Rumor: Original Crysis Bound for Xbox 360?

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

[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. 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...

You've shown no proof except the proof that you're a PS3 fanboy and have no idea what you're talking about. It uses less because it uses a different API (It still has an OS) and it has an extremely weak CPU. BF3 on PS3 doesn't come close to the PC version. You just mad you don't have a gaming PC. Of course you don't see it. Take off the blinders but if you do, then you're no longer a cow and therefor see the truth. And we just can't have that now can we?

so I don't see any point in repeating history in the same day with you. AnnoyedDragon

[QUOTE="hoogiewumpus"][QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

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

mitu123

no, i said basically the same. as in little difference.which was one of the main complaints every leveied at the game is that there is basically little difference between the settings. lol i did face the fact, the fact that the console version looks great. lolEspereful

Of course there is little difference. It was built for the 360 afterall then ported to PC and PS3. Now that they released a graphics patch, it looks way better again but still doesn't match Crysis 1.

Of course there is little difference. It was built for the 360 afterall then ported to PC and PS3. Now that they released a graphics patch, it looks way better again but still doesn't match Crysis 1 ChubbyGuy40

[QUOTE="Espereful"]no, i said basically the same. as in little difference.which was one of the main complaints every leveied at the game is that there is basically little difference between the settings. lol i did face the fact, the fact that the console version looks great. lolChubbyGuy40

Of course there is little difference. It was built for the 360 afterall then ported to PC and PS3. Now that they released a graphics patch, it looks way better again but still doesn't match Crysis 1.

Crysis 2's problem was it was one of the laziest console ports that I have seen in the last couple of years.

Art assets make up the majority of what you see on screen, with shaders just being a additional layer on top of them improving the scene. Crysis 2 took the same art assets from consoles, and used them on all three PC settings. As in it didn't matter whether you was running it on low or high, you stared at console art assets at all three settings.

Not only will that significantly reduce the visible difference between the three settings, but it's some of the laziest porting I have seen in a long time. You could pretty much make most of what consisted of Crysis 2's scalability by editing engine config files.

It really took me by complete surprise to see Crytek pull such a stunt, most console ports have art asset scalability, and here was a PC company that didn't bother.

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

[QUOTE="Espereful"]no, i said basically the same. as in little difference.which was one of the main complaints every leveied at the game is that there is basically little difference between the settings. lol i did face the fact, the fact that the console version looks great. lolAnnoyedDragon

Of course there is little difference. It was built for the 360 afterall then ported to PC and PS3. Now that they released a graphics patch, it looks way better again but still doesn't match Crysis 1.

Crysis 2's problem was it was one of the laziest console ports that I have seen in the last couple of years.

Art assets make up the majority of what you see on screen, with shaders just being a additional layer on top of them improving the scene. Crysis 2 took the same art assets from consoles, and used them on all three PC settings. As in it didn't matter whether you was running it on low or high, you stared at console art assets at all three settings.

Not only will that significantly reduce the visible difference between the three settings, but it's some of the laziest porting I have seen in a long time. You could pretty much make most of what consisted of Crysis 2's scalability by editing engine config files.

Ugh don't remind me. I remember playing around with the leaked editor and man what a disappointment. From low to high it all was the same. Values never changed. Even the 360 uses mostly "high/extreme" of what the PC has. Same with PS3.

At least it ran well....no wait not as good as it should on low end hardware. I could max Crysis at 720p with my old 8800GT and dual-core AMD. Crysis 2 gets black screens and crashes on low settings, not to mention it runs like ****.

Ugh don't remind me. I remember playing around with the leaked editor and man what a disappointment. From low to high it all was the same. Values never changed. Even the 360 uses mostly "high/extreme" of what the PC has. Same with PS3.

At least it ran well....no wait not as good as it should on low end hardware. I could max Crysis at 720p with my old 8800GT and dual-core AMD. Crysis 2 gets black screens and crashes on low settings, not to mention it runs like ****.

ChubbyGuy40

I see a lot of people claim it is better optimized.

At least with Crysis 1, I could see what was killing my frame rate. When I gave Crysis 2 a go, I watched my frame rate near half when maxing the settings, but it looked barely any different from minimum. It's like sacrificing half your frame rate for a 10% visual improvement, and I use the word improvement vaguely. What's embarrising about the so called DX11 patch, is some features it added already existed in Crysis 1 back in 2007, like parallax occlusion mapping. They're going to call parallax occlusion mapping a DX11 feature in Crysis 2, when Crysis 1 was doing it in DX9?

I personal detest blurry visuals, Crysis's visual clarity is part of what I appreciated from its graphics. Then comes along Crysis 2, that makes Blurzone 2 look clear. It's like Crytek thought if they blurred the image enough, people wouldn't notice how crappy its art assets were. It's as efficient for hiding visual imperfections as a tactical nuke for killing a mosquito, you're destroying the games overall image clarity to hide the fact that the fine details are bad. People argue Crysis 1's art assets weren't that good either, but it was done at a considerably larger scale. What's the excuse of a corridor shooter for having such terrible textures?

Textures are the foundations of graphics, they paint everything on screen. All the shaders in the world cannot make up for a muddy texture, but a sharp high detail texture let's you do less shader work for a better visual result. You don't need normal mapping to add fine details; when the fine details are already in the texture, so you can actually save performance in other areas by using better foundations. PC is a memory rich environment, but Crysis 2 was clearly designed for consoles memory constrained environment.

You can see the difference in approach in this comparison. In Crysis 1, all the fine facial details are stored in the characters facial texture. In Crysis 2, they have a low resolution facial texture; with a plasticy normal map adding finer detail. This is a stereotypical memory light console approach, transferring the work of detailing the face from memory (textures) to shaders (mapping).

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

Ugh don't remind me. I remember playing around with the leaked editor and man what a disappointment. From low to high it all was the same. Values never changed. Even the 360 uses mostly "high/extreme" of what the PC has. Same with PS3.

At least it ran well....no wait not as good as it should on low end hardware. I could max Crysis at 720p with my old 8800GT and dual-core AMD. Crysis 2 gets black screens and crashes on low settings, not to mention it runs like ****.

AnnoyedDragon

I see a lot of people claim it is better optimized.

At least with Crysis 1, I could see what was killing my frame rate. When I gave Crysis 2 a go, I watched my frame rate near half when maxing the settings, but it looked barely any different from minimum. It's like sacrificing half your frame rate for a 10% visual improvement, and I use the word improvement vaguely. What's embarrising about the so called DX11 patch, is some features it added already existed in Crysis 1 back in 2007, like parallax occlusion mapping. They're going to call parallax occlusion mapping a DX11 feature in Crysis 2, when Crysis 1 was doing it in DX9?

I personal detest blurry visuals, Crysis's visual clarity is part of what I appreciated from its graphics. Then comes along Crysis 2, that makes Blurzone 2 look clear. It's like Crytek thought if they blurred the image enough, people wouldn't notice how crappy its art assets were. It's as efficient for hiding visual imperfections as a tactical nuke for killing a mosquito, you're destroying the games overall image clarity to hide the fact that the fine details are bad. People argue Crysis 1's art assets weren't that good either, but it was done at a considerably larger scale. What's the excuse of a corridor shooter for having such terrible textures?

Textures are the foundations of graphics, they paint everything on screen. All the shaders in the world cannot make up for a muddy texture, but a sharp high detail texture let's you do less shader work for a better visual result. You don't need normal mapping to add fine details; when the fine details are already in the texture, so you can actually save performance in other areas by using better foundations. PC is a memory rich environment, but Crysis 2 was clearly designed for consoles memory constrained environment.

You can see the difference in approach in this comparison. In Crysis 1, all the fine facial details are stored in the characters facial texture. In Crysis 2, they have a low resolution facial texture; with a plasticy normal map adding finer detail. This is a stereotypical memory light console approach, transferring the work of detailing the face from memory (textures) to shaders (mapping).

Supposedly the dx11 patch remedies all those graphical issues.

Supposedly the dx11 patch remedies all those graphical issues.

topgunmv

Not from the comparisons I've seen. Considering the texture pack is supposed to require 1GB of Vram, the improvement is so subtle it's laughable. Signs seem to have received the biggest improvement, but for the most part; it's a very mild improvement that's difficult to see. Tessellation is the biggest improvement, but I have to wonder if normal mapping couldn't just do the same job for better performance on the walls. And as I said earlier, we already had parallax before in Crysis 1, they just gave it back.

The problem with upgrading a console game; is it's designed with the console environment in mind. You are just padding out a console port, which wasn't designed with the PC environment in the first place. So even if you improve the facial detail, they are still using the normal map approach, which wouldn't be there if it was PC exclusive. Even if you improve the environmental textures, they were still designed to be viewed at 720p on the other side of the room. The improvements are rarely anywhere near as good as if it was PC native to begin with.

The modding community could probably do a better job making it look better on PC quite frankly, and it would probably perform better as well.

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

Ugh don't remind me. I remember playing around with the leaked editor and man what a disappointment. From low to high it all was the same. Values never changed. Even the 360 uses mostly "high/extreme" of what the PC has. Same with PS3.

At least it ran well....no wait not as good as it should on low end hardware. I could max Crysis at 720p with my old 8800GT and dual-core AMD. Crysis 2 gets black screens and crashes on low settings, not to mention it runs like ****.

AnnoyedDragon

I see a lot of people claim it is better optimized.

At least with Crysis 1, I could see what was killing my frame rate. When I gave Crysis 2 a go, I watched my frame rate near half when maxing the settings, but it looked barely any different from minimum. It's like sacrificing half your frame rate for a 10% visual improvement, and I use the word improvement vaguely. What's embarrising about the so called DX11 patch, is some features it added already existed in Crysis 1 back in 2007, like parallax occlusion mapping. They're going to call parallax occlusion mapping a DX11 feature in Crysis 2, when Crysis 1 was doing it in DX9?

I personal detest blurry visuals, Crysis's visual clarity is part of what I appreciated from its graphics. Then comes along Crysis 2, that makes Blurzone 2 look clear. It's like Crytek thought if they blurred the image enough, people wouldn't notice how crappy its art assets were. It's as efficient for hiding visual imperfections as a tactical nuke for killing a mosquito, you're destroying the games overall image clarity to hide the fact that the fine details are bad. People argue Crysis 1's art assets weren't that good either, but it was done at a considerably larger scale. What's the excuse of a corridor shooter for having such terrible textures?

Textures are the foundations of graphics, they paint everything on screen. All the shaders in the world cannot make up for a muddy texture, but a sharp high detail texture let's you do less shader work for a better visual result. You don't need normal mapping to add fine details; when the fine details are already in the texture, so you can actually save performance in other areas by using better foundations. PC is a memory rich environment, but Crysis 2 was clearly designed for consoles memory constrained environment.

You can see the difference in approach in this comparison. In Crysis 1, all the fine facial details are stored in the characters facial texture. In Crysis 2, they have a low resolution facial texture; with a plasticy normal map adding finer detail. This is a stereotypical memory light console approach, transferring the work of detailing the face from memory (textures) to shaders (mapping).

I can't say it's better optimized, because there's not nearly as much going on. And because for a reason I already stated.

The DX11 "features" are a joke, especially the water shaders and rendering. It's still done best in Crysis 1. Man is it fun playing with the waves in the editor.

I hate blur with a passion. It's why I hate consoles because all the high-end games use it to hide crappy visuals. When KZ2 and KZ3 have their blur effects off, the game looks like something from 2005. EVERY TIME Drake moves in UC2, he's blurred. In L4D2 I can't even turn off the blur! In Crysis 2 I had to use Wasdie's editor to get rid of the blur. Now with the new patch it reset my cvar and the blur is back. It's hard to play the game after awhile. Even in games like The Witcher 2 I completely turn it off.

The only thing I remember bad about Crysis 1's textures were the rocks and the Nanosuit. Even DNF has better rock textures.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="hoogiewumpus"] Seriously? It's got 7 CPUs running at 3.2 ghz. Good luck finding a CPU that powerful in your computer. xhawk27

Sorry if already mentioned, but according to IGN it's slated for both 360 and PS3. I'd place a link but I'm not in position to do so right now. Look it up though, it's on IGN's first page.incuensuocha

ESRB has it listed for PC, 360, and PS3. I really hope this isn't true and it's some kind of f'up.

ESRB has it listed for PC, 360, and PS3. I really hope this isn't true and it's some kind of f'up.

ChubbyGuy40

To be fair, it's not like such a event would make Crysis any worse. Crysis 2 is already the most consolized PC game I have seen recently, and Crysis 1 being turned into Crysis Instincts won't affect the original game.

We all remember what crysis looked like on low right?? :P I don't know how they will manage to make the game look any way decent on consoles. For me crysis 1 is all about the eye candy. Its a good game fundamentally too, but man I stared at that game for ages.

[QUOTE="incuensuocha"]Sorry if already mentioned, but according to IGN it's slated for both 360 and PS3. I'd place a link but I'm not in position to do so right now. Look it up though, it's on IGN's first page.ChubbyGuy40

ESRB has it listed for PC, 360, and PS3. I really hope this isn't true and it's some kind of f'up.

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

[QUOTE="incuensuocha"]Sorry if already mentioned, but according to IGN it's slated for both 360 and PS3. I'd place a link but I'm not in position to do so right now. Look it up though, it's on IGN's first page.incuensuocha

ESRB has it listed for PC, 360, and PS3. I really hope this isn't true and it's some kind of f'up.

Even I'm not mean enough to do that to consumers. They should just wait until next gen and release it on the Wii-U so it won't suffer from downgrades.

[QUOTE="incuensuocha"][QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

ESRB has it listed for PC, 360, and PS3. I really hope this isn't true and it's some kind of f'up.

ChubbyGuy40

Even I'm not mean enough to do that to consumers. They should just wait until next gen and release it on the Wii-U so it won't suffer from downgrades.

Yep. Why sacrifice the quality of the games best facet? The big talk about crysis is the graphics. Which won't come to full fruition on consoles.

I never played Crysis 1 so it coming to consoles is good news.

I never played Crysis 1 so it coming to consoles is good news.

HaloPimp978

Its great news for people who want to experience the gameplay and story. But not great graphics wise

"Update: South Korean game site Inven apparently contacted EA Korea, who supposedly confirmed the Xbox 360 version of Crysis, adding that the release date was TBA." Yaaaay! It's good to be a 360 owner right now. I've always wanted to play that game, but I couldn't be bothered to upgrade my pc.001011000101101

Lol,that's all i'm going to say.

I've showed you proof. I gave the statistics. I understand things perfectly fine. And the proof is in teh games that get pumped out. KZ3 and UC2 are the best looking games, period. hoogiewumpus

You haven't given proof :? You didn't explain how the SPE's were in no way the same as core's on a regular PC CPU, and thus non-comparable.

No they are not. Many PC games have higher resolutions, better textures and are overall better looking than UC2 and KZ3.

Again, provide proof outside of "I said this, thus it is true".

I personal detest blurry visuals, Crysis's visual clarity is part of what I appreciated from its graphics. Then comes along Crysis 2, that makes Blurzone 2 look clear. It's like Crytek thought if they blurred the image enough, people wouldn't notice how crappy its art assets were. It's as efficient for hiding visual imperfections as a tactical nuke for killing a mosquito, you're destroying the games overall image clarity to hide the fact that the fine details are bad. People argue Crysis 1's art assets weren't that good either, but it was done at a considerably larger scale. What's the excuse of a corridor shooter for having such terrible textures?

AnnoyedDragon

Textures are the foundations of graphics, they paint everything on screen. All the shaders in the world cannot make up for a muddy texture, but a sharp high detail texture let's you do less shader work for a better visual result. You don't need normal mapping to add fine details; when the fine details are already in the texture, so you can actually save performance in other areas by using better foundations.
AnnoyedDragon

Doubt it, didn't that game have like ridiculous reqs for low or whatever?

But if true then I'm guessing Crysis 2 sold the best on 360.

TheEpicGoat

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

I personal detest blurry visuals, Crysis's visual clarity is part of what I appreciated from its graphics. Then comes along Crysis 2, that makes Blurzone 2 look clear. It's like Crytek thought if they blurred the image enough, people wouldn't notice how crappy its art assets were. It's as efficient for hiding visual imperfections as a tactical nuke for killing a mosquito, you're destroying the games overall image clarity to hide the fact that the fine details are bad. People argue Crysis 1's art assets weren't that good either, but it was done at a considerably larger scale. What's the excuse of a corridor shooter for having such terrible textures?

Teufelhuhn

Textures are the foundations of graphics, they paint everything on screen. All the shaders in the world cannot make up for a muddy texture, but a sharp high detail texture let's you do less shader work for a better visual result. You don't need normal mapping to add fine details; when the fine details are already in the texture, so you can actually save performance in other areas by using better foundations.
AnnoyedDragon

Blur effects are to recreate the look of film and CGI. That's really all there is to it. You don't have to like it, but that's the look (almost) everyone is going for.

Teufelhuhn

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.

I'm not sure where you learned the foundations of graphics, but it must be different from where I learned them. Because according to everything I've learned, the physics of light interacting with different surfaces is the basis of computer graphics, and albedo textures are just a cheap way to provide a bit of material variation when you can't afford something better. Either way you can absolutely "make up" for a muddy texture with shaders, since shaders have raw control over what gets output to a pixel. And you certainly can't just dump normal mapping for higher-res albedo maps, unless you want everything to look flat, boring, and unrealistic.

Teufelhuhn

I was speaking in terms of the way us gamers think, not the way a developer thinks. You have to remember that this is a gaming forum, so I'm going to be talking in terms that us gamers understand.

Textures paint everything on screen, so a poor quality texture is like a poor foundation that everything else is built on top of. A fuzzy looking texture, like say the signs in Crysis 2, isn't going to look less fuzzy by applying more shader effects to it. You have to replace the texture outright to improve its appearance. And if you can use shaders to improve its appearance like you say, surely that is going to be disproportionately performance intensive than just using a better texture?

When you have 512-1GB of GDDR5 memory, I don't see the point in leaving that resource underutilized; and placing the workload on other areas like shaders. Why not just use a better texture, negating the need for extra effects to make the texture look less bland? When I see the incredible facial texture work in Crysis 1 in 2007, then a poor quality texture with a overuse of normal mapping to make up for the lack of fine detail, being used in 2011 with Crysis 2 when consoles got involved. It begs me to question whether the low memory environment on consoles pushed them to seek none texture heavy alternatives.

Oh and this. AnnoyedDragon, where did you get the idea that prebaking all facial features was a good idea? I think you mean high resolution textures is a good idea, that was the impressive part about the faces in Crysis, not the prebaked dimples on secondary characters like McNeil. Take a look at Prophet and tell me that prebaking would beat that look.

ocstew

I'm not quite sure where you got pre-baking from. My argument has been keeping the facial detail in a high resolution texture > a low resolution texture with mapping to add fine detail.

O'Neil's face was flat and lacked shading. Good and impressive real time games get their look from realistic lighting and therefore realistic shaders. If I wanted an example of amazing facial features I would look to one of the main characters like Psycho and Prophet where every dimple or pore interacted with light and wasn't just lit in the same way as the rest of the face. Prophet = High Res textures + proper use of bumpmapping and SSS. O'Neil = High Res Texture + SSS. The second just doesn't cut it anymore.ocstew

Again, I'm not sure what argument I made that you are responding to. I'm not arguing against the use of shaders to add detail to a characters face, I'm criticising the approach of using a simple facial texture; and then using depth adding effects to add all the fine details. Rather than just using a better texture to add those fine details, taking advantage of PC memory.

Too much depth adding effects like normal mapping infamously leads to unrealistically plastic looking characters and environments, something that Unreal Engine 3 got a lot of criticism for back in the day. Using high resolution textures, Crysis 1 characters looked very realistic. It blew people away in 2007 and they still look great today. Crysis 2 faces on the other hand reminds me of a lot of console characters. A simple facial texture, which has another depth adding effect on top for the finer details.

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

I personal detest blurry visuals, Crysis's visual clarity is part of what I appreciated from its graphics. Then comes along Crysis 2, that makes Blurzone 2 look clear. It's like Crytek thought if they blurred the image enough, people wouldn't notice how crappy its art assets were. It's as efficient for hiding visual imperfections as a tactical nuke for killing a mosquito, you're destroying the games overall image clarity to hide the fact that the fine details are bad. People argue Crysis 1's art assets weren't that good either, but it was done at a considerably larger scale. What's the excuse of a corridor shooter for having such terrible textures?

Teufelhuhn

I think he is talking about Crytek's AA solution, not DoF and motion blur :P

I think he is talking about Crytek's AA solution, not DoF an motion blur :P

ferret-gamer

Sure that's part of it. But Crysis 2 used ridiculous blur effects were they were not appropriate, such as the can machine I referred to.

I don't know how they will manage to make the game look any way decent on consoles.seanmcloughlin

Well we've already seen the video of Cry Engine 3 rendering the Contact level of Crysis on a 360 which seemed to be medium settings sub hd, no AA and a horrible framerate. Also some effects were butchered as physics were nerfed and shadows animated at like half the framerate of the moving objects producing them.

The whole thing was a big laugh.

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]I don't know how they will manage to make the game look any way decent on consoles.Espereful

Too bad Crysis 2 is a small and linear game compared to large, open maps of Crysis.

why would you play a 4 year old game on low settings and without mods?


lmao, lemmings cmon....

why would you play a 4 year old game on low settings and without mods?

Jankarcop

with a dead multiplayer

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

[QUOTE="Espereful"]no, i said basically the same. as in little difference.which was one of the main complaints every leveied at the game is that there is basically little difference between the settings. lol i did face the fact, the fact that the console version looks great. lolAnnoyedDragon

Of course there is little difference. It was built for the 360 afterall then ported to PC and PS3. Now that they released a graphics patch, it looks way better again but still doesn't match Crysis 1.

Crysis 2's problem was it was one of the laziest console ports that I have seen in the last couple of years.

Art assets make up the majority of what you see on screen, with shaders just being a additional layer on top of them improving the scene. Crysis 2 took the same art assets from consoles, and used them on all three PC settings. As in it didn't matter whether you was running it on low or high, you stared at console art assets at all three settings.

Not only will that significantly reduce the visible difference between the three settings, but it's some of the laziest porting I have seen in a long time. You could pretty much make most of what consisted of Crysis 2's scalability by editing engine config files.

It really took me by complete surprise to see Crytek pull such a stunt, most console ports have art asset scalability, and here was a PC company that didn't bother.

Well we knew C2 was in bad shape when they didn't bother to release a PC GAME without graphics options other than low med high which they decided to confusingly name advanced hardcore and extreme or w/e. blues35301

We knew C2 was bad when the entire game got leaked and messed around with the editor only to find out there's no difference between the settings :lol:

Crysis 1 island map running on a PS3. A few things to point out here. The map works & runs, but the draw distance is pretty bad. Also the gfx look weird, but thts just a side effect of slapping the map on without fixing everything up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbdJ4B7qk8k&feature=related

anyway. im not saying its impossible, cuz obviously its not, but I would think tht they'd have to put in some serious work especially if they want to hide that hideous draw distance.

Crysis 1 island map running on a PS3. A few things to point out here. The map works & runs, but the draw distance is pretty bad. Also the gfx look weird, but thts just a side effect of slapping the map on without fixing everything up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbdJ4B7qk8k&feature=related

anyway. im not saying its impossible, cuz obviously its not, but I would think tht they'd have to put in some serious work especially if they want to hide that hideous draw distance.

painguy1

Looks pretty damn good to be honest. Nothing like Crysis on my PC, but still very good for consoles.

If this rumour is true(Not reading the entire thread) I'll buy a copy, just to show Crytek that not all console gamers wont linear Crysis 2/COD esque titles.

[QUOTE="painguy1"]

Crysis 1 island map running on a PS3. A few things to point out here. The map works & runs, but the draw distance is pretty bad. Also the gfx look weird, but thts just a side effect of slapping the map on without fixing everything up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbdJ4B7qk8k&feature=related

anyway. im not saying its impossible, cuz obviously its not, but I would think tht they'd have to put in some serious work especially if they want to hide that hideous draw distance.

-Snooze-

Looks pretty damn good to be honest. Nothing like Crysis on my PC, but still very good for consoles.

If this rumour is true(Not reading the entire thread) I'll buy a copy, just to show Crytek that not all console gamers wont linear Crysis 2/COD esque titles.

well if they just fix the issues with graphics, which they can(like i siad all those things are just sideeffects of a direct port) im sure it will look decent. the only thing i see tht could be a problem is the draw distance.

Crysis 1 island map running on a PS3. A few things to point out here. The map works & runs, but the draw distance is pretty bad. Also the gfx look weird, but thts just a side effect of slapping the map on without fixing everything up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbdJ4B7qk8k&feature=related

anyway. im not saying its impossible, cuz obviously its not, but I would think tht they'd have to put in some serious work especially if they want to hide that hideous draw distance.

painguy1

Oh gawd that was the one I was talking about earlier, although it's running a lot better than I remember it. Holy motherofgod that pop-in is bad. Not to mention even though it has no shaders, the console would probably explode. The water is all messed up too and it's missing half the content is seems.

[QUOTE="painguy1"]

Crysis 1 island map running on a PS3. A few things to point out here. The map works & runs, but the draw distance is pretty bad. Also the gfx look weird, but thts just a side effect of slapping the map on without fixing everything up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbdJ4B7qk8k&feature=related

anyway. im not saying its impossible, cuz obviously its not, but I would think tht they'd have to put in some serious work especially if they want to hide that hideous draw distance.

ChubbyGuy40

Oh gawd that was the one I was talking about earlier, although it's running a lot better than I remember it. Holy motherofgod that pop-in is bad. Not to mention even though it has no shaders, the console would probably explode. The water is all messed up too and it's missing half the content is seems.

the more complex shaders are there, but the low bitrate of the video doesn't let u see them well & their is discoloration because its a direct port. those issues are "easily" fixed. Like u siad tho, the draw distance can be a problem.

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]I don't know how they will manage to make the game look any way decent on consoles.Espereful

HAVE YOU EVEN PLAYED THE ORIGINAL CRYSIS?

The maps in Crysis are situated in an entire island. Crysis 2 has maps that are TINY compared to Lingshan.

The AI will practically not exist unless you're at assault rifle range.

the more complex shaders are there, but the low bitrate of the video doesn't let u see them well & their is discoloration because its a direct port. those issues are "easily" fixed. Like u siad tho, the draw distance can be a problem.

painguy1

I know it was a direct port. Shaders are EXACTLY what kills performance in Crysis 1 (Mostly because they're so high quality. Having it on low is literally off while medium is almost a drastic overhaul of the visuals.)

[QUOTE="painguy1"]

the more complex shaders are there, but the low bitrate of the video doesn't let u see them well & their is discoloration because its a direct port. those issues are "easily" fixed. Like u siad tho, the draw distance can be a problem.

ChubbyGuy40

I know it was a direct port. Shaders are EXACTLY what kills performance in Crysis 1 (Mostly because they're so high quality. Having it on low is literally off while medium is almost a drastic overhaul of the visuals.)

low doesn't mean off even if its something as simple as a specular effect & some normal maps. they are still there & this demo seems to show a bit more than tht anyway. even just a plain texture is a shader u are shading the object with a texture. anyway thts beyond the piont, i got carried away. What i'm trying to say is tht there are shaders, its just difficult to see and u should look closer :P just a teensy weensy bit

[QUOTE="Espereful"][QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]I don't know how they will manage to make the game look any way decent on consoles.ChubbyGuy40

Too bad Crysis 2 is a small and linear game compared to large, open maps of Crysis.

Thank you for answering for me :P

[QUOTE="Espereful"][QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]I don't know how they will manage to make the game look any way decent on consoles.flashn00b

HAVE YOU EVEN PLAYED THE ORIGINAL CRYSIS?

The maps in Crysis are situated in an entire island. Crysis 2 has maps that are TINY compared to Lingshan.

The AI will practically not exist unless you're at assault rifle range.