Rumor: Original Crysis Bound for Xbox 360?

we saw it in crysis 2, im sure they can deliver again. crytek is a very good developer.Espereful

Saw what? A game that looks slightly better than the best looking console games, yet struggles in the execution with periods of poor framerate? That, my friend, is where you are offsetting one thing for another - in this case, graphical fidelity for performance.

Crysis 2 looks damn good, but has sever issues due to it (or what we can safely assume is due to it).

Someone obviously doesn't understand the topic, or doesn't read. ChubbyGuy40

crysis 2 was well received by gaming critics so they obviously did something right. lolEspereful

So is every CoD, but Activision gives reviewers paid vacations to review the game. That's why it earns a good score.

It's not our fault some review websites didn't have a PC good enough to play the original Crysis and downrated because of that.

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]Someone obviously doesn't understand the topic, or doesn't read. Espereful

If Crysis was on console it's have Far Cry level graphics.

Remember the massive Crysis 2 leak? It included a the fully functional SDK of CE3. Someone imported the first level of Crysis onto it and tried running it off the 360. Couldn't even load half the game and there were many missing materials. Not to mention it chugged like a mo-fo.

So is every CoD, but Activision gives reviewers paid vacations to review the game. That's why it earns a good scoreChubbyGuy40

[QUOTE="Hatiko"]Please tell me how they are going to overcome the RAM limitation by understanding the architecture better. Espereful

But the whole point of crysis was having the whole island just there. I mean, it doesn't matter that much, but why didn't they do that way back when crysis was first done? They used RAM limitations as an excuse when they could have just done that.

i hope youre jokingEspereful

I'm not.

[QUOTE="Ravensmash"] Well it's now on the ESRB site too - http://www.esrb.org/ratings/search.jsp?title=crysisAnnoyedDragon

What I said in 2007 is still valid now.

A direct port of Crysis is impossible. A console port would have to be converted into a cell streaming memory management model, which would dramaticly shrink the scale of the game play experience; to whatever will fit in consoles memory. Changing the core game from its original experience, despite any efforts made to maintain a similar visual experience.

This point is usually followed with people questioning the value of anything consoles cannot do, usually until consoles can do it; and it suddenly matters. Whether or not you think large scale environments are of any value, it is a intended part of the Crysis 1 experience, as reinforced by the head of Crytek himself.

Consoles cannot duplicate what Crysis 1 did on PC, and I'm not just referring to visuals. Usually the desire to see Crysis 1 on consoles in SW is meant as a jab at the PC crowd; rather than a genuine desire. People want to believe consoles can do anything a modern PC can, and they don't care about the details; so long as they can see a game called Crysis 1 on 360/PS3.

Brillianty articulated. This should end this thread.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="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.

magnax1

Nah, it cold probably run on medium mixed with low at 720p while rarely dropping below 30 fps. Remember, the 360 has a 1950 with modifications based on the Radeon 3000 series. So even by today's standards, that's an okay GPU. The only real issue would be the game would be limited ram, but in terms of graphics the 360 could run Crysis pretty well.

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

[QUOTE="Ravensmash"] Well it's now on the ESRB site too - http://www.esrb.org/ratings/search.jsp?title=crysisnunovlopes

What I said in 2007 is still valid now.

A direct port of Crysis is impossible. A console port would have to be converted into a cell streaming memory management model, which would dramaticly shrink the scale of the game play experience; to whatever will fit in consoles memory. Changing the core game from its original experience, despite any efforts made to maintain a similar visual experience.

This point is usually followed with people questioning the value of anything consoles cannot do, usually until consoles can do it; and it suddenly matters. Whether or not you think large scale environments are of any value, it is a intended part of the Crysis 1 experience, as reinforced by the head of Crytek himself.

Consoles cannot duplicate what Crysis 1 did on PC, and I'm not just referring to visuals. Usually the desire to see Crysis 1 on consoles in SW is meant as a jab at the PC crowd; rather than a genuine desire. People want to believe consoles can do anything a modern PC can, and they don't care about the details; so long as they can see a game called Crysis 1 on 360/PS3.

Brillianty articulated. This should end this thread.

hehe Crysis 2 did end up taking 4 years :lol:

Really it's not a problem of the hardware. I ran Crysis with hardware very similar to the PS3. It has no RAM, that's the problem. I've always said Crysis should come to consoles....NEXT-GEN consoles. If the Wii-U does end up having 2GB of RAM then hopefully it'll be ported over.

[QUOTE="lawlessx"][QUOTE="15strong"]

Annoyed Dragon just stated it was impossible.

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

15strong

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.

Ok, it goes like this.

Do you remember what happened in Far Cry 2 when you returned to an area you had previously cleared? Enemies respawned. And in GTA 4 suppose you're causing mayhem in a part of the city, destroying cars, etc. When you come back later it's as if nothing happened (I never played GTA4 but I think this is what happens). The reason those things happen is because maps are not fully loaded in memory, only the cell you're in is loaded in memory. When you move to a different cell the game persists some of the things you did on the previous cell but it can't possibly persist everything, so you get these situations.

Nothing like that happens in Crysis. When the map loads it loads entirely into memory. Whatever you do will remembered by the game throughout the entire time you spend on that map. Say you blow up some huts, kill some Koreans, leave a couple of weapons on the floor, raise an alarm and leave. If you come back 1 hour later everything is like you left it.

Another example. In Oblivion, you have a big draw distance but what you see in the distance is empty, nothing is loaded over there. In Crysis, if you look into the far distance with binoculars you'll realize there are guys over there. If you're able to shoot a rocket you will kill them. In Crysis, the world exists independently of you. In those other games, the world revolves around you, nothing exists beyond your immediate vicinity.

[QUOTE="Espereful"] i hope youre jokingChubbyGuy40

I'm not.

But the whole point of crysis was having the whole island just there. I mean, it doesn't matter that much, but why didn't they do that way back when crysis was first done? They used RAM limitations as an excuse when they could have just done that. Hatiko

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"] It'll do low and maybe below 1280x720 unless they sacrifice more due to how the game is programmed.

mitu123

Nah, it cold probably run on medium mixed with low at 720p while rarely dropping below 30 fps. Remember, the 360 has a 1950 with modifications based on the Radeon 3000 series. So even by today's standards, that's an okay GPU. The only real issue would be the game would be limited ram, but in terms of graphics the 360 could run Crysis pretty well.

Maybe textures would be low because of limited ram, but everything else would be high or medium. Hell a PC with a 1950 can do that, so it'd be quite stupid to think that a much better optimized console with improvements on the 1950 couldn't.

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

[QUOTE="Espereful"] i hope youre jokingEspereful

I'm not.

Over 30 outlets. Logic would point to all the most-known ones. It's true though so you can't argue with that they were bribed for the score.

Maybe textures would be low because of limited ram, but everything else would be high or medium. Hell a PC with a 1950 can do that, so it'd be quite stupid to think that a much better optimized console with improvements on the 1950 couldn't.

magnax1

Textures are already low-res even on high/very high. They're just very good textures.

Half of the game, especially after the ice storm, would be unplayable. When I had an 8800GT and played on a res similar to 720p, I had to turn everything to low and turn off my AA to make it playable.

because maybe they didnt know if it would be worth it. now after crysis 2 was pretty successful for them, why not bank on that?Espereful

Because in Crysis 1 there's stuff going on everywhere. The point was to make it seem like the island was alive.

And Crysis has sold more than Crysis 2 at this point. Crysis and Warhead are over 5 million on PC alone. Crysis 2 has about 2 mil+ across all platforms. Why not bank on what was working and what the fans wanted?

[QUOTE="Macutchi"]

dont believe its true but i was impressed with how good the 360 crysis 2 ran technically, for me its the best lookin game on the system, so maybe they could pull it off... don't know why they'd bother though tbh

SajuukSW

didnt for me so... yes

I don't know about the 360, but again, I'm positive the PS3 could run it and it would look as good as the PC. Killzone 3 already looks better than Crysis.hoogiewumpus

Over 30 outlets. Logic would point to all the most-known ones. It's true though so you can't argue with that they were bribed for the score. ChubbyGuy40

Maybe the MP will be good on XBL. :D xhawk27

I don't know about the 360, but again, I'm positive the PS3 could run it and it would look as good as the PC. Killzone 3 already looks better than Crysis.hoogiewumpus

No, it doesn't.

Killzone 3 already looks better than Crysis.hoogiewumpus

Because in Crysis 1 there's stuff going on everywhere. The point was to make it seem like the island was alive.And Crysis has sold more than Crysis 2 at this point. Crysis and Warhead are over 5 million on PC alone. Crysis 2 has about 2 mil+ across all platforms. Why not bank on what was working and what the fans wanted? ChubbyGuy40

I don't know about the 360, but again, I'm positive the PS3 could run it and it would look as good as the PC. Killzone 3 already looks better than Crysis.hoogiewumpus

you sound like the same PS3 fanboys ranting BF3 didnt look as good on PS3 as PC and making out like the PS3 was more powerful, the power of teh super perfect cell?

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]Over 30 outlets. Logic would point to all the most-known ones. It's true though so you can't argue with that they were bribed for the score. Espereful

Does it matter? Activision clearly feels the need to bribe reviewers because the game isn't good enough on it's own to receive high-scores.

no idea, maybe they were busy working on the new engine and didnt know if it would work for it back then. now after crysis 2, they think theyre up to the task. its all about money money moneyEspereful

They made CE3 to cater to console development, and to be a competitor to UDK. You can't argue with the facts though. There's memory limitations that wouldn't make it the same. Crysis 2 had dramatically smaller levels that, when zoomed out, had the structure of a multiplayer map as CSS. (Someone already posted a picture of it, but I'm not saying it looks as old as it. I'm talking about design comparison.)

Of course it's all about money. Too bad they couldn't create something that was at least close to being on par to the original. I don't care anymore, because now they're catering to MS pretty much.

Does it matter? Activision clearly feels the need to bribe reviewers because the game isn't good enough on it's own to receive high-scores.They made CE3 to cater to console development, and to be a competitor to UDK. You can't argue with the facts though. There's memory limitations that wouldn't make it the same. Crysis 2 had dramatically smaller levels that, when zoomed out, had the structure of a multiplayer map as CSS. (Someone already posted a picture of it, but I'm not saying it looks as old as it. I'm talking about design comparison.) Of course it's all about money. Too bad they couldn't create something that was at least close to being on par to the original. I don't care anymore, because now they're catering to MS pretty much. ChubbyGuy40

[QUOTE="hoogiewumpus"]I don't know about the 360, but again, I'm positive the PS3 could run it and it would look as good as the PC. Killzone 3 already looks better than Crysis.HaloinventedFPS

you sound like the same PS3 fanboys ranting BF3 didnt look as good on PS3 as PC and making out like the PS3 was more powerful, the power of teh super perfect cell?

[QUOTE="HaloinventedFPS"]

[QUOTE="hoogiewumpus"]I don't know about the 360, but again, I'm positive the PS3 could run it and it would look as good as the PC. Killzone 3 already looks better than Crysis.hoogiewumpus

you sound like the same PS3 fanboys ranting BF3 didnt look as good on PS3 as PC and making out like the PS3 was more powerful, the power of teh super perfect cell?

Why mock the cell? It's more powerful than most PC CPUs.

hoogiewumpus

Please show, and explain how.

Oh, and BF3 footage proves that it DOES look as good on the PS3. The only inferior version is the 360.hoogiewumpus

It shows inferior textures, lighting, resolution and will have lower FPS. So, no, it does not look "as good".

Crysis 1 and 2 dual pack inbound?! :o

[QUOTE="hoogiewumpus"]Why mock the cell? It's more powerful than most PC CPUs.

lundy86_4

Please show, and explain how.

Oh, and BF3 footage proves that it DOES look as good on the PS3. The only inferior version is the 360.hoogiewumpus

It shows inferior textures, lighting, resolution and will have lower FPS. So, no, it does not look "as good".

yet struggles in the execution with periods of poor framerate? lundy86_4

Optimization can REDUCE the amount of memory used by a given asset, it cannot INCREASE the maximum capacity of the hardware. AnnoyedDragon

Remake it on PC to, with DX11, and extended/reworked ending levels, more alien variety.

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

[QUOTE="hoogiewumpus"]

Please show, and explain how.

[QUOTE="hoogiewumpus"] Oh, and BF3 footage proves that it DOES look as good on the PS3. The only inferior version is the 360.hoogiewumpus

It shows inferior textures, lighting, resolution and will have lower FPS. So, no, it does not look "as good".

Remake it on PC to, with DX11, and extended/reworked ending levels, more alien variety.

AAllxxjjnn

Seriously? It's got 7 CPUs running at 3.2 ghz. Good luck finding a CPU that powerful in your computer. And it doesn't need as much ram because it doesn't run an OS and has such a beastly CPU, so don't use the RAM argument. BF3 does look as good. I've seen the footage. There is no way what you're saying is true. It just isn't. Hermits swear up and down that the PC version is superior and my own two eyes tell me it's not. hoogiewumpus

No, it does not. There are many people on this board with a much better understanding of CPU's who will likely disagree with you.

You have failed to show anything beyond your lack of understanding. I asked you to prove how it is better, you've simply stated something that isn't entirely accurate. Again, I will await proof.

It does need more RAM, and it runs a form a firmware which does us RAM (though the footprint has been reduced). You don't seem to actually understand that you have to store things within that memory for the CPU/GPU to utilize, and when you limit the RAM... Well...

um, wouldnt that mean the other 70+ reviews would showcase the game being not good enough? theres ways to fix the limitations.Espereful

Who says they wern't given extras too? This isn't the first time it's happened.

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"] My point is that the console version is equivalent to the pc version on low settings. Also Crysis 2 it didn't impress me graphically when i play it on my pc with 1920x1200, 60fps, high settings, large fov, etc and now you saying that on consoles "1152x720, 25-30fps, low settings, small fov looks great :? Espereful

so you are saying that low and max settings are the same? if is that the case then why on max settings(DX9) it has better lighting, SSAO, HDR, more objects, more view distance, and more detail generally compare to low setting(that consoles use) and also performance hit as expected?

just face the facts

consoles version - 1152x720, 25-30fps, low settings(worst lighting, less objects, less view distance, small fov, and less detail generally)

Pc version - 1920x1200, 60fps, high settings(better lighting SSAO HDR, more objects, more view distance, large fov, and more detail generally)

as you can see massive differences.

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

[QUOTE="hoogiewumpus"]

Please show, and explain how.

[QUOTE="hoogiewumpus"] Oh, and BF3 footage proves that it DOES look as good on the PS3. The only inferior version is the 360.hoogiewumpus

It shows inferior textures, lighting, resolution and will have lower FPS. So, no, it does not look "as good".

Doesn't work that way Mr. Tech-Illterate.

[QUOTE="hoogiewumpus"]Seriously? It's got 7 CPUs running at 3.2 ghz. Good luck finding a CPU that powerful in your computer. And it doesn't need as much ram because it doesn't run an OS and has such a beastly CPU, so don't use the RAM argument. BF3 does look as good. I've seen the footage. There is no way what you're saying is true. It just isn't. Hermits swear up and down that the PC version is superior and my own two eyes tell me it's not. lundy86_4

No, it does not. There are many people on this board with a much better understanding of CPU's who will likely disagree with you.

You have failed to show anything beyond your lack of understanding. I asked you to prove how it is better, you've simply stated something that isn't entirely accurate. Again, I will await proof.

It does need more RAM, and it runs a form a firmware which does us RAM (though the footprint has been reduced). You don't seem to actually understand that you have to store things within that memory for the CPU/GPU to utilize, and when you limit the RAM... Well...

[QUOTE="AAllxxjjnn"]

Remake it on PC to, with DX11, and extended/reworked ending levels, more alien variety.

Espereful

I'd buy it for 60. I still get replay value out of Crysis. It would be worth it.

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]Optimization can REDUCE the amount of memory used by a given asset, it cannot INCREASE the maximum capacity of the hardware. Espereful

There's always a limitation, but there's a point where it starts changing the game. Optimization isn't some magic tool developers can use an infinite amount of times to get it to run on anything. If that was true, we'd still be using Pong hardware.

you dont need to increase the maximum capacity. you work with what you got and then optimize furtherEspereful

I spent enough time trying to explain why optimization wasn't magic earlier in this thread, that you cannot get more than the hardware's maximum capability through code. But they just ignored that on the basis that it was more convenient for their arguments to ignore reality, so I don't see any point in repeating history in the same day with you.

so you are saying that low and max settings are the same? if is that the case then why on max settings(DX9) it has better lighting, SSAO, HDR, more objects, more view distance, and more detail generally compare to low setting(that consoles use) and also performance hit as expected? just face the facts consoles version - 1152x720, 25-30fps, low settings(worst lighting, less objects, less view distance, small fov, and less detail generally) Pc version - 1920x1200, 60fps, high settings(better lighting SSAO HDR, more objects, more view distance, large fov, and more detail generally) as you can see massive differences.MK-Professor