Try our new beta!Click here
Submitted by Rashid Sayed 1612d ago | screenshot

Crysis Console Vs PC Comparison: Which version looks better?

"Four years have passed and still there are a few gaming PCs around that can run Crysis at maximum setting and resolution. Recently Crytek and EA announced that the four year old shooter is making its way on consoles, the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360.
We decided to compare some recently released screenshots of the console version and what we did was fire up our beastly PC and compared the exact locations. Mind you we made the resolution 720p but with all the settings on high." (Crysis, PC, PS3, Xbox 360)

« 1 2 3 »
AngelGirl16  +   1612d ago
I think the pics might have been labeled wrong because the 360/PS3 version looked better than the PC version.
piroh  +   1612d ago
in my opinion lightning and effects are better for consoles according to these screenshots

obviously, they have 4 years to polish

now i am excited bring it on
#1.1 (Edited 1612d ago ) | Agree(38) | Disagree(10) | Report | Reply
osamaq  +   1612d ago
@piroh what are you talking about !!.... PC is far more realistic as I can see ... the colors is far more natural...

and I'm a console owner by the way ...
#1.1.1 (Edited 1612d ago ) | Agree(18) | Disagree(36) | Report
kharma45  +   1612d ago
The only reason the colours look difference is the night/day cycle in the game, the console version is quite obviously earlier in the day than the PC which looks like it's getting near to sunset.
BiggCMan  +   1612d ago
It will look fine on the consoles. However, the ability to add mods to the PC version is what makes it superior in the graphics department.

You can't get this on the consoles.
bozebo  +   1612d ago
The screenshots were obviously taken with bias towards the consoles tbh.

The consoles will simply not have enough power to handle the complex shaders that the game uses (sub surface scattering, atmospheric scattering, parralax mapping etc).

Also, the PC screenshots were downscaled to those silly low-res images used in the article which causes quite a lot of blurring and makes the textures look low res.

Just wait until it's actually out on consoles then the differences will be obvious.

Heres a video of the differences in motion:
but, it is also taken with a bit of bias towards PC I will admit - but at least its actually the same scenes and not totally different parts of the environment like this article.

Also fyi, a PC to max out crysis at 1080p with 50-70fps today costs about £600 (I built one yesterday for a friend with new components). My PC from 2008 that cost £800 can very nearly max it out at 1680x1050 but only at about 30-40fps so it has a lot of input lag which makes it hard to play with a mouse but it feels fine with a controller.

Still, I am impressed with how Crysis 1 looks on consoles overall; certainly looks better than Crysis 2 does.
Pixel_Pusher  +   1612d ago
they mixed up picture 3 of 5 there's no way in hell that's PC.
#1.1.5 (Edited 1612d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(13) | Report
Kurylo3d  +   1612d ago
This article is a joke.. that level has different times of day... so they took a screenshot of when the sun first rises for the pc version and a screenshot of a brighter full noon looking version for the 360/ps3.. and then they say the console version is better. hahhaa your not gonna fool people who actually played crysis ... dumb writer dumb article.
BlindGuardian  +   1612d ago
the Crysis expansion looked better than the main game and it required a lot less resources, and that's because they had time to optimized the performance

is it that surprising that they used the same process for this console port?

not only hardware changes over time but development software as well and what needed a lot of power 4 years ago and now it can be done with a lot less

I can't believe all these PC gamers commenting here don't know that
decrypt  +   1612d ago
Lol its sad watching the lengths console gamers will go to just to defend 6 year old tech.

Its just that most of them are butt hurt that even multiplats look and run better on the pc than console exclusives.
Megaton  +   1612d ago
@Pixel_Pusher - Yeah, that can't be PC. Or at least not "very high" as GB claims. At the very least, AF is clearly turned off in that screenshot.

Not surprised to find this pile from GB, though. I bet they grabbed some of their "screenshots" from trailers.
specialguest  +   1612d ago
Have we forgotten??
This is freaking Gamingbolt. One of the worst sites out there. You will not find a legit comparison here. They are laughing their ass off knowing they just disturbed the PC ant nest on purpose, just to gain hits. So far, they've done a good job at that.
MaxXAttaxX  +   1612d ago
Looks good enough.
I think that's all that matters as long as the game runs smoothly.
B00M  +   1612d ago
bozebo - a £600 PC that maxes crysis with 50-70 fps? what were the specs? not trolling actually wanna know because I spent about £720 on my rig.
Theonetheonly  +   1612d ago
my 2 cents.

they will gut this game port to cryengine 3
lower texture rez to the rez of those in crysis 2 and switch to their new deferred ligting and shadow system.

Come on people. dont fool yourselves if they couldnt get crysis 2 to be the best looking game on consoles, they have no chance of doing so with arguably the best looking game released on pc. absolutely bogus.

list of things i am almost sure will be squeezed for performance.

1 massive texture resolution downgrade.
2 switch from global illumination to deferred lighting and shadows, which are realtime yet not tied explicitly to framerate.

vs crysis 1 pc

notice how physics are not tied to framerate in cryengine 3 meaning slow objects when performance is at risk.

4 say goodbye to volumetric lighting and say hello to post process godrays,

5 the geometry invovled in the original crysis was and still is impossible on consoles, everything will be changed trees and foliage will be less dense and less responsive to shockwaves if shockwaves even make it into the game.

6 volumetric explosions will be gone as well as volumetric clouds.

7 draw distance will at least be cut in half.

8 lod aa af, will be cut in 1/4 ao Parallax occlusion mapping will be nonexistant as well.

9 specular vegetation will only be used on plants with big leaves, like palm trees and those big leaved plants.

all of this will be missing in order to cram this sandbox into 6 year old hardware please dont kid yourselves.

and it will all be justified by the "New Color grading" that will do little more than change the colors of a severely handicapped version of the original CRYSIS.

at least it will be at 720p right.

i get disappointed when people dont understand performance cost/visual fidelity are directly proportional.

Sunhammer  +   1612d ago

Hey guys, check out that disgusting filth right there.

Sub-HD? Check.
Crytek using bullshots again by releasing blown up "1080p" screen shots of a sub-HD game? Check.
Pretty much nonexistent anti-aliasing? Check.
"Remastered in HD"? How, if the console versions aren't HD and the PC version supported native 1080p from the go? Check.
Laughable downgrade in textures? Check.

Good job on the "remastered" port, Crytek.

I'm not even a PC gaming fanboy and I can admit that Crysis on consoles looks like Crysis on low settings with slightly redone lighting.

I'm sure PC elitists are laughing right now and so am I. It is amazing what Crytek can get console fantards to believe.
#1.1.14 (Edited 1612d ago ) | Agree(11) | Disagree(6) | Report
BattleAxe  +   1612d ago
Just another stupid gaming bolt article. This is one of those questions that doesn't even need to be asked as the answer is obvious. Console only gamers should just be happy that they get to play another awesome game that looks good.
Sub4Dis  +   1611d ago
It would sort of be like going from prime rib to...i don't know...weird brother of prime rib.
Mr_Lu_Kim  +   1611d ago
Even with his little updte claimng this article is real, it's still FAKE and the submitter is a looser and a fanboy...

Grow up kiddies, we all know it won't and physicaly can't on this genertion of console hardware look better than the PC version 4 years ago.

Also who the F are they again... Oh that's right a nobody site looking for hits.
#1.1.17 (Edited 1611d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(2) | Report
Eyesoftheraven  +   1611d ago
Here are two 1080p videos comparing vanilla DX10 original PC Crysis running under Very High settings against the new console footage:

Related video
Kurt Russell   1611d ago | Bad language | show
slayorofgods  +   1611d ago
the lighting and game play effects were huge on pc. It is hard to judge which looks better on a still screen image.

totally agree. One lousy image really doesn't even begin to compare. I know people are excited about getting Crysis on consoles, but you also have to realize what the game is capable of on a pc to really appreciate it. That image doesn't even begin to showcase why the pc version of Crysis was a graphical masterpiece for its time.
#1.1.20 (Edited 1611d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
vulcanproject  +   1611d ago
The low resolution shots help to hide the obvious differences you would see playing it on a decent sized, HD screen. Its a terrible comparison, because it is heavily biased towards the console version this way.

As per usual they are putting the PC version up against console, on the console's terms, at low end 720p which hides major asset differences.

For example most Crysis PC textures are 1024 x 1024, and several are 2048 x 2048!!

This is difficult to see in those low res shots. However i have seen a full size console set of shots on LOT, and it is OBVIOUS the console version has no texture bigger than 512 x 512.

Please for the love of god, ignore this awful comparison. It flatters the console version and destroys much of the detail of the PC version i have come to be accustomed to and are very aware of.

Extremely disappointed with the quality of this article.
#1.1.21 (Edited 1611d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report
Yukicore  +   1605d ago
Of course. Back in 2006 when they were still making the game, those graphics looked so phenomenal, that they didn't have any clue what can they improve graphically.
egidem  +   1612d ago
Something tells me that this AngelGirl16 has something to do with WariorPrincess, that trolling troll.

Joined not long ago, commenting first on the articles, yeah..could be the same person.

On the side of things, why are people doing pointless comparisons like Crysis PC version vs a console port?? Seriously? Must we place them side by side just to conclude that the PC version *GHASP* looks better than the console port?
#1.2 (Edited 1612d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(6) | Report | Reply
AngelGirl16  +   1612d ago
I have no idea what you're talking about about but if you read the article and the update. The guy tested the pc version at 720p and the settings all on high. So it really amazing that it looks better than the pc at those settings. This might be too good to be true so we might have to wait until the game is released to compare.
Tanir  +   1612d ago
a 500,000 Gajillion dollar computer will always look better than a console..........unless it was a 10 year old diamond encrusted compaq
NarooN  +   1611d ago
I'm not sure who would pay that much for a PC, but you can build a PC from scratch right now, I'm talkin GPU, CPU, PSU, MOBO, RAM, Sound Card, Case, and any other accessories, and it'd top out at around $600-700 and could run Crysis 1 & 2 maxed @ 1080p with 30fps minimum.
Tanir  +   1611d ago
lol naroon, it was a joke *sigh haha. fact is console = 250-300, pc = 600-1000 depending on your monitor and accesories. i have a 1200$ pc i know. it makes gorgeous games far above ps3 and 360 wen it comes to multiplats buuuuut......price difference is a huge hinderance. not sure any1 can afford that wen people complain that ps3 is 250 lol
frostyhat123  +   1612d ago
Well it is a 4 year old game so I wouldn't be suprised if they looked exactly the same!
smilydude13  +   1612d ago
Hey guys. Something seems bizarre about their comparison and it really doesn't show the differences. I would also like to clarify that the time of day is different in each photo which is extremely misleading.

I believe that site does a much, much, MUCH better job at illustrating the difference between the versions. For instance the lighting appears to have been significantly downgraded and doesn't seem nearly as subtle, and the difference in foliage is extremely noticeable.
DigitalAnalog  +   1612d ago
I may have to go off topic here.
But since they're able to "port" Crysis 1 (a game where most PC fans claims that is impossible to do on consoles). It then makes you wonder why Crysis 2 isn't as open as this?

One thing is for sure, there's going to be numerous setbacks with this port considering the scope is bigger. However, the color palette of the new engine gives it a more updated look then the PC counterpart.

As a note, I think it serves great injustice that they had to force a 720p resolution to compare the consoles, bumping the resolution higher to 1080p would've made a very big difference in image quality.

-End statement
smilydude13  +   1612d ago
The color difference is because it's a different time of day in each of the photos.

The PC version seems to be at dusk, while the console appears to be the afternoon.

I think does a more accurate comparison between the two versions.
FlameBaitGod  +   1612d ago
PC > Console

Related video
iamgoatman  +   1612d ago
Seeing as most of those PC shots look terrible, here's at least what the PC screenshot from the first comparison SHOULD look like.

It also should be noted that Crytek seem to have altered the TOD and colour grading for the console versions, unless you have everything on medium with the contrast and brightness wacked up, the game never has that blue hue.
#1.8 (Edited 1612d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
stevenhiggster  +   1612d ago
The console shots are clearly from the xbox version, it always has over done contrast ratios.
Jo0j  +   1611d ago
it is xbox pics, on pic 2 you can clearly see the A-Y-X-B buttons on the gun
awi5951  +   1612d ago
Fraps records at very low res. If you try to crank it up it kills your pc. I wouldnt use fraps to capture anything you need lots of detail or to show off graphics. Also fraps has a max res it supports and its not very high. IF you try to record 3min in fraps at 1080P its like a 100gig file.
#1.9 (Edited 1612d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
SantistaUSA  +   1612d ago
very true, fraps kills your performance! GB did a very poor job on this comparison!!!
bozebo  +   1611d ago
Also they are using screenshots... so why use fraps at all lol when there is PrintScr or an in-game screenshot button.
#1.9.2 (Edited 1611d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
Bob570  +   1612d ago
The only problem with the PC screenshot is the greyed-out color, which is easily remedied with a nice monitor or by adjusting the in-game contrast, brightness, and gamma bars.

The foliage looks better, the particle effects and volumetric clouds/smokes is better, higher resolution textures etc.
hiredhelp  +   1612d ago
Ok could you please state what video card your using what dx your using. and must be at least a core 2 duo. as the 360 has 2 cores. and be nice to see fraps. i see no FPS on screen shots thankyou.
Bigpappy  +   1611d ago
360 has a unique 3 core processor.
hiredhelp  +   1611d ago
Thankyou for correcting me your right. ;)

Xbox 360
Intel Xenon CPU- 3 Cores @ 3.2ghz each (9.6ghhz threaded)
512MB RAM shared between GPU and CPU

Cell Broadband SPU - 8Cores (1 disabled as back up) @3.2Ghz each (25.6Ghz Threaded)
256mb system RAM
256mb Dedicated Graphics RAM

Love a pc to run a cell processor imagin what that could do.
#1.11.2 (Edited 1611d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(4) | Report
HenryFord  +   1611d ago
mhm? The XBox uses a PowerPC-CPU, that isn't built by Intel but by AMD (and another dev. when my mind serves me right, I think they built it in a joint-venture). The CPU is thus based upon IBM's PowerPC architecture, has nothing to do with Intel...

You are maybe thinking of Intel Xeon which again has nothing to do with the Xbox...

The Cell-Processors wouldn't do any good for the PC-crowd because they have very limited usability. The raw-processing power might be higher than the usual x86_64-chipsets used nowadays, but it is also highly specific and specialized. The PC-Crowd uses GPU-chipsets in order to achieve the same power, and a regular modern GPU can do much better than the PS3's cell-architecture. The only thing in which the cell-architecture outdoes a modern GPU is distributed-computing, at least that is what they tell is - I don't think that is even true any more.
Another thing is that the cell-architecture has a very difficult instruction-set, making it hard to develope on that thing.

Long story short: You really do not want the cell-architecture inside your PC. And if you want - you can order yourself a blade-center, which utilizes cell-architecture.

Also - you might want to begin to read into this stuff as you will realize that the frequenz of a processor isn't really worth being mentioned, especially when you try to compare different architectures against each other.
TheXonySbox  +   1611d ago
you literally know nothing of computer hardware, lmao please take a comp sci course to enlighten your ignorance.

Lol, thanks for giving me a laugh though.

hiredhelp - xbox360=9.6ghz, LMAO! hahahahahaha
I guess that makes my I7.. 15.6ghz, and 31.2ghz if you count the Hyper thread'n cuz u know it doubles yur ghz.

end /S
#1.11.4 (Edited 1611d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
TheXonySbox  +   1611d ago
you'd have to be half retarded to think a 6 year old console can trump hardware that still has trouble running crysis on ultra.

Simple as this, if you own a console and need to look a this graphics shit; you seriously need to consider computer gaming, seriously all these games are already gimmped on consoles just due to the resolution alone; let alone the counless other limitations with graphics.

If you care about gameplay, consoles are GREAT; but if you honestly are a graphics whore, comparing PC games you honestly need to open your eyes.

Even ugly PC games look better then most console games because of the sheer clarity that you have before you, let alone the effects that we have the horsepower to create.

PtRoLLFacE  +   1611d ago when i see that in consoles the fuking way console will even match med settings lol
vickysud  +   1612d ago
#2 (Edited 1612d ago ) | Agree(13) | Disagree(15) | Report | Reply
Rashid Sayed  +   1612d ago
did you even read the post? The point is the console version is looking more 'colorful' than the pc version.

And in some instances it is even looking better than the PC version.
AngelGirl16  +   1612d ago
I don't know why you have disagrees.
Sunhammer  +   1612d ago
More colorful based on what? I can guarantee you the console versions will be loaded with jaggies. Crytek only releases doctored images captured from computers they build, which have Crysis running max settings and full AA, far beyond 30 frames per second. They also speed up their trailers and add motion blur to hide any imperfections with frame rate or jaggies.

How much you wanna bet Crysis on consoles will barely even be locked at 30 fps and will use a very low standard of AA?

Oh wait, it's Rashid Sayed from, A.K.A the worst website ever made.
Motorola  +   1612d ago
SantistaUSA  +   1612d ago
hey Rashid S. your site is just looking for hits, which is ok, but you are doing it by misleading tactics!!!
Karooo  +   1612d ago
Read the article.

"We decided to compare some recently released screenshots of the console version and what we did was fire up our beastly PC and compared the exact locations. Mind you we made the resolution 720p but with all the settings on high."
Pandamobile  +   1612d ago
So you take some low res PC screenshots, forget to use the highest settings, then compare it to high-res renders from the console version.

Video game journalism at its finest, ladies and gents.
contra157  +   1612d ago
I dont understand why they put it up against the computer when computers are at least 5yrs ahead. EVERYBODY PC IS BETTER GET OVER IT.
Optical_Matrix  +   1612d ago
Is that a serious question? I don't even..
lugia 4000  +   1612d ago
mmm, I don't know. Maybe my GTX580 is not better than my Xbox. Maybe my xbox is just better. Very stupid article. Want colorful crap? Get a modded config.
#4 (Edited 1612d ago ) | Agree(12) | Disagree(6) | Report | Reply
bozebo  +   1612d ago
8600GS for £40 is better than your 360.
cliffbo  +   1612d ago
"8600GS for £40 is better than your 360."

you do realise a gpu by itself just won`t work at all right?.LOL
monkeymagik  +   1612d ago

8600gs, rofl. Your funny.

8600gs does not have the pixel throughput or shader power to even touch the 360. Maybe your thinking of the 8800gs. which would be close.

Or maybe you just underestimate AMD.
hiredhelp  +   1612d ago
no but a 4870 would be cheaper and still dominate consoles. and yes can if this person was knowledgable with this game put it to a ultra setting
NYC_Gamer  +   1612d ago
These type of post bring the worse out of gamers
SageHonor  +   1612d ago
And the sad part is that "these types of articles" gets the most hits. Its like gamers are intentionally going to these articles so they can complain.
Organization XII  +   1612d ago
Colorful? are you for real? does real life look like rainbows? O dont think so, even an ignorant PS3 fanboy (like me) knows that Crysis on current and 2-3 year old PC hardware rips apart anything consoles can do. Does this even support 8xAA and 16xAF and extreme draw distance? Nah I'm sure not, let me see this sustain a solid 30FPS. lol.
#6 (Edited 1612d ago ) | Agree(8) | Disagree(9) | Report | Reply
veChuy  +   1612d ago
NatureOfLogic  +   1612d ago
Really, let me check again something must be wrong with my eyes.

Edit: I know PC can look better and perform better, but those PS3/360 pics look better than the PC ones.
#7.1 (Edited 1612d ago ) | Agree(14) | Disagree(9) | Report | Reply
3GenGames  +   1612d ago
One bubble well used, upped.
Pandamobile  +   1612d ago
#8 (Edited 1612d ago ) | Agree(8) | Disagree(8) | Report | Reply
FlameBaitGod  +   1612d ago
People really have to be stupid to believe a console game would ever look better than a pc one.

Related video
#8.1 (Edited 1612d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(10) | Report | Reply
Studio-YaMi  +   1611d ago
This stupid website(gamingbolt)should never be allowed to post articles or anything related to gaming on N4G,they are just a bunch of liars,they tweak there screens and spread false news.
*they did that more than once*

Anyone who thinks a console can do better than an upgradable PC should go see a doctor right away !

Am not saying that there aren't great gems on consoles (like the Uncharted series for example) but if Uncharted was made for PC too,then you'de fined mind blowing graphics more awesome than what you can see on PS3,if you're not a fanboy you would know that for a fact without being blind about it !
#8.2 (Edited 1611d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
theonlylolking  +   1612d ago


How could you disagree with fact?????
#9 (Edited 1612d ago ) | Agree(11) | Disagree(19) | Report | Reply
Miiikeyyy  +   1612d ago
Because if you look at the Pics, The consoles screenshots actually look better. It's as if They labelled the pics wrong
3GenGames  +   1612d ago
I disagreed because you didn't look at the pictures, 360/PS3 look far better.
Motorola  +   1612d ago
How can something look better, fact? Its a 100% opinionated question.
The Iron Sheik  +   1612d ago
This is like asking Rosie O'Donnell vs Megan Fox

Who is better?
#10 (Edited 1612d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(9) | Report | Reply
Nes_Daze  +   1612d ago
More like Rosie O'Donnell vs. Oprah Winfrey, because Crysis sucks anyway.....oh yes I
specialguest  +   1612d ago
What a dumb statement
Because Crysis sucks anyways? That's irrelevant to the subject of the matter, which is comparing graphics or looks.

Dumb statement? Oh yes you did!
Nes_Daze  +   1612d ago
@specialguest It's relevant because it pertains to the game, Crysis is an overrated pretty FPS, still mad??
specialguest  +   1612d ago
You're doing it wrong
It's: U mad?

Sorry, but I had to correct you, because "still mad" doesn't have the same effects.
HINDERIZATION  +   1611d ago
internet memes are pretty dumb too.
specialguest  +   1611d ago
Yes, and I don't use them. If you understood sarcasm without me having to use the /s, you would recognized that I corrected Gloomy_Nes in a sarcastic way which effortlessly defuses the whole meme insult effect.
#10.2.3 (Edited 1611d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report
HINDERIZATION  +   1611d ago
but you did use it lol
#10.2.4 (Edited 1611d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report
_LarZen_   1612d ago | Trolling | show
Otheros00  +   1612d ago
They aren't even in the exact same place when taking those screens.
bozebo  +   1612d ago
this ^

+ well said bubs
RyuCloudStrife  +   1612d ago
Consoles OWN!!!
pr0digyZA  +   1612d ago
Still havn't managed to figure out how to put all the shots on one page I see.

Anyway not a great comparison considering the PC shots are a lower res and the settings aren't at max. Console shots look good though, they have changed the lighting it seems.
KillerPwned  +   1612d ago
They are really doing this........LMFAO! Take a look at these modded crysis screens.
pr0digyZA  +   1612d ago
Whats good about those shots is that they aren't modded they are tweaked lighting so its still same game with different values.

Unlike say this mod which is insane
KillerPwned  +   1612d ago
Thanks man I`am looking for a up to date graphics mod for this game. I got the hardware juts gotta find the right mod.
SnotyTheRocket  +   1612d ago
Key word here "modded" figure it out you're self.......
pr0digyZA  +   1611d ago
Those just have lighting changed by upping and lowering decimal points. Crytek changed lighting as well plus a whole bunch of other things to get it to work on console. Technically they modded their own game more than killers pics.
SnotyTheRocket  +   1610d ago
Disagree? Really? Well then, I'm off to cry now. :(
Orpheus  +   1612d ago
Someday I might find an article saying the console version of BF3 looks better than the PC version in this weird world of N4G filled with Dino-Tech Fanboys who think optimization can make those T-Rex work at 200% efficiency .......
#16 (Edited 1612d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(8) | Report | Reply
3GenGames  +   1612d ago
But BF3 will look better on PC. It's being developer for all platforms, all of which DICE are familiar with, and will pull out the best of each, and PC will look better.

BUT, in the 4 years, developers have learned to use the consoles better than the PC when it was released some years ago, so yes this will look better nearly no matter what, because they will take more advantages of what they've learn. If they remade it on PC today it'd look better than consoles, but that's not happening, so I guess we can say truthfully the consoles have the best version of Crysis? :)
Orpheus  +   1612d ago
You forgot all the other articles in N4G comparing Crysis PC vs Console where there are loads of shots comparing both and you have also forgotten the MODs .... Look at Pandamobile's post right below
#16.1.1 (Edited 1612d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(2) | Report
caboose32  +   1612d ago
Guess you havent seen the graphics mods for Crysis, poor uninformed troll.
Shubhankar  +   1612d ago
Wow... is it just me, or do the console versions actually looks better? 0_o
#17 (Edited 1612d ago ) | Agree(17) | Disagree(3) | Report | Reply
Pandamobile  +   1612d ago
When comparing high res down scaled console renders to low res, badly compressed PC screenshots, yeah.

This is not what the PC version looks like on very high settings:

This is:
#17.1 (Edited 1612d ago ) | Agree(14) | Disagree(11) | Report | Reply
Orpheus  +   1612d ago
Disagree votes already =)) ..... T-Rex lovers don't even believe their own eyes .... lolz.
Shaman  +   1612d ago
Actually thats essentially it, only you have that really nice Crytek DOF blurring 90% of the screen making it looks smoother than it really is. I have Crysis 1 on PC, I'm one of biggest fanboys, I know what it looks like.

Crytek admited that they went a little over the top with Crysis 1, having HDR post processing taking more than 30ms ported on consoles(basically entire budget),but then they scrapped it and rebuild it and it took 5ms. Its even cheaper on PC with better quality.
mttrackmaster38  +   1612d ago
Those shots you posted actually look kinda blurry.
veChuy  +   1612d ago
Remember Crysis on Pc was released 4 years ago, The Xbox 360 crysis version has new colors palette, that pc screenshots are from 4 years go, Modders are making an amazing job improving graphics on Crysis and Crysis 2 leaving behind console by far and showing the real Pc power in terms of graphics, anyway a official graphics improve was released only on PC for Crysis 2 bringing full directx 11 support and high resolution texture pack, I havent hear about this on console or I am wrong?
veChuy  +   1612d ago
I dont get it why people trying to compare Consoles froms 6 years ago with High en PCs is just stupid, When Xbox 360 was Released at that time really expensive High end PCs had better graphics already and people want compare it now... Common.
Convas  +   1612d ago
Is this a serious question?
Tsar4ever  +   1612d ago
I think these console pics ARE F**KING FALSE!! There NO WAY the Cryengine3(console versions) of Crysis can EVER compete against the Cryengine2 PC version, the C3 is dumbed down than C2. I believe these pics are a SCAM!!
Kurylo3d  +   1612d ago
This article is a joke... that level has different times of day... so they took a screenshot of when the sun first rises for the pc version and a screenshot of a brighter full noon looking version for the 360/ps3.. and then they say the console version is better. hahhaa your not gonna fool people who actually played crysis ... dumb writer dumb article.
jmac53  +   1612d ago
Haha! Dumb PC fanboys are getting their panties in a twist.
CapsLocke  +   1612d ago
I just have Played Crysis on my PC on very High, and it's nothing like what is showed here in comparison!
I get it now. This article is about how much console version will be close to low-medium settings on PC version. Hand down.
Seriously people, no matter how much you don't believe or disagree, but you simply CAN'T get all that Crysis beauty on weak $300 console. They will wash it, they will bloom it, make lower textures, but it still gonna be what it's always called a "bad port" Only this time it's gonna be "bad PC-to-console port". You'll see it.
#24 (Edited 1612d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(6) | Report | Reply
caboose32  +   1612d ago
A game made back in 2007, compared to it made in 2011.

Really guys? I'm pretty sure thats 4 years for them to optimize their engine as much as possible.
#25 (Edited 1612d ago ) | Agree(8) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
i_like_ff7  +   1612d ago
Lol console version looks better
Pandamobile  +   1612d ago

Guess which one is the console version ;)

I'll give you a hint, it's the one with no foliage.
caboose32  +   1612d ago
This article was a bit unfair.

The author obviously chose certain pc pictures to make the bullshot console ones look better.

Your comment 100% confirms that. And those are the same exact areas arent they?
Pandamobile  +   1611d ago
They are.
iamgoatman  +   1611d ago
Ha! That's just plain awful, if the port requires THAT much foliage and detail to be cut, why bother porting it at all? Theres not going to be much jungle left, may as well make a new game entirely based on some salt falts, nothing is all directions, perfect for the consoles!
thespaz  +   1612d ago
I think it looks better on consoles, but after hating Crysis 2, I probably won't pick this one up.

Any games coming out soon that's not a first person shooter? (I know about Uncharted 3 already).
Bay  +   1612d ago
I think the console screens are doctored anyway...considering the game will probably be running at 720p, the fact that there are absolutely no jaggies is kind of suspicious.

With that said, it seems like Crytek just bumped up the contrast/colors in the console version. You can simply adjust the contrast in the options on the PC Crysis, and as for colors...well, you can grab a ToD mod or one of the many graphics mods for the game, like natural mod or real lifesis (which bumps up the saturation quite a bit, among other things).
Pandamobile  +   1612d ago
They are bullshots. The screens they released (and used in this terrible article) were high res renders.
Mr Tretton  +   1612d ago
Yup, the console shots are bullshots. Remember back when people would actually call out bullshots, now most people just nod their head at them and get into lengthly debates about doctored pictures.
kcuthbertson  +   1612d ago
What a fucking joke
Shadowaste  +   1612d ago
lol...please.....there is not a console game on this planet that looks as good as crysis 1 does running max dx9 on a decent pc, let alone, whatever this is, don't get your hopes up.

Uncharted 2, god of war 3, killzone 3 all beautiful and the best console gaming has to offer, look nowhere near as good as crysis dx10 on pc, this port will not either, unless it is coming to next gen consoles!
#30 (Edited 1612d ago ) | Agree(9) | Disagree(7) | Report | Reply
zero_cool  +   1611d ago
Uncharted 3 easily surpasses uncharted 2 as uncharted 2 surpassed the first uncharted just like many of PS3's exclusives have surpassed each of the previous games in their respective series & each other on occasion so the playstation 3 isn't tapped out of performance fidelity just yet!

UNCHARTED 3 Cruise Ship direct feed - E3 2011 demo:

P.S..Proves just how oblivious you are to the truth!

Cheers PS3 Basher!
Shadowaste  +   1611d ago
so i did watch that video and it looked cool for a console game, beautiful even, but, I hope you are watching it in fullscreen, if not, then you are seeing something it will never, EVER look like on an actual screen.

That is the problem with a lot of clips and screens of games, you look at them in this tiny window hyper compressed and then wonder why the actual game looks nothing like it when you play it on a 50" plasma

well, when you take a 10" screen and blow it up to 50", you get a much less clear picture!
AdvanceWarsSgt  +   1611d ago
Only a Sony fanboy would try to argue that the PS3 = a PC

LOL silly Sony fans, when will you learn that the PS3 can't do "everything"?
death2smoochie  +   1611d ago
Still thinking the PS3 is a super computer more powerful than a Gaming PC?
Will you ever stop?
Semir  +   1611d ago
you're playing on 6 year old hardware :( I think thats kinda lame

and I'm enjoying Dx11 :) Tesselation FTW!!!
« 1 2 3 »

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
New stories

League of Legends Patch 6.3 Release Date Announced

13m ago - J Station X: Riot announces the League of Legends patch 6.3 release date, with the update set to... | PC

EndCiv Preview: Rebuilding Humanity After the Apocalypse | Vgamerz

13m ago - Vgamerz writes: "You can’t say no to the opportunity of keeping alive a couple of survivors after... | PC

Guess N4G Game of the Year Winners, win a $300 Amazon Gift Card

Now - Also enter for a chance to win a gift card for writing a user blog, writing a user review, or being a top contributor for the month. | Promoted post

Unravel - Physics-based Puzzle Platformer - Is Now Available

14m ago - Electronic Arts and Coldwood Interactive today launched Unravel via digital download on PC, Xbox... | PC

The Best Games Out This Week – 2/9/2016

14m ago - Richard Bailey of The Koalition writes: After a slow start to the year for game releases, Februa... | PC

Let's Play: Unravel (PS4)

15m ago - Watch as Bryan gets through the first level of Unravel with the hero, Yarny. Also, he gets stuck. | PC