Rumor: Original Crysis Bound for Xbox 360?

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

You can play original Crysis on a high end Pentium 4. AI and Physics will not suffer, lol.

magnax1

Look it up. Crysis isn't CPU dependant at all.

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] Thats a flat lie..... I had an Athlon 64 3000, and much faster cpu then a Pentium 4 and I couldnt run everything thats cpu dependant on high until I got a dual core cpu...

ferret-gamer

Look it up. Crysis isn't CPU dependant at all.

Either way, it can play 20-30 FPS on higher end P4s.

All you have to do is search google, lol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xM4e7B9KcA&feature=related

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

Why wouldn't it be better optimized on 360? Every multiplat is better optimized on consoles because they don't have to try and develop for 1000 different CPU/GPU/Ram combinations.

ferret-gamer

CryEngine 2 doesn't have console support, so it'll have to be ported to CryEngine 3 and have a lot of work done to it. And it'd be completely unfair to PC gamers since it's so "unoptimized" as people claim it is.

They're better optimized because they're built first for consoles. Pretty much every UE3 game runs better on equal hardware than their console counterpart. Optimization must not be that hard if they can get the engine to run that great.

Won't work in the case of Crysis for consoles. While you can indeed import the files directly, the levels simply are'nt designed to fit in console memory. They're going to have to break them up into cells for the sake of streaming. That sounds somewhat simple, but in practice they're litterally going to have to create levels from scratch or suffer from a broken port.

Edit: And it'll impose none of the awe the original Crysis has left ;)

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="magnax1"]

Look it up. Crysis isn't CPU dependant at all.

magnax1

Either way, it can play 20-30 FPS on higher end P4s.

All you have to do is search google, lol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xM4e7B9KcA&feature=related

Not the Crysis we've been bragging about for over 4 years ;)

Edit: As mentioned, I can't max the game and maintain constant 60 (50) fps. I assume you know why that (50) is there.

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] Uhh when we are talking about an ancient single core CPU, yeah it is CPU dependent.Filthybastrd

Either way, it can play 20-30 FPS on higher end P4s.

All you have to do is search google, lol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xM4e7B9KcA&feature=related

Not the Crysis we've been bragging about for over 4 years ;)

The expansion runs on the same engine, and isn't much different except some improved graphics. If you want a different vid, go find it, because there are quite a few others.

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

Either way, it can play 20-30 FPS on higher end P4s.

All you have to do is search google, lol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xM4e7B9KcA&feature=related

magnax1

Not the Crysis we've been bragging about for over 4 years ;)

The expansion runs on the same engine, and isn't much different except some improved graphics. If you want a different vid, go find it, because there are quite a few others.

It's the same engine with different default cfg setups. The graphics are'nt better at all...... I don't need videos, I can see for myself.

Edit: For the record, most Crysis "mods" aren't mods as much as they're custom cfgs if we're talking graphics by the way.

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

Not the Crysis we've been bragging about for over 4 years ;)

Filthybastrd

The expansion runs on the same engine, and isn't much different except some improved graphics. If you want a different vid, go find it, because there are quite a few others.

It's the same engine with different default cfg setups. The graphics are'nt better at all...... I don't need videos, I can see for myself.

Lol, I've played both of them, and the expansion does have a little better graphics.

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

The expansion runs on the same engine, and isn't much different except some improved graphics. If you want a different vid, go find it, because there are quite a few others.

magnax1

It's the same engine with different default cfg setups. The graphics are'nt better at all...... I don't need videos, I can see for myself.

Lol, I've played both of them, and the expansion does have a little better graphics.

Did you ever play the games with a custom autoexec.cfg text file? They tweaked the settings for immediately apparent gfx and introduced terrible texture popin in the process....

R_texturestreaming=0 is mandatory.

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] Uhh when we are talking about an ancient single core CPU, yeah it is CPU dependent.Filthybastrd

Either way, it can play 20-30 FPS on higher end P4s.

All you have to do is search google, lol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xM4e7B9KcA&feature=related

Not the Crysis we've been bragging about for over 4 years ;)

Edit: As mentioned, I can't max the game and maintain constant 60 (50) fps. I assume you know why that (50) is there.

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

Either way, it can play 20-30 FPS on higher end P4s.

All you have to do is search google, lol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xM4e7B9KcA&feature=related

ferret-gamer

Not the Crysis we've been bragging about for over 4 years ;)

Edit: As mentioned, I can't max the game and maintain constant 60 (50) fps. I assume you know why that (50) is there.

I'm not even going to watch his vids... I've seen the vids of amazonia river (the common bragging video) and used it for the campaign as well. Youtube compression and no lingering makes it what it is....

Here's a single Screenshot of Crysis in action:

I swore to never do a montage again, so I shall not ;)

By the way, it takes a rig like mine (look to the sig) to make that screenshot playable, especially if you don't want jaggies.

And for the record, it looks amazing to this very day. Lots of bad textures but Crysis 2 (post DX11) does'nt have that much on it in the grand scheme of the experience.

Edit: take this from the undisputed master of Crysis screenshot posting. Noone has posted more personal screenshots than me and there has never been posted a single "photorealistic" screenie by anyone who could back it up with their own gameplay ;)

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

Minimum Requirements are 1 gigabytes of ram, which is with the OS. So it's definitely doable, though it'll be a tight fit.

magnax1

Ignore minimum requirements. In reality that means unplayble.

They can't reproduce Crysis 1 in any state that is'nt either worthy of mocking or an entirely different game.

Edit: To this very day, Crysis can bring my rig to it's knees.... Moreso than Crysis 2 can.

Minimum requirements does not in any way mean unplayable. I've played games below minimum requirements many times before.

And, no. If you really think Crysis can't be ported to the 360 fairly easily you just don't know much about how powerful the 360 is. You can play Crysis on a computer less powerful then a 360 easily, and it will be much more optimized on the 360.

Yes you can play Crysis on a system that low but the graphics are from 2004 and the physics and object distance are literally non existent. That's not really Crysis w/o the physics and draw distance.

Trust me here we are in 2011 and my PC with a Phenom 2 x4 at 3.8ghz, 4gigs of ram (what 8 times what the consoles use?) and a GTX 570 (like ten times more powerful than an entire ps3) is brought to its knees by certain fights in Crysis maxed at 1920x1080. Literally the game still dips into the low 20s on occasion.

CryEngine 2 doesn't have console support, so it'll have to be ported to CryEngine 3 and have a lot of work done to it. And it'd be completely unfair to PC gamers since it's so "unoptimized" as people claim it is.

They're better optimized because they're built first for consoles. Pretty much every UE3 game runs better on equal hardware than their console counterpart. Optimization must not be that hard if they can get the engine to run that great.

ChubbyGuy40

Actually they do. A dude from Crytek even went into how they managed to convert the gfx over at almost high settings, but had more trouble dealing with converting the AI systems, but they did convert the AI systems over.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/864/864970p1.html

Harald Seeley: "Yes, we definitely tailor the engine specifically to each platform. More than just the difference in CPU and video hardware capabilities of PCs and consoles is at play here. So are the much smaller memory budgets we must work with, the lack of a hard disk on some models, and the acceptance requirements of the hardware vendors themselves. All have an effect on how we approach each version of the engine.

The surprising thing has been how well the consoles can perform visually, once this tailoring is in place. We expect the final outcome will result in games that look like they're running at high settings, or nearly high settings, on a PC. Actually, we found it as much or more challenging to address the memory limitations of the consoles when converting our current AI system, as we did while converting our rendering engine or physics system, which was not something you might have expected at the start."

This was from 2008. Yes, I realize this is CE2, not straight up Crysis.

And I'll be throwing frogs at the moon.AAllxxjjnn

BRB playing Crysis again!

Actually they do. A dude from Crytek even went into how they managed to convert the gfx over at almost high settings, but had more trouble dealing with converting the AI systems, but they did convert the AI systems over.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/864/864970p1.html

This was from 2008. Yes, I realize this is CE2, not straight up Crysis.

gamecubepad

And that turned into CryEngine 3, That is what that article is saying, because that was the reason behind CE3's development was console support. And this spawned Crysis 2 which sucked in comparison and managed to have worse AI.

And that turned into CryEngine 3, That is what that article is saying, because that was the reason behind CE3's development was console support. And this spawned Crysis 2 which sucked in comparison and managed to have worse AI.

ChubbyGuy40

CE3 doesn't suck in comparison to CE2. Also, this was 2008 and they had CE2 support for consoles. So that pretty much contradicts the idea that CE2 wasn't on consoles, because 360/PS3 were certainly supported before CE3 made it's debut. There's no spinning that.

Crysis minimum requirements:
Processor - 2.8 GHz or faster (XP) or 3.2 GHz or faster* (Vista)
Memory - 1.0 GB RAM (XP) or 1.5 GB RAM (Vista)
Video Card -256 MB**
Hard Drive - 12GB

* Supported Processors: Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz (3.2GHz for Vista) or faster, Intel Core 2GHz (2.2GHz for Vista) or faster, and other similar CPUs.
** Supported chipsets: Nvidia GeForce 6800 GT + or similar GPUs. Laptop versions of these chipsets may work but are not supported. Integrated chipsets are not supported. Updates to your video and sound card drivers may be required.

RAM is the only issue I see here, but pretty much any console/pc multiplat will require 1GB RAM. The OS is eating 300-400MB of it right off the bat.

CE3 doesn't suck in comparison to CE2. Also, this was 2008 and they had CE2 support for consoles. So that pretty much contradicts the idea that CE2 wasn't on consoles, because 360/PS3 were certainly supported before CE3 made it's debut. There's no spinning that.

Crysis minimum requirements:
Processor - 2.8 GHz or faster (XP) or 3.2 GHz or faster* (Vista)
Memory - 1.0 GB RAM (XP) or 1.5 GB RAM (Vista)
Video Card -256 MB**
Hard Drive - 12GB

* Supported Processors: Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz (3.2GHz for Vista) or faster, Intel Core 2GHz (2.2GHz for Vista) or faster, and other similar CPUs.
** Supported chipsets: Nvidia GeForce 6800 GT + or similar GPUs. Laptop versions of these chipsets may work but are not supported. Integrated chipsets are not supported. Updates to your video and sound card drivers may be required.

RAM is the only issue I see here, but pretty much any console/pc multiplat will require 1GB RAM. The OS is eating 300-400MB of it right off the bat.

gamecubepad

I said Crysis 2 sucked in comparison to Crysis 1 as it was a downgrade it every possible way. I wasn't arguing with the engine because anyone who is a bit tech-literate and can read would know that.

That's because CE2 was rewritten for CE3. It's development started right after Crysis which is what Crytek was doing while their other studio was working on Warhead. At that time it was technically still considered CE3 because they didn't fully gut it yet.

Crysis looked like an upgraded Far Cry at low settings. In fact it has almost no shaders and no shadows because they were mostly turned off. That didn't even stop it from putting the beat down on the minimum specs. Minimum specs for that game also meant the lowest settings and resolution. A video card similar to the 360 could handle most of it, but with low-medium settings, maybe 720p, and 10-30FPS everywhere. That's before the alien and ice level which absolutely murders your FPS count.

That's because CE2 was rewritten for CE3. It's development started right after Crysis which is what Crytek was doing while their other studio was working on Warhead. At that time it was technically still considered CE3 because they didn't fully gut it yet.

Crysis looked like an upgraded Far Cry at low settings. In fact it has almost no shaders and no shadows because they were mostly turned off. That didn't even stop it from putting the beat down on the minimum specs. Minimum specs for that game also meant the lowest settings and resolution. A video card similar to the 360 could handle most of it, but with low-medium settings, maybe 720p, and 10-30FPS everywhere. That's before the alien and ice level which absolutely murders your FPS count.

ChubbyGuy40

So now you know that CE2 did have console support. The main issue here isn't how the game will look, but rather Crytek's ability to adapt the AI system from Crysis/CE2 without significant compromise. It will either be like the original, or similar to Far Cry 2.

I just popped in New Vegas on 360(since it was handy), and I shot Stinky/Easy Pete. I then walked a significant distance past the cemetary, then returned. His corpse was still there to be looted. If he was alive and I escaped and returned, he would still be pissed off over me shooting him. I don't see how something like this would be unacceptable in a Crysis port for 360.

So now you know that CE2 did have console support. The main issue here isn't how the game will look, but rather Crytek's ability to adapt the AI system from Crysis/CE2 without significant compromise. It will either be like the original, or similar to Far Cry 2.

I just popped in New Vegas on 360(since it was handy), and I shot Stinky/Easy Pete. I then walked a significant distance past the cemetary, then returned. His corpse was still there to be looted. If he was alive and I escaped and returned, he would still be pissed off over me shooting him. I don't see how something like this would be unacceptable in a Crysis port for 360.

gamecubepad

My bad, it does have support. I remember going to their website when CE3 was announced and console support was not listed. That said, we never saw a game use it either. Every game that did ran like complete ass and was bug-filled.

Cell loading. You can't see far into the distance and performance, as well as visuals, are hell on consoles. Cell loading would kill half of the experience of Crysis. Anything outside the loaded cells isn't rendered, seen, able to interact with, doesn't move, ect.

My bad, it does have support. I remember going to their website when CE3 was announced and console support was not listed. That said, we never saw a game use it either. Every game that did ran like complete ass and was bug-filled.

Cell loading. You can't see far into the distance and performance, as well as visuals, are hell on consoles. Cell loading would kill half of the experience of Crysis. Anything outside the loaded cells isn't rendered, seen, able to interact with, doesn't move, ect.

ChubbyGuy40

No worries. I wasn't trying to "prove you wrong" or anything. Just sharing data.:)

I get the whole render/view distance thing, but like in FO3 or NV, why would it affect the game if the corpses are still there, and the AI is still pissed. As long as they don't magically respawn right away like FC2, what's the big deal? Crysis isn't open-world, per se, so it's not like there's tons of backtracking anyway. Maybe I'm missing something.

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

That's because CE2 was rewritten for CE3. It's development started right after Crysis which is what Crytek was doing while their other studio was working on Warhead. At that time it was technically still considered CE3 because they didn't fully gut it yet.

Crysis looked like an upgraded Far Cry at low settings. In fact it has almost no shaders and no shadows because they were mostly turned off. That didn't even stop it from putting the beat down on the minimum specs. Minimum specs for that game also meant the lowest settings and resolution. A video card similar to the 360 could handle most of it, but with low-medium settings, maybe 720p, and 10-30FPS everywhere. That's before the alien and ice level which absolutely murders your FPS count.

gamecubepad

So now you know that CE2 did have console support. The main issue here isn't how the game will look, but rather Crytek's ability to adapt the AI system from Crysis/CE2 without significant compromise. It will either be like the original, or similar to Far Cry 2.

I just popped in New Vegas on 360(since it was handy), and I shot Stinky/Easy Pete. I then walked a significant distance past the cemetary, then returned. His corpse was still there to be looted. If he was alive and I escaped and returned, he would still be pissed off over me shooting him. I don't see how something like this would be unacceptable in a Crysis port for 360.

This has been mentioned several times in this thread but here goes.....

Yes, Crysis itself can be ported at low/medium with no drawdistance whatsoever...... They can even prioritize effects and make it look good when under no scrutiny, hard as that is in a game where you spend most of your time face to face with the local fauna, while proned... If you can prone with a controller that is...... Unlike what you could with the original Crysis gamepad controls.

Still, as Cervat Yerhli himself mentioned, the levels simply cannot be ported due to their design and size, they're just too large and are'nt made for console streaming.

As a consequence, doing a Crysis 1 port would be a terrible idea because, it'd look like crap, would'nt resemble Crysis at all gameplaywise and would'nt run well either.

Feel free to call bull on me, Crysis 2 on consoles went the route of CoD and still couldnt even keep a stable 30 fps.

Also, it did'nt do anything graphichally impressive, (sorry Wasdie, the lighting was and is amazing ofc), at launch and the dx11/highrestex patched version litterally constitues what a mod is.

Now we how an amazing looking console multiplat without any significant physics and destruction.

Edit: Hopefully, I don't come off as too trollish but Crysis on consoles is not happening.... Not the Crysis that we know at least, WiiU is the only console with the potential to run it.

As a consequence, doing a Crysis 1 port would be a terrible idea because, it'd look like crap, would'nt resemble Crysis at all gameplaywise and wouldn't run well either.

...

Now we how an amazing looking console multiplat without any significant physics and destruction.

Filthybastrd

According to 2008 interview in the link I provided above, it wasn't the gfx(said to be close to high, but CE3 Crysis previews were medium/some high with dookie draw distance) or the physics that was the problem. It was converting the AI system for the limited memory on consoles. He seemed to insinuate that they did convert the system.

So on 1 hand there's hermits saying that the gfx and physics are the problem, but on the other hand there's some hermits saying it's the AI system. So my question is, if they could find an acceptable means of preventing a FC2 respawn system, and could do something like I mentioned in FO3/NV, what would be the big deal?

Most of the best action I've experienced and seen in Crysis is close to medium range. As long as the gameplay during firefights was still intact along with physics and destruction, who cares?

No worries. I wasn't trying to "prove you wrong" or anything. Just sharing data.:)

I get the whole render/view distance thing, but like in FO3 or NV, why would it affect the game if the corpses are still there, and the AI is still pissed. As long as they don't magically respawn right away like FC2, what's the big deal? Crysis isn't open-world, per se, so it's not like there's tons of backtracking anyway. Maybe I'm missing something.

gamecubepad

Np.

Because stuff actually happens in that distance. Certain cutscenes probably wouldn't even play correctly. You can force more cells to be loaded at once in Bethesda games, but that absolutely kills performance. From what I understand, nothing happens at all to unloaded cells. You travel a lot in Crysis and in many missions you have to cover a lot of ground. It simply wouldn't work the same. Despite it's appearance, it's actually quite big. The levels themselves range from small and linear, to huge and open.

According to 2008 interview in the link I provided above, it wasn't the gfx(said to be close to high, but CE3 Crysis previews were medium/some high with dookie draw distance) or the physics that was the problem. It was converting the AI system for the limited memory on consoles. He seemed to insinuate that they did convert the system.

So on 1 hand there's hermits saying that the gfx and physics are the problem, but on the other hand there's some hermits saying it's the AI system. So my question is, if they could find an acceptable means of preventing a FC2 respawn system, and could do something like I mentioned in FO3/NV, what would be the big deal?

Most of the best action I've experienced and seen in Crysis is close to medium range. As long as the gameplay during firefights was still intact along with physics and destruction, who cares?

gamecubepad

Shaders and shadows past medium are HELL on performance. Textures aren't hard to do but with that low amount of memory it could lead to problems, neither is the water or sound. Object quality is debatable. It's really those 2 things that kill performance. Draw distance too, which plays a major factor in most levels. Crysis 2 isn't nearly on the same level. It just has tall buildings which are already prerendered and don't have any interaction. That and the last levels are absolute hell on hardware because there's so much to render.

It's funny AI is the problem if what they're saying is 100% correct, because that AI was laughably horrible. Better than 90% of games, but still not as great as modders have made it.

Shaders and shadows past medium are HELL on performance. Textures aren't hard to do but with that low amount of memory it could lead to problems, neither is the water or sound. Object quality is debatable. It's really those 2 things that kill performance. Draw distance too, which plays a major factor in most levels. Crysis 2 isn't nearly on the same level. It just has tall buildings which are already prerendered and don't have any interaction. That and the last levels are absolute hell on hardware because there's so much to render.

It's funny AI is the problem if what they're saying is 100% correct, because that AI was laughably horrible. Better than 90% of games, but still not as great as modders have made it.

ChubbyGuy40

The console CE3 Crysis vids were showing a major lack of foliage compared to what you get on 'medium' in CE2 Crysis. Some effects looked like 'high', but the draw distance was bad.

Hermits are adamant that the AI system would be broken because of cell streaming as opposed to the whole level being loaded. I guess we'll have to wait for the rumor to pan out, and then see how they implemented the system on consoles.

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

As a consequence, doing a Crysis 1 port would be a terrible idea because, it'd look like crap, would'nt resemble Crysis at all gameplaywise and wouldn't run well either.

...

Now we how an amazing looking console multiplat without any significant physics and destruction.

gamecubepad

According to 2008 interview in the link I provided above, it wasn't the gfx(said to be close to high, but CE3 Crysis previews were medium/some high with dookie draw distance) or the physics that was the problem. It was converting the AI system for the limited memory on consoles. He seemed to insinuate that they did convert the system.

So on 1 hand there's hermits saying that the gfx and physics are the problem, but on the other hand there's some hermits saying it's the AI system. So my question is, if they could find an acceptable means of preventing a FC2 respawn system, and could do something like I mentioned in FO3/NV, what would be the big deal?

Most of the best action I've experienced and seen in Crysis is close to medium range. As long as the gameplay during firefights was still intact along with physics and destruction, who cares?

Please do reapply your link to the thread.

This is what I have. As far as I'm concerned, he's wearing the best PR face he can at the time.

So they can make it work within the processing power restraints, ther ejust is'nt enough memory to port the game as it is, that means, they're going to have to restructure all levels entirely.

You could entirely ignore the concept of C1 when considering the idea... Look at C2, that's what happens when Crysis is made to be playable on consoles.

But they're were'nt really there. Well, the mechanichs were, but more akin to Duke Nuken Forever than Crysis.

Yes, we Hermits are going to laugh at the gutted carcass, consoles will have thrown upon them.

The console CE3 Crysis vids were showing a major lack of foliage compared to what you get on 'medium' in CE2 Crysis. Some effects looked like 'high', but the draw distance was bad.

Hermits are adamant that the AI system would be broken because of cell streaming as opposed to the whole level being loaded. I guess we'll have to wait for the rumor to pan out, and then see how they implemented the system on consoles.

gamecubepad

That is sorta true. It's almost as if they rebuilt the levels just to show it off because it did look different.

It's really quite pointless to port it over this late. Just save it for Wii-U and other next gen consoles so it doesn't end up as Crysis Instincts. It'll just be Crysis with hopefully a reworked MP (Even though I'm one of the few who found it really fun. They can just use Crysis Wars instead.)

[QUOTE="Advid-Gamer"]

LOl cant handle the truth? I am more of a pc gamer then 98% of the people that post here.

ChubbyGuy40

Didn't you just get a PC a few months ago and were a hard-core consolite before then? Your posts definitely seemed that way.

And I never said you couldn't handle the truth.

Had a pc for 3 years now, on my 2nd rig that I built myself. I was saying You cant handle the truth, not me

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

[QUOTE="Advid-Gamer"]

The fact of how huge this thread is, and that it keeps going shows just how insecure pc gamers are. My god who cares? OHHHH no, crysis, on consoles................. cant happen if it does it will be total trash because the pc is magic and only it can run crysis. This whole forum is getting beyond silly to me.

Advid-Gamer

Oh look, someone who doesn't bother to read the posts and loves to trash PC gamers. Surprised you haven't been banned yet with all of your hate posts.

LOl cant handle the truth? I am more of a pc gamer then 98% of the people that post here.

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

[QUOTE="Advid-Gamer"]

LOl cant handle the truth? I am more of a pc gamer then 98% of the people that post here.

Advid-Gamer

Didn't you just get a PC a few months ago and were a hard-core consolite before then? Your posts definitely seemed that way.

And I never said you couldn't handle the truth.

Had a pc for 3 years now, on my 2nd rig that I built myself. I was saying You cant handle the truth, not me and if you did read my posts you would see that I never bash the pc, just the opinions of the pc users here. I have said many times the pc is the best and what I game most on. It is the opinions of the users here I have a problem with.

Perhaps for the XBOX NOX, MS's new console and it'll be called Crysis CE since the original combat will need to Evolve for us console gamers since ya know, we don't care about gorgeous visuals anyway. :shock:

:P

Seriously, me thinks if it indeed is being done for console / consoles then it really should be saved for next gen.

That's obvious, but PC gamers are making too much fuss over this. 500 posts in a few days. Whaaa?

ocstew

It takes two to tango. It wasn't just PC gamers that made this large thread...

You have to hand it to the trolls on the console side of this debate. They started the argument by essentially bashing PC capability, suggesting anything PC can do, consoles can replicate good enough; in a tiny fraction of the resources. Then when PC gamers try to correct those comments with facts, they are accused of simply being upset about Crysis 1 hitting consoles. Even though a port of a 2007 game will have zero impact on them.

So you either ignore what is being said, and allow them to all come to agreeement on what is a false argument, which downplays PC capability. Or you try to correct them, and be accused of just whining about Crysis hitting consoles.

[QUOTE="ocstew"]

That's obvious, but PC gamers are making too much fuss over this. 500 posts in a few days. Whaaa?

AnnoyedDragon

It takes two to tango. It wasn't just PC gamers that made this large thread...

You have to hand it to the trolls on the console side of this debate. They started the argument by essentially bashing PC capability, suggesting anything PC can do, consoles can replicate good enough; in a tiny fraction of the resources. Then when PC gamers try to correct those comments with facts, they are accused of simply being upset about Crysis 1 hitting consoles. Even though a port of a 2007 game will have zero impact on them.

So you either ignore what is being said, and allow them to all come to agreeement on what is a false argument, which downplays PC capability. Or you try to correct them with the facts, and be accused of just whining about Crysis hitting consoles.

You're taking this too personally. If they make outrageous claims, just report them. ocstew

Making outrageous claims isn't a moderatable offense, this is SW after all.

What I want to know, is why are PC gamers taking the bad image for simply responding to console gamer arguments? A bog standard scenario, to be expected of this section.

When a console gamer claims Crysis's 1gb+ levels can fit in 256mb of ram, or cutting it down will have no affect on the experience, apparently we should shut up and let them do that. But when we try to explain why that isn't possible, it's all our fault that a thread like this ends up long.

It's only this long because of some people's reluctance to accept, or attempts to downplay, the differences in spec on console and PC.

[QUOTE="ocstew"]You're taking this too personally. If they make outrageous claims, just report them. AnnoyedDragon

Making outrageous claims isn't a moderatable offense, this is SW after all.

What I want to know, is why are PC gamers taking the bad image for simply responding to console gamer arguments? A bog standard scenario, to be expected of this section.

When a console gamer claims Crysis's 1gb+ levels can fit in 256mb of ram, or cutting it down will have no affect on the experience, apparently we should shut up and let them do that. But when we try to explain why that isn't possible, it's all our fault that a thread like this ends up long.

It's only this long because of some people's reluctance to accept, or attempts to downplay, the differences in spec on console and PC.

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

[QUOTE="lowe0"] I've played plenty of games on PC at those specs, including Crysis 2, and I found Crysis 2 on PS3 completely playable. Perhaps you're exaggerating just a teensy weensy little bit?

lowe0

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?

I love how you are pretend that you have play played it start to finish on both platforms to try to pass you opinion, but facts are facts the console version looks bad compared to the pc version and it is also unplayable for people that are used to play games like that 1920x1200, 60fps, max settings, large fov etc.

[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

Their is a big differences between the console version and the pc version. The sooner you realize the meaning of "1920x1200, 60fps, high setting" vs "1152x720, 25-30fps, low setting" the better.

[QUOTE="lowe0"]

[QUOTE="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?

MK-Professor

I love how you are pretend that you have play played it start to finish on both platforms to try to pass you opinion, but facts are facts the console version looks bad compared to the pc version and it is also unplayable for people that are used to play games like that 1920x1200, 60fps, max settings, large fov etc.

What console only has 256mb of ram? Neither of them. hoogiewumpus

Ram isn't the same thing as Vram, you cannot include Vram in Ram related comparisons.

PS3 has 256mb of Ram and 256mb of Vram. 360 has 512mb of Vram, which is being shared for both Ram and Vram related tasks.

In effect, consoles only have 256mb of available memory as Ram in cross platform games. 360 can cannibalize from Vram to add to their Ram related tasks, but PS3 compatibility in cross platform games has to be factored.

Haters gonna hate. When C1 looks great on consoles, some people are going to be really mad, or more likely, deny the truth. Let's cut the PS3 a little slack. The cell is a beast.hoogiewumpus

Their is a big differences between the console version and the pc version. The sooner you realize the meaning of "1920x1200, 60fps, high setting" vs "1152x720, 25-30fps, low setting" the better.

MK-Professor

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

Their is a big differences between the console version and the pc version. The sooner you realize the meaning of "1920x1200, 60fps, high setting" vs "1152x720, 25-30fps, low setting" the better.

Espereful

They still claim the PC version is better. Even after they lower the resolution to match the consoles and lower some graphical settings! This just to give the consoles a fighting chance.

They still claim the PC version is better. Even after they lower the resolution to match the consoles and lower some graphical settings! This just to give the consoles a fighting chance.

ducati101

[QUOTE="ducati101"]

They still claim the PC version is better. Even after they lower the resolution to match the consoles and lower some graphical settings! This just to give the consoles a fighting chance.

Espereful

They delivered to console standards, yes. Why do you think most hermits weren't impressed? Cos it couldn't even beat their original game from 2007. Having said that the PC version was better and with the new hi-res texture pack and DX11 goodies, the gap is even bigger.

[QUOTE="Espereful"]

[QUOTE="ducati101"]

They still claim the PC version is better. Even after they lower the resolution to match the consoles and lower some graphical settings! This just to give the consoles a fighting chance.

ducati101

They delivered to console standards, yes. Why do you think most hermits weren't impressed? Cos it couldn't even beat their original game from 2007. Having said that the PC version was better and with the new hi-res texture pack and DX11 goodies, the gap is even bigger.

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

Their is a big differences between the console version and the pc version. The sooner you realize the meaning of "1920x1200, 60fps, high setting" vs "1152x720, 25-30fps, low setting" the better.

Espereful

Do you know that there is a difference between consoles standards and pc standards? Also is so hard for you to accept that the pc venison look and play much better?

Do you know that there is a difference between consoles standards and pc standards? Also is so hard for you to accept that the pc venison look and play much better?

MK-Professor