Revealed through twitter
They said the same thing for 2 https://forums.playfire.com...
Was thinking the same thing when I saw the title. I feel it would be wiser if the developers say "Crysis 3 will push Cryengine 3 to it's limits on PS3 and Xbox 360"
Practically every game these days pushes consoles to their limits. If they weren't, then they'd look a lot better than they do.
lol and he gets money for stating the obvious
"Crysis 3 will push 360,PS3 to its limits but PCs will be clearly ahead" - Thanks, Captain Obvious. You've saved the day again. "Practically every game these days pushes consoles to their limits. If they weren't, then they'd look a lot better than they do" - Blame the developer, not the hardware. Nothing is stopping them from making better textures/geometry/etc for the PC version.
Of course PC is superior, its a no brainer...
Well, of course its a no brainer, IT SAIS IT IN THE DAMN TITLE Crysis 2 was crap anyway, better graphics doesnt change a thing for me, it was too short, too borin, too easy and the multiplayer was shiza Crysis was all right, 2 was pooh
I pushed my stomach to its limits be eating buffalo wings. Somebody write me an article then next time I push my stomach to the limits on bbq wings. Oh well maybe they will actually make a good game.
seems like crytek is awesome with their engines, but shit for creativity... Their moto seems to be copy whats good at the moment.. Crysis 1 multiplayer was battlefield with a nanosuit... crysis 2 was call of duty with a nanosuit... WTF
Crytek are pushing my attention span to its limits.
I was just about to point that out They said that, hyped it up so much, raising the PC gamers hopes up and we later found out because Crytek's hand is so far up MS backside, since they focused too much on the 360 version, it made them not push the PC version further. As for the PS3 version, as good as it was they still spent too much time on the 360 version. I like to think they knew console wise that the PS3 could handle it but since the 360 was the one which would hold both the PC and PS3 back they decided to focus their time on the 360 version instead. I know you could say if it wasn't on the 360 then it wouldn't change anything since the PS3 version would of held the PC back but it wouldn't of been as bad as the 360.
Oh yea.... Cause the ps3 is leaps and bounds ahead of the 360.. Looks like some of you still think the ps3 is a super pc lol
@ banner The ps3's hardware is actually better than the 360 in pretty much all aspects. Not as good as pc hardware obviously.
PS3 has a crappy GPU, but the Cell balances it out, so they are about even, with the PS3 maybe having a slight lead, but the PS3's ram really holds it back. The only place the PS3 shows off its potential is exclusive games like KZ3, still the PS3 and 360 are extremely close, and fighting about which is better is stupid. Hate to tell you, but the cell doesn't have some hidden power. I have no bias btw, i am a pc gamer, that just happens to know a lot about this stuff.
@ Mrmagnumman357 and all the disagrees There's actually nothing wrong with it's 256 mb gpu(Other than being old now) The ps3's ram is also fine. Even if it's only 256 megabytes, never forget that it's xdr ram running at 3.2 ghz. Even though the 360 has 512 megabytes of ram, it's running a lot slower. Might I also add that the ps3 has a blu ray drive, and also built in wifi capabilities, etc. The ps3 is an overall better entertainment machine. It took microsoft years to understand that selling a console with no built in wifi and no way to watch hd movies because hd dvd failed. (waste of 200 dollars for those who bought the adapter) (only way is by download or stream) The 360 would have cost over 800 dollars just to offer what the ps3 had, built in. (4-5 years ago) Yes it's stupid that I have to do this but it just seems that people are retarded or something. The ps3 is better than the xbox 360 in terms of overall performance. Gaming and overall online experience is a whole different story.
@cannon8800 "The ps3's ram is also fine. Even if it's only 256 megabytes" i should've stopped reading right there. but i didn't "Might I also add that the ps3 has a blu ray drive, and also built in wifi capabilities" clearly the xbox360 lacking these 2 items is what held Crysis back???????? Dude!! pass the joint
Uncharted 3 looks still better than any 360 Game. Hell even Uncharted 2 still looks better. Naughty Dog+Awesome Hardware = Best looking game. Not even those plastic Unreal Engine games look anyhwere near Uncharted 3 good. Stay in your dreamworld 360 fanboys but the PS3 is miles ahead if the Developer is fully concentrating only on that system.
@VanillaBear, What makes you think that Crytek focused too much on the 360? According to all prior information they actually had to focue more on the PS3 version because of the limiting hardware architecture, not to mention the fact that Sony themselves admitted they made life harder on developers: http://news.cnet.com/sony-p... Straight from Kaz Hirai himself. So it seems like Sony's plan backfired (assuming this wasn't PR bull). The end result was that Crysis 2 looked better on the X360 despite all the focus on PS3 - but that's true for most of the very best looking and demanding games (RDR, Skyrim, etc). You can't seriously claim that the X360 is "holding the PS3" back when the PS3 version can't even bring itself to be on par with the X360 version first. And the PC wasn't harmed either, with the actual game looking a whole generation ahead of consoles, with a lot of post lunch support and enhancements (improved textures, DX11 support) that only few devs actually offer to PC gamers. It seems that some developers are not willing to compromise quality or sacrifice other platforms for the sake of spending extra time on the PS3 just to make their games look on par. Hopefully Sony will learn from this mistake when they release the PS4 and provide top of the line tools for the game developers who wish to work with the console.
@humbleopinion You're absolutely right. The ps3 camp, even after 5 years on the market and losing face-offs and head to heads over and over and over, still can't admit that the Xbox is simply superior to their blu ray player. The developers of crysis 2 even stated that the hardware of the ps3 was extremely limited and restricting.
I mean the ram on this blu ray player is crippling, as stated by the crytek team...," “On the PS3, due to the extremely limited system memory we resorted to downloading memory into video memory. We bumped into severe video memory limitations, so it was a good compromise to save a big chunk of video memory for other usages.”
PS has a HARDDRIVE in every single unit that can be leveraged as VIRTUAL RAM. On top of that, PS3 also has 25 - 50 GB of BluRay storage, which can be further leveraged. Developers who use PS3's tools and abilities correctly will recieve valuable technical returns in their games.... Crytek chose not to, and it shows in their game.....and that's why BATTLEFIELD 3 is more visually stunning on consoles than Crysis 2. Crytek isn't very good with console optimization and it shows in their products.
I'm not saying one is better than the other because I don't program, and the preferences and experiences of the developers will have many of them state one thing in some areas and another thing in other areas but in terms of the PS3's CPU/GPU configuration: The Cell and RSX works so that when you run everythng through the cell and use the RSX afterwards, you won't need much ram. If you place the emphasis on the RSX, the ram then becomes important (and glitchy, and jagged). That's why you see something like the Saboteur on the PS3 being better in terms of graphical quality (even on a high-end PC) and Lair having more than fifteen stages with sizes of more than twenty or about thirty-two (I think?) square miles on one hand, and multiplatform games being worse on the PS3 on the other hand. Using them both is the key to great graphics on the PS3.
@Persistantthug You are missing the entire point: - The 512MB of PS3 RAM is divided and cannot be reassigned to graphics on demand. It's not a share pool like on the Xbox 360 and that's why the graphics card is limited to 256MB. Anything else has to go through bandwidth bottlenecks that severly hamper performance. - On top of that, the PS3 OS running in the backgroung is less efficient and more memory hungry thant the X360 counterpart, and therefore leaves the PS3 with less available RAM. - The 360 EDRAM unit is also another feat missing on the PS3 which is very efficient with super fast bandwidth that gives a hugh performance boost - The Harddrive is irrelevant for Virtual RAM. Read-write speed compared to RAM makes it ineffective to actually stream content randomly from the disk. There's some improvement over Bluray (which is also slower than DVD where it matters) but it still doesn't. This is why Xbox games played from the Harddrive (all Xbox games can do that) also don't really show a hugh boost in quality (unless they were poorly designed in the first place). It's just a small improvement. - The 25Gb of space is also irrelevant when the amount of graphical RAM is so limited: so you have tons of bluray space, but not enough memory to load it to. So what did you achieve here? This is probably why open world games are usually the ones to suffer most on the PS3 (think Skyrim, RDR etc) So in general, you can see why "more this" and "more that" attitude is mostly irrelevant when you don't get the architecture right and don't provide proper developer tools. I also have to disagree on Crysis 2 / Battlefield 3. I found Crysis 1 and 2 looking better on consoles while still sporting less linear gameplay in singleplayer (and that's where both games shine), with Battlefield 3 looking better only on a very high end PC (but that was pre Crysis 2 DX11 patch).
Scans http://i.imgur.com/VGAgt.jp... http://i.imgur.com/nl2BD.jp... http://i.imgur.com/3Uxgo.jp... In magazine they said they have never seen vegetation that looks as good as C3s.
I hope it's not PC-port, but other way around, but I doubt it since it's developed simultaneously to PC and consoles.. :/
CE3 is only engine that develops games simultaneously. Place and drag on PC, it copies in real time on 360 and PS3. There are alot of videos of presentations from Crytek about it.
I know, it's impressive engine, but that function alone is already a poor sign for PC-players.. It encourages devs to not use the PC-platform as it is ment to.. We did see how well it worked with C2, it was pretty much console-port, lacking in many areas; poor textures, no proper DX-support, etc, they did not take extra effort to make C2 a proper PC-game, people who played it on PC know what I'm talking about... PC game is not the same as console-game, it's simple as that. I sure do hope PC is the main platform this time, and they would not just "make it the same" as console-versions.
PC is awsome! http://www.youtube.com/watc...
will push 360,PS3 to its limits" Geezzz, already hear this BS from devs a LOT in this gen -____- https://forums.playfire.com... http://n4g.com/news/167836/... http://www.slashgear.com/ba...
Yeah these developers say that all the time, but the thing is, PS3 & 360 are not even as powerful as a high-end PC -So if it wasn't pushing the system to the limits that would be pretty sad... Anyway hope this time out they do the PC justice and make a version for PC that makes owning a high-end PC a pretty sweet thing .____........___...____ .____||......||.......____|| ||.........___||.......____||
I think its time to upgrade my Radeon 5850!!
Crytek can say it all they want, as long as they can back up their words in the end. Then we'll all be happy.
Might I add that in the end they had no choice but to go sub-hd with poor frame-rate.
The pics so far not console version I am pretty sure.
Yep sure did..../failsauce`
If there's any game that really tried to push the PS3 to its limit, then its Uncharted 3 and then God of war III
dam near every freaking game that comes out says this same crap! If it pushes them to it's limits then they would blow the "F-word" up! I'm tired of this lame saying from every Dev team! P.S. I'm not expecting much from the PC version seeing how they will Develop all three at the same time with the 360 being the lead platform. Crysis still looks better than Crysis 2!
Just watch. When this releases games like Uncharted 3, God of war 3, and Gears of War 3 will still look way better then this.
Hmmm.. GOW3 isn't that impressive with it's limited game mechanics and fixed camera-angles, lots and lots of smoke and mirrors, you really can't compare it to fps..
Sorry, Gears of War 3 and Uncharted 3 look very impressive, but Crysis 2 even on consoles is right up there with them and Crysis 3 will look even better. God of War 3 looks pretty nice, but I really don't understand how people can't see that it is doing a whole hell of a lot less in technical terms than some of the other graphical contenders. You can't get close to any of the textures (therefor they get away with textures that wouldn't look so good up close), you can't control the camera, much of the lighting is baked, etc. Also, I hope you aren't talking about the PC versions, because Crysis 2 on PC destroys anything on console. And of course Crysis 3 should look even better. I can't wait for it personally. I really enjoyed the first 3 Crysis games.
On pc it obliterates everything. That is a given fact. On consoles I played Crysis 2. It was amazing. In no way am I downplaying the graphics. They are amazing, but I feel Uncharted and God of War are still better. God of War may have fixed camera angles but its still a stunning game.
Agreed. Crysis 2 on consoles looked brilliant. On PC of course, it was a whole different beast. @ Sparda- No one is denyind God of War is a stunning game but with its linear design and fixed camera angles, there really isn't any comparison to something like Crysis where there the environment and objects are a lot more dynamic in terms of physics etc.
You cannot compare the games. Uncharted, God of War and Gears are more linear and have less interaction with the environments and surroundings. Not too mention the map sizes are smaller. Most of the effects in Crysis 2 are done in real time. God of War and Uncharted and even Gears are not. The Cryenegine is performing more technical tasks at any given time more than the game engines for GOD3, Uncharted and Gears.
HAHAHA did you guys actually play Crysis 2...what interaction lol and it's just as linear as all of the games you guys are mentioning. Corridors that lead to open areas...same as all the titles you listed. Crysis 1 is a different story... I also own a Samsung 55 in OLED 3D TV (top of the line) and God of War 3 and Uncharted 3 are vastly superior in many aspects and yes I mean technically to Crysis 2. Don't get me wrong I loved the SP in Crysis 2 like mad but graphically only the lighting really stood out and that is where it did better than the other games.
If I had a penny for every time a developer said this
You'd be as rich as Bobby Kotick.
2 bad they couldn't push multiplayer part of Crysis 2 to a playable state
I bought Crysis 2 for the campaign and it was fun. I never logged onto MP
thanks for the lols
that is what is expected
But which version will sell more i wonder (360 of course)
Blah, blah, blah... Another sub-hd game, crappy framerate and no AA, but it will push.. Not really.
what an immature comment, crysis 2may have its problems but its one of the finest looking console games of all time.
IKR, my copy of Crysis 2 burned out my TV.
Crysis 2 has such a good quality shaders and HDR lighting that its magnificent. Also, amazing post processing effects. Unfortunately, frame rate couldn't hold on, hopefully next one will.
No not really rage looked alot better than crysis 2 on the ps3, and k3 looked alot better than crysis 2. And best of all it didn't bore me to death like crysis 2, sorry but crysis 2 was bland as hell.
I don't see why this is a surprise. And honestly I really don't care either. The consoles are outdated, they are pushing outdated tech to it's limits. It's time for new consoles so we can start pushing forward in game tech again. The industry is getting stale now
just part of the cycle
Oh God these guys talking again! Hey Crytek first u need to surpass Killzone 2,3 b4 that happens! Lol
if u said that, it means that crysis 2 already past kz2 and kz3 you are lolling out of denial
Building pretty graphics in a corridor shooter is real easy. Building an open world as beautiful as Crysis 1 is very difficult. Crysis 1 still has the graphics edge of the Killzone 2 or 3.
The difference between killzone and crysis is lighting and crytec said crysis 2 is a choreograph sandbox.
i can't believe you got disagrees for that. lol. Killzone 2 is a grapically impressive game as far as consoles go (haven't played 3 yet even though i have it), but both Crysis 1 and 2 on PC blow it out of the water. it's not even remotely close in any way, shape or form. unless people like blurry textures, jaggies, and all that jazz. the only game i've played that's comparable to the Crysis games as far as graphics is the Witcher 2 on PC.
where did i heard that before??? hmmmm....hmmmmm http://www.eurogamer.net/ar... and it didn't .. uncharted 3 did that that's why it won all the consoles gfx award http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... while crysis 2(consoles)didn't win a damn thing as for crysis 3:
Hope so , not trying to sound like a jerk but Crysis 2 was held back a bit by catering to consoles as well due to the new engine , i mean we had to wait a long time for DX 11, and not very sand-boxy like the first. So hoping Crysis 3 will be a result of learning mistakes from Crysis 2 and should make for a better console version too , for those not PCing :P
Multiplat engines can never push a console to it's limits. It is impossible.
i think what Cevat Yerli means is they are going to push crysis 3 on consoles to their limits with the cryengine 3. so it may or may not look better than other games like uncharted killzone etc..which were built with a different engine.