[RUMOR] Cyrsis "1.5" for PS3?


Recommended Posts

http://www.gamesradar.com/us/ps3/game/prev...209104752229059

Even before the PC version released, rumours of a PS3 conversion of the stunning Crysis (developed by Far Cry creators Crytek) were rife, and not far off the mark if insiders at the studio are to be believed. The game looks to be a port of the PC original plus some extra modes and features, a kind of Crysis 1.5. Like the PC game you can expect a visual powerhouse; an open-world shooter that begins on a beautiful tropical island before things take a turn for the worse and aliens from a parallel world stake a claim on Earth. Only the mighty Killzone 2 could possibly hold a candle to this shooter. For technical reasons we hear an Xbox 360 version of Crysis isn?t in development. Bet you?re glad you bought a PS3 now, eh?

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/01/17/rumorang...3-not-xbox-360/

The latest whispers down the lane from Crytek sound something like a Crysis port bound for PlayStation 3, but not Xbox 360, at least, that's what PlayStation World UK is hearing (reposted by Games Radar). "Technical reasons" are cited for the lack of Xbox love, but with money kinda tight these days, we're guessing the gang hasn't turned its back on Microsoft's console just yet. (Heck, Ubisoft managed to shovel some semblance of Far Cry onto the original Xbox.) You can bet EA's got a few tricks up its sleeve too.

We've reached out to the publisher for the customary "no plans" comment. We'll keep y'all posted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no way Crysis can run at the highest level of graphics on the 360, let alone on the PS3. If it does come out, expect sub-720p graphics with the high-end shaders disabled or dumbed down.

Crysis is one of those games that is absolutely stunning to play on a computer that can run it on "Very High", but take away the graphics, and there is almost nothing left. The graphics in Crysis are everything.

Now if someone could combine the gameplay of COD4 with the CryEngine2...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rumour indeed, I'd love to know what the technical reasons are for being able to do it on the PS3 but not the 360, considering the 360 is more powerful than the PS3 when it comes to gaming and graphics, unless it's a DVD-9 issue, i'll beleive it when I see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good to see the self proclaimed game developers out again! :laugh:

How about

a) We wait to see if this is true

&

b) If it is true how the game looks

before we go "PS3 CANT DO THIZZZ!!11 360 MORE POWERFUL!!"

;)

For the record, I do believe if it's done on one platform, it will be done on the other. Unless it has hard drive/disc space requirements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My take;

The game can be done on both consoles, but no way in hell are they gonna look anything like the PC Counterpart - If you think it can, you are pretty naive.

I don't think the PS3/360 can reach the highest level the PC can (crazy stuff like 16xAA and what not), but some of you guys put it down as if it will look BAD :pinch:

Have you seen how damn good some of the PS3/360 games look at we aren't even in the "mature" stages? (3/4/5 years into a consoles life).

Crysis on the PS3/360 would look bloody gorgeous still, and perform hell of a lot better than it does on some "decent" PCs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You gotta remember, this game wasn't optimized in any way pretty much - This is just a huge island with state-of-the-art graphics, you have no idea how much it kills a PC.

No PC is able to do a proper resolution with AA & High/Very high settings at over 30 FPS. So you really think those puny consoles would do the job better, really?

If that has the happen, the engine need to be scaled back about a million miles and optimized like hell - By that time, the game will look like ass I'm sure. ( I keep thinking those other Far Cry ports )

And mention a few titles for me, with gorgeous graphics & HUGE outdoor terrain for the console. ( Where you are able to go, not some pathetic 2D backdrop. )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope it is good as its PC counter part.

That wouldn't be hard to achieve. Crysis was a failure from a technical point of view and features a plot and gameplay that left a lot to be desired - it was sold on hype and overly generous early reviews. More recent reviews have tended to be around 70-80%, which is very disappointing for a AAA title. The Orange Box, Unreal Tournament 3 and Call Of Duty 4 were all significantly better games, both from a technical aspect and in terms of gameplay.

There's no reason Crysis can't make it to PS3, though the engine will not be even close to that of the PC (as it runs pretty poorly on top-end system, as I have experienced). I just hope they improve the questionable AI, iffy physics, awful plot / voice acting / lip sync and terrible vehicle handling for starters. Not only that but if they want people to play it multiplayer then they need to make the setting / gameplay interesting, rather than a poor man's Battlefield crossed with Quake. If they address the issues with Crysis then there's potential for a decent game but if it's a straight port with lesser graphics it will be a disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That wouldn't be hard to achieve. Crysis was a failure from a technical point of view and features a plot and gameplay that left a lot to be desired - it was sold on hype and overly generous early reviews. More recent reviews have tended to be around 70-80%, which is very disappointing for a AAA title. The Orange Box, Unreal Tournament 3 and Call Of Duty 4 were all significantly better games, both from a technical aspect and in terms of gameplay.

There's no reason Crysis can't make it to PS3, though the engine will not be even close to that of the PC (as it runs pretty poorly on top-end system, as I have experienced). I just hope they improve the questionable AI, iffy physics, awful plot / voice acting / lip sync and terrible vehicle handling for starters. Not only that but if they want people to play it multiplayer then they need to make the setting / gameplay interesting, rather than a poor man's Battlefield crossed with Quake. If they address the issues with Crysis then there's potential for a decent game but if it's a straight port with lesser graphics it will be a disaster.

+1. Game is all hype. I found it to be pretty average....well from the demo anyway (at 20fps ftl)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You gotta remember, this game wasn't optimized in any way pretty much - This is just a huge island with state-of-the-art graphics, you have no idea how much it kills a PC.

No PC is able to do a proper resolution with AA & High/Very high settings at over 30 FPS. So you really think those puny consoles would do the job better, really?

If that has the happen, the engine need to be scaled back about a million miles and optimized like hell - By that time, the game will look like ass I'm sure. ( I keep thinking those other Far Cry ports )

And mention a few titles for me, with gorgeous graphics & HUGE outdoor terrain for the console.

Very harsh choice of words, "puny" ?

I can't give direct examples of Crysis like titles, only thing I can say is games like Uncharted look gorgeous.

Do you think people would of thought GoW2/Shadow of the Colussus was possible on the PS2 6months-1year into the consoles life cycle?

Trends show things get graphically better, and each generation those time periods can change, one console could take 3/4/5 years like I said, but why would it be out of the question after 1 year for developers to get to grips and pump out some awesome looking titles?

All im trying to say, is if Crysis hit a console it wouldn't look like ass - Not from a standalone point of view, but in comparison it may look like "ass" to a top of the range PC.

But how much does a PC like that cost you? You can forgive scale backs when you consider planking out $400 vs $1000+

I'll be over the moon if this comes out, as I won't be able to afford a PC good enough to play it smoothly on decent settings for a while.

Current rig - (E6600 clocked to 3Ghz, 2GB 6400 at 825mhz, 7600GT - My biggest bottleneck)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My take;

The game can be done on both consoles, but no way in hell are they gonna look anything like the PC Counterpart - If you think it can, you are pretty naive.

(Y)

That wouldn't be hard to achieve. Crysis was a failure from a technical point of view and features a plot and gameplay that left a lot to be desired - it was sold on hype and overly generous early reviews. More recent reviews have tended to be around 70-80%, which is very disappointing for a AAA title. The Orange Box, Unreal Tournament 3 and Call Of Duty 4 were all significantly better games, both from a technical aspect and in terms of gameplay.

There's no reason Crysis can't make it to PS3, though the engine will not be even close to that of the PC (as it runs pretty poorly on top-end system, as I have experienced). I just hope they improve the questionable AI, iffy physics, awful plot / voice acting / lip sync and terrible vehicle handling for starters. Not only that but if they want people to play it multiplayer then they need to make the setting / gameplay interesting, rather than a poor man's Battlefield crossed with Quake. If they address the issues with Crysis then there's potential for a decent game but if it's a straight port with lesser graphics it will be a disaster.

(N)

Some of your complaints I agree with, but some are just... "huh?" Bad lip syncing and voice acting? I couldn't possibly disagree more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very harsh choice of words, "puny" ?

I can't give direct examples of Crysis like titles, only thing I can say is games like Uncharted look gorgeous.

Do you think people would of thought GoW2/Shadow of the Colussus was possible on the PS2 6months-1year into the consoles life cycle?

Trends show things get graphically better, and each generation those time periods can change, one console could take 3/4/5 years like I said, but why would it be out of the question after 1 year for developers to get to grips and pump out some awesome looking titles?

All im trying to say, is if Crysis hit a console it wouldn't look like ass - Not from a standalone point of view, but in comparison it may look like "ass" to a top of the range PC.

But how much does a PC like that cost you? You can forgive scale backs when you consider planking out $400 vs $1000+

I'll be over the moon if this comes out, as I won't be able to afford a PC good enough to play it smoothly on decent settings for a while.

Current rig - (E6600 clocked to 3Ghz, 2GB 6400 at 825mhz, 7600GT - My biggest bottleneck)

No, i do think the consoles are "puny" - They are just a medi-range computer in a small case.

Exactly, you can't give me any examples, Uncharted takes place in mostly 'confined' spaces with a bit of jungle backdrop - Looks great, but nothing mind-blowing ( imo ).

The titles you mention are developed for the console specifically, they were created and optimized for console use - They were not created just to be a graphic fest, but to have some gameplay too.

Games "Optimized" usually uses 2D models, low-texture backdrops, low-res meshes etc. but they are to fool you, because you don't know any better other than "It looks great!". Crysis is made with high-res everything,

they seized every opportunity to drain the last bit of power from the highest range of PCs available to create this game.

Crysis on the console could look create, but you are going to sacrifice a ton of high-res textures, huge high-res terrain, some of the shaders, the blur effects etc. etc. what you end up with is a decent game ... but not really the game it started out to be. Just because they get further into the consoles life-cycle, doesn't make the hardware faster. The Xbox 360 is 'peaking' with gorgeous games, we have yet to see anything mildly resembling the graphical abilities of the Crysis engine, all in one game.

I tried the game on low at 800x600 on my Dell XPS laptop ( Top Range ) - It ran like crap & looked like ass! That just goes to show, if this game is going to have any chance, you need some serious optimizing. What you are going to end up with is a above-average looking FPS ( If they are adding the huge islands ), with below average gameplay, then It's just not "Crysis" any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of your complaints I agree with, but some are just... "huh?" Bad lip syncing and voice acting? I couldn't possibly disagree more.

I only played the demo but the voice acting took an already bad script and took the term clich?d to a whole new level. Also, lip syncing and facial expressions were poor in comparison to the Source engine for Team Fortress 2 / Episode 2. Crytek spent so much attention on the overly-demanding engine that other aspects of the game suffered. On the otherhand Valve took a relatively modest engine and achieved a huge amount with it, whilst Epic focused on lighting and vehicle handling with great success (though there is ground for criticism, like the overly busy artwork). I appreciate developers wanting to deliver a better experience to high-spec users but the engine doesn't run very well on top-end systems and will likey take years to do so, by which time people will have moved on and won't be particularly interested going back to revisit an older game. On the otherhand Oblivion was very demanding but scalable, whilst the gameplay was top-notch (though, again, not free from criticism).

The biggest problem was the huge amount of hype, especially over DX10 features. As it turned out most of the eye-candy was restricted unnecessarily in order to make DX10 look more impressive. I was very much more impressed by Far Cry, which was far more impressive for the time in nearly every aspect (graphics, gameplay, atmosphere/setting). Even if it had ran well it still wouldn't have been as good as the other big FPS releases of the year. Crysis was delayed for over a year and still was unable to run well on top-end systems - there is simply no excuse for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only played the demo ...

And there is where I stopped reading. You've been one of the most critical people of the game on this forum and you've never even played it? Give me a break.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no way Crysis can run at the highest level of graphics on the 360, let alone on the PS3. If it does come out, expect sub-720p graphics with the high-end shaders disabled or dumbed down.

Crysis is one of those games that is absolutely stunning to play on a computer that can run it on "Very High", but take away the graphics, and there is almost nothing left. The graphics in Crysis are everything.

Now if someone could combine the gameplay of COD4 with the CryEngine2...

Nate I think there's more to this.

Both consoles have problems that would cause a Crysis port pretty impossible in the form it's in on PC.

PS3 has stronger physics processing due to extremely powerful cell CPUs, but because of the same CPU architecture has problems with memory and lacking GPU power to bring any type of anti-aliasing to hte scenes. The fact that Crysis looks so good on PC even with medium or high settings is that they have anti-aliasing smartly done.

For example, what I have noticed with PS3 is that games are starting to have a much better AI then some Xbox 360 games. Is this tied to cell processors again I don't know but it would make sense. However PS3s Achillies heal is indeed GPU processing. Even on the beautiful Drake:Uncharted you can see incredible physics, model behavior and environments but the overall graphics experience lacks softness of smooth edges of X360 games in general.

This takes us to the Crysis problem on Xbox 360. I think that unlike PS3, Xbox 360 would have no problem rendering Crysis on high settings in 720p with full shabang effects, however I simply doubt that Xbox 360 would allow instense physics processing that Crysis has.

Overall, I think this is why Crysis was meant for PCs only. PCs even medium range ones have overall more power then either console and can process every aspect of Crysis "without" problems, especially with new gen graphics cards.

It wouldn't surprise me if it came out PS3, but I think that graphics would be very sharp and with absolutely no anti-aliasing as PS3 just couldn't handle it. Physics wise I don't see a problem.

My 2 cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boz remember tho the 360 has a Tri-core CPU so i think it could do physics just fine. but with the Ram limitations that si where it have the biggest issue , now the PS3 has same limitation on Ram but worse and the Ps3 has 1 Cell CPu with 7 SPEs witch are not separate indapendant Cores like the Tri-core configuration on the Xbox 360 so each of those SPEs have to share the main resources the way i see it the SPEs are like intels HT as it allows awiting threads to be done in almost the same time as the main dominate task but that other threads have to share the same resources

i could be wrong tho so anyone feel free to correct me if i am way off

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And there is where I stopped reading. You've been one of the most critical people of the game on this forum and you've never even played it? Give me a break.

Oh cmon! What's the point of releasing demos then? That's how you get a feel for the game...if i don't like the demo I'm not gonna like the game!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no way Crysis can run at the highest level of graphics on the 360, let alone on the PS3. If it does come out, expect sub-720p graphics with the high-end shaders disabled or dumbed down.

Crysis is one of those games that is absolutely stunning to play on a computer that can run it on "Very High", but take away the graphics, and there is almost nothing left. The graphics in Crysis are everything.

Now if someone could combine the gameplay of COD4 with the CryEngine2...

"Very High" settings on most current computers are a ****-load higher than 720p. So it should be able to run at a good framerate, and still look good (textures, etc.).

I do agree, tho, that from what I've read, the storyline and gameplay are a bit lacking. At least this'll give the PS3 another decent shooter, tho, something that the 360 seems to have the advantage in for the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I reckon that the PS3 can run Crysis at very high settings. It's got a 7-core processor, and it's got a cutting-edge GPU. I admit now that PS3 graphics are better than 360 graphics. I'll bet that the PS3 can run Crysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the hardware in the PS3 has it's limits on the GFX side. The RSX chip is nothing else than a heavy modded nVidia G71 that powered the GF79x0s in PCs. So, it don't give DirectX 10 or anything near. So even if the Cell CPU is outstanding in performances, it still the Graphic card the most important part for graphics.

Anyway, Crysis still outstanding even in DX9.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.