Crytek: PS3/360 “so behind the curve” but surprised devs can squeeze some more out of them

"Crytek are known for developing video games that push the hardware limit. They have developed a few franchises in the past but the most well known out of them is obviously Crysis. The game pushed gaming PCs to the limit and it coined a new term in the industry: Can it run Crysis? In 2011, Crytek released the fantastic Crysis 2 and later on added DX11 support although initially the PC version was not up to the mark."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Hellsvacancy1710d ago (Edited 1710d ago )

Shut up, your games suck, there boring, Far Cry 3 looks better than Crysis 3, graphically, you dont hear Ubisoft shouted the odds every other day

Dark5tar11710d ago

Maybe you should check your spelling and grammar before we listen to your opinion. That edit feature must work wonders for you.

awi59511710d ago

Yeah it doesnt look better at all crysis 2 with the direct x11 update and the high res texture patch looks crazy. But i wouldnt expect a console to keep up with a PC with 3 or more graphics cards in it. The gpu in the ps3 and xbox are so old my sisters old 4870 crossfire build graphics looks way better than consoles.

NukaCola1710d ago

Funny how games like Halo and Uncharted pull GOTY awards and Crysis is only remembered for what the mods can do. These guys need to shut up. When they deliver more than visuals, then they can talk.

LocutusEstBorg1710d ago

Tell me more about this "sister" of yours...

inveni01710d ago

The problem with Crytek is that they're not good at optimization. Even the original Crysis still has graphical issues on CURRENT hardware. That's pretty sad.

OneAboveAll1709d ago

You obviously understood what he said and meant so it really doesn't matter now does it?

I agree with Hellsvacancy, the Crysis games are just generic shooters with no substance. All they are good for is showcasing graphics on the most poorly un-optimized game engine to date.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1709d ago
Shaman1710d ago ShowReplies(2)
shutUpAndTakeMyMoney1710d ago (Edited 1710d ago )

Dude stop raging at devs who can't hear you and get a life.

Farcry 3 doesn't look better than this.
or can do this.

There so called "sucky" games sold million each time and crysis 3 will sell millions.

They are succeeding in f2p. Warface is actually a good game.

These guys made an engine and have caught up despite the Unreal Engine success.

Any other console game have so many real time effects going on?

"Crytek has DX11 graphics running in Crysis 3 on PS3, Xbox 360"

If that is true have other console devs done it.

Cry more if you need to you only talk like that becuz you have seen people do it on n4g before.

A next gen demo of an rpg shown running a two year old laptop.

These make games so they have a right to talk game creation. Stick to your level of knowledge and worry about pressing power, start, R1.

I would bet $50 you have a copy of black ops 2 while talking sh!t.

Don't care about agrees like u.

Go ahead talk more as they sell million why waste ur time with non facts?

Godmars2901710d ago

Well I don't buy their games. How's that?

RuperttheBear1710d ago (Edited 1710d ago )

'Well I don't buy their games. How's that? '

It means you aren't one of the millions that bought their games. Simple really. I don't buy a lot of games that others buy.

What are you trying to really say? Are you doing the text equivalent of blowing a raspberry at shutUpAndTakeMyMoney?

Because that's quite childish really.

slayorofgods1710d ago

Wow! The PS4 will likely be announced in something like a month or so, after the holidays..

And it is still blasphemy to say a pc has better graphics the a ps3 / 360..

I hate to throw logic back into everyone's windows but its a no brainer that ps3/360 are behind the curve.

The only thing interesting about this article is that Crytek is saying developers can still squeeze a lot into something that is so far behind to still make them feel current.

brianunfried1710d ago

Far Cry 3 is full of screen tearing, it looks really bad and kind of ruins the game for me. Crysis 2 had none on the PS3 version. Killzone 1 & 2 and Rage have no screen tearing either and they both look incredible.

MRMagoo1231710d ago


If your getting loads of screen tearing in far cry 3 you are playing a copy of it i havent seen before.

pixelsword1710d ago

Yes, the PS3 and 360 are behind the curve.

The curve isn't that vast, though; You can only thing about one game that defined PC gaming this gen, and it is Crysis.

Not crysis 2

Probably Crysis 3 though.

Other than that, the differences aren't to the point where everyone's going ape-scat over the PC's graphics like last gen, even.

Redgehammer1710d ago

Bubble for you Rupert, thx, for making me chuckle.

AKS1710d ago (Edited 1710d ago )

I think the people who are acting enraged are just looking at snippets of interviews like the quote in the title and interpreting that as an attack on the consoles. If this was Crytek's actual position, they could just delay the console release until next year or skip it entirely. Instead, they're attempting to use tech in Crysis 3 that has never been attempted on consoles before, which seems like a good thing to me. I certainly appreciated it when Team ICO put in the effort to mimic HDR rendering with Shadow of the Colossus on PS2.

I've seen interviews from Crytek guys admitting that they wished they could have pushed things further in Crysis 2 and that they are really trying to impress gamers with the improvements they've made in Crysis 3. There's also the fact that they put forth the considerable effort and investment to make CryEngine3 compatible with consoles. The idea that they are against consoles just doesn't square with what they've been doing. But if some want to instead just make assumptions based off of a provocative title on N4G, I guess that's what they'll do.

Godmars2901709d ago

Think of it as me showing contempt towards game devs who have done jack-sh*t for gaming besides complain about the platforms they have to work with.

Also not feeling to good towards the gamers who defend Crytek and their resource hog title when it was a resource hog. It doesn't matter that years after the fact of releasing a single game which required massive upgrades to play on minimum settings they "fixed" the problem, its that they caused and further highlighted a problem with the PC gaming industry. Namely that it was pricing and upgrading itself out of existence.

Now they're trying to do things as cheaply and low-end as possible, have even moved into the competing console market, and yet companies like Crytek are still bit*ching that the market should cater to them instead of the other way around. Nevermind that they've yet to actually do anything of actual substance. Just make pretty looking FPS.

And not really being much of a FPS fan, first person perspective games in general which means I've largely been SOL for much of this gen, I have even less reason or want to touch a Crytek game.

If you and others like them all well and good, just please get off their co*k for long enough to realize that by the sales of their games they aren't the end all and be all of gaming.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 1709d ago
Eyesoftheraven1710d ago

and Crysis 1 PC looks better than FarCry 3 PC and Crysis 2 PC; can't speak for Crysis 3 yet for obvious reasons.

ThanatosDMC1710d ago

It really does. They downgraded with Crysis 2. I was hoping Far Cry 3 would look as great as the jungles of Crysis 1 on Ultra... they have the same flora in consoles. Maybe a mod can make it look like a crazier jungle.

Eyesoftheraven1710d ago (Edited 1710d ago )

Except for the rocks. Crysis 1 rocks look terrible at times, but the water, vegetation, and physics look consistently superior when set to Very High.

Far Cry 3 has better rocks, fire, gun models, character models, and vehicle handling. Plus you can freaking fly (err, glide with style). Far Cry 3 also has the better story and is a lot more fun than Crysis 1 or 2 overall. The plants in Far Cry 3 are a lot stiffer and there are no destructible structures. The water is also relatively very static and animated looking, rather than organic & dynamic. Crysis 1 water is still better than any water I've seen in a game since; when a bullet hits the water in Crysi 1, it actually ripples and creates mist (though the ripples don't interact with one another).

That isn't to talk bad about Far Cry 3 on any platform; I think it's an amazing game and gave over 30 hours in it already. Just wish it wasn't fundamentally limited to what the consoles can do.

The_Infected1710d ago

Far Cry 3 looks great but it's no where close to Crysis 3.

greenpowerz1710d ago (Edited 1710d ago )

Started the game up and turned off after I reached the village. Have not played it since(three days now)

Too blurry durring movment hurts my eyes and makes my head hurt.

The detail in C3 is breath taking.

sourav931710d ago

But do you think the console version of Crysis 3 will be able to match up to the console version of Far Cry 3? Keep in mind that FC3 is truly open-world, and I doubt we'll get the same amount of freedom in Crysis 3, going by their previous games.

awi59511710d ago


Crysis 1 was too open world thats why alot of people hated it. I loved that game played it on max graphics. And i had the best time just messing with the A.I sniping them sneaking up on them and just just screwing around and not playing the game lol.

Imalwaysright1710d ago

@ greenpowerz you're missing out on one of the best FPS ever made. Take an aspirin or something and go play FC3. After you finish it go play Crysis 1/2 and you'll realize how crappy those games are. Ubisoft Montreal > Crytek. They took Crytek's franchise and took it to a whole different level. A level that i doubt Crytek will ever reach.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1710d ago
Ducky1710d ago (Edited 1710d ago )

Well, if you read the article, he did praise a certain recently released game that looks amazing on consoles.

ritsuka6661710d ago

So many facepalm comments here... sigh. -___-

GraveLord1710d ago

A little harsh, but yeah, someone needs to keep their mouth shut.

starchild1710d ago

You are blind if you think Far Cry 3 looks better than Crysis 3.

You might not enjoy their games but there are many of us that do.

N4g_null1710d ago

Nintendo should just pay them to make them an engine on the wiiu. They know graphics and retro knows game play....

Really they might be the only studio ready right now for the next gen. They could always find a writer to story up their games though.

GearSkiN1710d ago (Edited 1710d ago )

MAN FAR CRY 3 IS AN AWESOME GOOD LOOKIN GAME! and no it doesnt look as good compare to Crysis 3 i dont know how old you are but im sure a mature person can tell by their on eyes that Far Cry 3 doesnt even come close to crysis 3. and im talking about ps3/xbox360 version. lets not even compare PC coz thats just wrong.

dredgewalker1710d ago

Crysis 2 was not bad but also not good for me. I consider a game good when there is replay value in it. Once I finished Crysis 2 I never felt the compulsion of playing it again. I think the problem with it is that it's on rails and it get's too predictable because of that. I like graphics but without great gameplay a game isn't fun for me.