Do you really think that Crysis is going to stay PC exclusive for long?

EA games people...

It'll be on Wii, DS, PSP, GBA, PS2, PS3, 360, Xbox, GC, Wii, Mobile Phones, GBC, Dreamcast, Phantom, N-gage, Mac, Linux,

SNES, N64, PS1, and Vitural Boy by Mid 2008.

:lo

You only get half a laughing smiley since it wasn't funny ;)

EA games people...

It'll be on Wii, DS, PSP, GBA, PS2, PS3, 360, Xbox, GC, Wii, Mobile Phones, GBC, Dreamcast, Phantom, N-gage, Mac, Linux,

SNES, N64, PS1, and Vitural Boy by Mid 2008.

ED898AA

Wow, imagine ifit was revealed that theDS and the Nokia N-73 were capable of handling Crysis with PC quality graphics. That would turn our worlds upsidedown. That and the phantom coming.

EA games people...

It'll be on Wii, DS, PSP, GBA, PS2, PS3, 360, Xbox, GC, Wii, Mobile Phones, GBC, Dreamcast, Phantom, N-gage, Mac, Linux,

SNES, N64, PS1, and Vitural Boy by Mid 2008.

ED898AA

Nah, Crytek is working on an unannounced console project, instead. ;)

None of the consoles could handle Crysis, it'll stay on PC.nintendofreak_2

I agree, due to the memory issue, it would have to be a totally different game. Only way is a spin off which I doubt Crysis will do. However, they are making a new title on consoles. iirc, wasn't it ubisoft that put far cry on consoles not crytek?

Far Cry comes to mindpugmonkey9999

Far Cry comes to mindpugmonkey9999

Beat me to it.

4huge reasons that it will stay Pc exclusive...

1. Microsoft is sponsoring it. It is the keystone of their DX10 push that will sell Vista.

2. nVidia is sponsoring it. It is the keystone of their DX10 card push that will sell their GeForce 8800 cards.

3. Intel is sponsoring it. It is the keystone of their multicore gaming push and will sell their Quad and Dual Core CPU's...

4. EA won't mess with this game at all because their is too much future money at hand. Crytek left Ubisoft because Ubisoft forced a console port. EA knows how much money Crytek will make and its an investment. They need to keep Crytek in their favor because the games they can publish because of good terms = gold.

A spin-off will appear on consoles, but it won't be the same game as the PC version.RobbieH1234

Crysis instincts and vengeance lol

Still best on PC

Amen anyone?

multisystem = more sales = more money

For those of you touting that it "won't be the same" or it will be a crappy experience compared to the PC version, I'm not really understanding your point of view. Yes, a spin-off of Far Cry appeared on consoles. However, the Xbox version was very well received. Allow me to quote: "Far Cry Instincts is even better than its PC predecessor, and it's one of the best Xbox shooters ever."

4huge reasons that it will stay Pc exclusive...

1. Microsoft is sponsoring it. It is the keystone of their DX10 push that will sell Vista.

2. nVidia is sponsoring it. It is the keystone of their DX10 card push that will sell their GeForce 8800 cards.

3. Intel is sponsoring it. It is the keystone of their multicore gaming push and will sell their Quad and Dual Core CPU's...

4. EA won't mess with this game at all because their is too much future money at hand. Crytek left Ubisoft because Ubisoft forced a console port. EA knows how much money Crytek will make and its an investment. They need to keep Crytek in their favor because the games they can publish because of good terms = gold.

horrowhip

You understand Microsoft has a console,right ?

[QUOTE="horrowhip"]

4huge reasons that it will stay Pc exclusive...

1. Microsoft is sponsoring it. It is the keystone of their DX10 push that will sell Vista.

2. nVidia is sponsoring it. It is the keystone of their DX10 card push that will sell their GeForce 8800 cards.

3. Intel is sponsoring it. It is the keystone of their multicore gaming push and will sell their Quad and Dual Core CPU's...

4. EA won't mess with this game at all because their is too much future money at hand. Crytek left Ubisoft because Ubisoft forced a console port. EA knows how much money Crytek will make and its an investment. They need to keep Crytek in their favor because the games they can publish because of good terms = gold.

deathtrap90

You understand Microsoft has a console,right ?

For those of you touting that it "won't be the same" or it will be a crappy experience compared to the PC version, I'm not really understanding your point of view. Yes, a spin-off of Far Cry appeared on consoles. However, the Xbox version was very well received. Allow me to quote: "Far Cry Instincts is even better than its PC predecessor, and it's one of the best Xbox shooters ever."

MyopicCanadian

No seriously, it wont be the same due to the consoles memory. Listen to what Cavet Yeti has to say in http://www.gamespot.com/video/931665/6177494/crysis-interview-6

For you TLDR people, he basically says that since the consoles memory is so small, so they wouldn't be able to stream all of the data like you can on the PC version. It would result in a totally different game. He does say that the consoles CPU and graphics are not the problem but memory. It isn't coming to console sorry.

EA doesn't own Crytek.

/thread

[QUOTE="MyopicCanadian"]

For those of you touting that it "won't be the same" or it will be a crappy experience compared to the PC version, I'm not really understanding your point of view. Yes, a spin-off of Far Cry appeared on consoles. However, the Xbox version was very well received. Allow me to quote: "Far Cry Instincts is even better than its PC predecessor, and it's one of the best Xbox shooters ever."

bignice12

No seriously, it wont be the same due to the consoles memory. Listen to what Cavet Yeti has to say in http://www.gamespot.com/video/931665/6177494/crysis-interview-6

For you TLDR people, he basically says that since the consoles memory is so small, so they wouldn't be able to stream all of the data like you can on the PC version. It would result in a totally different game. He does say that the consoles CPU and graphics are not the problem but memory. It isn't coming to console sorry.

I'd like to refute two points here - that the amount of memory on consoles is too small, and that the memory bandwidth is too slow (which is ACTUALLY what Cavet Yeti said, he didn't mention the amount of memory, but the bandwidth).

Now, in regards to the amount of memory - we all know that the console version of a game can be optimized much better. If we use the original Far Cry as a comparison, the PC version had minimum specs of 256 MB of RAM, and recommend was 512 MB to 1 GB of RAM. The original Xbox had 64 MB, and according to Gamespot managed to provide a better gaming experience than the original Farcry.

Now, memory bandwidth, and stating that the memory is outdated and slow, as Cavet states during the interview, doesn't make any sense. The console features 512 MB of GDDR3 memory, which is much like DDR2 in design and has a very high bandwidth since it's mainly used as graphics memory. You can look all this up if you don't believe me ;)

Console games can always make do with less memory than the PC version, simply due to optimization and not having to run any background programs, really changes a lot, as we've seen in Farcry, Doom 3, etc. And the system memory being used in the 360 has just as high a bandwidth if not higher than the PC version, especially considering that in the interview, Cavet mentions that you will be able to run the game well with 1 GB of RAM, and assuming those specs you would be using only DDR, and they've been trying to push that even lower.

I'd like to refute two points here - that the amount of memory on consoles is too small, and that the memory bandwidth is too slow (which is ACTUALLY what Cavet Yeti said, he didn't mention the amount of memory, but the bandwidth).

Now, in regards to the amount of memory - we all know that the console version of a game can be optimized much better. If we use the original Far Cry as a comparison, the PC version had minimum specs of 256 MB of RAM, and recommend was 512 MB to 1 GB of RAM. The original Xbox had 64 MB, and according to Gamespot managed to provide a better gaming experience than the original Farcry.

Now, memory bandwidth, and stating that the memory is outdated and slow, as Cavet states during the interview, doesn't make any sense. The console features 512 MB of GDDR3 memory, which is much like DDR2 in design and has a very high bandwidth since it's mainly used as graphics memory. You can look all this up if you don't believe me ;)

Console games can always make do with less memory than the PC version, simply due to optimization and not having to run any background programs, really changes a lot, as we've seen in Farcry, Doom 3, etc. And the system memory being used in the 360 has just as high a bandwidth if not higher than the PC version, especially considering that in the interview, Cavet mentions that you will be able to run the game well with 1 GB of RAM, and assuming those specs you would be using only DDR, and they've been trying to push that even lower.

[QUOTE="bignice12"][QUOTE="MyopicCanadian"]

For those of you touting that it "won't be the same" or it will be a crappy experience compared to the PC version, I'm not really understanding your point of view. Yes, a spin-off of Far Cry appeared on consoles. However, the Xbox version was very well received. Allow me to quote: "Far Cry Instincts is even better than its PC predecessor, and it's one of the best Xbox shooters ever."

MyopicCanadian

No seriously, it wont be the same due to the consoles memory. Listen to what Cavet Yeti has to say in http://www.gamespot.com/video/931665/6177494/crysis-interview-6

For you TLDR people, he basically says that since the consoles memory is so small, so they wouldn't be able to stream all of the data like you can on the PC version. It would result in a totally different game. He does say that the consoles CPU and graphics are not the problem but memory. It isn't coming to console sorry.

I'd like to refute two points here - that the amount of memory on consoles is too small, and that the memory bandwidth is too slow (which is ACTUALLY what Cavet Yeti said, he didn't mention the amount of memory, but the bandwidth).

Now, in regards to the amount of memory - we all know that the console version of a game can be optimized much better. If we use the original Far Cry as a comparison, the PC version had minimum specs of 256 MB of RAM, and recommend was 512 MB to 1 GB of RAM. The original Xbox had 64 MB, and according to Gamespot managed to provide a better gaming experience than the original Farcry.

Now, memory bandwidth, and stating that the memory is outdated and slow, as Cavet states during the interview, doesn't make any sense. The console features 512 MB of GDDR3 memory, which is much like DDR2 in design and has a very high bandwidth since it's mainly used as graphics memory. You can look all this up if you don't believe me ;)

Console games can always make do with less memory than the PC version, simply due to optimization and not having to run any background programs, really changes a lot, as we've seen in Farcry, Doom 3, etc. And the system memory being used in the 360 has just as high a bandwidth if not higher than the PC version, especially considering that in the interview, Cavet mentions that you will be able to run the game well with 1 GB of RAM, and assuming those specs you would be using only DDR, and they've been trying to push that even lower.

farcry is a horrible example for you.....Farcry was made linnear just because the consoles couldnt handle a large open world like that of the original farcry.

EA games people...

It'll be on Wii, DS, PSP, GBA, PS2, PS3, 360, Xbox, GC, Wii, Mobile Phones, GBC, Dreamcast, Phantom, N-gage, Mac, Linux,

SNES, N64, PS1, and Vitural Boy by Mid 2008.

ED898AA

Err...it's a distribution deal, Crytek has full control over their IP.

[QUOTE="bignice12"][QUOTE="MyopicCanadian"]

For those of you touting that it "won't be the same" or it will be a crappy experience compared to the PC version, I'm not really understanding your point of view. Yes, a spin-off of Far Cry appeared on consoles. However, the Xbox version was very well received. Allow me to quote: "Far Cry Instincts is even better than its PC predecessor, and it's one of the best Xbox shooters ever."

MyopicCanadian

No seriously, it wont be the same due to the consoles memory. Listen to what Cavet Yeti has to say in http://www.gamespot.com/video/931665/6177494/crysis-interview-6

For you TLDR people, he basically says that since the consoles memory is so small, so they wouldn't be able to stream all of the data like you can on the PC version. It would result in a totally different game. He does say that the consoles CPU and graphics are not the problem but memory. It isn't coming to console sorry.

I'd like to refute two points here - that the amount of memory on consoles is too small, and that the memory bandwidth is too slow (which is ACTUALLY what Cavet Yeti said, he didn't mention the amount of memory, but the bandwidth).

Now, in regards to the amount of memory - we all know that the console version of a game can be optimized much better. If we use the original Far Cry as a comparison, the PC version had minimum specs of 256 MB of RAM, and recommend was 512 MB to 1 GB of RAM. The original Xbox had 64 MB, and according to Gamespot managed to provide a better gaming experience than the original Farcry.

Now, memory bandwidth, and stating that the memory is outdated and slow, as Cavet states during the interview, doesn't make any sense. The console features 512 MB of GDDR3 memory, which is much like DDR2 in design and has a very high bandwidth since it's mainly used as graphics memory. You can look all this up if you don't believe me ;)

Console games can always make do with less memory than the PC version, simply due to optimization and not having to run any background programs, really changes a lot, as we've seen in Farcry, Doom 3, etc. And the system memory being used in the 360 has just as high a bandwidth if not higher than the PC version, especially considering that in the interview, Cavet mentions that you will be able to run the game well with 1 GB of RAM, and assuming those specs you would be using only DDR, and they've been trying to push that even lower.

lmfao you lemmings are so desperate, sorry kid, but I will take the word of the CEO of Crytek over your laughable :lol: argument any day.

First off your optimization argument is really quite sad, yes your right for many low to mid budget games optimization could go far beyond what it is even in farcry that was the case, but this is Crysis.

Crysis is going to be one of the most expensive video games ever made and while it may not have the optimization it would have if the devs were working with frozen specs it will never the less it will undoubtably be sporting a Valve level of optimization/scalablility.

Half-life 2 is a prime example of this, even today the game stands out as one of the best looking games out there and yet that game can scale down to run on garbage computers.

The point here is, sure they would be able to optimize it more on set specs, but with insane budgets like the one Crysis has it's just sad to think it would be dramatic as you make it out to be.

And I GUESS your forgot, but while it seems the reviews were pretty favorable for instincts that game certianly wasn't a think like Farcry as regards to freedom goes buddy :lol: :lol: instincts followed an extremely linear path like most typical shooters and didn't really have any of the massive freedom of the first one. If instincts was better at all it's because they learned from the big mistakes they may in farcry like the later part of the game (indoors) and what not.

Make no mistake though Instincts was definitely limited to what it could do on the xbox and Crysis with it's huge budget that allows for an insane amount of optimization will make that gap far, far greater.

And you are grossly exaggerating the memory backround tasks use, right now my OS is only using about 180 megs in the background buddy :) , not all of are computers are packed with spyware.

And you know that laughable 512 mbs the 360 is for the whole dam thing right? :lol: thats the combined system and video ram :lol:

Crysis to run on the disgusting low settings requires a gig of ram and a 256 mb card alone dude.

AND FINALLY

You said right in your post I QUOTE YOU

"and that the memory bandwidth is too slow (which is ACTUALLY what Cavet Yeti said, he didn't mention the amount of memory, but the bandwidth). "

The problem is buddy HE DIDN'T SAY THAT AT ALL!

I QUOTE the CEO of Crytek

I mean um the bandwith of the memory is high enough to stream, but streaming requires a different type of game design. If you want to stream Crysis bubbles and bubbles and bubbles of actions it's going to be a different gameplay experience the thing that makes Crysis different is the nano suit, the customizable weapons the AI, that simulation itself along side with an

open environment and that experience that your part of a world that actually, despite the fact we have loadings of course, but that we still need like 2 gigs of system memory alone on a high end config once we stream the high end and some parts of the game still in the memory so now imagine we have to make a conversion out of that, it's going to be very difficult to do that right.

So actually he said the exact opposite of what you said he said HE SAID THE MEMORY SIZE IS THE ISSUE NOT THE BANDWIDTH!

Why would you want your beer watered down? I know I wouldn't. It will most likely be a Farcry situation, where the best version by far was on PC. Crysis is going to sell GPU's, that's it's purpose, along with a strong mod community that should be fairly busy making some great mods. The Cryengine 2 looks to be amazing, and I'm sure we will see the engine well implemented across the industry on all gaming systems.

For anyone to think that Crysis PC will be the same on 360 and PS3, you are sadly mistaken. Those consoles just don't have to the juice to hang with an 8 series or 2900 series card. If you're a console gamer turned on by a game like Crysis, well, maybe you should think about getting into PC Gaming.

EA games people...

It'll be on Wii, DS, PSP, GBA, PS2, PS3, 360, Xbox, GC, Wii, Mobile Phones, GBC, Dreamcast, Phantom, N-gage, Mac, Linux,

SNES, N64, PS1, and Vitural Boy by Mid 2008.

ED898AA

But it will be like far cry on the xbox, very different from the original, none of the consoles can handle the physics and graphics of crysis so that reason alone will make the game different.

lmfao you lemmings are so desperate, sorry kid, but I will take the word of the CEO of Crytek over your laughable :lol: argument any day.

First off your optimization argument is really quite sad, yes your right for many low to mid budget games optimization could go far beyond what it is even in farcry that was the case, but this is Crysis.

Crysis is going to be one of the most expensive video games ever made and while it may not have the optimization it would have if the devs were working with frozen specs it will never the less it will undoubtably be sporting a Valve level of optimization/scalablility.

Half-life 2 is a prime example of this, even today the game stands out as one of the best looking games out there and yet that game can scale down to run on garbage computers.

The point here is, sure they would be able to optimize it more on set specs, but with insane budgets like the one Crysis has it's just sad to think it would be dramatic as you make it out to be.

And I GUESS your forgot, but while it seems the reviews were pretty favorable for instincts that game certianly wasn't a think like Farcry as regards to freedom goes buddy :lol: :lol: instincts followed an extremely linear path like most typical shooters and didn't really have any of the massive freedom of the first one. If instincts was better at all it's because they learned from the big mistakes they may in farcry like the later part of the game (indoors) and what not.

Make no mistake though Instincts was definitely limited to what it could do on the xbox and Crysis with it's huge budget that allows for an insane amount of optimization will make that gap far, far greater.

And you are grossly exaggerating the memory backround tasks use, right now my OS is only using about 180 megs in the background buddy :) , not all of are computers are packed with spyware.

And you know that laughable 512 mbs the 360 is for the whole dam thing right? :lol: thats the combined system and video ram :lol:

Crysis to run on the disgusting low settings requires a gig of ram and a 256 mb card alone dude.

zipozal

First off, I'm not a lemming, and I'm 23 years old - not exactly "kid" material, so there's no need to respond in such a condescending tone.

Your point about optimization is basically re-iterating what I said, they're spending a lot of time optimizing it so it will run well on poor PC hardware, so why then would it not be able to run on 360 hardware? Also, I am not exaggerating memory use at all... look at PC and console versions of, well, everything. There are good reasons why the console versions typically require 1/4 of the RAM.

All you continue to mention is Crysis' huge budget, as if somehow that's a reason as to why a decent port or spin of the game will not find its way to consoles.

Perhaps if you spent less time trying to talk down to people and filling your post with "lol" emoticons, your points might've been credible.

[QUOTE="zipozal"]

lmfao you lemmings are so desperate, sorry kid, but I will take the word of the CEO of Crytek over your laughable :lol: argument any day.

First off your optimization argument is really quite sad, yes your right for many low to mid budget games optimization could go far beyond what it is even in farcry that was the case, but this is Crysis.

Crysis is going to be one of the most expensive video games ever made and while it may not have the optimization it would have if the devs were working with frozen specs it will never the less it will undoubtably be sporting a Valve level of optimization/scalablility.

Half-life 2 is a prime example of this, even today the game stands out as one of the best looking games out there and yet that game can scale down to run on garbage computers.

The point here is, sure they would be able to optimize it more on set specs, but with insane budgets like the one Crysis has it's just sad to think it would be dramatic as you make it out to be.

And I GUESS your forgot, but while it seems the reviews were pretty favorable for instincts that game certianly wasn't a think like Farcry as regards to freedom goes buddy :lol: :lol: instincts followed an extremely linear path like most typical shooters and didn't really have any of the massive freedom of the first one. If instincts was better at all it's because they learned from the big mistakes they may in farcry like the later part of the game (indoors) and what not.

Make no mistake though Instincts was definitely limited to what it could do on the xbox and Crysis with it's huge budget that allows for an insane amount of optimization will make that gap far, far greater.

And you are grossly exaggerating the memory backround tasks use, right now my OS is only using about 180 megs in the background buddy :) , not all of are computers are packed with spyware.

And you know that laughable 512 mbs the 360 is for the whole dam thing right? :lol: thats the combined system and video ram :lol:

Crysis to run on the disgusting low settings requires a gig of ram and a 256 mb card alone dude.

MyopicCanadian

First off, I'm not a lemming, and I'm 23 years old - not exactly "kid" material, so there's no need to respond in such a condescending tone.

Your point about optimization is basically re-iterating what I said, they're spending a lot of time optimizing it so it will run well on poor PC hardware, so why then would it not be able to run on 360 hardware? Also, I am not exaggerating memory use at all... look at PC and console versions of, well, everything. There are good reasons why the console versions typically require 1/4 of the RAM.

All you continue to mention is Crysis' huge budget, as if somehow that's a reason as to why a decent port or spin of the game will not find its way to consoles.

Perhaps if you spent less time trying to talk down to people and filling your post with "lol" emoticons, your points might've been credible.

Here you go you missed the last part (editied in) where I called you on your gross misquote of a life time.

AND FINALLY

You said right in your post I QUOTE YOU

"and that the memory bandwidth is too slow (which is ACTUALLY what Cavet Yeti said, he didn't mention the amount of memory, but the bandwidth). "

The problem is buddy HE DIDN'T SAY THAT AT ALL!

I QUOTE the CEO of Crytek

I mean um the bandwith of the memory is high enough to stream, but streaming requires a different type of game design. If you want to stream Crysis bubbles and bubbles and bubbles of actions it's going to be a different gameplay experience the thing that makes Crysis different is the nano suit, the customizable weapons the AI, that simulation itself along side with an

open environment and that experience that your part of a world that actually, despite the fact we have loadings of course, but that we still need like 2 gigs of system memory alone on a high end config once we stream the high end and some parts of the game still in the memory so now imagine we have to make a conversion out of that, it's going to be very difficult to do that right.

So actually he said the exact opposite of what you said he said HE SAID THE MEMORY SIZE IS THE ISSUE NOT THE BANDWIDTH!

Well if it's like the Xbox Farcry who gives a damn? Year later, looks terrible in comparison, and is essintially a completely different game.

I don't recall seeing these EA published games on consoles.

Medal of Honor: Allied Assault
Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault
Battlefield 1942
Battlefield Vietnam
Battlefield 2
Battlefield 2142

Here you go you missed the last part (editied in) where you grossly misquoted Crytek

AND FINALLY

You said right in your post I QUOTE YOU

"and that the memory bandwidth is too slow (which is ACTUALLY what Cavet Yeti said, he didn't mention the amount of memory, but the bandwidth). "

The problem is buddy HE DIDN'T SAY THAT AT ALL!

I QUOTE the CEO of Crytek

I mean um the bandwith of the memory is high enough to stream, but streaming requires a different type of game design. If you want to stream Crysis bubbles and bubbles and bubbles of actions it's going to be a different gameplay experience the thing that makes Crysis different is the nano suit, the customizable weapons the AI, that simulation itself along side with an

open environment and that experience that your part of a world that actually, despite the fact we have loadings of course, but that we still need like 2 gigs of system memory alone on a high end config once we stream the high end and some parts of the game still in the memory so now imagine we have to make a conversion out of that, it's going to be very difficult to do that right.

So actually he said the exact opposite of what you said he said HE SAID THE MEMORY SIZE IS THE ISSUE NOT THE BANDWIDTH!

zipozal

On a high-end configuration he said you'd need 2 gigs, but earlier in the interview he mentioned the game will run well with 1 GB of system memory and a 6800. So if you consider specs like those, using a proper level of optimization on a console, I don't see why it couldn't be done. I'm not expecting the same experience as Crysis, but I expect them to do something with the franchise for the 360, and I don't think it will be nearly as neutered as everyone expects it to be.

[QUOTE="zipozal"]

Here you go you missed the last part (editied in) where you grossly misquoted Crytek

AND FINALLY

You said right in your post I QUOTE YOU

"and that the memory bandwidth is too slow (which is ACTUALLY what Cavet Yeti said, he didn't mention the amount of memory, but the bandwidth). "

The problem is buddy HE DIDN'T SAY THAT AT ALL!

I QUOTE the CEO of Crytek

I mean um the bandwith of the memory is high enough to stream, but streaming requires a different type of game design. If you want to stream Crysis bubbles and bubbles and bubbles of actions it's going to be a different gameplay experience the thing that makes Crysis different is the nano suit, the customizable weapons the AI, that simulation itself along side with an

open environment and that experience that your part of a world that actually, despite the fact we have loadings of course, but that we still need like 2 gigs of system memory alone on a high end config once we stream the high end and some parts of the game still in the memory so now imagine we have to make a conversion out of that, it's going to be very difficult to do that right.

So actually he said the exact opposite of what you said he said HE SAID THE MEMORY SIZE IS THE ISSUE NOT THE BANDWIDTH!

MyopicCanadian

On a high-end configuration he said you'd need 2 gigs, but earlier in the interview he mentioned the game will run well with 1 GB of system memory and a 6800. So if you consider specs like those, using a proper level of optimization on a console, I don't see why it couldn't be done. I'm not expecting the same experience as Crysis, but I expect them to do something with the franchise for the 360, and I don't think it will be nearly as neutered as everyone expects it to be.

This is just pathetic first you completely lie about what he said claiming he said it was the bandwidth and then argue that the memory bandwidth was not an issue even though he never said that, now you got caught lying and you try to flip it to argue for the memory.

Sorry buddy, CALL ME CRAZY, but I think the CEO of a major game company a COMPANY that has made console games and is even rumored to be working on one, knows a whole hell of a lot more about his games engine and game coding in general then you do.

So when he tells me that there just isn't enough memory on the consoles to pull off the sheer scale, physics, AI and what not of Crysis on the dinky memory of the consoles I'm inclinded to believe him.

And you still haven't even acknowledged the fact that while instincts may have been a good game it was at heart DRASTICALLY different then farcry as it's environments were not open ened really at all, that game had extremely linear paths which is the opposite of what farcry did.

Now if you have listened to anything the devs at Crytek have said you would know the freedom the environment allows is extremely important to the way the game plays, much more so then it was even in farcry. Hence the reason he says the game would basically have to be a completely different other game to be on consoles.

Far Cry comes to mindpugmonkey9999

oh hey that game was amazing in PC

and then it was pretty good on the xbox

and then it was ok

and then it sucked

see what is going to happen?

4huge reasons that it will stay Pc exclusive...

1. Microsoft is sponsoring it. It is the keystone of their DX10 push that will sell Vista.

2. nVidia is sponsoring it. It is the keystone of their DX10 card push that will sell their GeForce 8800 cards.

3. Intel is sponsoring it. It is the keystone of their multicore gaming push and will sell their Quad and Dual Core CPU's...

4. EA won't mess with this game at all because their is too much future money at hand. Crytek left Ubisoft because Ubisoft forced a console port. EA knows how much money Crytek will make and its an investment. They need to keep Crytek in their favor because the games they can publish because of good terms = gold.

horrowhip

Agreed completely. If Microsoft were to allow a port to a Dx9 console and have it turn out to be good then it would kind of contradict their Dx10 push.

HELLA NO...

if they port it to a console the graphix wont look as good as it actually should b..and its gonna b the cause for all the fires around the world if it gets ported 2 the 360..