Crytek's Cevat Yerli has been talking to NowGamer about making Crysis for Xbox 360 and PS3.
"I want to be clear: when I say the console versions look better than Crysis on PC, I mean that as a factual thing, not in terms of technical specifications." So it's not then.
Depends how you judge 'better'. Specifications-wise, (frame rate, resolution etc) it can't be better than the PC version but he's (I think) talking about how it looks overall visually on screen with the "new lighting path" and "special effects". Apparently, the console version will be much better optimised than the PC Crysis. But then again, it would have to be. Could be PR bull, but we'll see next week.
Everyone with even an ounce of sense knows it can't beat a PC's performance. Run my PC at 2560x1440 with 120 frames a second... no console will do that.
Of course Timmy... but 99%+ of PC owners won't be running it at 2560x1440 @ 120FPS. For example - on the latest Steam hardware survey the total number of people with your resolution is 0.67%. Almost 50% of users have dual core CPU's. A third of the CPU's are between 2.3 and 2.69GHz (and over 45% below 2.69GHz). Well over 70% have 4GB RAM or less. GPU is harder to quantify as it's so varied - highest number is under 5% with a Nvidia 9800, and close behind is the Nvidia 8800. So whilst we all know a kick ass PC will be better than a console - for the vast majority of people a well optimised console version will be at least as good or better than than PC.
Why do they have to lie? Just tell everyone that if they're looking for the ultimate Crysis experience, get a good PC and PC Crysis. If you just want to be able to play Crysis on your console, you can do that now with acceptable limits! I was watching a show last night where they wanted to sell umbrellas to men, but men don't care about umbrellas. So they decide to plant a story about chemicals in acid rain causing baldness! We just can't believe anything we hear anymore, everyone is always lying! Edit @disagree: Well, if you prefer being lied to, more power to you!
Sure Mr. Yerli, factor in the graphical enhancement mods your community has built into that equation.
Hey, they gotta say something so that people will buy a $60 crysis on console instead of just picking up a 2007 pc copy out of the cheap bin for 5.99 at walmart! hahahaha
I think what is trying to be said, is that it's looks more appealing. Edit: Blackmagic, the game won't be $60, it'll be $20. Besides, PC games are cheaper because you guys accept broken games at launch with patches along the way. I feel like my console gaming is justified when all I have to do is unwrap the disc, put it in my 360 and press play. I guarantee PC gamers can't say the same. You guys love your drivers and such that it'll be a while before you'll get the game up and running. ;)
lol @ Crytek trying to sell a rehashed game to console gamers and trying to make it look better too you've fallen a long way Crytek loooong loooooong way
@Jdoki The clock speed of the CPU isn't really that important. Also from the Steam Hardware survey itself: 4 cpus 39.50% Apr 40.29% May 40.93% Jun 41.37% Jul 43.48% Aug The number is rising and if you looked you would see the Dual Cores are dropping each month. Also here is a list of GPU that are currently above the 8800 and 9800. ATI Radeon HD 5770 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 ATI Radeon HD 5850 ATI Radeon HD 5870 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 4gb of ram is more then acceptable, there is no benefit in having more if you keep your system clean of crap running in the background or simply only running the game and Ventrilo or whatever. Anyways, I leave you all with this. http://tinypic.com/r/34pf8r... Enjoy guys...they look real comparable.
console versions sure as hell would look better than my pc version lol
PR bull from Crytek's most annoying employee. Crysis on consoles isn't even HD or 30 fps locked. The texture quality is also significantly reduced. The trees even look different.
I do have to say sorry, but Jdoki's interpretation of the numbers is intentionally looked at from the wrong angle. Lets not take the survey as word either- it is optional. Keep this in mind, but we can examine these numbers as Jdoki did. 80 percent or more have monitor resolutions 1280 x 1024 or more. Consoles do 1280 x 720 for the most part, this game may even be sub HD. Even 1280 x 1024 is 40 percent more resolution. 75 percent have 3Gb system RAM or over. This is enough to run pretty much any game. Crysis is no exception even though it is demanding. Over 90 percent have 2 cores or more. Crysis is only actually optimised for 2 cores- it is 4 years old after all. Clockspeed isn't too relevant. If its a dual core, it is more than likely to be an athlon X2 or better- most likely core 2 and up. At least 50 percent have a 9600GT or better. A lot is unidentified (many are probably mobile GPUs), which could easily indicate this figure is higher. Fact of the matter is that those systems with a dual core, 3Gb of RAM and a 9600GT or better will be able to run Crysis on PC better, with more res and settings than the consoles ever could- even this optimised version. I know this to be true because i did for years on the laptop i had previous to my current one- with spookily almost the precise specs i just outlined. So i disagree with the notion few people will be able to run crysis on PC better than this console version will run. Its an old game, and now any gamer with a halfway decent machine, even an aging one will easily outstrip the consoles. Finally lets face it, claiming that the vast majority will do better with it on console doesn't hide the fact it still owns on the top platform- PC. If you have a very old and decrepit PC, then this is a game you will want to play even if its on console. Given the choice though, PC is the only real place i would wanna play this game same as the 3 million+ people that bought it for their PC.
Well, I dunno . It's his opinion, if he thinks the effects look better then it's either PR bullshi* or he's simply misguided, look for a comparision vid, then look at the 'upgrades'. The explosions t=don't hold a candle to the original and the lighting nd draw distance and smoke don't either, Texture wise it has done decent but still ai't as good as the orig. Imo it's a Bullshi* suggestion, like Dice saying 'all versions of BF3 look the same' Which was BS too
After the crappie PC version of Crysis 2, PC crowd have lost their faith in Crytek. They will say anything to sell their product. Where is the company that gave us Far Cry ?
Well C2 still looks years ahead of the BF3 beta. even before the DX11 update...
They can stay where they are for all I care, Far Cry 3 looks stunning and right now I wouldn't want Crytek anywhere near it. I actually trust Ubi with it more
lelo2play Speak for yourself m8 but your wrong if you talking for me. Crytek created far cry same people who did the SP crysis 2. The MP was cry-uk of course far cry 2 was bought out by ubisoft who was there publisher. As for crysis 1 being on consoles thats good news for console owners, yet again crytek are granting you one of the most respected games on the PC. i do not need to go into a debate of witch is better its obvious. Other wise they wouldnt use a game that was published in 2007 and (BENCHMARK) This game aamong others to compare the power of new video cards of today and yesturdays video card's. FACT.
@waltyftm and fn n4g DX9 vs DX10 if your saying a 512mbg graphics card and dx9 can run at these settings your just pure blind fanboy: http://www.youtube.com/watc...
Are they retarded?
Naw, There just trying to sell a game is all. Talk about a lame marketing department.
well, it should be. it's 4 years newer
funny to see the PC fanboys crying about this... i remember when they say Crysis can't run on PS3 lol even the Xbox of Crysis looks better then the PC and does not only look its just a psn tittle... i cant belive some blind fanboys argue with me that this game looks better then KZ2 back then lol maybe today with the super hiend pcs and the mods the game may look better but the true is that if KZ2 also had soem mods will make crysis 1 look like a old gen game.. the ps3 is a 2006 tech never forget this...
Multiply bubbles times six from 2006 and you get 12...it was easy figuring out your age. ;) Anyway, the reason PC fanboys are up in arms is because this stupid quote about "Crysis looks better on consoles" is plain and simple BS, which gives publishers more of an excuse to keep de-evolving the games (why the heck was Crysis 2 less intuitive than Crysis 1 in every aspect?) This is more PR jargon that makes me sad for future iterations of any big budget game.
lol at the nerds that cant see crysis looking better even on the xbox over pc lol 1080p and 60fps is juts a nice plus but that does not change the fact that it does look better on the xbox or ps3... by your logic ico a 1080p game that runs at 60fps looks better then kz2 lol nerds...
Newsflash AKA, you're arguing about videogames on the internet. That's about as nerdy as it gets. And no, that's not his logic at all. If KZ2 was given much higher resolution textures, more dense particle/volumetric effects, more shadows, better lighting/shadowing and higher polygon models with more objects and foliage/environment detail on screen AND ran in 1080p at 60FPS, which would you say looked better? Trolls.
From the screenies I have looked I would have to disagree. But doesn't matter. It is a fun game and people should check it out.
yeh Crysis is awesome and far better than 2 IMO!
consolers are in for a treat as Crysis is a real FPS like no other!!
1. Crysis console is not DX10
2. it's not HD 720p or 1080p
3. it lacks MSAA
4. we all know this is propaganda!
wake me up when Crysis console can run the project reality mod + Extreme immersion mod in 1600p at over 60FPS! Then i'll post my Crysis screen shots against theirs!
Crysis 2 has yet to pass 3 million SOLD so Crytek is in......."Crisis' mode for sales!!! ha ha ha ha!
Looks better the a pc that would of ran it at the same level as the consoles? otherwise I don't believe this slightly
It might have fancy new effects, but a machine capable of max settings will more than easily outperform consoles. I'm sure it'll look fantastic - of course it will, developers are always showing us how impressive they can be with console hardware now - but it still won't outperform PC.
It's more important that the gameplay is intact – people often overlook just how good a shooter Crysis is because of its spectacular visuals. It's an awesome game as well and unlike anything that console gamers will have played before.
Their keyword is "looks", while your keyword is "performance", which means you're slightly off topic.
"frame rate is a solid 25-30" lol fail also this is what his face looked like when giving this interview
hahahahahahahaha that was hell of funny dude!!!!!
Maybe better than a medium-low settings on the PC...but thats it...no higher!!! LOL
Which is what 90% of pc gamers game on.
Every card in the top 10 on Steams hardware survey is capable of running every multiplat better then its console counter part. Then to add to that, the higher resolution, smoother framerate and either as good or better textures/AF make for a better looking game without going past "medium" settings. I know plenty of people who have to game at lower settings to get by, I had to for a lot of years. But seriously, don't pull numbers out of your ass.
suspendedshere Don't get mad at me bro. My rig runs boring Crysis on max. Look at your own Steam survey. Most gamers don't have top end rigs is all I'm saying. It's not like you actually wrote a study piece or something yourself.
An 8800 or above will run Crysis fine on high. And that was 4 years ago. Steam surveys show that most people have a higher card than that. I have a GTX 560 Ti, which is a midranged card, and I never dip below 30 fps MAXED, 1920x1080, 4xAA, V-synced, with mods. It's not a hard game to run. I think Just Cause 2 is almost as demanding maxed out. And that game looks nowhere near as good.
Dude, under-bragging about the 560 Ti...anything in the 5xx series of GTX Nvidia cards is not mid-ranged. Mid-ranged is my passable 5770 ATI card...now that's mid-ranged. Anything 5xx is still beast but it's also somewhat affordable. With that said, I can run just about any game on the absolute highest settings with a framerate between 47 and 52 frames per second and the 5770 is freaking cheap.
Crytek has lost its mind !!!
Hey when you have to sell a title, you'll say anything.
Stop trying crytek.
lmfao, crytek you are a sell out and a joke...never buying a game from you again. Your pc days are done and have been ever since crysis 2, which may i say, that leaked beta was more fun and a better game than the shit you actually released.
Dear Crytek you probably "forget" that there's so many mods for the pc version out there, that transform the game into a photorealistic fest. With new particle effects and high res textures. So who cares?
The first Crysis was a very good looking game indeed, so if they've done a good job for consoles we will know soon enough
dont care a shit about crysis!!!
i am happy playing MW2 on my PS3 and getting nukes...
[ ]Truth [X]Doubt [ ]Lie I suppose it really depends on what PC settings he's comparing the console versions to, so can't call him out on lying, at least not yet...
look.. what he s trying to say is that the game is more optimize than the pc version, even the crysis on pc is a benchmark, the game was not optimized that well.
Watch this video and decide for yourselves!
Optomization goes a LONG way, which is why console games still look similar to PC games and not like PS2 to PS3, but I doubt the console version will look better, especially considering mods.
When you mod a game, it's no longer original... I doubt he's talking about "Crysis 1 with mods".
Crytek are talking a lot of pr bull. I have lost some respect for Crytek over their promising things they can't possibly deliver. Crysis 2 on consoles was a disappointment technically and at this point I doubt they can have corrected it for Crysis...
please read the article first before trolling "I want to be clear: when I say the console versions look better than Crysis on PC, I mean that as a factual thing, not in terms of technical specifications." so it means it is NOT the specifications like PC running in 9999x9999 (whatever) resolution and console is running in 1280x720 resolution. what they're trying to say is Crytek is added a few things in the console version like new lighting, new special effects, and Nanosuit 2 controls.
I'll believe it when I see it, coming of a bland samey looking crysis 2 with cruddy enemy animations, ai that comes straight outta a toilet
Massive frame rate dips, some as low as 10fps
Let's see how crysis 1 turns out
I think its hillarious how much crap they talked about the consoles and saying crysis is impossible on consoles, now they are claiming its best on consoles.
To be fair...they did mention that Crysis WAS possible for consoles but everything that made it what it was would be dumbed down (ala Crysis 2). It's true, though, Crysis as it was on PC WAS/IS impossible to replicate on consoles but a lesser, performance-optimized, no-brainer version of the game is possible.
Thanks crytek, totally needed you to spit in my face today.
Aye theres one them sale pitches again :D
either they are using magic, or they are lying.
nowgamer is misquoting. the console version does have better lighting techniques(although the results still don't come close to matching crysis 1 maxed out) than the pc version and is much better optimized plus the color grading makes it looks really nice BUT the pc version has the following the consoles do not 1)draw distance 2)high res textures( the consoles use low settings textures) 3)high poly count models(consoles have low poly count models and its obvious) 4) high res alpha effects 5) volumic clouds(consoles use static pre-rendered skyboxes) 6)MUCH better shadowing( consoles use low quality shadows and not all objects are shadowed in the console version) 7) the console version has much less geometry eg trees,bushes, grass, rocks etc(the environments are smaller and more sparse than the pc version); 8)pc version has high AA, texture filtering and resolution options 9) the HDR on pc is better than that of the console version the pc version of crysis 1 maxed out DESTROYS the console version overall the only thing the console version has is better lighting technique but in all the lighting on the pc version is still FAR superior besides he said this "I want to be clear: when I say the console versions look better than Crysis on PC, I mean that as a factual thing, not in terms of technical specifications." so he doesn't mean it beats the pc version in fact the pc version on medium with 8xAA and 16xAF 1080p looks better than anything on consoles including uncharted 3 :/ if sony had gone with dvd and instead used the money for blu-ray to boost the gpu the ps3 could be rocking an 8800gtx and have 2x the total ram which will make the ps3 4-5x more powerful than it is now and game devs could just have used hard drive installs to make up for the lower disk space because every ps3 comes with a HDD in built that can easily be upgraded. can you imagine how UC3 would look if naughty dog had 4-5 times the horsepower and 2x the ram ? EXACTLY and the lack of blu-ray space won't gimp the game as UC2 was only about 6b game data 19Gb 1080p cutscenes and crysis 1 pc is only 6.1gb and maxed out qt high AA, AF and res makes UC2 and 3 look like ps2 games
i sent you a message about this... I have played crysis 2 maxed out on my pc and it doesn't destroy UC3. Have you seen the uncharted 3 desert gameplay yet ? here it is http://www.youtube.com/watc... Also whenever i said this "either they are using magic, or they are lying." I meant that crysis on pc destroys crysis on consoles, so they are lying. Also maybe crysis 2 looks more real then crysis but its much worse on a technical standpoint. This http://www.youtube.com/watc... destroys crysis 2, and its from crysis. Anyways dont come to every thread just to tell console people that they have crappy hardware. Also if you want proof that i have played crysis 2 on max settings i can give you that
I'm an avid console gamer, but I have to call bullshit on this. No way this looks better than the PC version, especially if you include the mods available for the PC version. This guy is a flat out liar. Not cool man.
A uber uter turd lie big as the universe. It's like those prices only 9.99 when it is clearly 10 but hey some people mind is lazy. Crytek you are an ARSE on this.
I literally could not care less about whether or not console or Pc is TEH BESTT. I'm just very happy that I finally get to play this game. I've heard nothing but great things about it. It's been a while since I've played a good first person scifi game.
Wait, that's a lie. Didn't someone post a comparison shot of a place shown in the trailer, to the PC version, and all the lighting was shit, and there were hundreds of trees missing and massive details missing in the rocks? Yeah, I know I saw that. It's no where near as good looking. Sure, the graphics might be on par, but the amount of detail in the world HAD to be taken out because it would have crashed the consoles. What a fail if Crytek actually said this. My guess is, EA said this, they'll say anything to get an extra buck.