I am dam sure Console users will miss out on the heavenly graphics of crysis.

if it makes it to console which wouldn't be a surprise given the poor sales on the pc side and it's rendering playable frames then this will only show that Crysis was released far to early for the PC.

Have to totally disagree with Tommyxx516 Pc's can game just as good if not better than consoles i know this because i game a lot on my PC. And yet to have any technical issues like everyone is claiming to be having. PC gaming is a preference of choice. If your just a gamer that just want things easy no setups,installs,configurations then thats fine. But if your one of those gamers that know what you are doing and Don't mind configuring thats fine too.

All i have to say is i enjoy gaming on the PC. Especially If you can have multiple games running in the background without impacting performance at all. I do this so i can be in online in one game idle in the lobby and playing another game. And not to mention Online gaming is FREE + Moding community

And to top that off I get solid framerates in crysis on max not ultra high but just max settings with resolutions 1280x1024 with 4xAA. This game is actually fun and love the blury effects too especially the explosions. And this is a fact as i am currently playing crysis

Make sure your hardware is working properly and optimized in the bios. It makes a big difference once you get this sorted out FIRST before you start gaming.

Have people forgotten the principle of checking before its a go i ask?

Crysis is gonna suck hard on the consoles lol.They couldn't even get console Far Cry to be half the experiance PC Far Cry was...

I can see it now, Crysis with a 50-foot draw distance :0, or better yet, It'll turn into a rail shooter.

I'm beginning to question how many of the pc fanbois on this forum actually have played Crysis. They seem to be using it as a 'champion title' to somehow state pc superiority. I'm running the game with a Nvidia 8800 and I'm getting 25-35 fps.

Once they show the demo of this 'optimized Crysis engine,' it'll just prove that current CryEngine 2 was just a piece of $h*t to begin with. For the record, Crysis does look better than the Unreal Engine 3, but not by much.

Since they've taken the time to optimize the engine for the consoles and publically announced it, then obviously they've had some success in the process. Many ppl on this forum seem to believe that Crysis on the consoles will look like crap. Let's be realistic here. The 'negative doom belief' is GREATLY exaggerated. Go look on Gamespot and check out some screenshots of Assassins Creed, Burnout Paradise, Devil May Cry, Just Cause, etc.

PC is good for general purpose but for gaming, I find myself reaching for the PS3/Xbox360 because it offers a more immersive and entertaining experience (especially with my 52' HDTV and 5.1 surround sound).

Hahahaha! Now console players will know what it's like to get a crappy port.

Try playing Assassin's Creed with a 7800 and cry.
Try playing Assassin's Creed with an 8800 and kind of cry.
Try playing Assassin's Creed with a controller and cry profusely.

Fixed that for you.

What framerates does a Desktop with a Comparable CPU (to a console's castrated cpu) a 7800 GTX and about a GIG of Ram (I GUESS) get in Crysis at even fairly LOW settings??? Probably Ten or Twelve FPS say at 1280 x 800 all settings on medium no aa/ no aniso...

The New Dually X2 HD 3870 isn't even the crysis card yet....SO How the hell will crytek pull this off.... They'll have to sacrifice every graphical enhancement that makes this game so beautiful.... It just won't be the same game graphics wise. According Console VS PC comparisons I read 6 or 8 months ago the consoles were barely able to compete with a midrange pc of that time period. Now.... FOGETABOUDIT!

The specs of the PS3 and Xbox360 easily matches a high end pc so all these claims of a bad port is greatly exaggerated. Their cpu easily matches or exceeds a dual core cpu; and both consoles has a physics engine that far surpasses what's available on the pc. Their memory management system is very efficient and that explains why a console with half the memory of a pc can still perform better.

The major difference between the pc and consoles is that consoles are fixed hardware. Programmers know what they're dealing with and can optimize the codes to get the best performance whereas on pc, you have difference configurations which can hinder performance on every level.

Call of Duty 4 looks pretty identical on the PS3/Xbox360/high end pc. Crysis does look better but certainly not by much. It also isn't the most demanding game on the pc. Assassin's Creed for the pc has hardware requirement that EXCEEDS Crysis. If they could get Call of Duty4 and Assassin's Creed on the consoles, Crysis isn't that far fetched.

If Assassin's Creed runs on the PS3/Xbox360 without a problem, then there's no reason why Crysis wouldn't be able to run on the consoles at least 720p. (Assassin's Creed pc version hardware requirements exceeds Crysis pc hardware requirements).

When they released a simple software patch which actually sped up the game, it only supported the idea that the Crysis game engine is incredibly inefficient.

like i said something is not right

somehow i don't believe AC requirements. they took those requirements down. Something ain't right here. Crysis uses less ram and i am able to play it on max settings. just something ain't right here. Starting to wounder this is on purpose.

Sure they will....if they want to make any money. Or there wont be a FarCry/Crytec 2.

I mean COD4 is the number 1 selling game and it sold less than 500,000 copies on the PC, and another 3-4million on consoles.

What are sales numbers for Crytek? 100,000....maybe. Great looking game, lame game play.

it's the only way that the game will turn a profit. I don't care the reasons it sold like crap, the fact is that by and large, PC gamers have (smartly, IMO - FarCry's AI ruined a lovely-looking game...so why should that change now?) avoided the game.

I would actually be interested in at least seeing them try a console port. The console's greatest strengths have always been touted to be its static architecture and efficiency, it'd be interesting to see how far those traits take it against something a PC's greater memory capacity and processing power hasn't completely cracked yet (though its getting really, really close nowadays).

Which consoles? The PS4 and XBox 720?

Well, I guess they have to make money on the game somehow, right?

As for the general sentiment that a game with Crysis' design would have to scale down the levels due to memory limitations; I disagree. I think PC-parity can be achieved, you just have to be clever with your resources.

On a PC, if things get too big for the page it can just be sent to the hard drive (sluggish performance ensues but oh well).

For a console, I think some adjusting of the level topography itself as well as a more aggressive mip-map process could be utilized. Plus, unlike PC, they have the advantage of only needing to worry about one easily scalable resolution (I'd go with 720p) and try to optimize it for that resolution. If it can run 720p @ 30fps that's fine.

IMO while I'm sure Crysis looks great and has huge levels, I don't think it's insurmountable for a PS3 to have a comparable port.

Well, if the Assassin's Creed transformation works in reverse, this thing should easily fit into available memory and just fly on consoles.

Wait, it doesn't work that way?

I don't think that chopping the Cry Engine 2 until its playable on the PS3 / 360 is going to be all that hot. While stunning at very high/high settings, the game loses most of the visual appeal while running on "old" hardware, so it will depend on how much of the physics and graphics (and probably level size) survive the transition to see if can hold a candle to the PC version.

The UT3 engine on the other hand is more optimized than the crysis engine on the PC and I would guess that its leagues ahead in the console arena, considering the time it has been available and the amount of titles using it on the 360/PS3. I imagine that when choosing between those two engines for a console title, most developers would go with UT3, since the main advantage of the Cry Engine is making those drool inducing graphics, which probably can't be fully reproduced on either console.

Captain Obvious to the rescue.

Hmmmm.....

Crysis at 1080P with maybe 30 FPS with no draw distance, anti-aliasing, or anisotropic filtering. Sounds like a lot of fun, too bad my budget computer can run Crysis better than a 360 probably can.

is there really a point to crysis' lush, open jungle and ocean landscapes they are no longer lush, open, or landscapes?

hahahahahahahaha @320x240