Crysis with the COD 4 or Killzone Engine?

Hey we all have heard about Crysis possibly coming to the PS3. If they were having all of these problems, wouldn't it be just as cool to see Crysis coming to PS3 using the COD 4 engine or even the Killzone engine. It would still rock and look great and of course run great. Would you buy it then, even if it wasn't using Crytek's engine?kenken2g

Crysis it the engine! On any other engine it would not be Crysis!

I agree with that guy. The only thing Crysis had going for it was a powerful graphics engine. take that away, and its like turok. only no dinosaurs.Azurathe

I agree too.

[QUOTE="Azurathe"]I agree with that guy. The only thing Crysis had going for it was a powerful graphics engine. take that away, and its like turok. only no dinosaurs.gowthamspa

I agree too.

LMAO...that's why it really doesn't matter if it uses crytek's engine or the other engines. If the other engines work why not use them if it's less complicated. At least the game would be up and running great on PS3 before the year 2020 lol.

It's not just the graphics it's the crazy physics engine aswell, COD4 has nowhere near as good physics as Crysis.ikwal

That's true. I'm not arguing that COD 4 engine is as good as Crytek's at all. I've played Crysis on PC I know about the physics in game...and all of the destructible environments. All of that is great... but there's a reason why COD 4 is game of the year and Crysis is not... graphics couldn't do it for them. COD 4 wins in the gameplay department... even if it doesn't have all the physics that Crysis has.

The reson COD4 was game of the year and Crysis was not is because COD4 runs on £140 current generation harware which a lot of people have. Crysis "as it is menat to play" runs on £1200 next gerneation hardware... To the minority of people who are lucky enough to experience Crysis in all its glory, it is very much game of the year!....

The reson COD4 was game of the year and Crysis was not is because COD4 runs on £140 current generation harware which a lot of people have. Crysis "as it is menat to play" runs on £1200 next gerneation hardware... To the minority of people who are lucky enough to experience Crysis in all its glory, it is very much game of the year!....

JackSherbak

Well like I've said... I have played Crysis and I have played COD 4. Crysis has graphics... but other than that.. I'd rather play COD4 or Bioshock or something. Here's the reason why. USER BASE. If Crysis was released on the PS3 or 360 they would have made MUCH more money and it would have been a dominating game.

it's funny because those dev cats were being so stubborn...and high strung when they released Crysis. Talking about, "Oh... consoles can't run it", "Consoles are too weak to run it", "We have no intention to release it on consoles". Hell, even when they released the game and ran it on a PC maxed out... it still didn't measure up to the footage they were showing before release.

Now... PS3's new footage of KILLZONE 2 gameplay to me looks just as good as or better than CRYSIS and it's just running on the PS3 not even 4 gigs ram, 700mb video memory graphics card with crossfire, 3.0 quad cores, liquid cooled and all that other s#@$.

The funny thing is... Crytek is now trying their hardest to get something out in the console market lol. Because after all of their hard work... Nobody is even talking about crysis anymore lol. Everyone is talking about COD 4 and GTA IV. I hope they release the game for consoles... maybe it will get the recognition it should have.

Consoles FTW... I'm done with pc gaming.

personally i would rather have them make a new engine that will work well with the ps3.......you've seen what they can do on the pc and i think they should try to do the same on the ps3bluewrxman

Yeh I can agree with that. it would be nice to see them attempt to make a mirror version of the PC version... using a different engine. That would put all the PC fanboys to rest... it would show that the PS3 can run that game without all of that PC hardware.

[QUOTE="bluewrxman"]personally i would rather have them make a new engine that will work well with the ps3.......you've seen what they can do on the pc and i think they should try to do the same on the ps3kenken2g

Yeh I can agree with that. it would be nice to see them attempt to make a mirror version of the PC version... using a different engine. That would put all the PC fanboys to rest... it would show that the PS3 can run that game without all of that PC hardware.

that's what im hoping for, but did you say previously that they had problems making an engine for the ps3?

[QUOTE="kenken2g"]

[QUOTE="bluewrxman"]personally i would rather have them make a new engine that will work well with the ps3.......you've seen what they can do on the pc and i think they should try to do the same on the ps3bluewrxman

Yeh I can agree with that. it would be nice to see them attempt to make a mirror version of the PC version... using a different engine. That would put all the PC fanboys to rest... it would show that the PS3 can run that game without all of that PC hardware.

that's what im hoping for, but did you say previously that they had problems making an engine for the ps3?

Well the devs used to say that it was impossible to run the game on PS3 or 360. Now it has been surfacing all around the net that they have said it is possible. Also I'm not sure if you read it or not... but they were looking to hire someone with "PS3 experience". This could be for the new Farcry game.. but they refused to comment if or if not Crysis was coming too as well. I was just saying I'll take Crysis with a COD 4 engine because it would look and play great and could come out this year lol

Hey we all have heard about Crysis possibly coming to the PS3. If they were having all of these problems, wouldn't it be just as cool to see Crysis coming to PS3 using the COD 4 engine or even the Killzone engine. It would still rock and look great and of course run great. Would you buy it then, even if it wasn't using Crytek's engine?kenken2g

They would have to build the game from the ground up using a new engine, an engine is built to make future games easier/quicker to make as they have everything ready.mainly devs make a new engine for each generation then just tweak it during the generation.

Tweaking the crytek engine would be much smarter than using another engine, and i doubt it would be possible to use another engine like f4t4lity said the crysis engine is completly different to kz or cod4, cod4 and kz(of what we have seen) have allot of built up urban areas where as crysis uses allot of big open maps.

Also an engine is not just something that runs the game, it makes the game, its a set of tools dev's use to make a game, for instance all the palm trees etc in crysis have already been designed and are in the engine so they just have to place them where they like, same thing with all objects in crysis once its been designed it will be put into the engine, so if they wanted to use another engine they would have to modify it and add all the objects etc they need to use in the game and would probably have to design them again using the new engine.

[QUOTE="bluewrxman"]personally i would rather have them make a new engine that will work well with the ps3.......you've seen what they can do on the pc and i think they should try to do the same on the ps3kenken2g

Yeh I can agree with that. it would be nice to see them attempt to make a mirror version of the PC version... using a different engine. That would put all the PC fanboys to rest... it would show that the PS3 can run that game without all of that PC hardware.

If the ps3 could run crysis the same as a pc they wouldnt need to modify the engine, the problem is the textures,physics,AI etc etc crysis use need's allot of cpu power which ps3 has but it also needs allot of ram which ps3/360 does not have enough of to run this game in excatly the same form as a high end pc.

Also it takes years to make a new engine.

[QUOTE="kenken2g"]

[QUOTE="bluewrxman"]personally i would rather have them make a new engine that will work well with the ps3.......you've seen what they can do on the pc and i think they should try to do the same on the ps3shadystxxx

Yeh I can agree with that. it would be nice to see them attempt to make a mirror version of the PC version... using a different engine. That would put all the PC fanboys to rest... it would show that the PS3 can run that game without all of that PC hardware.

If the ps3 could run crysis the same as a pc they wouldnt need to modify the engine, the problem is the textures,physics,AI etc etc crysis use need's allot of cpu power which ps3 has but it also needs allot of ram which ps3/360 does not have enough of to run this game in excatly the same form as a high end pc.

Also it takes years to make a new engine.

Right.. I know and understand this. I've played with a gaming PC for years. But consoles are turning into gaming PCs. Crytek did say that if they released Crysis on consoles that they wanted it to be as close to PC as possible. They are also saying that FarCry 2 will look the same on all three platforms. If they have a way to do it... they will. I know I can't be too technical because I'm not a game dev. But I have read where they say they are learning to use all of the PS3s Cores.... throwing some of the work off of the video ram to achieve better graphics. If they can do this... why would it be impossible to play crysis on PS3 just as it is on PC... minus the resolution?

[QUOTE="shadystxxx"][QUOTE="kenken2g"]

[QUOTE="bluewrxman"]personally i would rather have them make a new engine that will work well with the ps3.......you've seen what they can do on the pc and i think they should try to do the same on the ps3kenken2g

Yeh I can agree with that. it would be nice to see them attempt to make a mirror version of the PC version... using a different engine. That would put all the PC fanboys to rest... it would show that the PS3 can run that game without all of that PC hardware.

If the ps3 could run crysis the same as a pc they wouldnt need to modify the engine, the problem is the textures,physics,AI etc etc crysis use need's allot of cpu power which ps3 has but it also needs allot of ram which ps3/360 does not have enough of to run this game in excatly the same form as a high end pc.

Also it takes years to make a new engine.

Right.. I know and understand this. I've played with a gaming PC for years. But consoles are turning into gaming PCs. Crytek did say that if they released Crysis on consoles that they wanted it to be as close to PC as possible. They are also saying that FarCry 2 will look the same on all three platforms. If they have a way to do it... they will. I know I can't be too technical because I'm not a game dev. But I have read where they say they are learning to use all of the PS3s Cores.... throwing some of the work off of the video ram to achieve better graphics. If they can do this... why would it be impossible to play crysis on PS3 just as it is on PC... minus the resolution?

I believe it's feasible that crysis could come to ps3 in a highly detailed version, but crytek have already said certain things will have to be toned down, all the physics are a big push on ram, and something would have to give to bring it to consoles.

Im saying crysis will not come to consoles in the excat same format as a high end pc, for starters i have 4gb of ram/ dual core cpu running at 3.2ghz, and 2 8800gt's and crysis at full detail still struggles to run perfectly it runs but the framerate dips when in hectic firefights, i turn a few settings down from very high to high and it runs great.

I believe it could come to ps3 using simialr settings to a med-high pc that would have to have the settings mixed between med-high, and even on these settings crysis looks great and would compete with the highest quality graphics on ps3/360. so its possible it could come to ps3 but doubtful it will come in very high specs as high end pc's can barely run it.

[QUOTE="kenken2g"][QUOTE="shadystxxx"][QUOTE="kenken2g"]

[QUOTE="bluewrxman"]personally i would rather have them make a new engine that will work well with the ps3.......you've seen what they can do on the pc and i think they should try to do the same on the ps3shadystxxx

Yeh I can agree with that. it would be nice to see them attempt to make a mirror version of the PC version... using a different engine. That would put all the PC fanboys to rest... it would show that the PS3 can run that game without all of that PC hardware.

If the ps3 could run crysis the same as a pc they wouldnt need to modify the engine, the problem is the textures,physics,AI etc etc crysis use need's allot of cpu power which ps3 has but it also needs allot of ram which ps3/360 does not have enough of to run this game in excatly the same form as a high end pc.

Also it takes years to make a new engine.

Right.. I know and understand this. I've played with a gaming PC for years. But consoles are turning into gaming PCs. Crytek did say that if they released Crysis on consoles that they wanted it to be as close to PC as possible. They are also saying that FarCry 2 will look the same on all three platforms. If they have a way to do it... they will. I know I can't be too technical because I'm not a game dev. But I have read where they say they are learning to use all of the PS3s Cores.... throwing some of the work off of the video ram to achieve better graphics. If they can do this... why would it be impossible to play crysis on PS3 just as it is on PC... minus the resolution?

I believe it's feasible that crysis could come to ps3 in a highly detailed version, but crytek have already said certain things will have to be toned down, all the physics are a big push on ram, and something would have to give to bring it to consoles.

Im saying crysis will not come to consoles in the excat same format as a high end pc, for starters i have 4gb of ram/ dual core cpu running at 3.2ghz, and 2 8800gt's and crysis at full detail still struggles to run perfectly it runs but the framerate dips when in hectic firefights, i turn a few settings down from very high to high and it runs great.

I believe it could come to ps3 using simialr settings to a med-high pc that would have to have the settings mixed between med-high, and even on these settings crysis looks great and would compete with the highest quality graphics on ps3/360. so its possible it could come to ps3 but doubtful it will come in very high specs as high end pc's can barely run it.

That's why using another engine or redoing the crytek engine would be the best thing for consoles. If they could get crysis to look as good as COD 4 or Killzone or even Uncharted Drake... no one would care if it didn't look like it does maxed out on pc.

[QUOTE="JackSherbak"]

The reson COD4 was game of the year and Crysis was not is because COD4 runs on £140 current generation harware which a lot of people have. Crysis "as it is menat to play" runs on £1200 next gerneation hardware... To the minority of people who are lucky enough to experience Crysis in all its glory, it is very much game of the year!....

kenken2g

Well like I've said... I have played Crysis and I have played COD 4. Crysis has graphics... but other than that.. I'd rather play COD4 or Bioshock or something. Here's the reason why. USER BASE. If Crysis was released on the PS3 or 360 they would have made MUCH more money and it would have been a dominating game.

it's funny because those dev cats were being so stubborn...and high strung when they released Crysis. Talking about, "Oh... consoles can't run it", "Consoles are too weak to run it", "We have no intention to release it on consoles". Hell, even when they released the game and ran it on a PC maxed out... it still didn't measure up to the footage they were showing before release.

Now... PS3's new footage of KILLZONE 2 gameplay to me looks just as good as or better than CRYSIS and it's just running on the PS3 not even 4 gigs ram, 700mb video memory graphics card with crossfire, 3.0 quad cores, liquid cooled and all that other s#@$.

The funny thing is... Crytek is now trying their hardest to get something out in the console market lol. Because after all of their hard work... Nobody is even talking about crysis anymore lol. Everyone is talking about COD 4 and GTA IV. I hope they release the game for consoles... maybe it will get the recognition it should have.

Consoles FTW... I'm done with pc gaming.

You are absolutely right. The dev for Crysis are just so unbelievably stuborn. Crysis is so poorly optimized that even on my quad core cpu, 8800GT machine, it runs less than ideal. And if I drop the setting to medium, it looks a LOT worse than other FPS games on medium. On high and very high, the frame rates keep shuttering during fire fights. errr....

When I said Crysis was poorly optimized, lots of poeple came out to defend it. Guess what, a year later, the devs themselves finally said that they are going to optimize the damn engine so it can run on a mid-range computer and consoles. lol

Cod4 is crap in physics, graphics, and gameplay. you only defend call of duty cause it's cheap.socomsniper226

First of all... if COD was that wack then why is it Game of the year? Activision and Infinity Ward have banked off of this freaking game more than Crytek could pray for. Second, who said they had to keep the same physics if they used the cod 4 engine? They could add more physics oveall, better water effects and destructible environments. Third... are you a game dev? How do you know what they can and can't do? Last but not least... have you seen the new Killzone 2 gameplay footage.... that looks pretty dang good to me. Whats wrong with that engine?

[QUOTE="shadystxxx"][QUOTE="kenken2g"][QUOTE="shadystxxx"][QUOTE="kenken2g"]

[QUOTE="bluewrxman"]personally i would rather have them make a new engine that will work well with the ps3.......you've seen what they can do on the pc and i think they should try to do the same on the ps3kenken2g

Yeh I can agree with that. it would be nice to see them attempt to make a mirror version of the PC version... using a different engine. That would put all the PC fanboys to rest... it would show that the PS3 can run that game without all of that PC hardware.

If the ps3 could run crysis the same as a pc they wouldnt need to modify the engine, the problem is the textures,physics,AI etc etc crysis use need's allot of cpu power which ps3 has but it also needs allot of ram which ps3/360 does not have enough of to run this game in excatly the same form as a high end pc.

Also it takes years to make a new engine.

Right.. I know and understand this. I've played with a gaming PC for years. But consoles are turning into gaming PCs. Crytek did say that if they released Crysis on consoles that they wanted it to be as close to PC as possible. They are also saying that FarCry 2 will look the same on all three platforms. If they have a way to do it... they will. I know I can't be too technical because I'm not a game dev. But I have read where they say they are learning to use all of the PS3s Cores.... throwing some of the work off of the video ram to achieve better graphics. If they can do this... why would it be impossible to play crysis on PS3 just as it is on PC... minus the resolution?

I believe it's feasible that crysis could come to ps3 in a highly detailed version, but crytek have already said certain things will have to be toned down, all the physics are a big push on ram, and something would have to give to bring it to consoles.

Im saying crysis will not come to consoles in the excat same format as a high end pc, for starters i have 4gb of ram/ dual core cpu running at 3.2ghz, and 2 8800gt's and crysis at full detail still struggles to run perfectly it runs but the framerate dips when in hectic firefights, i turn a few settings down from very high to high and it runs great.

I believe it could come to ps3 using simialr settings to a med-high pc that would have to have the settings mixed between med-high, and even on these settings crysis looks great and would compete with the highest quality graphics on ps3/360. so its possible it could come to ps3 but doubtful it will come in very high specs as high end pc's can barely run it.

That's why using another engine or redoing the crytek engine would be the best thing for consoles. If they could get crysis to look as good as COD 4 or Killzone or even Uncharted Drake... no one would care if it didn't look like it does maxed out on pc.

It's not that simple. Cryengine 2 is completely different from something like Unreal 3 or another console-based engine. Cryengine 2 not only focuses on the graphics/shaders, but physics too, which is heavily relient on both the CPU and amount of RAM. If they use something like COD4's engine, many of Crysis' physics will be gone; you won't be able to break down trees, and no destroying buildings freely on your own (I know there are parts of COD4 where buildings/cars are destroyed, but those are either scripted or is only a little chunk of the environment. Now, Crysis is possible on consoles, but the resolution would be only like 720p, and there would have to be major cutback, like the amount of objects, and the physics at work. Like the devs said, Far Cry 2 will run on high/medium for consoles. So it's possible, but can't exactly be compared with the graphics on the pc, where you can go higher than that.

[QUOTE="kenken2g"][QUOTE="shadystxxx"][QUOTE="kenken2g"][QUOTE="shadystxxx"][QUOTE="kenken2g"]

[QUOTE="bluewrxman"]personally i would rather have them make a new engine that will work well with the ps3.......you've seen what they can do on the pc and i think they should try to do the same on the ps3aaron6581230

Yeh I can agree with that. it would be nice to see them attempt to make a mirror version of the PC version... using a different engine. That would put all the PC fanboys to rest... it would show that the PS3 can run that game without all of that PC hardware.

If the ps3 could run crysis the same as a pc they wouldnt need to modify the engine, the problem is the textures,physics,AI etc etc crysis use need's allot of cpu power which ps3 has but it also needs allot of ram which ps3/360 does not have enough of to run this game in excatly the same form as a high end pc.

Also it takes years to make a new engine.

Right.. I know and understand this. I've played with a gaming PC for years. But consoles are turning into gaming PCs. Crytek did say that if they released Crysis on consoles that they wanted it to be as close to PC as possible. They are also saying that FarCry 2 will look the same on all three platforms. If they have a way to do it... they will. I know I can't be too technical because I'm not a game dev. But I have read where they say they are learning to use all of the PS3s Cores.... throwing some of the work off of the video ram to achieve better graphics. If they can do this... why would it be impossible to play crysis on PS3 just as it is on PC... minus the resolution?

I believe it's feasible that crysis could come to ps3 in a highly detailed version, but crytek have already said certain things will have to be toned down, all the physics are a big push on ram, and something would have to give to bring it to consoles.

Im saying crysis will not come to consoles in the excat same format as a high end pc, for starters i have 4gb of ram/ dual core cpu running at 3.2ghz, and 2 8800gt's and crysis at full detail still struggles to run perfectly it runs but the framerate dips when in hectic firefights, i turn a few settings down from very high to high and it runs great.

I believe it could come to ps3 using simialr settings to a med-high pc that would have to have the settings mixed between med-high, and even on these settings crysis looks great and would compete with the highest quality graphics on ps3/360. so its possible it could come to ps3 but doubtful it will come in very high specs as high end pc's can barely run it.

That's why using another engine or redoing the crytek engine would be the best thing for consoles. If they could get crysis to look as good as COD 4 or Killzone or even Uncharted Drake... no one would care if it didn't look like it does maxed out on pc.

It's not that simple. Cryengine 2 is completely different from something like Unreal 3 or another console-based engine. Cryengine 2 not only focuses on the graphics/shaders, but physics too, which is heavily relient on both the CPU and amount of RAM. If they use something like COD4's engine, many of Crysis' physics will be gone; you won't be able to break down trees, and no destroying buildings freely on your own (I know there are parts of COD4 where buildings/cars are destroyed, but those are either scripted or is only a little chunk of the environment. Now, Crysis is possible on consoles, but the resolution would be only like 720p, and there would have to be major cutback, like the amount of objects, and the physics at work. Like the devs said, Far Cry 2 will run on high/medium for consoles. So it's possible, but can't exactly be compared with the graphics on the pc, where you can go higher than that.

True... all of that is true. Can't argue with that at all. However I believe they can add more physics to the COD 4 engine. Also, I did mention Killzone 2's engine in my post. Have you taken a look at the new gameplay footage that has been posted all over the net... it looks badass. But what Crytek is realizing just as most of all of the other game devs..... PC gaming is ALMOST DEAD. Consoles are the new gaming pcs.. they are becoming more and more like gaming pcs. with waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy more games.

True... all of that is true. Can't argue with that at all. However I believe they can add more physics to the COD 4 engine. Also, I did mention Killzone 2's engine in my post. Have you taken a look at the new gameplay footage that has been posted all over the net... it looks badass. But what Crytek is realizing just as most of all of the other game devs..... PC gaming is ALMOST DEAD. Consoles are the new gaming pcs.. they are becoming more and more like gaming pcs. with waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy more games.

kenken2g

They cannot really add more physics to the COD4 engine unless they somehow optimize it thoroughly and magically allow the game to run at native 720p with the frame rate still up. If you didn't know, COD4 was only 600p and even then, there was quite a bit of low-rez textures in there. Now do you expect that they can put even more physics in the game while keeping a steady framerate? Also, even with added textures, I believe it wouldn't even come close to the sheer destructability of Crysis.

Also, I have seen gameplay on Killzone 2 and the reason why they are able to put destructable environments is because the game is always enclosed in a space, where the player only has 1 way to go. As a result, less RAM is used in relation to Crysis, where it is an open world with destructable environments. IMO, I think the destructability in Crysis is still higher than that of Killzone 2

[QUOTE="kenken2g"]

True... all of that is true. Can't argue with that at all. However I believe they can add more physics to the COD 4 engine. Also, I did mention Killzone 2's engine in my post. Have you taken a look at the new gameplay footage that has been posted all over the net... it looks badass. But what Crytek is realizing just as most of all of the other game devs..... PC gaming is ALMOST DEAD. Consoles are the new gaming pcs.. they are becoming more and more like gaming pcs. with waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy more games.

aaron6581230

They cannot really add more physics to the COD4 engine unless they somehow optimize it thoroughly and magically allow the game to run at native 720p with the frame rate still up. If you didn't know, COD4 was only 600p and even then, there was quite a bit of low-rez textures in there. Now do you expect that they can put even more physics in the game while keeping a steady framerate? Also, even with added textures, I believe it wouldn't even come close to the sheer destructability of Crysis.

Also, I have seen gameplay on Killzone 2 and the reason why they are able to put destructable environments is because the game is always enclosed in a space, where the player only has 1 way to go. As a result, less RAM is used in relation to Crysis, where it is an open world with destructable environments. IMO, I think the destructability in Crysis is still higher than that of Killzone 2

The point is not to say that the PS3 can out do Crysis on PC or even the same... the point of the whole post is to get a PS3 version of crysis that at least is as good looking as other engines on the PS3 (Drake, Heavenly Sword, COD4, Killzone 2) This whole thing is getting turned around.

aaron6581230 have you seen this killzone 2 footage? This is cool. If there was a PS3 version of Crysis that looked like this I would be happy regardless if it had any less physics or not.

Killzone 2 A

Killzone 2B

[QUOTE="aaron6581230"][QUOTE="kenken2g"]

True... all of that is true. Can't argue with that at all. However I believe they can add more physics to the COD 4 engine. Also, I did mention Killzone 2's engine in my post. Have you taken a look at the new gameplay footage that has been posted all over the net... it looks badass. But what Crytek is realizing just as most of all of the other game devs..... PC gaming is ALMOST DEAD. Consoles are the new gaming pcs.. they are becoming more and more like gaming pcs. with waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy more games.

kenken2g

They cannot really add more physics to the COD4 engine unless they somehow optimize it thoroughly and magically allow the game to run at native 720p with the frame rate still up. If you didn't know, COD4 was only 600p and even then, there was quite a bit of low-rez textures in there. Now do you expect that they can put even more physics in the game while keeping a steady framerate? Also, even with added textures, I believe it wouldn't even come close to the sheer destructability of Crysis.

Also, I have seen gameplay on Killzone 2 and the reason why they are able to put destructable environments is because the game is always enclosed in a space, where the player only has 1 way to go. As a result, less RAM is used in relation to Crysis, where it is an open world with destructable environments. IMO, I think the destructability in Crysis is still higher than that of Killzone 2

The point is not to say that the PS3 can out do Crysis on PC or even the same... the point of the whole post is to get a PS3 version of crysis that at least is as good looking as other engines on the PS3 (Drake, Heavenly Sword, COD4, Killzone 2) This whole thing is getting turned around.

No I'm not saying that PS3 has to outdo Crysis on PC or anything, but all I'm saying is that by switching engines, they will have to rework the whole game, minimizing most of the physics and maybe taking shortcuts like lowering the amount of objects, lighting, and textures. Why is it that Uncharted looks better than GTA4? Exactly just that, the open world nature of GTA4. Consoles only has limited power in its hardware, and may have to cut some stuff to make Crysis run well at a good frame rate. Now, if they switch engines, well, read my last post. This isn't saying something like Killzone 2 doesn't look bad, but it's not that easy having Crysis be downgraded for consoles.

[QUOTE="kenken2g"][QUOTE="aaron6581230"][QUOTE="kenken2g"]

True... all of that is true. Can't argue with that at all. However I believe they can add more physics to the COD 4 engine. Also, I did mention Killzone 2's engine in my post. Have you taken a look at the new gameplay footage that has been posted all over the net... it looks badass. But what Crytek is realizing just as most of all of the other game devs..... PC gaming is ALMOST DEAD. Consoles are the new gaming pcs.. they are becoming more and more like gaming pcs. with waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy more games.

aaron6581230

They cannot really add more physics to the COD4 engine unless they somehow optimize it thoroughly and magically allow the game to run at native 720p with the frame rate still up. If you didn't know, COD4 was only 600p and even then, there was quite a bit of low-rez textures in there. Now do you expect that they can put even more physics in the game while keeping a steady framerate? Also, even with added textures, I believe it wouldn't even come close to the sheer destructability of Crysis.

Also, I have seen gameplay on Killzone 2 and the reason why they are able to put destructable environments is because the game is always enclosed in a space, where the player only has 1 way to go. As a result, less RAM is used in relation to Crysis, where it is an open world with destructable environments. IMO, I think the destructability in Crysis is still higher than that of Killzone 2

The point is not to say that the PS3 can out do Crysis on PC or even the same... the point of the whole post is to get a PS3 version of crysis that at least is as good looking as other engines on the PS3 (Drake, Heavenly Sword, COD4, Killzone 2) This whole thing is getting turned around.

No I'm not saying that PS3 has to outdo Crysis on PC or anything, but all I'm saying is that by switching engines, they will have to rework the whole game, minimizing most of the physics and maybe taking shortcuts like lowering the amount of objects, lighting, and textures. Why is it that Uncharted looks better than GTA4? Exactly just that, the open world nature of GTA4. Consoles only has limited power in its hardware, and may have to cut some stuff to make Crysis run well at a good frame rate. Now, if they switch engines, well, read my last post. This isn't saying something like Killzone 2 doesn't look bad, but it's not that easy having Crysis be downgraded for consoles.

I agree with you... and I never said it would be 'easy'. Of course I understand that switching engines would require more work because they would have to rework the game... never said they wouldn't. What I was just basically saying is that the COD 4 engine looks great on consoles and it would be interesting to see Crysis on that engine or another engine that "we know" looks good on the console. They will have to make a console version of the crytek engine to even get that game ported over because the cry engine was made with PC in mind... not console at all. I also never said that it would have to have "all" the physics of the PC game or that it would.

Killzone 2..... looks damn awesome. Two thumbs up for that gameplay footage.. I hope they can pull it off.

[QUOTE="JackSherbak"]

The reson COD4 was game of the year and Crysis was not is because COD4 runs on £140 current generation harware which a lot of people have. Crysis "as it is menat to play" runs on £1200 next gerneation hardware... To the minority of people who are lucky enough to experience Crysis in all its glory, it is very much game of the year!....

kenken2g

Well like I've said... I have played Crysis and I have played COD 4. Crysis has graphics... but other than that.. I'd rather play COD4 or Bioshock or something. Here's the reason why. USER BASE. If Crysis was released on the PS3 or 360 they would have made MUCH more money and it would have been a dominating game.

it's funny because those dev cats were being so stubborn...and high strung when they released Crysis. Talking about, "Oh... consoles can't run it", "Consoles are too weak to run it", "We have no intention to release it on consoles". Hell, even when they released the game and ran it on a PC maxed out... it still didn't measure up to the footage they were showing before release.

Now... PS3's new footage of KILLZONE 2 gameplay to me looks just as good as or better than CRYSIS and it's just running on the PS3 not even 4 gigs ram, 700mb video memory graphics card with crossfire, 3.0 quad cores, liquid cooled and all that other s#@$.

The funny thing is... Crytek is now trying their hardest to get something out in the console market lol. Because after all of their hard work... Nobody is even talking about crysis anymore lol. Everyone is talking about COD 4 and GTA IV. I hope they release the game for consoles... maybe it will get the recognition it should have.

Consoles FTW... I'm done with pc gaming.

so you play a game based on user base??? just so you know, the footge before release WILL make it in game via a ptach once hardware becomes available that can rednder more complex lighting/shadows :) you're right though, why bother with pc gaming when all we get is games like Starctaft 2, The Witcher, STALKER Clear Sky and Spore.

[QUOTE="shadystxxx"][QUOTE="kenken2g"][QUOTE="shadystxxx"][QUOTE="kenken2g"]

[QUOTE="bluewrxman"]personally i would rather have them make a new engine that will work well with the ps3.......you've seen what they can do on the pc and i think they should try to do the same on the ps3kenken2g

Yeh I can agree with that. it would be nice to see them attempt to make a mirror version of the PC version... using a different engine. That would put all the PC fanboys to rest... it would show that the PS3 can run that game without all of that PC hardware.

If the ps3 could run crysis the same as a pc they wouldnt need to modify the engine, the problem is the textures,physics,AI etc etc crysis use need's allot of cpu power which ps3 has but it also needs allot of ram which ps3/360 does not have enough of to run this game in excatly the same form as a high end pc.

Also it takes years to make a new engine.

Right.. I know and understand this. I've played with a gaming PC for years. But consoles are turning into gaming PCs. Crytek did say that if they released Crysis on consoles that they wanted it to be as close to PC as possible. They are also saying that FarCry 2 will look the same on all three platforms. If they have a way to do it... they will. I know I can't be too technical because I'm not a game dev. But I have read where they say they are learning to use all of the PS3s Cores.... throwing some of the work off of the video ram to achieve better graphics. If they can do this... why would it be impossible to play crysis on PS3 just as it is on PC... minus the resolution?

I believe it's feasible that crysis could come to ps3 in a highly detailed version, but crytek have already said certain things will have to be toned down, all the physics are a big push on ram, and something would have to give to bring it to consoles.

Im saying crysis will not come to consoles in the excat same format as a high end pc, for starters i have 4gb of ram/ dual core cpu running at 3.2ghz, and 2 8800gt's and crysis at full detail still struggles to run perfectly it runs but the framerate dips when in hectic firefights, i turn a few settings down from very high to high and it runs great.

I believe it could come to ps3 using simialr settings to a med-high pc that would have to have the settings mixed between med-high, and even on these settings crysis looks great and would compete with the highest quality graphics on ps3/360. so its possible it could come to ps3 but doubtful it will come in very high specs as high end pc's can barely run it.

That's why using another engine or redoing the crytek engine would be the best thing for consoles. If they could get crysis to look as good as COD 4 or Killzone or even Uncharted Drake... no one would care if it didn't look like it does maxed out on pc.

getting crysis to look like cod4 wouldn't be hard at all. my single core cpu and agp video card (x850) can run cod4 just as well as it's 3 core cousin.

[QUOTE="kenken2g"][QUOTE="JackSherbak"]

The reson COD4 was game of the year and Crysis was not is because COD4 runs on £140 current generation harware which a lot of people have. Crysis "as it is menat to play" runs on £1200 next gerneation hardware... To the minority of people who are lucky enough to experience Crysis in all its glory, it is very much game of the year!....

firebreathing

Well like I've said... I have played Crysis and I have played COD 4. Crysis has graphics... but other than that.. I'd rather play COD4 or Bioshock or something. Here's the reason why. USER BASE. If Crysis was released on the PS3 or 360 they would have made MUCH more money and it would have been a dominating game.

it's funny because those dev cats were being so stubborn...and high strung when they released Crysis. Talking about, "Oh... consoles can't run it", "Consoles are too weak to run it", "We have no intention to release it on consoles". Hell, even when they released the game and ran it on a PC maxed out... it still didn't measure up to the footage they were showing before release.

Now... PS3's new footage of KILLZONE 2 gameplay to me looks just as good as or better than CRYSIS and it's just running on the PS3 not even 4 gigs ram, 700mb video memory graphics card with crossfire, 3.0 quad cores, liquid cooled and all that other s#@$.

The funny thing is... Crytek is now trying their hardest to get something out in the console market lol. Because after all of their hard work... Nobody is even talking about crysis anymore lol. Everyone is talking about COD 4 and GTA IV. I hope they release the game for consoles... maybe it will get the recognition it should have.

Consoles FTW... I'm done with pc gaming.

so you play a game based on user base??? just so you know, the footge before release WILL make it in game via a ptach once hardware becomes available that can rednder more complex lighting/shadows :) you're right though, why bother with pc gaming when all we get is games like Starctaft 2, The Witcher, STALKER Clear Sky and Spore.

[QUOTE="shadystxxx"][QUOTE="kenken2g"][QUOTE="shadystxxx"][QUOTE="kenken2g"]

[QUOTE="bluewrxman"]personally i would rather have them make a new engine that will work well with the ps3.......you've seen what they can do on the pc and i think they should try to do the same on the ps3kenken2g

Yeh I can agree with that. it would be nice to see them attempt to make a mirror version of the PC version... using a different engine. That would put all the PC fanboys to rest... it would show that the PS3 can run that game without all of that PC hardware.

If the ps3 could run crysis the same as a pc they wouldnt need to modify the engine, the problem is the textures,physics,AI etc etc crysis use need's allot of cpu power which ps3 has but it also needs allot of ram which ps3/360 does not have enough of to run this game in excatly the same form as a high end pc.

Also it takes years to make a new engine.

Right.. I know and understand this. I've played with a gaming PC for years. But consoles are turning into gaming PCs. Crytek did say that if they released Crysis on consoles that they wanted it to be as close to PC as possible. They are also saying that FarCry 2 will look the same on all three platforms. If they have a way to do it... they will. I know I can't be too technical because I'm not a game dev. But I have read where they say they are learning to use all of the PS3s Cores.... throwing some of the work off of the video ram to achieve better graphics. If they can do this... why would it be impossible to play crysis on PS3 just as it is on PC... minus the resolution?

I believe it's feasible that crysis could come to ps3 in a highly detailed version, but crytek have already said certain things will have to be toned down, all the physics are a big push on ram, and something would have to give to bring it to consoles.

Im saying crysis will not come to consoles in the excat same format as a high end pc, for starters i have 4gb of ram/ dual core cpu running at 3.2ghz, and 2 8800gt's and crysis at full detail still struggles to run perfectly it runs but the framerate dips when in hectic firefights, i turn a few settings down from very high to high and it runs great.

I believe it could come to ps3 using simialr settings to a med-high pc that would have to have the settings mixed between med-high, and even on these settings crysis looks great and would compete with the highest quality graphics on ps3/360. so its possible it could come to ps3 but doubtful it will come in very high specs as high end pc's can barely run it.

That's why using another engine or redoing the crytek engine would be the best thing for consoles. If they could get crysis to look as good as COD 4 or Killzone or even Uncharted Drake... no one would care if it didn't look like it does maxed out on pc.

getting crysis to look like cod4 wouldn't be hard at all. my single core cpu and agp video card (x850) can run cod4 just as well as it's 3 core cousin.

if they could get it to look like that and play that smooth... I think consoles gamers wouldn't complain at all...

How About KZ2 or R2 with The Cryengine 2! thumbs up everybody.*in the russian guy from jimmy neutron*

no way. COD4 engine is overrated (dude, smoke looks horrible, and most textures are ugly up close- and nothing moves and you can walk through stuff- everything is interactive in the cryengine) and killzone 2 isn't designed for it but its definitely closer to crysis's level of detail.

but no you are completely wrong

How About KZ2 or R2 with The Cryengine 2! thumbs up everybody.*in the russian guy from jimmy neutron*

T3h_M3tal_Biggz

yeah, now that would be killer. the cod4 engine doesnt even have HDR lighting

its a great engine dont get me wrong, theres just a ton of cheesy effects to keep frame rates solid. like the smoke, which looks aweful to me.

Hey we all have heard about Crysis possibly coming to the PS3. If they were having all of these problems, wouldn't it be just as cool to see Crysis coming to PS3 using the COD 4 engine or even the Killzone engine. It would still rock and look great and of course run great. Would you buy it then, even if it wasn't using Crytek's engine?kenken2g

Crysis isn't coming to PS3. Crytek said it was impossible.

And Turok without dinosaurs = FAIL.