Rumor: Original Crysis Bound for Xbox 360?

1 - I wonder how long before Hermits scream "consolization" 2 - There's no way the 360 could run it The PS3 certainly could, but not the 360.hoogiewumpus

This would be a port of a game released in 2007... Why would they scream "consolization"?

[QUOTE="TheGuardian03"]If its true then PC loses another exclusive.AnnoyedDragon

When a console game gets ported to PC a few months later, it's apparently ancient now; and of no relevance. PC is getting consoles left overs, and the delayed port proves the platforms irrelevance.

When a 2007 PC game possibly gets ported to consoles years later, it's epic fail for PC and proves consoles rock?

wow where are you getting all this? :?

[QUOTE="hoogiewumpus"]1 - I wonder how long before Hermits scream "consolization" 2 - There's no way the 360 could run it The PS3 certainly could, but not the 360.lundy86_4

This would be a port of a game released in 2007... Why would they scream "consolization"?

If it's true.Good.

I love Crysis.Crysis 2 was good,but definitely not as good as Crysis.
They should also put Warhead in there.I would buy it if they were packaged together.

sarcasmhoogiewumpus

Use a smiley for ****s sake :P

wow where are you getting all this? :?

alfredooo

4+ years of System Wars experience.

SW doesn't change, just the name of the games.

There's no way the 360 could run it The PS3 certainly could, but not the 360.hoogiewumpus

what one can do, so can the other.

If the size of the map being loaded all at once is what makes a Crysis port impossible I wonder if they would just be able to change the technology to make it run like TES games which only have a small section of the map loaded. Is Crysis as big as TES games? I dunno but Skyrim looks decent enough and it's probably a much larger game world.

[QUOTE="15strong"]

Annoyed Dragon just stated it was impossible.

I will hold back all judgement until I hear more confirmation.

AnnoyedDragon

There is nothing to confirm.

You cannot fit 1GB worth of information into 256mb of ram, it's common sense.

You would have to change the game to use less memory, which involves streaming, which cannot replicate Crysis 1's interactive scale.

I'm not an expert or anything but let's use The Witcher 2 as an example. It is going to 360 and is goingto be generally the asme game as the PC version. So why is that possible and not crysis? Witcher 2 is suppossed to be a beast with huge enviroments and stunning visuals.

15strong

1) Witcher 2 was designed with future console porting in mind, Crysis 1 wasn't.

2) GRAPHICS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

I will still wait for confirmation. I have faith that they can pull it off. You can state it is impossible all you want, but you know less than the developers and the capabilites of cryengine 3. We'll see.

1 - I wonder how long before Hermits scream "consolization" 2 - There's no way the 360 could run it The PS3 certainly could, but not the 360.hoogiewumpus

Actually, none of them can run it. And the PS3 isn't some magic machine like many cows want to believe. Blu-ray and "teh cell" aren't marvelous items of witchcraft and wizardry.

If the size of the map being loaded all at once is what makes a Crysis port impossible I wonder if they would just be able to change the technology to make it run like TES games which only have a small section of the map loaded. Is Crysis as big as TES games? I dunno but Skyrim looks decent enough and it's probably a much larger game world.

alfredooo

[QUOTE="alfredooo"]

wow where are you getting all this? :?

AnnoyedDragon

4+ years of System Wars experience.

SW doesn't change, just the name of the games.

Still doesn't change the fact that no one in this thread is actually saying what you claimed in your post (YET!). General experience should have taught you that you don't claim a group is contradicting itself until.... you know, the actually contradict themselves. Otherwise it just looks silly.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, you may be 99% right about some people claiming a Crysis port as ownage but still, you are supposed to save those posts until it actually happens. :P

I will still wait for confirmation. I have faith that they can pull it off. You can state it is impossible all you want, but you know less than the developers and the capabilites of cryengine 3. We'll see.

15strong

When I said 4+ years of SW experience in the above post, I wasn't joking. The reason I read more from a comment than what is actually said, is because they are arguments I have seen time and time before, often encompassing a range of mentalities; that they may not necessarily be expressing in that particular comment.

Remember my comments regarding "the magic of optimization"? Well, that's you right now.

Fitting Crysis sized levels into console memory without cutting them up into smaller; more manageable chunks is impossible. Read again, impossible. 256mb of ram can only hold 256mb of information at any one time, there is no way of changing that.

But as the above quote shows, you are maintaining a wait and see approaching, suggesting that I don't know what I am talking about; just because I'm not a developer.

You, believe in magic. You believe they will come up with some magical technique that will make console memory hold four times its specified capacity. You don't know or care how, you just "believe"...

[QUOTE="Espereful"][QUOTE="BigBoss154"]Crysis 2 not only looks worse than Crysis 1, but the console versions are a mix of low and medium at low resolutions and run @ sub 30fps.Hatiko

You realize you have just been ignoring everything AnnoyedDragon his posted. Crysis 2 is in linear environments while Crysis renders an ENTIRE island at once. You realize that the console RAM limitations prevent that. Cevat Yurli himself said that RAM limitations is why Crysis wasn't coming to consoles when the game was first shown.

[QUOTE="alfredooo"]

If the size of the map being loaded all at once is what makes a Crysis port impossible I wonder if they would just be able to change the technology to make it run like TES games which only have a small section of the map loaded. Is Crysis as big as TES games? I dunno but Skyrim looks decent enough and it's probably a much larger game world.

mitu123

that's wha I'm saying, tho.

Since consoles couldn't render everything at once, I'm wondering if they will be able to make it NOT render everything at once, like a TES game.

Or do you guys see any other way around it?

[QUOTE="red12355"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

who doubted it? any game can run on any system...it just might look different.

CaseyWegner

such as and what did they say?

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="alfredooo"]

If the size of the map being loaded all at once is what makes a Crysis port impossible I wonder if they would just be able to change the technology to make it run like TES games which only have a small section of the map loaded. Is Crysis as big as TES games? I dunno but Skyrim looks decent enough and it's probably a much larger game world.

alfredooo

that's wha I'm saying, tho.

Since consoles couldn't render everything at once, I'm wondering if they will be able to make it NOT render everything at once, like a TES game.

Or do you guys see any other way around it?

that's wha I'm saying, tho.

Since consoles couldn't render everything at once, I'm wondering if they will be able to make it NOT render everything at once, like a TES game.

Or do you guys see any other way around it?

alfredooo

It's not rendering, that's graphics; and the problem isn't graphics. Graphics are scalable, they can be scaled to suit a systems capabilities without impacting game play.

What cannot be scaled is game play impacting elements. You cannot reduce the number of rocks in a scene without changing how you move through that environment. You can reduce the polygons of the rocks, but less rocks means a different environmental experience.

Crysis didn't render everything on screen, or even store everything in memory. It stored the entire "core" level and then streamed individual assets, like if you encountered a tank later in the level; it wouldn't stream that tank into memory until it was needed. What storing the core level enabled is for the player's interactive range to be limited by natural factors, rather than a invisible wall that interactivity cannot pass.

By changing to cell streaming, you are placing interactive range restrictions to within the loaded surrounding cells. That changes the game play experience from the PC version, even if only subtly.

The method used by TES games is essentially just that, cell streaming. PC gamers often alter the cell streaming variables in TES games, to make the game better take advantage of their systems memory. The more cells you can load into memory, the greater the interactive distance. Problem is, most cross platform games are designed around what consoles can store in memory.

[QUOTE="alfredooo"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"] Crysis renders far more than the TES games, the TES game just doesn't render everything at once unlike Crysis.

mitu123

that's wha I'm saying, tho.

Since consoles couldn't render everything at once, I'm wondering if they will be able to make it NOT render everything at once, like a TES game.

Or do you guys see any other way around it?

Really, the 360 could probably run the game on low settings without any significant changes. Look at the system requirements for the game, and they're far below the harware in a 360. Even Ram is close considering how much space an OS takes up.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="alfredooo"]

that's wha I'm saying, tho.

Since consoles couldn't render everything at once, I'm wondering if they will be able to make it NOT render everything at once, like a TES game.

Or do you guys see any other way around it?

magnax1

Really, the 360 could probably run the game on low settings without any significant changes. Look at the system requirements for the game, and they're far below the harware in a 360. Even Ram is close considering how much space an OS takes up.

[QUOTE="15strong"]

I will still wait for confirmation. I have faith that they can pull it off. You can state it is impossible all you want, but you know less than the developers and the capabilites of cryengine 3. We'll see.

AnnoyedDragon

When I said 4+ years of SW experience in the above post, I wasn't joking. The reason I read more from a comment than what is actually said, is because they are arguments I have seen time and time before, often encompassing a range of mentalities; that they may not necessarily be expressing in that particular comment.

Remember my comments regarding "the magic of optimization"? Well, that's you right now.

Fitting Crysis sized levels into console memory without cutting them up into smaller; more manageable chunks is impossible. Read again, impossible. 256mb of ram can only hold 256mb of information at any one time, there is no way of changing that.

But as the above quote shows, you are maintaining a wait and see approaching, suggesting that I don't know what I am talking about; just because I'm not a developer.

You, believe in magic. You believe they will come up with some magical technique that will make console memory hold four times its specified capacity. You don't know or care how, you just "believe"...

Magic! Yes, I'm a true believer in magic. I don't claim to know everything or act like I do. Of course I am maintaining a wait and see approach. The game we are talking about hasn't been announced for consoles, so of course, I will wait and see what happens. I have almost as much expirience as you. I've been comming her since 2007. You think you know, but you really don't You act like know, but you really dont. I will wait and see.

Hypothetically, what if you are wrong?

[QUOTE="alfredooo"]

that's wha I'm saying, tho.

Since consoles couldn't render everything at once, I'm wondering if they will be able to make it NOT render everything at once, like a TES game.

Or do you guys see any other way around it?

AnnoyedDragon

It's not rendering, that's graphics; and the problem isn't graphics. Graphics are scalable, they can be scaled to suit a systems capabilities without impacting game play.

What cannot be scaled is game play impacting elements. You cannot reduce the number of rocks in a scene without changing how you move through that environment. You can reduce the polygons of the rocks, but less rocks means a different environmental experience.

Crysis didn't render everything on screen, or even store everything in memory. It stored the entire "core" level and then streamed individual assets, like if you encountered a tank later in the level; it wouldn't stream that tank into memory until it was needed. What storing the core level enabled is for the player's interactive range to be limited by natural factors, rather than a invisible wall that interactivity cannot pass.

By changing to cell streaming, you are placing interactive range restrictions to within the loaded surrounding cells. That changes the game play experience from the PC version, even if only subtly.

The method used by TES games is essentially just that, cell streaming. PC gamers often alter the cell streaming variables in TES games, to make the game better take advantage of their systems memory. The more cells you can load into memory, the greater the interactive distance. Problem is, most cross platform games are designed around what consoles can store in memory.

So you are saying is can be done.

Magic! Yes, I'm a true believer in magic. I don't claim to know everything or act like I do. Of course I am maintaining a wait and see approach. The game we are talking about hasn't been announced for consoles, so of course, I will wait and see what happens. I have almost as much expirience as you. I've been comming her since 2007. You think you know, but you really don't You act like know, but you really dont. I will wait and see.

Hypothetically, what if you are wrong?

15strong

Well if I'm wrong the universe may be in trouble, because it would mean that the laws of physics will have changed.

Can you pour that entire jug of water into that glass? Who knows, let's us wait and see if the glasses capacity magically increases...

So you are saying is can be done.

15strong

Can you store in console memory the same information that Crysis 1 storing in PC memory? No, it's impossible.

But if you reduce the amount of information you need to store? Yes. But then, you aren't storing the same information, you changed how much information can be accessed at any one time; and that changes the experience.

[QUOTE="BigBoss154"]That answer should obvious.Espereful

you need to realize that the crysis 2 on consoles run like that:

1152x720, 25-30fps, low settings, small fov, etc

and on my pc like that:

1920x1200, 60fps, high setings, large fov, etc

[QUOTE="15strong"]

I will still wait for confirmation. I have faith that they can pull it off. You can state it is impossible all you want, but you know less than the developers and the capabilites of cryengine 3. We'll see.

AnnoyedDragon

When I said 4+ years of SW experience in the above post, I wasn't joking. The reason I read more from a comment than what is actually said, is because they are arguments I have seen time and time before, often encompassing a range of mentalities; that they may not necessarily be expressing in that particular comment.

Remember my comments regarding "the magic of optimization"? Well, that's you right now.

Fitting Crysis sized levels into console memory without cutting them up into smaller; more manageable chunks is impossible. Read again, impossible. 256mb of ram can only hold 256mb of information at any one time, there is no way of changing that.

But as the above quote shows, you are maintaining a wait and see approaching, suggesting that I don't know what I am talking about; just because I'm not a developer.

You, believe in magic. You believe they will come up with some magical technique that will make console memory hold four times its specified capacity. You don't know or care how, you just "believe"...

[QUOTE="15strong"]

Magic! Yes, I'm a true believer in magic. I don't claim to know everything or act like I do. Of course I am maintaining a wait and see approach. The game we are talking about hasn't been announced for consoles, so of course, I will wait and see what happens. I have almost as much expirience as you. I've been comming her since 2007. You think you know, but you really don't You act like know, but you really dont. I will wait and see.

Hypothetically, what if you are wrong?

AnnoyedDragon

Well if I'm wrong the universe may be in trouble, because it would mean that the laws of physics will have changed.

Can you pour that entire jug of water into that glass? Who knows, let's us wait and see if the glasses capacity magically increases...

Serious quetsion. If crysis is brought onto consoles, how much do yout think would have to be changed?

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

[QUOTE="15strong"]

I will still wait for confirmation. I have faith that they can pull it off. You can state it is impossible all you want, but you know less than the developers and the capabilites of cryengine 3. We'll see.

Ravensmash

When I said 4+ years of SW experience in the above post, I wasn't joking. The reason I read more from a comment than what is actually said, is because they are arguments I have seen time and time before, often encompassing a range of mentalities; that they may not necessarily be expressing in that particular comment.

Remember my comments regarding "the magic of optimization"? Well, that's you right now.

Fitting Crysis sized levels into console memory without cutting them up into smaller; more manageable chunks is impossible. Read again, impossible. 256mb of ram can only hold 256mb of information at any one time, there is no way of changing that.

But as the above quote shows, you are maintaining a wait and see approaching, suggesting that I don't know what I am talking about; just because I'm not a developer.

You, believe in magic. You believe they will come up with some magical technique that will make console memory hold four times its specified capacity. You don't know or care how, you just "believe"...

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

[QUOTE="15strong"]

Magic! Yes, I'm a true believer in magic. I don't claim to know everything or act like I do. Of course I am maintaining a wait and see approach. The game we are talking about hasn't been announced for consoles, so of course, I will wait and see what happens. I have almost as much expirience as you. I've been comming her since 2007. You think you know, but you really don't You act like know, but you really dont. I will wait and see.

Hypothetically, what if you are wrong?

15strong

Well if I'm wrong the universe may be in trouble, because it would mean that the laws of physics will have changed.

Can you pour that entire jug of water into that glass? Who knows, let's us wait and see if the glasses capacity magically increases...

Serious quetsion. If crysis is brought onto consoles, how much do yout think would have to be changed?

Serious question. if crysis is brought onto consoles, what settings is going to be? low? medium? high? veryhigh? ultrahigh?

also what resolution? what fps? etc

I can only imagine it looking godawful due to map size.

His point still stands - all of this is speculation at the moment. You're right though Annoyed - you're not the developer, and you don't know the ins and outs of CryEngine 3. You have significant knowledge, but you aren't Crytek.Ravensmash

The problem here isn't me, it's people coming up with any excuse they can find to ignore reality.

Serious quetsion. If crysis is brought onto consoles, how much do yout think would have to be changed?

15strong

Your interactive range will be reduced to the immediate area, which would likely affect the pacing of the game, with certain areas not being interactive until the player gets closer. For example, when you look over the cliff edge at the villege with the hostage, it is unlikely you can interact with the village at that range.

Which most console gamers are unlikely to notice, given they are used to console scale interactivity; and haven't played the PC version for comparison.

But that's not the point. People can always downplay/exaggerate the significance of changes, it's whether there would be changes outside of just scaling down the graphics that is being debated.

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

[QUOTE="15strong"]

Magic! Yes, I'm a true believer in magic. I don't claim to know everything or act like I do. Of course I am maintaining a wait and see approach. The game we are talking about hasn't been announced for consoles, so of course, I will wait and see what happens. I have almost as much expirience as you. I've been comming her since 2007. You think you know, but you really don't You act like know, but you really dont. I will wait and see.

Hypothetically, what if you are wrong?

15strong

Well if I'm wrong the universe may be in trouble, because it would mean that the laws of physics will have changed.

Can you pour that entire jug of water into that glass? Who knows, let's us wait and see if the glasses capacity magically increases...

Serious quetsion. If crysis is brought onto consoles, how much do yout think would have to be changed?

Actually since the CryEngine 3 is built for the consoles, they have developed tons of streaming technologies to make up for the lack of ram. Remember that the CryEngine 3 wasn't just for Crysis 2, it was meant for any type of video game.

I wouldn't be suprised if they could get Crysis to run on the PS3 and 360 and still keep a lot of graphical things.

You forget, they showed off the first level of Crysis 1 in the CryEngine 3 on a console during an early tech demo. I think that Crytek knows what they are doing.

Actually since the CryEngine 3 is built for the consoles, they have developed tons of streaming technologies to make up for the lack of ram. Remember that the CryEngine 3 wasn't just for Crysis 2, it was meant for any type of video game.

I wouldn't be suprised if they could get Crysis to run on the PS3 and 360 and still keep a lot of graphical things.

You forget, they showed off the first level of Crysis 1 in the CryEngine 3 on a console during an early tech demo. I think that Crytek knows what they are doing.

Wasdie

Which looks like this.

Remember, it's not whether they can change Crysis 1 enough to work on consoles that is being debated. It's the people who think they can run it on consoles by just scaling the graphics down...

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Actually since the CryEngine 3 is built for the consoles, they have developed tons of streaming technologies to make up for the lack of ram. Remember that the CryEngine 3 wasn't just for Crysis 2, it was meant for any type of video game.

I wouldn't be suprised if they could get Crysis to run on the PS3 and 360 and still keep a lot of graphical things.

You forget, they showed off the first level of Crysis 1 in the CryEngine 3 on a console during an early tech demo. I think that Crytek knows what they are doing.

AnnoyedDragon

Which looks like this.

Remember, it's not whether they can change Crysis 1 enough to work on consoles that is being debated. It's the people who think they can run it on consoles by just scaling the graphics down...

From that picture it looks like they can. They just removed some of the extra foliage that didn't effect gameplay at all and the colors are different. Same landscape though.

Really it looks very similar if you account for the LoD draw distance. I'll guarentee you that all of those trees are there in the distance, you just can't see them. Which isn't a big problem, seeing that in Crysis, the enemies didn't pop in at that distance either.

From that picture it looks like they can. They just removed some of the extra foliage that didn't effect gameplay at all and the colors are different. Same landscape though.

Really it looks very similar if you account for the LoD draw distance. I'll guarentee you that all of those trees are there in the distance, you just can't see them. Which isn't a big problem, seeing that in Crysis, the enemies didn't pop in at that distance either.

Wasdie

First off, it's using cell streaming, they didn't just scale the graphics to get it working on consoles. Secondly, they did a lot more than just reduce the foliage.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

From that picture it looks like they can. They just removed some of the extra foliage that didn't effect gameplay at all and the colors are different. Same landscape though.

Really it looks very similar if you account for the LoD draw distance. I'll guarentee you that all of those trees are there in the distance, you just can't see them. Which isn't a big problem, seeing that in Crysis, the enemies didn't pop in at that distance either.

AnnoyedDragon

First off, it's using cell streaming, they didn't just scale the graphics to get it working on consoles. Secondly, they did a lot more than just reduce the foliage.

Yeah they took it at a different angle and it's cloudy out...

That´s cool(if true) for the folk that never got the chance to play it on the PC.

And lol at the attempts at ownage over a supposed port of a four year old game.

Yeah they took it at a different angle and it's cloudy out...

Wasdie

No... just no...

I've had to repeat myself almost every page, never mind the years of repeating myself prior. I'm not going to argue with someone who can look at those two images, and say the only difference is less foliage and different coloured lighting... Plus, suggesting that they only had to reduce the graphics, when we know Crytek converted the engine to cell streaming for console compatibility.

It could happen. Dont plan on buying it though, i will be busy with BF3

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Yeah they took it at a different angle and it's cloudy out...

AnnoyedDragon

No... just no...

I've had to repeat myself almost every page, never mind the years of repeating myself prior. I'm not going to argue with someone who can look at those two images, and say the only difference is less foliage and different coloured lighting... Plus, suggesting that they only had to reduce the graphics, when we know Crytek converted the engine to cell streaming for console compatibility.

Unless you insist on playing the majority of the game through a sniper scope, it isn't going to affect gameplay that much.

The only other instance I can think of where cell streaming would matter is near the beginning, where if a patrol boat gets away, they'll go grab reinforcements from the other side of the map.

Unless you insist on playing the majority of the game through a sniper scope, it isn't going to affect gameplay that much.

The only other instance I can think of where cell streaming would matter is near the beginning, where if a patrol boat gets away, they'll go grab reinforcements from the other side of the map.

topgunmv

"But that's not the point. People can always downplay/exaggerate the significance of changes, it's whether there would be changes outside of just scaling down the graphics that is being debated."

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

Unless you insist on playing the majority of the game through a sniper scope, it isn't going to affect gameplay that much.

The only other instance I can think of where cell streaming would matter is near the beginning, where if a patrol boat gets away, they'll go grab reinforcements from the other side of the map.

AnnoyedDragon

"But that's not the point. People can always downplay/exaggerate the significance of changes, it's whether there would be changes outside of just scaling down the graphics that is being debated."

What topgunmv said doesn't seem to affect gameplay that much either.Ravensmash

Did you read my quote? I said people's attempts to downplay or exaggerate the impact to game play isn't relevant to the discussion. Because, and the repetition is getting irritating, the claim is only graphical elements would be impacted by a console port. It's not how much of a impact there would be, it's whether or not there would be a impact.

[QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"]Yeah they would have to change the rendering technique, but it's not exactly GTA IV. It's mostly repetitive environments and enemies look the same, empty areas every now and then you see like 6 dudes, AI is nothing special.AnnoyedDragon

How many times does it have to be said? It has nothing to do with graphics.

You cannot just scale the visuals down, and fit 600mb worth of level assets into 256mb of ram.

Why couldn't they just make the game load at checkpoints strewn throughout the levels so that it doesn't have to render the entire island all at once?

Why couldn't they just make the game load at checkpoints strewn throughout the levels so that it doesn't have to render the entire island all at once?

PurpleMan5000

I've said on almost every page of this thread. Rendering isn't the problem because graphics are scalable, the problem is the none scalable elements that take advantage of PC resources.

Read my comment at the top of page 7.