"No Secret" That Crysis Is Coming To PS3

[Dacalo]

I am not sure how true this is but latest Game Informer indicates 360 version is "canned."

Text

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Dacalo
I am not sure how true this is but latest Game Informer indicates 360 version is "canned."

Text

Hah... it's like the game "whisper down the lane," except the guy was only one step removed from the article, and he only had to read it, not hear it. And he still didn't get it right!

The text in question is in a section entitled Loose Talk - Hot Gaming Gossip. The text reads:

Crysis requires a pretty hefty PC for you to run it in all its glory, and the rumor is that this high spec requirement is why the game will only be ported to the PlayStation 3. Apparently a Crysis 1.5 release is being planned for the system, but if EA is true to its usual pattern, we'd be surprised if this game didn't get a multi-console release. EA has denied the existence of any kind of console Crysis.

Take it as you will. Rumors are rumors, I'll care about the game when it is announced.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: EvilComputer92

Originally posted by: Sadaiyappan
Why is it not possible to run at the same level of detail? I know that the ps3 has less ram but I remember reading that console architecture is very different from PC and even though there is less ram the ram is much much faster..

Not even close to any modern PC. Faster RAM isn't going to make much of a difference when you have only 512mb of it, as opposed to 2gb. The graphics card on the PS3 is also rather old at this point, being based on Nvidia 7800 architecture, which in turn is just a small upgrade of the 6800 series.

Even high end PCs today have trouble running it at all details maxed, forget about consoles even coming close to that level of detail.

gotta look at the differences... likely this will be limited to 1280x720, and consoles have always been able to keep up with higher end PCs on the graphics front, well... at least come close, because PCs have a LOT of overhead. Look at UT3... you can get it to look great on the 360 and PS3, but to match that quality, a 7800 wouldn't give you the same framerate on a PC, not at the same detail. Overhead and bus speeds are critical, and consoles have direct access to every piece of hardware, resources aren't really shared and are dedicated to the game.

 

[BladeVenom]

When the 360 was brand new it could keep up, but by the time the PS3 came out consoles were already behind with the introduction of the 8800's. Right now consoles can't even keep up with a midrange PC. The 360 can only run COD 4 at 600p (1024x600 resolution = 614,400 pixels).
Where a new midrange graphics card like the 9600GT can run it at 1920x1200 = 2,304,000 pixels. That's almost four times the resolution for only $169.99.

Just compare a good PC running Crysis to Halo 3 on the 360. It's not even close.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
When the 360 was brand new it could keep up, but by the time the PS3 came out consoles were already behind with the introduction of the 8800's. Right now consoles can't even keep up with a midrange PC. The 360 can only run COD 4 at 600p (1024x600 resolution = 614,400 pixels).
Where a new midrange graphics card like the 9600GT can run it at 1920x1200 = 2,304,000 pixels. That's almost four times the resolution for only $169.99.

Just compare a good PC running Crysis to Halo 3 on the 360. It's not even close.

I agree, a console really can't compete with a PC graphically. They used to be better, but not anymore. It's just not as big a deal for console gamers because we usually sit farther from the screen.

And I really wish people would stop referring to non-HD resolutions as (height)p. 720p is a resolution. 1080p is a resolution. 600p is not a resolution, it's a number and a letter.

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: mugs
And I really wish people would stop referring to non-HD resolutions as (height)p. 720p is a resolution. 1080p is a resolution. 600p is not a resolution, it's a number and a letter.

But 600p is a resolution 😕

Anyway, I don't think it's a big deal that Crysis has to be scaled back. There are numerous PC gamers that had to scale the game down to dx9, lower resolutions, and lower detail settings to play the game and most that played it seem to enjoy it anyway. If they've truly made an optimized port of the engine for consoles I'm sure the game will look fine. And as you pointed out, most console gamers don't give a shit if it doesn't look like newer PCs anyway. It's really only PC gamers that are seemingly obsessed with consoles and not console gamers that are obsessed with PCs.

I did play through Crysis already on a rather beefy PC and the gameplay, IMO, is solid. It doesn't stray too far from the Far Cry recipe, but the addition of the nanosuit adds some nice variety to the combat. As long as they keep the gameplay intact I'm sure it will find success on consoles.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: mugs
And I really wish people would stop referring to non-HD resolutions as (height)p. 720p is a resolution. 1080p is a resolution. 600p is not a resolution, it's a number and a letter.

But 600p is a resolution 😕

No, it isn't. 720p is a resolution defined as 1280x720. XGA is a resolution defined as 1024x768. 600p is not a resolution; it is a number and a letter that follow the naming convention of HDTV resolutions. And what's worse, the 1024x600 that is supposedly represented by "600p" isn't even the same aspect ratio as the standard HDTV resolutions, so there is no way other than clairvoyance or a google search to know what the width of a so-called 600p image is. A resolution is a height and a width (in pixels) OR some standard name that represents the same. 600p is neither. It's a number and a letter.

 

[Thraxen]

Fair enough... it's true you don't know the width since it's not a defined standard. But it's more than a letter and a number... it defines the horizontal lines of resolution and that fact it's progressive.

 

[oznerol]

Jesus fucking Christ, I am sick of people counting goddamn pixels.

That is all.

 

[Modeps]

Originally posted by: ducci
Jesus fucking Christ, I am sick of people counting goddamn pixels.

That is all.

I just counted the pixels in your field of vision, you're missing like at least 10 lines of information.

 

[CKDragon]

Originally posted by: ducci
Jesus fucking Christ, I am sick of people counting goddamn pixels.

That is all.

Why don't you spend some time tonight counting the pixels on each level of TMNT?

...

😛

 

[oznerol]

Originally posted by: CKDragon

Originally posted by: ducci
Jesus fucking Christ, I am sick of people counting goddamn pixels.

That is all.

Why don't you spend some time tonight counting the pixels on each level of TMNT?

...

😛

Funny you should say that, as I actually did it. There were 180 pixels, which, ironically, is the same number of points I am currently beating you by.

 

[CKDragon]

Originally posted by: ducci

Originally posted by: CKDragon

Originally posted by: ducci
Jesus fucking Christ, I am sick of people counting goddamn pixels.

That is all.

Why don't you spend some time tonight counting the pixels on each level of TMNT?

...

😛

Funny you should say that, as I actually did it. There were 180 pixels, which, ironically, is the same number of points I am currently beating you by.

*Sprints back to the Xbox 360*

 

[JPB]

Updated the OP with more info 🙂

 

[mugs]

Any theories on how they'll pull off Bioshock 2? Prequel? That'd certainly be interesting, although I'm not sure who the protagonist would be or how you'd finish the game while being consistent with the first game. In the "bad" ending the splicers took over the military submarine, but I'm not sure where the game would take place - still in Rapture?