Rumor: Original Crysis Bound for Xbox 360?

[QUOTE="alexside1"]

Crysis isn't a sandbox game.

AnnoyedDragon

Watch now, we will find out he tried to play it like COD, walking past all the creative possibilities the environment allowed.

Who in gods name are you talking to?

They are not relvant because I made no comment on them. And yet you think I some random console fanboy, because I critizise the first original crysis game.

alexside1

It's not all about you, I reference what is going on in the topic when I respond to comments made in it. That you personally didn't bring up console gamers doesn't matter, because it is a major part of this thread. And if you will notice, for the most part I referred to console gamers; rather than directly accusing you of being one.

Who in gods name are you talking to?

alexside1

The people in this thread.

Again, have you forgotten that this is a public forum? This isn't a private conversation between two people, this isn't a messenger app.

A review is just, and only just a well dressed and presentable opinion.Another-World

Its possible. Look at farcry 2.

elcoholic

Far Cry 2 has a very different structure, though, making it use a lot less memory. Respawning guard posts were a very noticeable example of that.

[QUOTE="Another-World"]A review is just, and only just a well dressed and presentable opinion.Espereful

[QUOTE="-Snooze-"]

I don't see how cell streaming will somehow change the game ...

I've got Crysis, yeah it's huge, but I can still noly interact with things i'm near. How does a tree 30 miles away swaying in the wind help make the game better?

Not once during my time with Crysis have my thoughts wondered to what was going on behind that mountain in the distance.

AnnoyedDragon

Exaggerating it a bit much don't you think?

There is a world of difference between "there is a patrol boat over there in the distance" and "I can see enemy troops further down this mountain path" and what you are saying. The wind doesn't affect trees far in the distance, for the record. And physics only takes affect on them at that range once destroyed.

It's ridiculous to say what is essentially just technological advancement is pointless. The only reason it is being criticised, is probably because consoles cannot do it. But that goes with everything doesn't it? No matter how many perks PC gets over consoles, it is always played as being a minor thing, so they don't have to care.

Then they get it, then it suddenly matters. Like how resolutions considered HD today didn't matter when we had them last console gen. Because mysteriously, the point at which the resolutions are worthwhile; just happens to be current gen console capability.

Seems to me you just have a vendetta against consoles, and console gamers. If you're that happy with your PC, and secure in that fact, why does what consle gamers effect you?

Just do you, bro.

Seems to me you just have a vendetta against consoles, and console gamers. If you're that happy with your PC, and secure in that fact, why does what consle gamers effect you?

-Snooze-

Now that's a red herring. Trying to direct discussion to my apparent "personal vendetta against console gamers" rather than the subject of the actual thread, which just happens to include heated discussion with console gamers.

Essentially I'm being told that I'm biased for staying on topic.

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

It is great to critics

Espereful

i might a silght but important change to your post

it is great because they compare it with the reset console games? 1280x720, 25-30fps, low settings.

the console version of cryis2 is just look bad, I mean for someone that it is use to play games with "1920x1200, 60fps, high settings, large fov" it is unplayable.

Optimization is not magic. As I have said multiple times, if Crysis is on a console, the world around you won't be interactive beyond assault rifle range.

[QUOTE="-Snooze-"]

Seems to me you just have a vendetta against consoles, and console gamers. If you're that happy with your PC, and secure in that fact, why does what consle gamers effect you?

AnnoyedDragon

Now that's a red herring. Trying to direct discussion to my apparent "personal vendetta against console gamers" rather than the subject of the actual thread, which just happens to include heated discussion with console gamers.

Essentially I'm being told that I'm biased for staying on topic.

Not at all buddy. It's just apparent that you're very upset with console gamers for some reason ... Staying on topic is one thing, but using the topic just to insult console gamers is another.

Im sure everyones excited that Crysis may come to consoles (The original, the 2nd was terrible) and that it may be almost as good as the PC version (not graphically)

... Aside from you of course.

[QUOTE="Espereful"]

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

It is great to critics

MK-Professor

i might a silght but important change to your post

it is great because they compare it with the reset console games? 1280x720, 25-30fps, low settings.

the console version of cryis2 is just look bad, I mean for someone that it is use to play games with "1920x1200, 60fps, high settings, large fov" it is unplayable.

Staying on topic is one thing, but using the topic just to insult console gamers is another.

-Snooze-

How exactly did he insult console gamers

it is great because they compare it with the reset console games?

MK-Professor

[QUOTE="-Snooze-"]

Staying on topic is one thing, but using the topic just to insult console gamers is another.

edidili

How exactly did he insult console gamers

Generalizing and insulting console gamers intellegence.

Just one recent quote

"Console gamers have put together this odd mentality that links current gen graphical standards with the term HD. So when they talk about HD games, they aren't just referring to resolution; but also the current graphical standards on consoles."

Not at all buddy. It's just apparent that you're very upset with console gamers for some reason ... Staying on topic is one thing, but using the topic just to insult console gamers is another.

-Snooze-

If you can find a comment regarding console gamers that was not related to the discussion, or wasn't used to make a relevent point, please point it out.

What gets me is people are accusing someone of platform bias in the System Wars section. Everyone here is going to have a level of platform bias, they wouldn't be in here otherwise. I might as well accuse you of bias for criticising me, rather than the numerous people in this thread that demonstrated a bias against PC.

Im sure everyones excited that Crysis may come to consoles (The original, the 2nd was terrible) and that it may be almost as good as the PC version (not graphically)

... Aside from you of course.

-Snooze-

A common theme in this thread has been repetition, and it seems I'm going to have to repeat myself again.

That Crysis 1 could be ported to consoles is 'not' what I have taken issue with. It is the people who have been criticising and downplaying the significance of anything in Crysis 1 that cannot be done on consoles. In effect, attempting to make any required technology changes from the PC version appear of no consequence.

That Crysis 1 may hit consoles has no affect on me, I just don't like people essentially bashing the capabilities of my platform; in an effort to make theirs look better. They are in the wrong for suggesting that 256mb of ram can duplicate anything, or replicate close enough, what eight times the memory can do. Not me for trying to correct them.

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

[QUOTE="Espereful"]

i might a silght but important change to your post

it is great because they compare it with the reset console games? 1280x720, 25-30fps, low settings.

the console version of cryis2 is just look bad, I mean for someone that it is use to play games with "1920x1200, 60fps, high settings, large fov" it is unplayable.

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

it is great because they compare it with the reset console games? 1280x720, 25-30fps, low settings.

the console version of cryis2 is just look bad, I mean for someone that it is use to play games with "1920x1200, 60fps, high settings, large fov" it is unplayable.

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

[QUOTE="-Snooze-"]

Seems to me you just have a vendetta against consoles, and console gamers. If you're that happy with your PC, and secure in that fact, why does what consle gamers effect you?

-Snooze-

Now that's a red herring. Trying to direct discussion to my apparent "personal vendetta against console gamers" rather than the subject of the actual thread, which just happens to include heated discussion with console gamers.

Essentially I'm being told that I'm biased for staying on topic.

Not at all buddy. It's just apparent that you're very upset with console gamers for some reason ... Staying on topic is one thing, but using the topic just to insult console gamers is another.

Im sure everyones excited that Crysis may come to consoles (The original, the 2nd was terrible) and that it may be almost as good as the PC version (not graphically)

... Aside from you of course.

This is why developers don't belong in discussions between gamers.

Did it occur to you that because we aren't all trained developers, that we may mistake one term for another? Or use them interchangeably? I tried to show that in other responses by interchanging "normal mapping" with "depth adding effects". You are focusing on the use of the term normal map, instead of my reference to using slower quality textures; and layering additional effects on top to make up for the lack of fine detail in the texture. You are placing so much emphasis on me saying "why not put the detail into the texture, instead of the shader" that you think I'm talking about removing shaders as a whole.

To a developer a pixel is the building block of a scene in a game, but to a gamer; textures is what is painting everything in it, and shader effects are on top of that. Referring to pixels as the foundation of graphics isn't going to be relevant to the point I am trying to get across, when I am talking about the detrimental effects of textures quality, and how you cannot just use shaders to make up for the difference.

Crysis 1's characters used much higher quality textures to the ones in Crysis 2, that's the point; and I blame consoles memory light environment for that. That the game is also shader heavy isn't relevant to that criticism, because they had already done better with what I described as the "foundations" of a characters details. Crysis 1 being shader heavy isn't what led to the better looking textures, having better textures did. Shaders just improve on it even further.

You're too literal, too technical, not considering a gamers attempt to get something across to another gamer. You don't need a degree in computer science to understand the basic concept of some things, and your terms don't have to be textbook accurate; so long as that concept has been gotten across.

AnnoyedDragon

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

Quite frankly I expect it will have more to do with "If we blur the screen, it helps hide imperfections like jaggies and cheap texture filtering. They are looking at a up-scaled 720p image across the room anyway, they won't notice a little more blur". Then they stick that same game on PC... with us looking that those exaggerated blur effects right in our face at 1080p. If they are going for a more film/CGI look, I want to know what film has a can machine glowing so brightly you think it's about to explode.

painguy1

*text*

i think you just killed the thread :P

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

[QUOTE="Espereful"]

i might a silght but important change to your post

lowe0

it is great because they compare it with the reset console games? 1280x720, 25-30fps, low settings.

the console version of cryis2 is just look bad, I mean for someone that it is use to play games with "1920x1200, 60fps, high settings, large fov" it is unplayable.

I will tell you that, when i play the first time crysis2 on my pc with 1920x1200, 60fps, max settings, the fov was set to low like the console version and the game was barley playable for me I mean it was not enjoyable at all, when I increase the fov the game became so much better. and now you are telling me that playing with 1152x720, 25-30fps, low settings, small fov, is not unplayable, are you serious?

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

it is great because they compare it with the reset console games?

Espereful

It seems like you don't understand a thing from what i keep telling you.

When you are used to play games with 1280x720, 25-30fps, low settings and you came across an other game that is like that then it is great.

But when you are used to play games with 1920x1200, 60fps, high settings then the consoles version of crysis2 looks bad.

[QUOTE="lowe0"]

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

it is great because they compare it with the reset console games? 1280x720, 25-30fps, low settings.

the console version of cryis2 is just look bad, I mean for someone that it is use to play games with "1920x1200, 60fps, high settings, large fov" it is unplayable.

MK-Professor

I will tell you that, when i play the first time crysis2 on my pc with 1920x1200, 60fps, max settings, the fov was set to low like the console version and the game was barley playable for me I mean it was not enjoyable at all, when I increase the fov the game became so much better. and now you are telling me that playing with 1152x720, 25-30fps, low settings, small fov, is not unplayable, are you serious?

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

This is why developers don't belong in discussions between gamers.

Did it occur to you that because we aren't all trained developers, that we may mistake one term for another? Or use them interchangeably? I tried to show that in other responses by interchanging "normal mapping" with "depth adding effects". You are focusing on the use of the term normal map, instead of my reference to using slower quality textures; and layering additional effects on top to make up for the lack of fine detail in the texture. You are placing so much emphasis on me saying "why not put the detail into the texture, instead of the shader" that you think I'm talking about removing shaders as a whole.

To a developer a pixel is the building block of a scene in a game, but to a gamer; textures is what is painting everything in it, and shader effects are on top of that. Referring to pixels as the foundation of graphics isn't going to be relevant to the point I am trying to get across, when I am talking about the detrimental effects of textures quality, and how you cannot just use shaders to make up for the difference.

Crysis 1's characters used much higher quality textures to the ones in Crysis 2, that's the point; and I blame consoles memory light environment for that. That the game is also shader heavy isn't relevant to that criticism, because they had already done better with what I described as the "foundations" of a characters details. Crysis 1 being shader heavy isn't what led to the better looking textures, having better textures did. Shaders just improve on it even further.

You're too literal, too technical, not considering a gamers attempt to get something across to another gamer. You don't need a degree in computer science to understand the basic concept of some things, and your terms don't have to be textbook accurate; so long as that concept has been gotten across.

Teufelhuhn

Because logic dosent belong on this borad and people cant stand it. :lol:

[QUOTE="Espereful"]

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

it is great because they compare it with the reset console games?

MK-Professor

It seems like you don't understand a thing from what i keep telling you.

When you are used to play games with 1280x720, 25-30fps, low settings and you came across an other game that is like that then it is great.

But when you are used to play games with 1920x1200, 60fps, high settings then the consoles version of crysis2 looks bad.

-edit

I decided I'd much rather focus my attention elsewhere than continue this particular discussion with Teufelhuhn.

It seems like you don't understand a thing from what i keep telling you.

When you are used to play games with 1280x720, 25-30fps, low settings and you came across an other game that is like that then it is great.

But when you are used to play games with 1920x1200, 60fps, high settings then the consoles version of crysis2 looks bad.

MK-Professor

Still debating over this? I can't see how it would be possible. In Crysis you have maps MUCH larger than crysis 2 levels, more than 10 times the size. More NPCS. Destruction. More than one thousand trees per map than can be cut down to little bits if you so choose. Destructible shacks. There wasn't any destructibility in crysis 2. Early levels of Crysis use 1300mb of vram on 1080p 4xaa, and 1,7gb of normal ram. On sub-hd, maybe 1024x600, with low quality textures and a small FOV I can see the game meeting the VRAM limits of consoles. But there is absolutely no way to make it work for the system ram. It's just absurd even thinking about it. Unless you cut down ALOT of stuff. Hundreds of megabytes worth of stuff. It won't be the same game then. I can see it being a launch title for the next xbox, but there's no way it's possible on ps3/360.

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

It seems like you don't understand a thing from what i keep telling you.

When you are used to play games with 1280x720, 25-30fps, low settings and you came across an other game that is like that then it is great.

But when you are used to play games with 1920x1200, 60fps, high settings then the consoles version of crysis2 looks bad.

Espereful

im pretty sure they DF only focuses on the console versions

lawlessx

[QUOTE="lawlessx"]

im pretty sure they DF only focuses on the console versions

Espereful

Now that's a red herring. Trying to direct discussion to my apparent "personal vendetta against console gamers" rather than the subject of the actual thread, which just happens to include heated discussion with console gamers.

Essentially I'm being told that I'm biased for staying on topic.

AnnoyedDragon

You didn't answer the question.

-edit

I decided I'd much rather focus my attention elsewhere than continue this particular discussion with Teufelhuhn.

AnnoyedDragon

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

-edit

I decided I'd much rather focus my attention elsewhere than continue this particular discussion with Teufelhuhn.

clone01

No, its a waste of time

Well, the Wii did get a BlackOps port.

I'm pretty sure Crysis will be the same game on the 360 and on the PC, just like BlackOps is the same game on the 360 and the Wii.

Not sure, though... I'd say there's more distance performance-wise between a gaming rig and a 360 than there is between the 360 and the Wii.

You didn't answer the question.

clone01

His question? You mean asking what I've got against console gamers, when criticising them in the 'SYSTEM WARS' section?

That isn't a question, that's hypocrisy. That's the pot calling the kettle black.

I shouldn't have to explain why I criticise the platforms, who are in turn criticising my platform.

Because he's continually proved you wrong?clone01

He's a moderator. If he wants to read my objections to what he is saying, he can simply check what my post said prior to editing. Which quite frankly, are just a repeat of the objections I made to the supposed counter arguments he made.

He's a moderator. If he wants to read my objections to what he is saying, he can simply check what my post said prior to editing. Which quite frankly, are just a repeat of the objections I made to the supposed counter arguments he made.

AnnoyedDragon

So, in other words, you don't really have an answer, and just put the burden on him to look it up?

His question? You mean asking what I've got against console gamers, when criticising them in the 'SYSTEM WARS' section?AnnoyedDragon

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]His question? You mean asking what I've got against console gamers, when criticising them in the 'SYSTEM WARS' section?clone01

So, in other words, you don't really have an answer, and just put the burden on him to look it up?

clone01

In other words you are fishing for excuses to criticise others.

I made my objections clear, and realized I was just repeating myself in the latest post. Don't you think I have repeated myself enough throughout this thread?

If he wishes to continue the discussion he has everything he needs to do so, it's none of your business.

Yes, his question. Do you or do you not have an obvious bias against consoles. If you do, its hard to take much of what you say with any credibility.clone01

Let me emphasize again. I criticise console gamers, because console gamers criticise my platform, because people on my platform criticise their platform; and so on. We're in System Wars right now and I shouldn't have to keep pointing that out.

In other words you are fishing for excuses to criticise others.

I made my objections clear, and realized I was just repeating myself in the latest post. Don't you think I have repeated myself enough throughout this thread?AnnoyedDragon

Of course I'm criticizing you. You gave up on an argument when you were disproven.

Let me emphasize again. I criticise console gamers, because console gamers criticise my platform, because people on my platform criticise their platform; and so on. We're in System Wars right now and I shouldn't have to keep pointing that out.AnnoyedDragon

Of course I'm criticizing you. You gave up on an argument when you were disproven.

clone01

You're either doing one thing or the other, the specifics of which I cannot elaborate on, because the moderators here deemed accusing them as being a moderately offense...

You either haven't read/ignored my previous objections to his arguments, which were just further elaborated on in the latest post, or are so bored you are trying to provoke me to continuing that argument.

Either way, you are derailing this thread, and I am asking you to quit it.

Gamers being the operative term here. System wars, not fanboy wars. clone01

So when a console gamer says something ridiculous about PC, that's ok. But when I respond to that argument, I've got an agenda against console gamers?

I've had quite enough of this.

I've got an agenda against console gamers?

I've had quite enough of this.

AnnoyedDragon

Cool, glad we could agree.

This thread was has been very amusing :) Now ... Who likes Crysis?