Top
850°

Crysis 1 Island Level on the PS3

A lot of gamers have stated that the original Crysis could not run on consoles. However, one modder begs to differ. A user by the name of MrUpload has uploaded a video of the first level running on the PS3 using the Cryengine 3.

Unfortunately, this is still a work in progress as you will notice lighting issues and other incompatibilities since the author literally took the level and combined it with Crysis 2's engine. However, one glaring issue that seems to be irrelevant to the quality of the port job is the draw distance.

Read Full Story >>
pixelsmashers.com
The story is too old to be commented.
kyl2772480d ago

It wasn't that it couldn't run, it's that it couldn't run and look anywhere as good as the PC version at the same time.

Solid_Snake-2480d ago

agreed...it looks like shit on the ps3.

thats if it is real.

Obelisk922480d ago

It looks like shit because the level is not compatible with the new engine.

But I think it wouldn't look much better even with the Cryengine 2, or it would run at 10 fps.

PC is the way.

ALFAxD_CENTAURO2480d ago (Edited 2480d ago )

Is a mod version.

If the real developers start using the capabilities of the PS3 like the 1st party Developers methods, I'm sure that level will look mind blowing.

ProjectVulcan2480d ago

The style and environment of the original Crysis would not lend itself well to a console. All that foliage and geometry, in huge draw distances and open worlds....it is telling that Crytek closed down the world massively when they brought Crysis 2 to consoles, and removed all the destructability etc

The kind of features that just eat up memory for fun. Crysis could easily use over 1GB video memory alone, and a bunch load more in system RAM.

imvix2480d ago

Go 7800gtx go go go lol doing sub 540p shouldnt be too hard.

LunaticBrandon2480d ago

@ALFAxD_CENTAURO
The environments are way too big. Not even Naughty Dog or Guerrilla's knowledge of the PS3 could save it.

Active Reload2480d ago

What's even worse is that the youtube video taps out at 480p :/

Perjoss2480d ago

Top end PCs really struggled with Crysis back in 2008, not a chance in hell it could ever run well on a PS3.

Ranshak2480d ago

Lol this i exactly the reason why the game wasnt released on console.

NiKK_4192480d ago

the draw distance is almost the same as crysis 2 anyway

Agent VX2480d ago

Yep, PC easily FTW!!! Heck... you could run crysis 1 on the nintendo DS if you wanted too, might not look very good in comparision.

I am sure my PS3 could run Crysis 1 decently, sort of like Killzone 3 graphics quality wise, but it won't touch my PC.

captain-obvious2480d ago

ummmmm

did he mod the console or something to do that ??
or did he hack it in some way ??

PoweredParaglider2480d ago (Edited 2480d ago )

This is so weird.

This guy has obviously modded his console.
This guy likely has downloaded Geohotz's firmware mod which allows linux in order to implement this, or some other mod which remains on Sony's hitlist.

According to Sony and the ps3 fanbase on n4g he is now in breach of the TOU and will be pursued for stealing Sony's software and proprietary access codes.

According to Sony and the ps3 fanbase on n4g, Sony will rightfully obtain a courtorder to subpoena his IP for downloading and installing the modded firmware and prosecute him for the civil transgression of using Sony's unauthorized and illegally modified software on his ps3 hardware, which resides in his own home, and was bought with his own money.

This is what Sony has been doing to others who use the modded firmware for cool stuff like this. After all, to do cool stuff like this, a modded ps3 is needed, with firmware updates sourced from hackers. That's a no-brainer.

It seems the modding community is not (all) about piracy, but possibly about adding homebrew creativity and innovation - even making the PS3 more popular in a similar way the mods have done for Kinect.

I wonder why Sony and the n4g ps3 user base cannot see this?
Hopefully the court case will put an end to this nonsense.

Saint-Revlot2480d ago

@ lunitic, say hi to infamous 2 for me. That has a way bigger environment and has better graphics.

Active Reload2480d ago

That sh*t look like Far Cry Wii, lol.

MaxXAttaxX2480d ago

It's not even a proper port like Crysis 2, ie.

sdtarm2480d ago

are you that fking stpid?

Kleptic2480d ago

cool in a way I guess...

but either way...the console tech demo for CE3 showed a lot of stuff from crysis 1...even though it wasn't stuff put into Crysis 2...the consoles are capable at running 'crysis 1' a hell of a lot better than this...

but agreed...not as well as pretty much any modern PC now...

pixelsword2480d ago (Edited 2480d ago )

@PoweredParaglider:

If he never got the update, he could still run Linux, although since I never ran lunux, I cannot tell if he could do all of that from the XMB.

TotalPS3Fanboy2479d ago

Amazing draw distance. I bet the 360 couldn't handle that kind of draw distance.

radphil2479d ago

@PoweredParaglider

And according to me, you're blindly generalizing on BOTH ends.

+ Show (17) more repliesLast reply 2479d ago
ct032480d ago

Indeed.
Everything is flat-shaded, there is no destructibility of vegetation and buildings, there are no enemies with AI, the draw distance is complete and utter trash, the vegetation density is too low.

The overall level layout may be from Crysis 1, but Crysis 1 this ain't. Not even close.

paintsville2480d ago Show
cakeisalie2480d ago (Edited 2480d ago )

Cant expect much from 256mb of video ram and a BEYOND ancient GPU.

BK-2012480d ago Show
FanboyPunisher2480d ago

GPU

Uses vertex/pixel shaders

What do you expect it to do on a game like Crysis 1?

Magically grow a set of new balls?
Next gen is almost here, new set of balls incoming for console kiddies!

I own all consoles/platforms; I'll say this, PS3 fanboys are the worst, graphically PS3 looks slightly better than Xbox; Why do i think like this? Because I use all platforms, Consoles --> PC is the only huge difference in terms of graphics and sheer more advanced video game design(Red orchistra:Heros of Stalingrad, BF3 for more recent examples).

BF3 pc is far more advanced then consoles, the developers even say its the consoles H/W limiting them, which is true. Reality is consoles are a joke compared to the power of PC visually.

Wheres my 32X AF / AA + High resolution everything, game design not limited by lack of ram and H/W; PC is game design set free.

reynod2480d ago

"Next gen is almost here, new set of balls incoming for console kiddies!"

Naa they just extended the gen with the all powerful Kinect and Move.

They will be getting a left over pair of balls whenever the next consoles do come in though.. exclusively marketed and advertised as next gen.

BK-2012480d ago

PS3 fanboys are the worst my ass, its like you all forget what happened 2006-2009.

imvix2480d ago (Edited 2480d ago )

We know we know, no developer cared about the PS3 and games were poorly optimized, they still are. Cry me a river, it was Sonys fault for being ignorant.

Specially to top it off with words like "they can get 2 jobs" lol

kevnb2480d ago

most games arent optimized at all on either console. They are often a pain to play. Atleast first party sony games seem to feel finished for the most part though. People have accepted the 15-25 fps game though, so I guess im just a tech nerd or something. I also wont accept dvd anymore for a comparison.

DaTruth2480d ago

You guys keep saying PC is more powerful than the PS3, my question is... who the frak ever disagreed with you!

I think you can shut up about it already, I have yet to see anybody, anywhere ever say PS3 is more powerful than PC!

PC fanboys who beg to be in a console war nobody is having with them are the worst of all! Daily unprovoked assaults on console gamers because their hottest news has 3 comments!

Ducky2480d ago (Edited 2480d ago )

"I have yet to see anybody, anywhere ever say PS3 is more powerful than PC!"

Scroll down. You'll see a stupid comment about it.
That isn't to say that Punisher's comment is retarded in itself, but there's morons everywhere. There's usually someone who'll praise the almighty cell over the PC whenever a PC/Console discussion pops up... along with someone else boasting about 32x AA, AF and a bunch of other numbers with acronyms.

"Daily unprovoked assaults on console gamers because their hottest news has 3 comments!

... Daily? O.o

hano2480d ago

I think he would pull it off if he continues working on it. Granted, it won't look as good due to the huge draw distance and the amount of RAM consoles have.

MaxXAttaxX2480d ago

It's not even a proper port like Crysis 2, ie.

pixelsword2480d ago

[email protected] thinking that this modder is Crytek and therefore, since he didn't get it up to par with Crytek, the PS3 is incapable of running Crysis decently.

+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 2480d ago
Persistantthug2480d ago

Shouldn't it be common sense that it could? Sure, a console Crysis 1 wouldn't be as nice as a full blown PC and whatnot, but you never actually needed a great PC to play and enjoy Crysis 1 anyways.

Allow me to demonstrate:

CRYSIS 1 System requirements (minimum requirements)

--Operating system: Windows XP
--CPU: Intel Pentium 4 (2.8GHZ for XP ; 3.0GHZ for Vista)
--Memory: 1 GB RAM for XP ; 2 GB RAM for Vista
--Hard drive space: 12GB of free space
--Graphics hardware: DirectX 9.0c compatible graphics card with 256 MB VRAM
--Sound hardware: DirectX 9.0c compliant sound card

In case there's anyone that doesn't understand this, those are VERY & EASILY attainable specs for any of the HD consoles.

Case closed....at least it should be.
*shrug*

Angels37852480d ago

To be fair though those minimum system requirements for Crysis 1 weren't able to run the game the way it was meant to be played or even run it smoothly on LOW.

kyl2772480d ago

minimum requirements are exactly that, minimum

as in lowest resolution with everything set to low and then you are just scratching 30 fps

BlackKnight2480d ago (Edited 2480d ago )

The minimum you just listed is 1GB of system ram and 256 video....

Xbox has 512 system/video (can be used as either) and PS3 has 256 system RAM and 256 video RAM, both lack the MINIMUM system ram by 1/4 (if you split the xbox ram 50/50 like the PS3). And that is just MINIMUM meaning Crysis 1 on it's lowest graphical settings...

So no, they can't. The amount of AI and objects and trees and physics and size of the levels are so large, you would have to maybe forfeit all textures and sounds to fit JUST the geometry and objects into the consoles RAM. You just can't do it without totally changing the size and interactivity and complexity of the first Crysis, IE Crysis 2 smaller levels and less interactive objects.

Crysis 2 still has a lot of objects compared to most games, don't get me wrong, but considering every tree in Crysis 1 (barring the few giant trees in the game) and nearly all rocks and sticks and items inside places are physics objects that can be picked up and thrown and need to stay in memory, not to mention how EVERY foliage is physicalized and will bend to wind, objects, vehicles, explosive forces and characters. It is just to much to track, no RAM left over on the consoles for textures or sound and so on. Who knows if you could even get that all in without textures or sounds, probably not.

Persistantthug2480d ago

Fallout: New Vegas System requirements

Operating System: Windows XP (with SP2)/Vista/7
CPU: Dual Core 2.0 GHz
RAM: 2 GB
GPU: NVIDIA Geforce 6 series / ATI 1300XT series
HDD: 10 GB of free space

ASSASSIN'S CREED 2
Minimum system and hardware requirements:
OS: XP, Vista or Windows 7
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo 1.8 GHZ or AMD Athlon X2 64 2.4GHZ
RAM: 1.5 GB for XP and 2 GB for Vista or Windows 7
HDD space: 8 GB
VGA card: 256 MB DirectX 9.0–compliant card with Shader Model 3.0 or higher
Sound hardware: DirectX 9.0 –compliant sound card

You'll notice that those games minimums outspec Crysis 1....significantly.

Also, I made sure to use sandbox/open world games on purpose.....just so there wouldn't be any room for disagreement.

You see, BlackKnight, there is no such game made to date, no retail PC game, that if programmed for, that can't be done on today's HD consoles. Perhaps in the future....but not now...period

kevnb2480d ago

it doesnt really run right on minimum specs, these days min specs actually mean something but back then recommended was todays min.

Ducky2480d ago

"there is no such game made to date, no retail PC game, that if programmed for, that can't be done on today's HD consoles."

You're basing that off of minimum requirements, which are often (if not always) poorly stated.

Any Dx9 capable card with 256mb vram will not be able to run those games.
... and no, neither of those two games outspec Crysis's specifications at all.

DaTruth2480d ago (Edited 2480d ago )

Consoles are also not running 600 background programs and crippled with hidden Windows related viruses, trojan horses and spyware!

Pandamobile2480d ago

They're just crippled by their own hardware.

Persistantthug2480d ago (Edited 2480d ago )

Hell, I'd be a fool if I tried to dispute that.

But that clearly doesn't include lower powered PC, and most typical laptops. Those play this current generation's games, and in fact, are LESS powered than the current HD consoles.

Just sayin....if you're gonna take the "good" PC's, when trying to boast about how powerful PC gaming is, then you most certainly have to take the "bad" as well. That's how it works, Pandamobile.

And as unwanted and unpopular as that truth may be......truth is truth, regardless.

Ducky2480d ago (Edited 2480d ago )

^ Which laptops/PCs are you referring to that can play current gen games but are less powerful than a console? O.o

Unless if you consider 640x480 with 25fps as a playable game, you need something that is a few feet ahead of the consoles.

Though that depends on the game too. A source-engine game will run better than say, the x-ray engine (CallOfPripyat eats around 900mb ram) despite both engines being 'modern'.

Bob5702480d ago

Consoles don't have enough RAM to run Crysis 1.

Persistantthug2480d ago (Edited 2480d ago )

I'm refering to said machines ability to play games....Not perform Word, or spreadsheets, app multitasking, etc.

Assuming we are talking about the same general thing and idea (games), then that would encompass pretty much any "minimum spec'd" computer from just about any PC game you can think of.

All of those hypothetical computers would be LESS capable game machines than the current HD consoles.

If you find one that boasts the contrary, feel free to post said game here and PM me....I'll be glad to check it out, FatOldMan. :)

Edit in for Bob570:
We've already been there, bro.....#1.3.4

sobekflakmonkey2480d ago

The more and more I read in this conversation, the more and more I feel like you guys dont understand optimization, PC never needed optimization because developers know you could always just upgrade if you had the money, but a game like Crysis 1 COULD and WOULD run on the PS3/360 IF it was properly optimized for those systems, but instead since it was developed for an extremely high end PC its obviously not going to run well on the PS3 especially when it hasnt been optimized to do so.

Also, you have to consider the fact that sadly, gaming computers count for not even a quarter of the PC's out there, even less really, so generally most PC's/Laptops cant even run the first Crysis anyways, yeah, in a way, console gamers can say "so what, most pc's cant run crysis anyways, so whats your point?" thus making that "PC is superior!" argument kind of a moot point dont you think?

hano2480d ago

The reason is Video RAM and the huge environments Crysis 1 had, and the draw distance.

It would run but it wouldn't look or play as good as the PC version by a mile.

Ducky2480d ago (Edited 2480d ago )

@Persistant
I already stated that the minimum specs don't mean anything concrete.

A PC having DX9 GPU with 256mb of VRAM isn't guaranteed to play anything. There's factors such as the shader clocks, fill rates... you know, the actual power of the card.
For example, my GPU is dx10 capable with 1gig of vram. Yet, a 7900GT which is DX9 and has 256mb vram, would kick my card's ass. My laptop has a dx11 card with 1gig ram, it'll also get beaten by the 7900GT.
There's a wide range of cards that satisfy the minimum requirements but not all of them will run the game properly.

So a hypothetical PC based on the minimum specs won't necessarily be able to play the PC game to begin with. Unless if you go for 480p (or 800p if you're lucky) and sub-30 fps at minimum settings.
(And that's only based on the GPU. The CPU and RAM have their own tales to tell)

Persistantthug2480d ago (Edited 2480d ago )

You're saying that the PC minimum specs on the box aren't good enough, yet for a console, it can run said game just fine.

In fact, lets go back to this one

ASSASSIN'S CREED 2
Minimum system and hardware requirements:
OS: XP, Vista or Windows 7
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo 1.8 GHZ or AMD Athlon X2 64 2.4GHZ
RAM: 1.5 GB for XP and 2 GB for Vista or Windows 7
HDD space: 8 GB
VGA card: 256 MB DirectX 9.0–compliant card with Shader Model 3.0 or higher
Sound hardware: DirectX 9.0 –compliant sound card

I have in fact played AC2 on a computer like this. It ran, but it clearly ran better on my console(s).

Now this game, Fallout NV (Dual Core 2.0 GHz, 2 GB, NVIDIA Geforce 6 series / ATI 1300XT series ), I haven't played, but according to you, FatOldMan, that said PC can't handle this game at all, when again, clearly my PS3 or XBOX 360 can.

I guess what you're saying is, is consoles are more capable than both of us thought....that's what it looks like to me.

*shrug*

Ducky2480d ago (Edited 2480d ago )

^ I'm saying that the specs on the box are vague.

It's about as useful as someone saying that you need a car with four-wheels and two-doors to win a race. There's more factors that the box doesn't list.

Take for example the nVidia 6 series. There is a huge difference between a 6800 and a 6200.
That, and minimum requirements are just what's needed to run the game. That usually means 800p resolution and barely touching 30fps.

Flakmonkey made an excellent point that games for consoles are optimized. PC games aren't optimized to the extent that console games are.
That, and since most PCs (those used for gaming) are already ahead of consoles hardware-wise, developers don't sweat it out on the optimization process.

"I guess what you're saying is, is consoles are more capable than both of us thought"

What I'm saying is that you need a PC that is better than a console to get the same level of experience (full 720p and stable 30fps).
Whereas you originally thought that PCs which are less capable hardware wise could run those games.

Hence why you can't say that all PC games can run on consoles based on minimum specs. (You can't prove the opposite easily either)

mittwaffen2480d ago

Wrong champ, laptops with dedicated cards have more power inside them today, you'll just need to spend 600-1000 to get one to do it.

Lower end desktops with a gpu today can game extremely well. Just built a system for 554.99 and it runs games amazing well.

To me PC's are eventually will take over consoles, as costs continue to drop and OS software becomes more 'XBL live like'.

PC's are more cost effective if you have speakers kb/mouse and only need a tower upgrade, then it becomes worth it to upgrade.

Kleptic2480d ago (Edited 2480d ago )

sobekflakmonkey...I completely agree...

not just optimization of the game itself...no one is even discussing the OS footprint...which is pretty much the single reason 'minimum system requirements' of a PC game are so meaningless compared to a console...

look at the post 1.3...pointing out the system requirements...

XP 1GB of Ram, Vista 2GB...

you think Crysis 1 on Vista (regardless of DX10, as vista still takes nearly double the Ram to still run the game in the exact same DX9 as XP) is doing anything different than XP?...

Vista wasn't optimized for ANYTHING...let alone being run in background for games...it was the very definition of a bloated resource hog, with nothing to show for it...

the PS3's OS footprint while running a full retail game is quoted to be at about 45MB now...the 360's has always been 32MB...Vista ranges from 500 to over 1GB depending on your process list and what you have running during gaming...most PC gamers understand how to address this, but you will never get anywhere close to a console OS footprint...

so 'X' game needing 1GB of system memory never means it is doing things that are completely impossible to a console with a 1/4 of that system memory...it NEEDS that memory because Windows is a pig, and nothing more...

plus CPU usage for PC gaming is nearly non-existent...its all standard rendering where the CPU just runs simple instructions, and the GPU does all the leg work...that is why a gaming PC's achilles heel has always been the gpu...they don't need to mess around with utilizing multiple cpu cores, or parallel processing, or any tricks to squeeze available hardware...its optimized to some phantom point and decided 'if that isn't enough, they need to upgrade'...the cpu just has to have a small slot of room to tell the gpu what to do...which rendering wise is cake compared to actually calculating the frame...

just like monkey stated...crysis 1 has NEVER been close to optimized for anything...even when you finally had a rig to run it maxed out; you simply built a machine capable of sifting through the redundant code...all that extra power would never have been needed if the game was optimized even slightly more...

but my main point was simple...Build a 'gaming PC' with the exact specs of 360 or PS3 (the 360 works better for this example, because it has a more PC like architecture)...build a PC with 512MB of total Ram...run XP (the damn thing wouldn't even boot Vista)...and go try and play the PC release of Gears of War...let alone Crysis 2...It won't touch the console on any aspect of video game performance...

bozebo2479d ago (Edited 2479d ago )

"Wrong champ, laptops with dedicated cards have more power inside them today, you'll just need to spend 600-1000 to get one to do it."

this ^

And since about late 2007 anybody who got a new PC for gaming that wasn't better than a console was an idiot for buying a stupid graphics card (ie, they were ripped off by the retailer). They could have popped an extra couple of bucks into the machine (8800gt) and ran crysis and every game out since then without problems (ok, you'd have a few problems with crysis :P - but as we've established it is indeed badly optimised).

This year, you can take a normal desktop price (I dunno, just under £400?) and stick a £160 graphics card in it and totally demolish every game out at 1080p on maxed or very close to maxed graphics.

People do certainly underestimate the power that console graphics chips have though. They are a lot better than the ones that were in PCs at the time - particularly when it comes to shader operations. And the RAM limitations in consoles don't really have the same implications as they would on PC, realise that a large amount of the game's resources are streamed to RAM when required - rather than just shoving it all into RAM on PC (thats why consoles have texture popins and stuff). It is becoming a limitation now, but more for multitasking non-game applications than it is for running games.

To be honest, I wish console games would drop the graphics back a little bit so games are 60fps again. Did CoD look bad to anyone? The problem is that consoles are going to be 30fps forever, whenever they get extra power next gen the devs are instantly going to resort to overloading it to a level the hardware can't handle at 60fps. But that is just the target audiences reaction to marketing through graphical quality and the developers' decisions - not a limitation in the hardware.

LunaticBrandon2479d ago (Edited 2479d ago )

I tried running Crysis on my old PC that just meets the min requirements and its not pretty. No way in Hell will he ever get the full game and all its assets running. One grenade blows up next to some trees and its YLOD for your PS3.

+ Show (18) more repliesLast reply 2479d ago
airforcex2480d ago

Can't believe some of these post. The PS3 has nothing at all on PC. Even a $100 GPU from NVIDIA or AMD leaves it far behind. It barely competes with 360. Some games look awesome (Uncharted, etc.) But this is console awesome; not PC. Have you seen games running at 70, 80, or 90 FPS on max settings? Frames per second and resolutions on PC are way higher. Also, both the 360 and PS3 GPUs are 2005 technology.

Kleptic2480d ago (Edited 2480d ago )

we get it...but some of us are simply pointing out there is a lot more to it than just specific resources available...as PC gaming requires allocation of said resources to run a lot more than just a game...where the consoles are streamlined to dedicate almost everything they have to the actual game itself...not windows, or any other back packers tagging along...

and hardly on the consoles using gpu's from '2005'...when the 360 dropped there was no publicly available gpu that would touch it...the G78 based RSX wasn't topped spec wise until Nvidia released the 8800 GTS well into 2007...at a price point that was as high as the PS3...for most of 2005 Nvidia's fastest PC gpu was the 6800 Ultra, of which Nvidia stated that the RSX was 'over twice as fast...at everything'...the 7 series plopped that year, but where in a window of having no developers pushing them, and where priced so high it was nearly irrelevant all the way up to when the PS3 released in late 2006...

and that is also theoretical, as the RSX was far from a standalone GPU...Nvidia never publicly released its specs...and because of that, every 'official' commentary on the RSX's capabilities are based on PC gpu's that used the same chipsets...most of its development and modifications where centered on its ability to communicate with a ridiculously fast cpu and do calcs in parallel...an off the shelf 7700/7800 from 2006 was not the same thing...which was why at the time the PS3, as well as the 360, were much more capable than readily available PC hardware during their launch windows...

all that was towards my point...both the PS3 and 360 had GPU's that were equal to, or even faster, than ANY PC gpu available in 2005 or 2006...hardly 'dated' by 2005 standards...

it all goes back to what every good write up said when the PS3 released...it doesn't have 'normal' architecture...if you look at the GPU on its own, it doesn't appear all that impressive...if you take the cpu on its own...its blazing fast at somethings, and piss slow at others...but when you take the cpu/gpu coded properly to work in parallel...it creates some of the best looking games that ever appeared...some of which still aren't easily giving up that throne...

like I said though, we get it...PC did surpass it...but PC fans sit back and claim the PS3 and 360 were already crushed when they released...and that is simply incorrect...

i'll simply ignore the 'uncharted 2 looks great, for a console game' bs...because that is all it is...

Ravenor2479d ago

@Kleptic

Comparing PC GPU capabilities to console GPU is like comparing Granny Smith Apples to Macintosh. In 2005 I had an AMD Athlon 64, 2gb of ram and a Geforce 6800. Yet I was playing things like Battlefield 2 and that was followed by Battlefield 2142 in 2006, games far from the reach of the consoles at that time.

Some PS3 and 360 games look great, but there is no denying the overly limited environments, AI and Physics in most console games. How often in Uncharted 2 did you stray from a mission critical path and were free to find your own way through the level? Or how about Killzone 3? Anyone take part in a major firefight with large numbers of ISA, Helghast and Vehicles(That weren't just scripted objects?) I didn't on my playthrough. I've played these heavily scripted corridor crawls for years now, it's getting boring (Crysis 2, I'm looking at you.).

Anyways, I would love to find out if this game is running with no "cells" or if it's like most console open world games with it broken into Square cells. (GTA IV, FO3, Infamous, Prototype the list goes on...)

nickjkl2479d ago (Edited 2479d ago )

if im not mistaken the pc version

on some pcs

could run at 800x600

direct x 9

all low settings

at like 10 fps

you cant be a pc gamer abd ignore the low end

50Terabytespersec2479d ago (Edited 2479d ago )

Crysis 1 was at best over rated, on PS3 it doesn't belong there. Take a look at GT5 1080p and God of War3 Cgi level of graphics and incredible MLAA, or Uncharted 2 phenominal set pieces for some Graphics revolution...
p.S.
shooting a horrible looking tree in half is not impressive as well a wasted of resources..= Crysis 1..

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2479d ago
MGRogue20172480d ago (Edited 2480d ago )

... wtf..? =/

Very impressive work. I can't wait to see how far this develops in the near future. :)

jriquelme_paraguay2480d ago (Edited 2480d ago )

Very impressive indeed... looks like crap

GodofwarGoty2480d ago

it just shows you that there is nothing that cant run on the PS3

jriquelme_paraguay2480d ago (Edited 2480d ago )

i can run Crysis 1 in my Toaster too...

but... at 0.00005 FPS

cakeisalie2480d ago

Next up PS3 fans will be comparing PS3 Crysis 1 with PC, then trying to convince each other there hardly are any differences.

Kleptic2480d ago

^^exactly...as this is obviously the best the PS3 could do at running crysis 1...

check at about 1:15...looks just like this user generated video, doesn't it?...

http://www.youtube.com/watc...