Crytek's boss has defended its hardware-hungry FPS Crysis, saying he believes the studio struck a good balance between performance and spec requirements.
The thing I want them to defend is their early word that Crysis couldn't be done on consoles. Yes, they did say they can port but the truth is that even the full game would have been possible on consoles. Just look at Uncharted, a PS3 game it console's first year, a time that usually brings the first gen of each consoles games that don't look even near what it's capable of. If 360 could handle BioShock and PS3 had Uncharted along with COD4 for both, they both could obviously run Crysis in it's full glory with enough time and effort.
you mean 600p Call of Duty? Haven't played Bioshock, but the same Uncharted in which Drake clips through 99% of all the foliage in the game? Same game in which said foliage is static and doesn't react to any movement at all whatsoever? Same Uncharted with level sizes that pale in comparison to Crysis? Same Uncharted with um...ZERO physics and ZERO environmental destruction? Come ON NOW. I love Uncharted. I own it, it's beautiful, has a great story, likable characters, and is poised to be one of the PS3s flagships...but it on a technical level, it doesn't hold a CANDLE to Crysis, brother. You can barely get away with arguing over stills...but once things get moving, it's a night and day difference. Everything moves in Crysis...everything is movable in Crysis, there's exponentially more shrubbery and objects within Crysis, and all of it is reactive. Uncharted, while arguably the best looking console game to date, is static as hell. I need not go on any further. Believe me, as a PS3 owner, nothing would please me more than to see something like Crysis be achieved on the PS3. If you can prove it be my guest, but Uncharted, and especially not a 600p multi platform shooter(that's RIDDLED with problems, by the way) is not the best way to go about pitching a case for such. For as great looking as it is, Uncharted has MANY a technical hurdle to overcome before it can be put in the same ring as Crysis. See my opening statements for all the evidence you need.
Of course I didn't mean that Uncharted or COD4 are near Crysis. Read all of my comment and you see I said games like Uncharted and COD4 in FIRST year of a consoles life (PS3). Do you remember first gen PSone, PS2 or Xbox games? They all look terrible for their own consoles compared to a bit later games. Now look at Resistance and Ratchet TOD. Both PS3 games from Insomniac. How much graphical improvement can be seen from Resi to Ratchet? A LOT. Same goes for 360's Perfect Dark and 1 year later, Gears of War. When PS3 can have something as stunning as Uncharted in 1st year, of course it can go beyond Crysis in coming years which I believe GT5 has already done and became the first photorealistic game ever.
but I still have my doubts. Hey, like I said though, nothing would please me more than such a revelation, so bring it on I say. As of right now, I'm just a tad bit skeptical, but if it happens...I won't cry foul.
If you have two choices to make something, an easy one, and a hard one (given that they both accomplish the same thing)... Which one would u choose? I believe most ppl would choose the easy way right, and there is nothing wrong about that.. Its actually the one and only smart choice... and u say what does that have to do with this story.. I say, Crytek obviously picked the hard choice, why? because they were not smart enough to see the easy one.. They simply did a horrible job writing the code for the game...
There is only one way to compare the power between the PC and console. We should look at console games when they peak at the possibilities of the hardware and then compare them to PC games from years the console was released in. Nowadays PC games are released with the hardware available in the present day, but consolegames don't. developers need to learn how to work on the hardware. e.g. xbox360 has 3 cores. at launch, i don't believe the dualcore was released yet but still. Take a game that would FULLY use the power of the Xbox, a PC would have a very hard time running that same game!
This is why I'm done with PC gaming. I don't want to keep upgrading my PC every year to get the best graphics. Make this game for the PS3 and it will be as good if not better.
"...our primary goal is to always make the best possible games, first and foremost" I'll follow you. recently, there is no PC oriented game but ones ported from xbox and this ported type of games don't have any differen between xbox versions and PC versions. I think it is one of the reasons that users turned their back on PC gaming.
the other reasons being is that I don't want to spend $400 on the latest and greatest videocard every 6 motnths and a new $4000 "gaming" PC every year. And after having done that, the game still wouldn't be working, because, "Oh well, you need to clean up your registry, roll back the drivers, but not too far just to two versions ago, not three, reconfigure your video settings and change your system language to Korean. When you're all done, just sit patiently and wait for a patch, because we forgot to include support for your video card." "S.T.A.L.K.E.R." was the last PC game I played, after that I just had it. That's why it pisses me off when games like Assassin's Crap come out, where you need to wait for a patch just to play it.
Crytek said they can make a game on consoles that looks like Crysis, consoles just doesn't have enough Ram to handle Crysis's huge levels etc. but the graphics can be made. They are probably already working on a game which looks like Crysis.
Last time I saw Oblivion´d HUGE level ran pretty well on the 360 and PS3, so don´t give that crap, Crytek. Stop making retarded PR for kids.
let me think.... previously it when ps2 and xbox were launched it took pc 3 and half year to overtake consoles but now its first year of consoles and they blown out of water if u think logically this gen of consoles cant handle crysis as for crysis the game is great hats off to the developer
There is no point making an excellent game if most people are unable to play it. Graphics are not everything! Make the graphics "good" but not superb...That way a lot more people will buy the game. In a year make a game with the graphics like Crysis...move with the publics budget I say.
You guys do know that Crysis doesn't actualy need specs this high to run at full don't you? Crysis is like a comercial, it's used as a tool to get gamers to upgrade their rigs. Look at the ads surounding Crysis, they all tell you to buy a new PC with a new video card, extra memory, bigger harddrive and DX10 if you want to enjoy the game at it's best. All the while they program a search tool into the game for those on older computers so that the game uses all the PCs resources so it won't play at max. This has been done for years by Alienware or Dell when they try to push a new gaming PC. Crysis could easly be played on a 360 or PS3 without any graphical dips. I know this because PC is my buisness and has been for 13yrs. Crysis ports should arive on console by the next holiday season and you will soon see better DX9 support for the game and a "so called" patch that enables you to play on older PCs.
but that's interesting. Elaborate, please.
This has been done for years, couple games that come to mind are Doom 3 and FEAR for the PC that were used to hype Dell. It's just the way it is, and I agree with their methods. Gaming PCs are expensive would you agree? so they know the only people who will buy that PC at first are the hardcore, so they need hardcore showpeices to show off this hardware. I swear and this is not BS, they will release a patch sometime at the end of the year so people with budget PCs will be able to enjoy Crysis and so generic PC makers can have somthing to package the PC with. You do not need Vista to play Crysis and You do not need DX10 but the game is hyped to use both to push PC's installed with Vista. You can already find tweaks on the net for Crysis to get it to look good with DX9 and it's only a matter of time when someone uploads a fix. See here you can already find nocd fixes for Crysis http://megagames.com/cracks... tweaks with an editor to remove the limitations is here, just look around at some forums.
gamming notebook a couple years ago for F.E.A.R., when the 7800 was all the rage. Ran that and Oblivion well enough...haven't bothered since, but that's just me. What you say makes sense though, and like I said that is really interesting. Thanks for the info.
Crytek are talking ass! There isnt a single card that can run this game anywhere near its full spec at a reasonable resolution. I know they designed it to be slightly future proof, but from where im sitting it seems like they designed it to shift a load of new cards, that cant even handle it. i just hope FarCry 2 isnt the same (yes i know its EA not crytek, i read).
My 8800 Ultra handles Crysis at 1680 x 1050 just fine with all settings set to high and the game looks great and moves smooth. The problem is that the games a bit on the short side and after you've upgraded everything on your PC you'll be sitting there thinking - well that was fun, when's the next part coming out? Not a bad game but should have been much longer and with less of the aliens and more of the Koreans.
had an Ultra, had SLI GTS's, had SLI GT's, none offer solid frame rates when maxed out, even at 1680x1050, admittidly it IS playable but but not much else. Eitherway, Crysis demands far to much form the average PC gamer.
Yes, you are 100% correct, I can't even put 4xAA on, if I do then everything runs like in bullet time from the Matrix! You have a nice collection of PC kit by the way :)
reason being? KILLZONE 2 and now farcry comming to ps3, farcry 2 looks better than crysis, by a large amount, and thats the GOD honest truth, so why cant crysis be done?
Killzone 2 is probably the closest thing we have, but the most comparable aspect of the game is character models...oddly enough the ONLY area where Crysis is lacking. Otherwise, Crysis has much better textures, physics, environmental interactivity, destructibility, and pretty much everything and anything else under the sun. I wholly prefer the look and feel of Killzone 2 though, to be honest, but technically, it's not on the same level. **EDIT** And speaking of Far Cry 2, I agree it looks better than Crysis, but we've only seen PC demos of it so far. For all we know, the console versions could be completely different. The game being announced for the platform doesn't automatically mean that it will be a perfect port. Do you think NBA '08 on the PSP is anything near what the PS3 version is? How about God of War Chains of Olympus? I rest my case. Not saying it's impossible, but we DON'T KNOW ANYTHING yet.
oh please, Killzone 2 cant compete with crysis, Killzones art style is completely different, but technically (soft shadows, AA, AF, real time day/night cycle etc) its not even in the same ball park. But i still think KZ2 is currently the best console offering (graphics wise)
No console game could look better than a game running on the most expensive PC. They can get this game to run fine like I said above but not better. PS3 and 360 are already out of date in tearms of PC power and that low memory problem with the PS3 don't help.
killzone2 doesn't even come close to Crysis. it's nice to see you luv your PS3, but don't fool yourself with this BS!
Alien I have been gone for a while but it is good to see some things never change. The final boss battle in crysis running on very high would shut your fanboy mouth. Those who think the consoles can run crysis have obviously never seen it running on very high at a good resolution. Even at 720p on very high the game is breath taking. When you see the _____ coming out of the water at the end of the game and you see the water pouring off every nook and cranny in the most realistic way while wreckage burns all around you and aliens fill the sky (all of which are reflecting of off the best water ever put in a game) the ONLY thing you will be thinking is can someone please pick up my jaw. Once you do pick up your jaw your little fanboy brain will think what the hell was I saying about kz 2. Crysis on very high easily destroys the kz cgi trailer from e3. Kz2 looks amazing but crysis eats its lunch. Everyone keeps talking running it on high but the game was made to be run at very high with all the shader effects and physics intact.
Thats all very pretty, VirusE, but Crysis is selling like crap and Vista isn´t going anywhere better. In the end, it´s sales that count, and consoles win. Sorry.
Gorgon, are you sure you are replying to the right thread? Because it sure doesn’t sound like it. "but Crysis is selling like crap and Vista " Uhh are we talking about sales? I didn’t realize we were. At no point did i comment about sales or pc vs console for that matter. You do realize that crysis is not for vista as you put it. It's for vista and xp. We are talking pure graphics, not game play, not units moved and not sales. On a pure graphics standpoint Crysis is with out peer. "In the end, it’s sales that count, and consoles win." So halo 3 has better graphics than Drake’s fortune because it sold more? This is your logic not mine. alien said "and now farcry comming to ps3, farcry 2 looks better than crysis, by a large amount, and thats the GOD honest truth, so why cant crysis be done?" And though alien and i dont get along i think he can agree that we are talking graphics not sales. I know for about 10 seconds you were giving yourself high fives in your head for you almost witty yet completely irrelevant and idiot post. Sorry to burst you bubble. Think before you speak next time.
I think the sys requirements is not what Crytek has to defend the engine is and the apparent poor optimization of it, the fact that the game even with vastly better requirements than recommend has completely random performance hits that don't seem to be tied to any specific situation and rarely happened twice on the same part confirms the engine cant properly handle the hardware give also ALL the updates and patches have reveled there is still much optimization to do considering that if you have the latest video drivers and game patch you magically gain around 6-7 fps even more in DX9, while its obvious this is a powerful game it is also what we all know as hardware hog
never, but killzone 2 has been many times, especially the opening scene, when i see crysis mistaken as cg, i will agree with you, but it hasnt and wont, and ps3 isnt a console, so theres no shame in killzone destroying the best pc has, yes killzone owns it everywhere
Bwah ha ha ha Sure dude. sure! You just dont see how dumb you make yourself look by saying things like that. You 100% have not seen crysis up and running, i have zero doubts of that. Sounds like someone is bitter their pc isnt up to the task.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.