Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 4 Jul 2011.
Bearing in mind the original Crysis is till harder to run than the sequel, and the overall opinion was that Crysis 2 looked poor on consoles, I don't see how they'll get it to run well.
I suppose consoles will be able to play it on medium settings - at 768x432.
Makes sense from a business perspective, even though I can't see that it'd run very well on consoles.
if they port to the new engine it will run fine, all the new engine is, is a highly optimised version of the original engine, thats the impression i got from the engine preview videos last year.
In a brave new world where "highly optimised" means "nerfed", yes.
i hald expect a draw distance of 5 feet and 20 fps
The original Crysis is just a horribly unoptimised game. Correctly ported it should have no problems running on consoles.
Yeah, it probably won't be rendering at 1080p with 60fps, but so what?
You only need to look at games like Uncharted 2, Killzone 3 and God of War 3 and countless unreleased titles to realise that numbers can be meaningless when comparing visual experiences. Do I care about the exact line count in each of those games? No, because whatever tricks the developers used are irrelevant - the games still look gorgeous.
Actually all "optimisations" are in reality mostly just tricks to limit the amount of work the engine does without damaging the visual look.
Ever since John Carmack realised, while porting Mario to PC, that each frame you only needed to re-render just the parts of the screen that moved, not the entire screen as Nintendo had originally done, every cutting edge engine developer splits their time between coming up with the technologies for added features and working out all the hacks and tweaks necessary to get it to run smoothly.
Rawr, It won't have environment mapped pixel shaded dust particles, texture resolution won't be 1 gigatexel, consolification, noobs, hardcore will never die, zomg wtf.
Hey guys, what's a game again?
I have no idea where people get this idea from, especially when there are much, much worse examples of poorly optimised game engines which highly favour one GPU manufacturer over the other or scale poorly with multiple GPUs.
The fact is that original Crysis is probably still the best looking game around at the moment. It may run like a pig on lower end hardware (if you're stupid enough to try and run it at max settings) but that doesn't mean it's poorly optimised when you consider the detail it has to render and the large environments - it just puts a larger strain on GPUs than any other game out there, with a noticeable visual return. What's wrong with that? If it looked the same as every other grey-brown shooter then yeah, you could say it's poorly optimised, but the game was ahead of it's time by several years and I can't think of any other game that has stood the test of time so well.
Besides, completely rewriting a 4 year old game in a new engine as well as altering the game mechanics (the original nanosuit would be unusable with a gamepad) is a ridiculous idea and I would be amazed if it even got off the ground.
No to a PC gamer with experienced eyes they don't look that good. 720p looked blurry to me since 2005 and i can't keep playing games like this... on my 42''TV i play at 60fps-1080p and all graphics on max with Trumotion as well and i have a much better gaming expirience...
i only play games on consoles that are exclusive and everything else on PC
for Crysis now... i guess it will be 640p for PS3 with low overall quality but it will look more well made than pc version
Fair play to them. If it means that they get more money to develop the franchise and to spend on Crysis 3, then all for the better!. The more alternatives out there, the better the games will get... Free market competition and all that...
And us PC gamers get to say "that's just a **** PC port.... Tsk!" while looking down our noses at kids. He he.
This a thousand times over. It gets so tiresome seeing people talk about Crysis being badly optimised despite it offering visuals far in excess of anything released at the same time and performance that was fine on hardware up to the task.
Too many people tried to play Crysis at settings beyond what their hardware could reasonably handle and instead of just admitting that they can't accept playing a game at medium settings (which still looked better than other titles at their maximum) they bitched and whined that the game was unplayable at V.High on their 8800GT or whatever other mid-range cards dominated the market in the past few years.
Had there been other games that offered the same level of visual fidelity and flair on the same hardware with better performance it would have been reasonable to accuse the game of being badly optimised. As things stood in reality it just sounded like the complaining of people without the hardware to experience the game as it was intended; and still does.
This part of the post I agree with in some respects. I, for instance, think World of Warcraft has really appealing visuals because Blizzard knew that it would be better to give the game a stylised, painterly look that would run well on a wide variety of hardware, rather than to try be at the cutting edge of graphics.
The thing is that I don't think the kind of scaling-back that Crysis would need to run well on current consoles would lend itself to the same approach. They'd have to scale back texture sizes, foliage detail, shader counts; everything that gives the game the striking visuals it has. Crysis could have been given a stylised aesthetic, but it wasn't; It was built from the ground-up to provide graphical fidelity and a contemporary attempt at realism; and trying to foist a style onto it now to cover up the cut-backs wouldn't work.
Instead it'll just look like playing the game on Low/Medium and its visuals will be passable, but the console gamers will be looking at it and wondering what all the fuss was about from PC gamers regarding Crysis' visuals.
As for the gameplay of a console port of Crysis - I expect it to adopt the dumbed-down suit functions and mechanics of Crysis 2; and therefore it'll be a hollow shell of its former self.
Trying to play Crysis on Delta difficulty in its original format with a joypad would be an exercise in frustration.
The age old question will finally be answered... Can Xbox run crisis? Sorry couldn't resist.
Forget the visuals how on earth are they going to fit the maps into a 360 or ps3s memory?
has any1 said they might be using crysis 2 engine for the game
This is hilariously bassackwards.
But on a serious note, people still do not realize that the CryEngine 2 is a monster because it still remains to be one of the most powerful engines to have been made in the last four years. Crysis still hasn't aged and Crysis 2 only runs better on the fact that it doesn't render as much as it's older brother.
Plus the only games that have topped it are Metro 2033, Bad Company 2 (at times), and the STALKER series with texture packs. But outside of that, Crysis still remains to be one of the most demanding game that sadly does not use quad cores.
Optimised for consoles CryEngine 3 versus unoptimised for PC CryEngine 2. ; )
Given the zillions of different combinations of PC hardware, it wasn't surprising to see Crysis and Crysis Warhead referred frequently as being unoptimised but that's the nature of PC gaming; that you need significantly more powerful hardware with more memory than you'd need to run the same on a console.
Given that CryTek will no doubt be aiming for 720p @ 30 fps I think a 360/PS3 version of the original Crysis and Warhead are perfectly possible on CryEngine 3. They are capable of running huge open-area FPSs such as Far Cry 2 for example. Sure Crysis won't look as good as the high-end PC version but as long as the gameplay is intact and it looks like a passable copy then that will no doubt please console gamers. Crysis is a much better game than the sequel IMO so it's great that more people will get to experience it, especially as it didn't sell that well on the PC in the first place due, in part, to the hardware requirements.
Separate names with a comma.