they worked hard enough at it, but they most likely won't...i dont see why not though considering crysis isn't going to sell nearly to as close as well as it could because of the fact most pc gamers dont have a computer that can handle it but oh well

I didn't really expect the sale to go well simply because Farcry's lackluster gameplay. Granted they got the graphics, but I have yet to see a PC game released that does not require any patch within weeks. Is Crysis possible on console? Sure, content's already there, It's simply matter of re coding the engine for console. I don't forsee RAM being a big problem because GTA was able to run on PS2 with 32mb of ram, and on PC it needs 200+mb.. Easy comparison when you realize that console does not need to load all of competibile code/graphic path for all the supported game card, single/dual/quad processors/lan cards/sound cards/kb/m/display resolution/size of your epeen to make sure game will run smoothly. Do I forsee Crysys to run better on Console? doubt it, even Farcry was a bit dumbed down for Xbox. PS3 and X360's graphic card were just as powerful as PC's graphic card when it was released, so expectation that PS3 can produce better visual than what PC can handle is pretty much out of question.

But one thing do stands in Console's favor, since there's much less headache of trying to keep all the different hardware competibile to run the game, they can optimize the game to run much more efficiently for consle. However, given the fact that PS3's design, proper optimization probably will not be achieved any time soon. Well, at least untile then, we probably will see games utilizing UE3.0 engine more and more as developers try to cut down time spent on developing their own 3d engine, as Square is doing for FF series..

The reason that Crysis requires so much RAM is because all the models are fully textured and just sitting there the whole time. The could cut the ridiculous need for RAM by using texture streaming.Liquid-Prince

I don't think the real problem is that they couldn't make a port, with enough time tweaking the game engine and modifying this and that. I think the problem is that the port would have a good chance of being inferior to the pc version, so as such, would not be worth it. I would much rather see them spend the time making a completely new game for ps3/360 (SEPARATELY, not 360 with ps3 port, or better yet, ps3 exclusive ;) ).

As for the graphics, developing for a console is a good bit different than developing for a pc. There are games in development for the ps3 now that have better graphics than crysis at its best, at least in my opinion (kz2 and ffxiii are two(although ff is a completely different style, obviously)), even with the inferior graphics card to what crysis requires at high settings.

I imagine that if the full power of the cell was used, it would easily be able to handle any of the physics, as well as improve the AI, considering the cell is far more powerful than a pc processor. It would just depend on if the developers could figure out how to develop those physics/AI properly, since the cell uses a very different method than a regular processor.

If we look at those two performance Guides from GS about Unreal III and Call of Duty 4, it shows (very rough estimation!!!) that the PS3 is somehow equal (somehow!) to a system equipped with a very fast quad core processor, a 8600 or even 8800 geforce and some nice ram. Those two games are currently only using about 20 to 25 percent (because Uncharted, best graphics, is using 30%) of the whole Cell, so there is still some air to breath.

Not much, RSX has been already (fully) discovered since the release of the 7800 gpu series, but still some/enough juice left in that console.

So, according to those performance guides (I guess), and this is just a very rough, a very, very rough estimation, PS3 should be able to run Crisis in 720p with maximum settings, DX9c effects (well, they need to switch to OpenGL anyway)and no AA, that's 1280x720 with 25 to 30 images per seconds.

I got the fps from the performance guides and added some fps because PS3 needs to offer more then just 30% of it's mighty Cell, maybe, rather 75 or 80 (which is already overkill, very hard to program)... 25, 30 fps, well not the best numbers, but I guess, optimizing here, reducing details there, changing codes a bit, getting help from Sony and that's it, in my opinion, a very realistic scenario, more then 30 is just a utopia and even 30fps at those settings is close to a dream. The game and it's code need to be rebuild from scratch to run great and look better then the PC Crysis, see FFXIII for example.The white engine is a PS3 engine and not some multi platform garbage.

...IF, and now comes the real big trouble for the developers,...

if they can handle the memory bottleneck caused by the small ram...which isn't weak, the PS3 memory of course, the XDR ram, in fact, it's a ultra fast main memory, 3.2Ghz clocked, and RSX can use some of it as well.... ...so they can make it, the port of course.

The developers may, for example, divide the game into more pieces, that require more loading times, make the islands smaller, reduce the freedom of level design, make one restricted path were the hero needs to go (just like Uncharted), reduce range of view.

The ram is needed form for the big islands, were you can really discover (almost) everything you can see, and I think, that if it gets a port,then they will need to kick that (kick ass!-) feature or reduce image quality... medium settings, less effects, 600p up-scaled to 720p and so on, and that's unacceptable.

Unreal Tournament was optimized for the PC better. They have to worry about a wide variety of hardware when making the game.I bet if they made the game soley for the PS3, it would look much better. They just have one set of hardware to optimize it for, which allows them to optimize it much better and therefore look much better and run smoother. What PC graphics card do you think it would take to run Gran Turismo 5 with if it was released for the PC? My guess is the same high end cards that Crysis requires. You need to think more logically when you think about it. Fall3nELiTE

take a page out of your own book and think logically. GT5 puts focs on great looking cars, and some good AI. Man im not even gunna go into. How can you compare a rlinear racing game to that of a dynamic first person shooter, with GIGANTIC maps. Wow.

Thankyou, MyzeDivine, that is exactly the point I am making. Any PS3 game coming out this year and next could easily be compared to as good or better looking than Crysis. Developing for the PC is much different than developing for the 360 and PS3. Fall3nELiTE

Sorry no game looks as good or better than crysis

If we look at those two performance Guides from GS about Unreal III and Call of Duty 4, it shows (very rough estimation!!!) that the PS3 is somehow equal (somehow!) to a system equipped with a very fast quad core processor, a 8600 or even 8800 geforce and some nice ram. Those two games are currently only using about 20 to 25 percent (because Uncharted, best graphics, is using 30%) of the whole Cell, so there is still some air to breath.

Not much, RSX has been already (fully) discovered since the release of the 7800 gpu series, but still some/enough juice left in that console.

So, according to those performance guides (I guess), and this is just a very rough, a very, very rough estimation, PS3 should be able to run Crisis in 720p with maximum settings, DX9c effects (well, they need to switch to OpenGL anyway)and no AA, that's 1280x720 with 25 to 30 images per seconds.

I got the fps from the performance guides and added some fps because PS3 needs to offer more then just 30% of it's mighty Cell, maybe, rather 75 or 80 (which is already overkill, very hard to program)... 25, 30 fps, well not the best numbers, but I guess, optimizing here, reducing details there, changing codes a bit, getting help from Sony and that's it, in my opinion, a very realistic scenario, more then 30 is just a utopia and even 30fps at those settings is close to a dream. The game and it's code need to be rebuild from scratch to run great and look better then the PC Crysis, see FFXIII for example.The white engine is a PS3 engine and not some multi platform garbage.

...IF, and now comes the real big trouble for the developers,...

if they can handle the memory bottleneck caused by the small ram...which isn't weak, the PS3 memory of course, the XDR ram, in fact, it's a ultra fast main memory, 3.2Ghz clocked, and RSX can use some of it as well.... ...so they can make it, the port of course.

The developers may, for example, divide the game into more pieces, that require more loading times, make the islands smaller, reduce the freedom of level design, make one restricted path were the hero needs to go (just like Uncharted), reduce range of view.

The ram is needed form for the big islands, were you can really discover (almost) everything you can see, and I think, that if it gets a port,then they will need to kick that (kick ass!-) feature or reduce image quality... medium settings, less effects, 600p up-scaled to 720p and so on, and that's unacceptable.

kazuya_m

Im disagreeing with your first few statements simply because im getting 100+fps on an e4600 dualcore at 3Ghz and an 8800GT with 2gb running vista, when i play those 2 games. How can the ps3 compare to that at a measly 1280x720 running at best 60fps. Meanwhile my resolution is 1680x1050 which pretty much crushes that.

kazuya_m, you are not even thinking about why the PC loads faster, and why the PS3 can play games with less memory. PC games are installed onto the hdd, which is much faster than the Blu Ray drive that PS3 games are read from. Windows uses more resources and requires more ram. Fall3nELiTE

HDD? no problem, since Ken kutaragi told the press that all PS3 will be equipped with HDDs. GT5 prologe(not the demo!)runnig from the HDD by the way (both Disk and download version)

PS3 games need less memory? true, I know, that's why CoD4 and Unreal3 are running as good on the PS3 as they do on a PC with 2 gigs of ram. But still, the XDR ram is small, developers need to think different, regroup their files tactically, use some nice compression methodes at the right time and so on. A PS3 with 2 gigs would handle that b**** of a game (crysis i mean) with one leg and one arm and still have some power left for background downloads. Our PS3 needs some smart programmers to get rid of those bottlenecks.

By the way, Unreal3 and Co. need less power then Crysis... LESS MEMORY!

Unreal Tournament was optimized for the PC better. They have to worry about a wide variety of hardware when making the game.I bet if they made the game just for the PS3, it would look much better. They just have one set of hardware to optimize it for, which allows them to optimize it much better and therefore look much better and run smoother. What PC graphics card do you think it would take to run Gran Turismo 5 with if it was released for the PC? My guess is the same high end cards that Crysis requires. You need to think more logically than that.Fall3nELiTE

I think I stated that it's easier to optimize for console already so at least we agree on that. If you think GT's graphic requires so much then what today's system can handle? Maybe you need to check out Live for Speed 2 which has visual that, dated as it was, still rivals visual with some of the games today with perfect 32p online and what's arguable most realistic racing physics.. and only need 1g processor and a generic video card. What u get for optomizing console can also be true to PC, and with graphic power doubling every year on PC, it's not hard to see as unoptimzied as PC systems are, they can still soundly beat any console given the same budget and development cycle.

[QUOTE="Fall3nELiTE"]kazuya_m, you are not even thinking about why the PC loads faster, and why the PS3 can play games with less memory. PC games are installed onto the hdd, which is much faster than the Blu Ray drive that PS3 games are read from. Windows uses more resources and requires more ram. kazuya_m

HDD? no problem, since Ken kutaragi told the press that all PS3 will be equipped with HDDs. GT5 prologe(not the demo!)runnig from the HDD by the way (both Disk and download version)

PS3 games need less memory? true, I know, that's why CoD4 and Unreal3 are running as good on the PS3 as they do on a PC with 2 gigs of ram. But still, the XDR ram is small, developers need to think different, regroup their files tactically, use some nice compression methodes at the right time and so on. A PS3 with 2 gigs would handle that b**** of a game (crysis i mean) with one leg and one arm and still have some power left for background downloads. Our PS3 needs some smart programmers to get rid of those bottlenecks.

By the way, Unreal3 and Co. need less power then Crysis... LESS MEMORY!

no doubt if it had more vram and general ram it would but that same machine would cost you A LOT more money

and people were complaining about 600 bucks and even 400 still. That machine would cost well over 600

take a page out of your own book and think logically. GT5 puts focs on great looking cars, and some good AI. Man im not even gunna go into. How can you compare a rlinear racing game to that of a dynamic first person shooter, with GIGANTIC maps. Wow.Miguel16

I was not comparing GT5 to Crysis. Why don't you actually read my whole post and take a few minutes to process it? I was simply saying if GT5 was released for the PC, it would require a high end card. Stop wasting my time.

Sorry no game looks as good or better than crysisMiguel16

MGS 4 does.

Im disagreeing with your first few statements simply because im getting 100+fps on an e4600 dualcore at 3Ghz and an 8800GT with 2gb running vista, when i play those 2 games. How can the ps3 compare to that at a measly 1280x720 running at best 60fps. Meanwhile my resolution is 1680x1050 which pretty much crushes that.

some numbers from the guide:

-Intel Core 2 E6600, GeForce 8800 GTS 320MB, 2GB RAM, Vista:CoD4 maximum settings in 1280x1024(which is higher then 720p)

62fps! and PS3 is running at 60fps(+/-10fps) in 720p at max settings. I assume that they are using higher AA levels here then the PS3 version, that's why it's as slow as the PS3

The numbers for Unreal are useless, I have to admit, as they haven't tested enough combinations. But it looks that PS3 is somewhere between a PC equipped with a 8600 and maybe a normal 8800

OK, then I assume that the PS3 (with 30% used cell power!!!)is equal to a PC with an quad core, a 8600 geforce and 2 gigs(or rather 1gig) of ram

Now what is such a system able to do in Crisis according to the guides: medium quality at 23 fps... ouch! we need a lot of extra power from cell!!!! a lot of!

Now, why is it really that Cod4 needs a 8800 to run at 60fps while such a gpu smashes UT3 to hell, just because of AA level, because of different engines... jesus christ there has to be some other reason. If the PS3 could manage to reach the power of a 8800 sported PC then it could be done( the port) otherwise, it's not just the ram that makes a bottleneck...

[QUOTE="Miguel16"]take a page out of your own book and think logically. GT5 puts focs on great looking cars, and some good AI. Man im not even gunna go into. How can you compare a rlinear racing game to that of a dynamic first person shooter, with GIGANTIC maps. Wow.Fall3nELiTE

I was not comparing GT5 to Crysis. Why don't you actually read my whole post and take a few minutes to process it? I was simply saying if GT5 was released for the PC, it would require a high end card. Stop wasting my time.

Sorry no game looks as good or better than crysisMiguel16

MGS 4 does.

Also, I own a PC and a PS3 so I am not biased toward either but you just make no sense whatsoever.

I don't know if it's correct to compare MGS with Crysis. Crysis' environment is destroyable and so far we have only see the blend middle wester setting on MGS4. Comparing the two game, feature wise, I think Crysis owns hands down with the draw distance and the lush environment, not to mention the physice engine. Here's also another big problem, Crysis is out already and Farcry2, which looks even better then crysis, is set to come out within next two year. I think it will make more sense to compare that game with Killzone or MGS4 or GT5 or whatever your heart desired then.

some numbers from the guide:

-Intel Core 2 E6600, GeForce 8800 GTS 320MB, 2GB RAM, Vista:CoD4 maximum settings in 1280x1024(which is higher then 720p)

62fps! and PS3 is running at 60fps(+/-10fps) in 720p at max settings. I assume that they are using higher AA levels here then the PS3 version, that's why it's as slow as the PS3

The numbers for Unreal are useless, I have to admit, as they haven't tested enough combinations. But it looks that PS3 is somewhere between a PC equipped with a 7900 a 8600 and maybe a normal 8800

OK, then I assume that the PS3 (with 30% used cell power!!!)is equal to a PC with an quad core, a 8600 geforce and 2 gigs(or rather 1gig) of ram

Now what is such a system able to do in Crisis: medium quality at 23 fps... ouch! we need a lot of extra power from cell!!!! a lot of!

kazuya_m

Running in Vista usually means much slower fps, and 1280x1024 has roughly 1/4 - 1/3 more pixels to worry about. Once you add in all the anti-alias, LOD, and all maxed setting in which console port not necessarly enabled... 60 fps and 62 fps is a big difference. Here's another quick fact, have you seen 64 or even 128 player online match yet? These things are pretty usual for PC crowds, I believe the upper limit for warhawk is 32 players?

[QUOTE="Miguel16"]take a page out of your own book and think logically. GT5 puts focs on great looking cars, and some good AI. Man im not even gunna go into. How can you compare a rlinear racing game to that of a dynamic first person shooter, with GIGANTIC maps. Wow.Fall3nELiTE

I was not comparing GT5 to Crysis. Why don't you actually read my whole post and take a few minutes to process it? I was simply saying if GT5 was released for the PC, it would require a high end card. Stop wasting my time.

Sorry no game looks as good or better than crysisMiguel16

MGS 4 does.

Also, I own a PC and a PS3 so I am not biased toward either but you just make no sense whatsoever.

LOL wow. I own a ps3 a 360 and a PC capable of playing high end games. You didnt compare gt5 to crysis? Maybe not directly butdefinately indirectly when you inferred that GT5 on a pc would need the same high end gpu that crysis needs, thus pretty much saying the graphics are on par with crysis. But crysis does so much more. MGS4? Now i l;ove me some metal gear but come on now, its no crysis.

Im disagreeing with your first few statements simply because im getting 100+fps on an e4600 dualcore at 3Ghz and an 8800GT with 2gb running vista, when i play those 2 games. How can the ps3 compare to that at a measly 1280x720 running at best 60fps. Meanwhile my resolution is 1680x1050 which pretty much crushes that.

some numbers from the guide:

-Intel Core 2 E6600, GeForce 8800 GTS 320MB, 2GB RAM, Vista:CoD4 maximum settings in 1280x1024(which is higher then 720p)

62fps! and PS3 is running at 60fps(+/-10fps) in 720p at max settings. I assume that they are using higher AA levels here then the PS3 version, that's why it's as slow as the PS3

The numbers for Unreal are useless, I have to admit, as they haven't tested enough combinations. But it looks that PS3 is somewhere between a PC equipped with a 8600 and maybe a normal 8800

OK, then I assume that the PS3 (with 30% used cell power!!!)is equal to a PC with an quad core, a 8600 geforce and 2 gigs(or rather 1gig) of ram

Now what is such a system able to do in Crisis according to the guides: medium quality at 23 fps... ouch! we need a lot of extra power from cell!!!! a lot of!

Now, why is it really that Cod4 needs a 8800 to run at 60fps while such a gpu smashes UT3 to hell, just because of AA level, because of different engines... jesus christ there has to be some other reason. If the PS3 could manage to reach the power of a 8800 sported PC then it could be done( the port) otherwise, it's not just the ram that makes a bottleneck...

kazuya_m

I forgot you used those benches. Either way i dont know what is the problem witht heir pc bbut with mine, i THRASH both games at 1680x1050 MAXXED, and that isnt an exageration.

LOL wow. I own a ps3 a 360 and a PC capable of playing high end games. You didnt compare gt5 to crysis? Maybe not directly butdefinately indirectly when you inferred that GT5 on a pc would need the same high end gpu that crysis needs, thus pretty much saying the graphics are on par with crysis. But crysis does so much more. MGS4? Now i l;ove me some metal gear but come on now, its no crysis.

Miguel16

Indirectly you say? I was not comparing them indirectly or directly, I wasn't comparing them at all. It's funny how you still fail to see the point I am trying to make. You are either a little kid or you just aren't very logical.

Also, I own a 360 too but that is irrelevant to what we are talking about...