Crytek: We didn't think Crysis 2 'would ever' run on console

GamerZines: Crytek's Nathan Camarillo, has outlined why and how his studio decided to bring their sci-fi shooter sequel to both consoles and PC, despite the huge challenge it initially represented.

"At the beginning even we said there's no way this type of game would ever run on a console and then we thought if we don't do it someone else will, so we set a challenge for ourselves," Explained the executive producer of Crysis 2.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Kingdom Come3037d ago

I am really hoping that Crytek are capable of proving any doubters wrong that Crysis 2 is going to be the best looking Console game because they are SO talented. I am really intrigued to see the game running at E3.
I will by the game on PC and Console, console to play it with friends who PC's cant run it... :P

HammockGames3037d ago (Edited 3037d ago )

Who did?

Seriously, anyone who had their beefy PC (for the time) humiliated by the original Crysis had to wonder how the console version was going to work out.

I'm not usually much for cross-platform comparison, but I am interested in this particular case - especially given all the bravado that's surrounded the game as a whole. To that end, this is the most humble statement coming out of Crytek in months.

Conloles3037d ago

Why buy it on console? Your clearly getting the inferior Crysis on medium/low settings.

taktak3037d ago


lol dude if we throw that idea around then there wont be any point in buying any game on the consoles :P

since every game is superior and cheaper on the PC.

Only point of buying a console then would be to play the 2-3 exclusives it does get worth playing in a year.

Motion3037d ago (Edited 3037d ago )

Seriously, this is the only reason I have a console.

evrfighter3036d ago

"Only point of buying a console then would be to play the 2-3 exclusives it does get worth playing in a year."

ding. It's games like Read Dead I bought it for. The only reason I bought a ps3 was for ff13 and Twisted Metal...

Lack of Twisted Metal this gen has my ps3 in about 5 layers of dust.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3036d ago
sid4gamerfreak3037d ago

"We didn't think Crysis 2 'would ever' run on console"

Well, then why did you even bring it to the consoles? Come on, we all know that the PC version at the end of day will be superior and gorgeous, but u could have done a lot more by keeping it pc exclusive. Look how technically crysis 1 jumped a leap ahead in terms of graphic technology. The same thing could have been done for crysis 2, if it were pc exclusive.

Hell, anyway, can't wait to play this running my 5870. Its gonna be one hell of a experience!!

PC - It only does everything

Belasco3036d ago

You mean after you steal it, right?

hamoor3037d ago

Then why did they bring crysis 2 to the consoles???
Crysis 1 in Max is too much for the ps3 let alone the Xbox 360

Perjoss3037d ago

don't forget ps3 has half the RAM of a 360, just saying.

ProjectVulcan3037d ago (Edited 3037d ago )

PS3 has 512mb.....256 system + 256 video, dedicated Buses. Video memory can also share system memory so RSX can theoretically access up to 480mb, albeit with a bandwidth penalty.

360's main memory is 512mb unified and a 10mb framebuffer, which means you can assign it in a proportion you desire. However you still have to assign a reasonably large portion for system usage for running games. That requirement doesnt disappear (you cant just use it all for video, where does system usage fit?? lol!) The main bus bandwidth is also shared with the CPU.

Its a misnomer that Ps3 has half 360's RAM.

Dark_king3037d ago

Just to add to what you said the Playstation 3 has 256mb of GDDR3 at 700mhz and 256Mb of XDR at 3.2ghz.the 256Mb of XDR is much quicker too so one could actually claim the PS3 can do more with its ram.

Pedobear Rocks3037d ago

Because insufferable PC gaming nerds are second only to Apple Geeks in the continuum of hatred?

DigitalAnalog3037d ago

What exactly do you mean by that. Do you mean that we be the best looking console game running exactly the same on both systems or one system to "outdo" the other?

-End statement

Arnon3037d ago

Quick question:

How are you able to determine the settings of Killzone 2 to compare it to Crysis? That really doesn't make any sense.

Matthew943037d ago (Edited 3037d ago )

How bout this then. and thats not max res for crysis.

Wow didn't know Killzone 2 had a next gen filter like Uncharted 2...

Jager3037d ago

Nice job with that pic, except for the fact that the killzone image for it is from the 2007 Alpha footage. How bout actually using footage from the final release?

CoxMulder3036d ago

Not the first time Arnon got caught with false screenshots..

Yep yep, the 2007 (Pre-)Alpha footage. Good job man, goood f***ing job..

Arnon3036d ago (Edited 3036d ago )

Wait what? How can anyone even tell that it's a pre-alpha shot? It's an image off the internetz. I just grabbed it because it was the only thing relatively close to a comparison.

(taken from my game)
(taken from my game)
(taken from my game)

Is this any better?

CoxMulder3035d ago

Aaaaaaaand that would be the preview build..

And believe me, you don't want to compare it to the Crysis 2 console preview build, that looked atrocious

Can I play selective-screenshots too??

here ya go:

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3035d ago
E46M33037d ago

Both the games look blurry and low res.

Sorry but both of those are a gen behind crysis or any PC multiplat for that matter.

hoops3036d ago

Spartan I just put some tim ein Crysis Warhead and it blows away Gears 2 and KZ2. Maybe I am not use to low res textures for console games....

ThanatosDMC3036d ago

If it's on low settings and low res. It could run on anything.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 3035d ago
Nitrowolf23037d ago

Well PC is going to be the best looking version out there, i would liek to see them running the PC version on max Setting on Consoles

HammockGames3037d ago (Edited 3037d ago )

... I'd like everybody to "pay for my candy". But that ain't gonna' happen either.

It'd be nice to see the consoles running equivalent to max settings on a PC, but I just don't see it with this game.

t8503037d ago

Obviously they didnt think crysis 2 would run cause they probably had the large open world of crysis 1 in mind. however with that out of the equation and low to med res textures.... sure crysis 2 will after that.

dirthurts3037d ago

However...the console adapted version of Crysis they call Crysis 2 will run fine. They didn't make the console run Crysis. They changed Crysis to something that would work on consoles.
It may not be all bad though. They know what they're doing. Could still be fun. I don't see any graphics bars being raised. Maybe they'll implement DX11 for us pc gamers though.

E46M33037d ago

While console users think graphics are progressing. In reality Consoles just stop any progress from being made.

Ask any console user they will tell you oh u need a better engine to get better graphics, while this is true you need more horse power as well. There is only so much optimizations can do.

For true graphics leaps you need better hardware.

dirthurts3037d ago

Some valid points. You on the other hand didn't contribute at all.

Hotel_Moscow3037d ago

yep theres only so much optimizations can do good thing the ps3 developers are still optimizing

Nihilism3037d ago (Edited 3037d ago )

DX11 features are confirmed, they will announce them after 'summer'....which I assume means in the U.S, there was a post on about it

DrDreadlox3037d ago

Seriously console and pc gaming has co-existed for decades now. pc games have always progressed at their own pace irrespective of the consoles and now and all of a sudden consoles are holding pc games back? Why is it that pc games have stagnated technically for a few years now?

It couldn't possibly be due to ever increasing game development costs. I'm sure piracy does not have a role to play at all. Or even more ridiculous, it can't have anything to do with the fact that the vast majority of computer's install base is composed of low-end to mid range systems.

It pays to use some logic before shouting out random crap.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3037d ago
ProjectVulcan3037d ago

Consoles cant even do DX10. Really though DX11 on will probably crush even the fastest card out now. Even in metro 2033 a 5870 struggles above 1680 x 1050. God forbid what will happen coupled with another cryengined game.

Still, even DX10 on Pc will look like a different game to what the console versions will look like. It'll be the biggest gap of any Pc/console multi title since half life 2 appeared on the original xbox after the Pc launch..

OpenGL3037d ago

Pretty much every DirectX 10 feature is supported by OpenGL, most of which can be implemented on the PS3. It's hilarious that Microsoft requires DirectX 10 for soft particles when there are numerous PS3 games and even PC games like Enemy Territory: Quake Wars that take advantage of it in OpenGL.

DirectX 11 on the other hand will be great once we get hardware fast enough to handle it. My 5870 really chugs with heavy use of tessellation in the Unigine tech demo.

nickjkl3035d ago (Edited 3035d ago )

wait ps3 doesnt even use direct x soooo um does that mean ps3 cant put out graphics that a pc can with direct x 5

Shaman3037d ago

Seriously,Crysis 1 in the original way would be IMPOSSIBLE to run on consoles while looking good.It was to open,with to much foliage and area to texture and 512mb would not be enough in million in city,with different lightning technique its pretty feasible...

Hotel_Moscow3037d ago (Edited 3037d ago )

shaman whats the total ram bandwidth of the ps3

how the hell do you disagree with a question the wang of the pc elitist was huge with that one

The real killer3037d ago (Edited 3037d ago )

Shaman forget that PS3 use Super fast/efficient 256 3Ghz XDR RAM with 6x 3 Ghz each SPU :)

He whine always about that, he don't know how the PS3 architecture works, that's why he is more a PC/360 noob.
----------------------------- ------------------------------ - ----------

And you mean you compare with the first GG game on the PS3.
In the 90's you don't have 720p resolution for games.

And since mean 720p suddenly? first it was the grafichs and now suddenly 720p, very strange.


So, acoording those disagree stealth clikers the PS3 has no 3Ghz 256 MB RAM and 6x 3Ghz SPU.

hoops3036d ago (Edited 3036d ago )

The TOTAL bandwidth of the ENTIRE PS3 is less than the bandwidth of a mid range GPU ALONE. That GPU costs $100-$130.
It's not even a contest. The Xbox360 and PS3 are outdated tech plain and simple by todays standards. 99% OF THE GAMES cannot run at full 1080p with 4xAA on. And I am not talking about MLAA which is NOT the same as the advanced Anti-Alaising modes ATI and Nvidia offer. Lets not even mention FLOATING POINT PRECESIONS. Thesed consoles run FP10 or slightly higher. The 9700pro did 24FP and that was in the 90's.
Real Killer you re clueless. Still going to tell us how UC2 and KZ3 could not do full [email protected] fps because the engine was not ready for it? lol

Nihilism3037d ago (Edited 3037d ago )

You realise that 3ghz means absolutely nothing, a 3ghz q6600 is half as powerful as a 3ghz i7, there has been signifcant debate over the use of ghz as a measure processing power for years and that they should instead refer to the bus speed, which is also as useless in determining processing power, it all comes down to architecture, and if you think a cell is on par clock for clock with any modern cpu then you are fooling yourself, a fast dual core will smoke the cell in gaming, the only thing beneficial about the cell is that the GPU elements make up for the PS3's weaker GPU compared to the 360, which arguably makes it more capable, but the cell in a PS3 is as budget as they get, hence the console's price, the server IBM cells on the other hand are made for super computing, and they are currently being replaced by the new Tesla cards by Nvidia by many places...


So you think that as time went on in the PC world and the graphical demand went up that people started downgrading their monitors to lower res to sacrifice resolution for effects? F no.

1920x1080 ( actually 1920x1200 ) is basically the MINIMUM resolution for games these days, I was gaming at 1280x1024 ( higher than 720p ) in 1996...since then it has only gone up. Luckily on PC we don't have to sacrifice anything.

While were talking about outdated tech...

When the next generation comes around, I just have to point out that you will HAVE to buy a new console to play that generations games, but those games will still be backwards compatible with nearly any PC hardware, factor that into your next console Vs. PC price comparison.

I bought mirrors edge the other day for $4 on PC, AHAHAHAHAHAHA, I already own it, PC games are so cheap that I picked up a second copy because I can... the 'marked down' 360/PS3 versions were $40 ( games cost more in aus )

t8503037d ago

Microsoft and Sony are desperately trying to extend this generation by introducing gimmicks like Move and Natal.

However its inevitable that they will need to release new consoles.

Will be funny to watch when all the investment consoles users have put into current consoles goes down the drain over night and they will be forced to buy new games on the new system

While PC users will retain their entire library, that alone is enough to dismiss consoles as being cost effective.

Further more the way PC DD is growing with steam currently being at 25million other DD being around 15million = 40million, its only destined to grow. By the time next gen consoles are out around 2014 PC DD as a whole might be nearing the 100million mark, while consoles will be starting bases from 0 again with software libraries starting from 0 again.

I just dont see the feasibility of consoles as a user.

Sitris3037d ago

thus making all my games for it not work anymore? And who said there is going to be DD on concoles in 4 years, i certainly hope not haha cause if thats the case ill go back to my PC gaming days, but as of late consoles are my choice, soley due to the actual exclusive games, and that it is on my 60 inch tv with guaranteed best possible settings, as oposed to computer which i could only run crysis on medium-high, which looked good, but sadly not as good as it could be. So for me, i can't understand how you can only game on pc, missing out on heaps of huge gaming tiles and no need to upgrade pieces, or worry about certain settings. Consoles, just put the disk in and best settings available from the get go.

champ213037d ago (Edited 3037d ago )


I dont see your logic, its not like Consoles run all games at max settings. In fact on console u will be lucky to be getting most games in 720p med res textures.

Any PC that can run Crysis on high settings can pretty much run todays games at 1080p max settings.

With consoles you are stuck at 720p or below regardless of what you do.

Times have changed there arent any needs for upgrades on PC, 8800gtx still running any game in 1080p max settings is a testament to this.

These days anyone with a 150-200usd gpu, all they have to do before playing a game is max out all settings thats all there is to it, unless the game is badly optimised.

Sitris3037d ago

you miss out on some great games. I ment to say best settings possible *on consoles* no doubt the PC versions look better (take ME2) they look phenominal. But i just prefer to game in my living room as oposed to being infront of my comp (even though this chair is mighty comfy haha) with my souround set and all.
IDK when i changed i just did, i once gamed only on PC, Civ3, warcraft, starcraft, KOTOR plus heaps more where my obcessions, but i just changed i guess.

And my gaming preferences have changed completly, not that i dont game on PC, i will be getting Crysis 2 on both PC and PS3, just so i can experience the best of both worlds.

But in the end it is preference, yes PC has better graphics, but all my friends game on consoles and it is all on a person to person base i guess. Whatever floats your boat!

nickjkl3037d ago (Edited 3037d ago )

that is not what i was meaning thanks for misinterpreting such a simle conept in my post

you guys bring up resolutions as if it showcased the processing power you basically are saying a game running at higher reolution than 1280x720 in the 90s to a game running at 1280x720 today and trying to say hey look my pc was doing that in the 90s over looking the fact that the game looked like crap and that you werent playing a game matching modern warfare in the 90s let alone killzone 2

not to mention that you say that i will have to upgrade my console when the next one comes out guess what i dont have to get it immediately while you might have a graphics card that could possibly work with every game when the next game comes out youre not exactly going to be playing it on max settings just continually lowering settings still it works at a good fps

stonecold13037d ago

team already stated the ps3 version is way ahead of the 360 version and remeber cage metioned if you saw on n4g 360 could not do heavy rain until they have games that surpassed god of war 3 uncharted 1 and 2 killzone2 hheavy rain then they can speak up ends of statement

Nihilism3037d ago (Edited 3037d ago )

I'm not saying "PC > console !!!!"

I was also a console and PC gamer,

I have owned ( i'll include handhelds )
Gameboy Colour

and all the while i've been a PC gamer, and the ONLY generation of console's that doesn't appeal to me is this gen.

Even on day 1 of the 360...before the wii or PS3 were out, I was absolutely underwhelmed. It looked barely different than the previous gen and in my opinion, not any better than Doom 3 had looked several years before...speaking of doom 3...that was the first time I really saw how underpowered console's were compared to PC, I had to crappest computer known to man with a second hand $40 video card I got on the cheap... and I was running doom 3 maxed settings with aa @ 1280x1024, then it came to xbox, it was running at 640x480 and looked like doom3 on low and had an even lower FOV...

Until then I held console's in high regard like many PS3 owners do, I thought console's were more powerful, because the type of games I was playing on PC simply weren't that great looking, that was due to no fault of the platform, but because I was into RTS and diablo 2 etc...

After that I sold my XBOX, and I only used my ps2 as a cd player ( and still do )

Then the PS3 and 360 launched at ridiculous prices, and sadly the only console maker that appealed to me was nintendo...and even they let me down. My brother amongst others kept telling me about crysis and I disregarded it thinking it sounded stupid...but I started getting into PC again..long story short, I bought a new PC for around the same price I would have bought a console for using my old case etc...and now there is no way I can justify buying a console when not only are the console's overpriced, but every game costs $10-20U.S more

If I were to buy a console it would be a massive downgrade, and every game I buy on it would be like throwing money away, not only because they cost more but because there is no guarantee of backwards compatibility. Every PC I buy I keep for not just this gen, but every after it, and each year the games get better, unlike console games that sit in a pile with all the old console's I will never again use.
You say that your PS3 won't break when the next gen comes out, of course it won't, but wouldn't you like to be able to put your PS3 games in a PS4 and double the frame rates and res and draw distances?, that's how it is with every PC game.

Console's are a closed off platform in so many ways and it is a dead end money wise. You might think there a lot of console exclusives worth buying but you might also think uncharted 2 and killzone 2 are graphically impressive...I do not, there is probably less than 5 console games I would buy, so it's not for me anymore. PC is cheaper and better in longevity and customisability, I can postpone upgrading for as long or as little as I like.

I'm not dissing you in any way, I'm just saying that's my rationale, cheaper games, just as cheap hardware( which is better ), multiplats are better, PC still gets it's share of exclusives, and over all I save money and get more out of it. The "PC's cost $2000" thing is a myth, take any PC, add a $100 GPU and your good for another generation


Really because I used to play crysis @1080p on high at 30 frames on my old 8800gt....they can be had for about $50 now...

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 3037d ago