Crysis could be on consoles from Cevart.

[ultragpu]

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=169174
"Crysis could be on the 360 or PS3", Yerli said.

"It requires optimisation, that's what we've always communicated", he went on. "What you would not do is make Crysis on PS3, 360 and PC for a single shipping date, because we would lose the quality focus."

true, im sure noone wants a bad port, please take the time u need crytech and hopefully they can deliver the same gorgeous looking title to the consoles in the near future.

 

[Neb]

There was some more though! :smile:

So don't go singing 'Crysis on console' from the rooftops just yet - Yerli added that there aren't any plans for Crysis on PS3 and Xbox 360 currently. "...it's a matter of how far we can take each platform" and Crytek would not go to a platform unless it could make the game "number one there".

Although it would not be strange if it comes to the consoles, it is just a mather of adapting the game to the hardware!

 

[ultragpu]

Although it would not be strange if it comes to the consoles, it is just a mather of adapting the game to the hardware!

it's likely there'll b some sacrifices to b made for each consoles more or less, but i c financially it's a 99% profitable decision.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

You seem to have some sticking keys there ultragpu...

 

[morlock]

The CPU should suffice on the consoles, but the memory could be a big bottleneck.

When they are demoing Crysis they are certainly using a rig with a GPU with alot of memory, maybe SLIs/Crossfire, and plenty of RAM - So I can imagine the textures would take a big hit, unless they manage to very agressively stream textures.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

The CPU should suffice on the consoles, but the memory could be a big bottleneck.

When they are demoing Crysis they are certainly using a rig with a GPU with alot of memory, maybe SLIs/Crossfire, and plenty of RAM - So I can imagine the textures would take a big hit, unless they manage to very agressively stream textures.

Last i heard they where demoing it on a single 8800GTX (or whatever its called, the one with 640ish mb of memory).

 

[NovemberMike]

I have a copy of Deus Ex for the PS2. It is pretty much the same game as the PC version except it looks like shit and has tons of loading screens. I am guessing that this is pretty much the same thing.

 

[digitalwanderer]

UltraGPU: "b" != "be".

 

[DuckThor Evil]

I have a copy of Deus Ex for the PS2. It is pretty much the same game as the PC version except it looks like shit and has tons of loading screens. I am guessing that this is pretty much the same thing.

Are you saying that PS2 is either PS3 or X360 and that Deus Ex=Crysis OMG!, the parallers are endless, oh wait it seems that you are mistaken and that this situation is entirely different...

 

[NovemberMike]

Are you saying that PS2 is either PS3 or X360 and that Deus Ex=Crysis OMG!, the parallers are endless, oh wait it seems that you are mistaken and that this situation is entirely different...

Let's take Half Life. If you updated the character models and textures so it looked as good as HL2, it would still be the same game. Similarly, if you replaced the characters with doom style billboards and reduced the textures to single colors it still be Half Life. The same applies for Crysis, or Deus Ex, or anything. Of course they can port the game over to the 360 or PS3, or even the Wii. What is important is what they have to lose to make that transition.

Unless of course you are suggesting that it is going to ship with 1.5gb ram upgrade...

EDIT: Let me rephrase what I am saying. Deus Ex for the PS2 was perfectly playable. It wasn't really all that different from the PC version in the areas that count. It simply didn't look as good and didn't perform as well as a good computer. I see Crysis being in the same category.

 

[Albuquerque]

Are you saying that PS2 is either PS3 or X360 and that Deus Ex=Crysis OMG!, the parallers are endless, oh wait it seems that you are mistaken and that this situation is entirely different...

Well, I agree that it's "different", but not completely. One of the biggest limitations of a console is not video or CPU horsepower, but simple storage resources -- most notably system memory.

How can you expect there to be no tradeoff between a PC and a console, when the PC version has eight times (or more) system ram available to it? Also consider that the PC version has significantly more dedicated video ram for texture storage.

System ram will adversely affect total visible distance of a map, total visible objects, total textures visible within the render frustrum, etc. You can use better technology for streaming of level, object and texture data to minimize "load screens", and you can do some magic with texture, object and terrain LOD to squeeze more visible area within similar constraints.

However, your technology for streaming data and LOD application is just as applicable to the PC space as it is in the Console space, and again with the further resources afforded the developers on the PC, you'll end up with far more render capacity on the PC platform.

None of this means that you can't deliver a fantastic visual and gaming experience on the console platform, but there will still be a visual tradeoff compared to the PC.

 

[AlNom]

PC vs. Console discussion - *yawn* :|

 

[Fu3lFr3nzy]

Im sure if Crysis ever gets released on PS3/X360, it would be on par with the DX9 versions, though given the closed box architectures of consoles(with each console having something special about them), it would probably end up between the DX9 and DX10 version(visually)

Anyway, this has been another topic thats debated for a long time. We'll see what happens :smile:

 

[Skrying]

No, the actual "code" or implementation is really the last thing that would be cut. View distance and texture quality probably would be lowered, possibly the quality of the animations, etc. The game could potentially be "the same" but would notice some sacrifices. I have a lot of faith that the people at Crytek could pull off a lot on a console but I think at some point people need to realize that there are some aspects to a high end computer that a console is just not going to match... the memory amount is one of those. Consoles can leverage other areas heavily through optimization but you can only go so far.

For the sake of gaming though I wouldn't mind Crysis coming to consoles at all. I'm just simply glad the work will go into any version so that its done properly. That is my main concern with new games, there has been a lot of sloppy ports already...

 

[tabs]

UltraGPU: "b" != "be".

only nerd shorthand is acceptable!

 

[DuckThor Evil]

.
How can you expect there to be no tradeoff between a PC and a console, when the PC version has eight times (or more) system ram available to it? Also consider that the PC version has significantly more dedicated video ram for texture storage.

I did not say there wouldn't be any tradeoffs, I just found the reasoning used by NovemberMike to be somewhat off the mark. I believe the new HD consoles could produce Crysis to a degree where the end result could be viewed to be better than just "looking like shit with tons of loading screens"

Besides PC-games are not developed only for the higher end, there aren't that many systems with 4GB or more ram... The fact that the game has to run acceptable on mid range machines too puts restraints on the game development and then most of what you're really getting from your monster machine is higher res and AA which is nice, but for many of us not that big of a difference, once you get beyond certain point. Naturally small differences can be lifted to a pedestal if it suits the need of the argument.

It won't take long before the natural progression makes PC-games clearly better technically than what's available on the consoles, I just don't see it yet with Crysis, atleast to a degree what NovemberMike was suggesting.

 

[ultragpu]

UltraGPU: "b" != "be".

a habit u get to develop when u use msn.
on topic
i personally interested in how much crytech can push ps3 and how would they play with the SPUs.

 

[Dresden]

This is old hat now. It's been announced in more than one video interview. How pretty it's going to be.... I'd rather not think about.

 

[<nu>faust]

just a side note, his name is "cevat" (turkish for benevolent) not cevart.

 

[Albuquerque]

I did not say there wouldn't be any tradeoffs, I just found the reasoning used by NovemberMike to be somewhat off the mark. I believe the new HD consoles could produce Crysis to a degree where the end result could be viewed to be better than just "looking like shit with tons of loading screens"

Yeah, I can agree with that. Crysis is all about next-gen physics, animation and of course visuals. It's my (perhaps biased) opinion that they wouldn't drag their 2nd Generation engine into the proverbial dirt by allowing it to look "bad" on a console.

Besides PC-games are not developed only for the higher end, there aren't that many systems with 4GB or more ram... The fact that the game has to run acceptable on mid range machines too puts restraints on the game development and then most of what you're really getting from your monster machine is higher res and AA which is nice, but for many of us not that big of a difference, once you get beyond certain point. Naturally small differences can be lifted to a pedestal if it suits the need of the argument.

Quite a few games fit what you just described, but I do not believe Crysis (and for proof of this, look at FarCry) fits into that same mold. When you have view distances on the order of kilometers and single-frame scene complexity into the tens of millions of triangles, then you have a LOT of wiggle room between a "low-end" PC and a "high-end" PC.

Look at what you were able to do on FarCry - you could playable framerates on a Ti4200 even at 1600x1200 resolutions. Now granted, you didn't get reflective water, the object density goes to nothing, judicous amounts of terrain LOD, sprites replaced 3D models at about 100 yards out in view-distance, fish and wildlife went missing and some other items -- but it was 100% playable and actually still looked quite good. And we aren't even talking about AA and AF... (I can provide samples if you like)

Now again with FarCry, you could even drag an x800xtpe (brand-new, top-end at the time) into the dirt with the game at full capacity -- full water reflection and refraction, object density at 100%, all 3D models and no sprites, zero terrain LOD, flocking birds and schooling fish and fully dynamic shadows. And again, we aren't even talking about AA and AF yet. (I can provide samples of this too)

Looking at Crytek's past engine history, I'm VERY certain that the engine underpinning Crysis is fully capable of dragging a full-bore gaming machine into the framerate-dirt without turning on AA and AF. But at the same time, I'm quite sure it's capable of looking fantastic even on "antiquated" hardware.