Why Consoles definetly CANNOT run Crysis!

Two reasons, I'll get the obvious out of the way first:

1. The Devs have said it can't.

Second,

2. Think of a console game with the draw distance of crysis. You probably can. Think of a console game with the textures of Crysis. Once again, there's probably something similar on consoles. It's the same with physics, AI, and maybe destruction. But name a console game with all of these. Nothing about Crysis is graphically absolutely amazing and new, it's the fact that there is nothing average about its visuals and presentation, which I really doubt any console could handle.

It could be done on a console. It would takea very, very long time, but it could be done.dream431ca

Not on very high in HD.

[QUOTE="dream431ca"]It could be done on a console. It would takea very, very long time, but it could be done.noswear

Not on very high in HD.

Once again, it would take some optimizing, but it could be achieved, or at least it could be very close to being achieved. I don't want to sound like a PS3 fanboy, but if any console could get close, it would be the PS3.

[QUOTE="dream431ca"][QUOTE="noswear"]

[QUOTE="dream431ca"]It could be done on a console. It would takea very, very long time, but it could be done.noswear

Not on very high in HD.

Once again, it would take some optimizing, but it could be achieved, or at least it could be very close to being achieved. I don't want to sound like a PS3 fanboy, but if any console could get close, it would be the PS3.

given CPU, not meaning to sound like someone who plays consoles at all, but i agree with ps3 being the closest. also, far cry hit xbox, but not as the pc knew it, dumbed down, if you will.

Yeah. Crysis would most likely have to be dumded down to get it to run on consoles. It would be very difficult to get the game running at a solid 30FPS with very high settings on a console. (The PS3 could do that if the work was put into it. It would cause the developers a lot of grief though).

[QUOTE="noswear"][QUOTE="dream431ca"][QUOTE="noswear"]

[QUOTE="dream431ca"]It could be done on a console. It would takea very, very long time, but it could be done.dream431ca

Not on very high in HD.

Once again, it would take some optimizing, but it could be achieved, or at least it could be very close to being achieved. I don't want to sound like a PS3 fanboy, but if any console could get close, it would be the PS3.

given CPU, not meaning to sound like someone who plays consoles at all, but i agree with ps3 being the closest. also, far cry hit xbox, but not as the pc knew it, dumbed down, if you will.

Yeah. Crysis would most likely have to be dumded down to get it to run on consoles. It would be very difficult to get the game running at a solid 30FPS with very high settings on a console. (The PS3 could do that if the work was put into it. It would cause the developers a lot of grief though).

No, the bold part is wrong. Where did you get this information? You know the PS3 could do this?

And why is it so important for you that it doesn't come to consoles?

And I belive it could be done.

1. Lower tex resolution, streaming of texture from disc. (less ram useage)

2. Lower draw distance quality. Could be done with blure effects.

3. Insert load areas like in oblivion. Killzone 2 aparentlu is going to use a streaming loading system ao you never have a loading screen. (even less ram usage)

4. physics shouldn't be a problem since its just a lot of math and both the PS3 and the 360 have good CPU's to do so.

5. Put down the res to 720p, which would be about the same res that most PC owners play it in( playing it in 1024X768).

With all that i bet you would have a game that ran at 30fps, which is more then enough for that game since its not run'n'gun. and it would be around medium with some on high.
ANd don't tell me the game looks bad on medium.

Two reasons, I'll get the obvious out of the way first:

1. The Devs have said it can't.

Second,

2. Think of a console game with the draw distance of crysis. You probably can. Think of a console game with the textures of Crysis. Once again, there's probably something similar on consoles. It's the same with physics, AI, and maybe destruction. But name a console game with all of these. Nothing about Crysis is graphically absolutely amazing and new, it's the fact that there is nothing average about its visuals and presentation, which I really doubt any console could handle.

noswear

We already have enough of these threads. Please put it up when we have a swarm of people who need to get corrected.aliblabla2007

meh, when I logged on, there were four threads saying "omg teh devs say crysis work on teh console!!!"

[QUOTE="noswear"]

[QUOTE="dream431ca"]It could be done on a console. It would takea very, very long time, but it could be done.dream431ca

Not on very high in HD.

Once again, it would take some optimizing, but it could be achieved, or at least it could be very close to being achieved. I don't want to sound like a PS3 fanboy, but if any console could get close, it would be the PS3.

Lol no, not at all.

And why is it so important for you that it doesn't come to consoles?

And I belive it could be done.

1. Lower tex resolution, streaming of texture from disc. (less ram useage)

2. Lower draw distance quality. Could be done with blure effects.

3. Insert load areas like in oblivion. Killzone 2 aparentlu is going to use a streaming loading system ao you never have a loading screen. (even less ram usage)

4. physics shouldn't be a problem since its just a lot of math and both the PS3 and the 360 have good CPU's to do so.

5. Put down the res to 720p, which would be about the same res that most PC owners play it in( playing it in 1024X768).

With all that i bet you would have a game that ran at 30fps, which is more then enough for that game since its not run'n'gun. and it would be around medium with some on high.
ANd don't tell me the game looks bad on medium.

trasherhead

The highlighted is very wrong, the cores in both the 360 and PS3 are incredibly slow and inefficient at running game code. Which isn't surprising considering they are not even made in the same way as a CPU found in a PC. Most of the physics found in crysis will have to be taken out. The environments will have to be reduced in size so the levels will be alot more linear. Not to mention the overall detail in the game will be significantly reduced. But i do agree that the most noticeable difference will not be actual graphics. though i highly doubt it will look like crysis on high even with everything i said above, the most noticeable thing will be physics.

Why do people bother with this topic?

If a console can't max out Bioshock like the PC version, how is it ever going to handle Crysis.

Ofcourse consoles could run crysis.

Its just a question of downgrading the graphics..

Eventhough you remove all vegetation and exchange all textures with lowres gray and white things it would still be the same game... Xbox360 and PS3 can definitly run crysis...

The wii on the other hand is probably too weak to handle the Cryengine 2 at all.. But after all you can still edit the graphics engine itself to make the game work, it would still be the same game, just less good graphics..

What I have written might be ignorant, but is there any reason why it is not true?

And why is it so important for you that it doesn't come to consoles?

And I belive it could be done.

1. Lower tex resolution, streaming of texture from disc. (less ram useage)

2. Lower draw distance quality. Could be done with blure effects.

3. Insert load areas like in oblivion. Killzone 2 aparentlu is going to use a streaming loading system ao you never have a loading screen. (even less ram usage)

4. physics shouldn't be a problem since its just a lot of math and both the PS3 and the 360 have good CPU's to do so.

5. Put down the res to 720p, which would be about the same res that most PC owners play it in( playing it in 1024X768).

With all that i bet you would have a game that ran at 30fps, which is more then enough for that game since its not run'n'gun. and it would be around medium with some on high.
ANd don't tell me the game looks bad on medium.

trasherhead

Two reasons, I'll get the obvious out of the way first:

1. The Devs have said it can't.

Second,

2. Think of a console game with the draw distance of crysis. You probably can. Think of a console game with the textures of Crysis. Once again, there's probably something similar on consoles. It's the same with physics, AI, and maybe destruction. But name a console game with all of these. Nothing about Crysis is graphically absolutely amazing and new, it's the fact that there is nothing average about its visuals and presentation, which I really doubt any console could handle.

noswear

[QUOTE="noswear"]

[QUOTE="dream431ca"]It could be done on a console. It would takea very, very long time, but it could be done.dream431ca

Not on very high in HD.

Once again, it would take some optimizing, but it could be achieved, or at least it could be very close to being achieved. I don't want to sound like a PS3 fanboy, but if any console could get close, it would be the PS3.

Even with optimization the 360 or PS3 couldn't run Crysis in its current form. The levels will have to be changed around a lot, each level will have to have way less objects, the texture resoultion would need to be dropped, and the lighting would have to be dulled down.

If you don't know about Crysis's gameplay, it thrives on the graphics. Really there isn't much that sets the game apart from other shooters but you have to include the graphics. The game uses the graphics as part of the gameplay. You can use foliage and shadows to hide from enemies, you can cut down trees and block off the path of advancing enemies, you can establish yourself on the high ground or easily flank with open enviroments. If you take those away because of hardware limitations, you don't have Crysis anymore.

Two reasons, I'll get the obvious out of the way first:

1. The Devs have said it can't.

Second,

2. Think of a console game with the draw distance of crysis. You probably can. Think of a console game with the textures of Crysis. Once again, there's probably something similar on consoles. It's the same with physics, AI, and maybe destruction. But name a console game with all of these. Nothing about Crysis is graphically absolutely amazing and new, it's the fact that there is nothing average about its visuals and presentation, which I really doubt any console could handle.

noswear

an again, no one cares. i don't think its any great mystery that Crysis cannot be run on consoles. its just too demanding technically.

Two reasons, I'll get the obvious out of the way first:

1. The Devs have said it can't.

Second,

2. Think of a console game with the draw distance of crysis. You probably can. Think of a console game with the textures of Crysis. Once again, there's probably something similar on consoles. It's the same with physics, AI, and maybe destruction. But name a console game with all of these. Nothing about Crysis is graphically absolutely amazing and new, it's the fact that there is nothing average about its visuals and presentation, which I really doubt any console could handle.

noswear

and again, no one cares. i don't think its any great mystery that Crysis cannot be run on consoles. its just too demanding technically.

Ofcourse consoles could run crysis.

Its just a question of downgrading the graphics..

Eventhough you remove all vegetation and exchange all textures with lowres gray and white things it would still be the same game... Xbox360 and PS3 can definitly run crysis...

The wii on the other hand is probably too weak to handle the Cryengine 2 at all.. But after all you can still edit the graphics engine itself to make the game work, it would still be the same game, just less good graphics..

What I have written might be ignorant, but is there any reason why it is not true?

omgimba

Yea but you could say the same thing for perfect dark zero being possible on N64 for example. In terms of the design of the levels and physics the consoles versions will play out like a different game. The question isn't if crysis can be on consoles, the question is if Crysis on consoles could run like it does on a high end PC, which is an obvious no.

[QUOTE="dream431ca"][QUOTE="noswear"][QUOTE="dream431ca"][QUOTE="noswear"]

[QUOTE="dream431ca"]It could be done on a console. It would takea very, very long time, but it could be done.DragonfireXZ95

Not on very high in HD.

Once again, it would take some optimizing, but it could be achieved, or at least it could be very close to being achieved. I don't want to sound like a PS3 fanboy, but if any console could get close, it would be the PS3.

given CPU, not meaning to sound like someone who plays consoles at all, but i agree with ps3 being the closest. also, far cry hit xbox, but not as the pc knew it, dumbed down, if you will.

Yeah. Crysis would most likely have to be dumded down to get it to run on consoles. It would be very difficult to get the game running at a solid 30FPS with very high settings on a console. (The PS3 could do that if the work was put into it. It would cause the developers a lot of grief though).

No, the bold part is wrong. Where did you get this information? You know the PS3 could do this?

Why is it wrong? The PS3 could be capable of running Crysis. The 360 could as well, but the PS3 has more room for optimization.

And why is it so important for you that it doesn't come to consoles?

And I belive it could be done.

1. Lower tex resolution, streaming of texture from disc. (less ram useage)

2. Lower draw distance quality. Could be done with blure effects.

3. Insert load areas like in oblivion. Killzone 2 aparentlu is going to use a streaming loading system ao you never have a loading screen. (even less ram usage)

4. physics shouldn't be a problem since its just a lot of math and both the PS3 and the 360 have good CPU's to do so.

5. Put down the res to 720p, which would be about the same res that most PC owners play it in( playing it in 1024X768).

With all that i bet you would have a game that ran at 30fps, which is more then enough for that game since its not run'n'gun. and it would be around medium with some on high.
ANd don't tell me the game looks bad on medium.

trasherhead

The problem with a streaming loading system is that once you get out of a "zone", so to speak, it doesn't stay the way you left it. Information about what's in a zone would either have to be kept in the RAM or hard drive, otherwise the level wouldn't be persistent (See Grand Theft Auto.). Whether or not gameplay in Crysis is affected by persistency throughout the entire game, I can't say since I've never played it, but it's something to be concerned about.

I find if funny that PC fanboys bring this up all the time. It really gets annoying. Can Crysis run on a console? Im sure if done correctly it could be. BUT...what if I make this question......Can PC's run Crysis?...MOST NO...I find it really a waste of time for developers to make a game that 95% of the PC population cant run on its highest settings...lol...Kind of a waste of a game if you ask me. Why make a game most people cant run on the platform its made for?.....lol...But yea...Lets worry if it can run on consoles........yyyyeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh....FunkyHeadHunter

Of course, you haven't factored in the possibility that maybe, even when Crytek managed to get CryENGINE 2 to look so beautiful and run at 60 frames per second, they wanted to add even more effects and push even further to the point that it could only run at the highest settings on computers not available in the market as of this time. This video proves that it was meant for more than just games, thus it had to be pushed.

You also forgot that you don't need to run a game at it's highest settings to enjoy it fully.

[QUOTE="FunkyHeadHunter"]I find if funny that PC fanboys bring this up all the time. It really gets annoying. Can Crysis run on a console? Im sure if done correctly it could be. BUT...what if I make this question......Can PC's run Crysis?...MOST NO...I find it really a waste of time for developers to make a game that 95% of the PC population cant run on its highest settings...lol...Kind of a waste of a game if you ask me. Why make a game most people cant run on the platform its made for?.....lol...But yea...Lets worry if it can run on consoles........yyyyeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh....Technoweirdo

Of course, you haven't factored in the possibility that maybe, even when Crytek managed to get CryENGINE 2 to look so beautiful and run at 60 frames per second, they wanted to add even more effects and push even further to the point that it could only run at the highest settings on computers not available in the market as of this time. This video proves that it was meant for more than just games, thus it had to be pushed.

You also forgot that you don't need to run a game at it's highest settings to enjoy it fully.

Also what console runs it's games at the highest possible settings? I have yet to see a console game at 8xAA (let's not mention 16X), second consoles struggle to keep games in HD resolution. FunkyHeadHunter - Don't talk what you know nothing about.

One thing you have to understand is that PC's require far more resources to achieve the same results as a console.

Just look at the actual hardware and RAM in a 360 for example. If you used the equivalent power PC CPU, GPU and RAM in a PC you couldn't even play Bioshock or COD4, much less have it look good and run smoothly as they do on consoles. It has to do with unified technology, optimization, and the fact that even with all the bells and whistles that the 360 and PS3 come with, they are still dedicated gameplaying machines, with a CPU and GPU tailored to pushing polygons, textures, and calculating game related physics.

A PC that can run COD4 and have it look and play even equal to the PS3 version, is actually a much more powerful machine. It has to have much more RAM, and plenty more GPU RAM and pixel power.

Its true that high end PC's are capable of producing games that look better then 360 and PS3 games, but then your talking about a gaming PC with much, much more RAM and processing power. Your talking what, 4gigs of CPU RAM and 512 of video RAM in a gaming PC compared to 512 shared on the 360, and 256 CPU and 256 Video on the PS3.

I would be pretty confident that any PC game thats out right now, including DX10 games like Crysis and Age of Conan can be ported to the PS3 and most likely the 360 as well. All it takes is optimizing the software, and taking advantage of the dedicated development tools the consoles offer.

Yes, from a graphics standpoint, there probably would somewhat of a downgrade, for one thing, a limit of 720p would be right off the bat, but I really dont think there would be that much of a difference. Look at Doom 3 on the original Xbox. Slight downgrade, to much less powerful hardware when you compare PC's at the time to the Xbox, and compare gaming PC's now to the PS3 and 360.

Two reasons, I'll get the obvious out of the way first:

1. The Devs have said it can't.

Second,

2. Think of a console game with the draw distance of crysis. You probably can. Think of a console game with the textures of Crysis. Once again, there's probably something similar on consoles. It's the same with physics, AI, and maybe destruction. But name a console game with all of these. Nothing about Crysis is graphically absolutely amazing and new, it's the fact that there is nothing average about its visuals and presentation, which I really doubt any console could handle.

noswear

Consoles CAN RUN Crysis.

But if you mean the consoles this gen, then it wont but, the consoles next gen can.

I bet the consoles could run it, but probably only on near high settings with all the awesome effects taken away. They'd probably also have to water down some other things so you probably wouldn't be getting the same experience.

One thing you have to understand is that PC's require far more resources to achieve the same results as a console.

Just look at the actual hardware and RAM in a 360 for example. If you used the equivalent power PC CPU, GPU and RAM in a PC you couldn't even play Bioshock or COD4, much less have it look good and run smoothly as they do on consoles. It has to do with unified technology, optimization, and the fact that even with all the bells and whistles that the 360 and PS3 come with, they are still dedicated gameplaying machines, with a CPU and GPU tailored to pushing polygons, textures, and calculating game related physics.

A PC that can run COD4 and have it look and play even equal to the PS3 version, is actually a much more powerful machine. It has to have much more RAM, and plenty more GPU RAM and pixel power.

Its true that high end PC's are capable of producing games that look better then 360 and PS3 games, but then your talking about a gaming PC with much, much more RAM and processing power. Your talking what, 4gigs of CPU RAM and 512 of video RAM in a gaming PC compared to 512 shared on the 360, and 256 CPU and 256 Video on the PS3.

I would be pretty confident that any PC game thats out right now, including DX10 games like Crysis and Age of Conan can be ported to the PS3 and most likely the 360 as well. All it takes is optimizing the software, and taking advantage of the dedicated development tools the consoles offer.

Yes, from a graphics standpoint, there probably would somewhat of a downgrade, for one thing, a limit of 720p would be right off the bat, but I really dont think there would be that much of a difference. Look at Doom 3 on the original Xbox. Slight downgrade, to much less powerful hardware when you compare PC's at the time to the Xbox, and compare gaming PC's now to the PS3 and 360.

evilross

If those consoles are so strong, why do they struggle to run halo 3, cod4, and dmc4 and measly 640/600p.

[QUOTE="Technoweirdo"]

[QUOTE="FunkyHeadHunter"]I find if funny that PC fanboys bring this up all the time. It really gets annoying. Can Crysis run on a console? Im sure if done correctly it could be. BUT...what if I make this question......Can PC's run Crysis?...MOST NO...I find it really a waste of time for developers to make a game that 95% of the PC population cant run on its highest settings...lol...Kind of a waste of a game if you ask me. Why make a game most people cant run on the platform its made for?.....lol...But yea...Lets worry if it can run on consoles........yyyyeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh....Archang3l_666

Of course, you haven't factored in the possibility that maybe, even when Crytek managed to get CryENGINE 2 to look so beautiful and run at 60 frames per second, they wanted to add even more effects and push even further to the point that it could only run at the highest settings on computers not available in the market as of this time. This video proves that it was meant for more than just games, thus it had to be pushed.

You also forgot that you don't need to run a game at it's highest settings to enjoy it fully.

Also what console runs it's games at the highest possible settings? I have yet to see a console game at 8xAA (let's not mention 16X), second consoles struggle to keep games in HD resolution. FunkyHeadHunter - Don't talk what you know nothing about.

What? Are you nuts fella?...I will bet my life move PC gamers cant run Crysis on its highest setting....I would honestly bet my life. ....So what if Crysis looks good...Do you get the most from it? If a game is made for a playform, every platform should be able to run it at its max settings. I say SHOULD be able to...Just like a console...IF a game comes out that is supposed to be 720p it will run it at 720p..At least you get what you pay for kid...Heck I never buy pc games because its a waste of time and money. You never know if your pc will run it correctly or not. ...By the way...Im still looking for the granade key in COD2 on my pc....Cant find it...Guess I have to check in the menue system to find what key is what..BRB...PC gaming suuuxxxx and is a dying horse..

It could be done on a console. It would takea very, very long time, but it could be done.dream431ca

It couldn't be done the way Crysis is. If Crysis would ever come on consoles, it would be a completely new game like Instincts or Vengeance.

Who cares about Crysis right now ? Cows and lemmmings will be enjoying GTA4 this month, then cows will be enjoying MGS4. I can careless about crysis, if people wanna play it so bad, get a pc.ILikeCatFoodMan

hahaha, you mke a good point there!

[QUOTE="Archang3l_666"][QUOTE="Technoweirdo"]

[QUOTE="FunkyHeadHunter"]I find if funny that PC fanboys bring this up all the time. It really gets annoying. Can Crysis run on a console? Im sure if done correctly it could be. BUT...what if I make this question......Can PC's run Crysis?...MOST NO...I find it really a waste of time for developers to make a game that 95% of the PC population cant run on its highest settings...lol...Kind of a waste of a game if you ask me. Why make a game most people cant run on the platform its made for?.....lol...But yea...Lets worry if it can run on consoles........yyyyeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh....FunkyHeadHunter

Of course, you haven't factored in the possibility that maybe, even when Crytek managed to get CryENGINE 2 to look so beautiful and run at 60 frames per second, they wanted to add even more effects and push even further to the point that it could only run at the highest settings on computers not available in the market as of this time. This video proves that it was meant for more than just games, thus it had to be pushed.

You also forgot that you don't need to run a game at it's highest settings to enjoy it fully.

Also what console runs it's games at the highest possible settings? I have yet to see a console game at 8xAA (let's not mention 16X), second consoles struggle to keep games in HD resolution. FunkyHeadHunter - Don't talk what you know nothing about.

What? Are you nuts fella?...I will bet my life move PC gamers cant run Crysis on its highest setting....I would honestly bet my life. ....So what if Crysis looks good...Do you get the most from it? If a game is made for a playform, every platform should be able to run it at its max settings. I say SHOULD be able to...Just like a console...IF a game comes out that is supposed to be 720p it will run it at 720p..At least you get what you pay for kid...Heck I never buy pc games because its a waste of time and money. You never know if your pc will run it correctly or not. ...By the way...Im still looking for the granade key in COD2 on my pc....Cant find it...Guess I have to check in the menue system to find what key is what..BRB...PC gaming suuuxxxx and is a dying horse..

Do you see any problems with that statement, because I sure do. Whatever system you play on, it's never running games at max settings, only max practical settings. Need I remind you of Gears of War (Or more specifically, Unreal Engine 3). Epic didn't have it run at max settings on the 360 because the frame rates would go down the drain.

Developers could add way more to their games if they want, it'd just be impractical due to choppy frame rates. Well, at least on consoles it would be impractical since the hardware is stagnant over it's lifetime and by the time the next generation of consoles can meet it, the engine would be outdated. On PC's, that's different since new hardware is released every once in a while, so it wouldn't be a waste of time to develop ahead of time.

Your ability at finding a key on your keyboard only reflects how complicated, not how inefficient, a keyboard is. PC gaming sucking is your opinion. PC gaming dying is a misconception.

I read in a developer interview that Crytek had with Kotaku and they said that when they plan to port the Cryengine 2 on to the consoles, they stated it would be equivalent to High settings on a PC.

Dont kill the messenger!

http://kotaku.com/377608/crysis-to--+-apparently-+-run-real-nice-on-console

I run Medium Physics on Crysis no problem on a 1.4 Ghz Dual Core. Consoles can handle Crysis physics. Even on High it isn't to bad.Antikyth3ra

Yeah, the physics in Crysis could probably be replicated onto a console,,,,its just the graphics that cant be!

Someone needs to remember this thread and hurass patriots7672 after a toned down version never comes out on the PS3. patriots7672

Fixed.

I read in a developer interview that Crytek had with Kotaku and they said that when they plan to port the Cryengine 2 on to the consoles, they stated it would be equivalent to High settings on a PC.

Dont kill the messenger!

http://kotaku.com/377608/crysis-to--+-apparently-+-run-real-nice-on-console

Vis-a-Vis

Game engine =/= Actual game.

CRYSIS in game pics

JUST CAUSE 2

With this evedence, this is why we will never see crysis on consoles.. the 2 games dont even compare in graphics... and I think the first pic isnt at max graphics.

[QUOTE="noswear"]

[QUOTE="dream431ca"]It could be done on a console. It would takea very, very long time, but it could be done.dream431ca

Not on very high in HD.

Once again, it would take some optimizing, but it could be achieved, or at least it could be very close to being achieved. I don't want to sound like a PS3 fanboy, but if any console could get close, it would be the PS3.

if you chopped the level in 1/4 and ran in in 500p then probaly, but not in 720p with full size levels. an 8800gt has no problem maxing out the game in 800x600 even with 16x AA and x360 has only about 10% the power of a 8800gt

And why is it so important for you that it doesn't come to consoles?

And I belive it could be done.

1. Lower tex resolution, streaming of texture from disc. (less ram useage)

2. Lower draw distance quality. Could be done with blure effects.

3. Insert load areas like in oblivion. Killzone 2 aparentlu is going to use a streaming loading system ao you never have a loading screen. (even less ram usage)

4. physics should be a problem since its just a lot of math and both the PS3 and the 360 have good CPU's that are = to the mininium to run crysis

5. Put down the res to 500p, which would be about the same res that most PC owners play it in( playing it in 1024X768).

With all that i bet you would have a game that ran at 30fps, which is more then enough for that game since its not run'n'gun. and it would be around medium with some on high.
ANd don't tell me the game looks bad on medium.

trasherhead

fixed