Crysis could be on consoles from Cevart.

[pjbliverpool]

I think Cevat pretty much hit the nail on the head when he said you can get anything to run on anything. Of course Crysis can run on next gen consoles. It could run on Wii too or even the DS if you strip it down far enough. I think the consoles will handle Crysis pretty well when it eventually lands on them (and it will). But there will be some obvious sacrafices. As people have already mentioned, you simply can't stream a world that large with that much detail from a DVD (or even a HDD if you have limited memory) so reagdless of whether the consoles can achieve the DX9 level of effects the game outputs, it will likely still have reduced detail, level size, or more loading screens purely sue to the fact that even DX9 GPU's (the good ones) come with a dedicated 512MB of memory and 1-2GB of system memory in the PC. So graphical power aside, memory will limit what the consoles can do.

When put next to pimped out DX10 rig, both memory and graphical power will limit what the consoles can do.

Oblivion is a great example of this. It has a big wide open world full of lush vegitaion like Crysis. However its clearly at a much lower detail level. However this game, despite its longer loading times than the PC version still had to cut back on foliage detail on the consoles compared to what a good DX9 GPU could achieve at the same settings and framerate. Pump up the detail for Crysis, meaning heavier demands on memory and the problem would only be more pronounced.

 

[pjbliverpool]

woudlnt it b easier to break some trees and some small warehouses on an island than a huge Helghast civilization?

How do you even define "breaking a huge Helghast civilization"?

Unless you can literally nuke the whole thing and watch it blow apart realistically, I fail to see how your statement relates.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Well maybe i'm just arguing semantics but if you believe this to be the case then don't directly infer that it is because the truth is you don't know full stop..

So far you've seen one clip of KZ2 and a handful from one part of one level of Haze.. I don't think that's enough to make any kind of such inferences on ANY game regardless..

Okay, then going by your statements, we should not discuss any game prior to its release, because we don't know 100% of all facts.

Who knows, Mass Effect may actually be a duck hunt game in disguise....

Basically, what your telling me is that i should not say KZ2 and Haze are linear, because i haven't played the game, yet all information we have seen on the game, state that they are in fact, linear.

What kind of logic are you applying here?

Here are the facts we know:

-We have seen no examples of KZ2 and Haze being anywhere close to the freeworld roaming that Crysis has.
-We have seen plenty of examples that both games are linear.

Until we are proven otherwise, these games are linear. My logic behind this is, that games are what we percieve them to be. Because i have not seen anything that would suggest otherwise, this game is linear until i see something that alters that perception.

Whats yours?

 

[archangelmorph]

Okay, then going by your statements, we should not discuss any game prior to its release, because we don't know 100% of all facts.

Who knows, Mass Effect may actually be a duck hunt game in disguise....

Don't be stupid..

Basically, what your telling me is that i should not say KZ2 and Haze are linear, because i haven't played the game, yet all information we have seen on the game, state that they are in fact, linear.

All the information?

All we've seen so far regarding these games is absolutely bugger all..???

What kind of logic are you applying here?

Seems pretty logical to me.. Don't know why you're having such a hard time understanding Ostepop..?

Here are the facts we know:

-We have seen no examples of KZ2 and Haze being anywhere close to the freeworld roaming that Crysis has.
-We have seen plenty of examples that both games are linear.

I know.. But we haven't seen enough to suggest if the entire game is similar to the limited amount of footage that has been shown.. as a result we can't infer to enough accuracy either way..

Until we are proven otherwise, these games are linear. My logic behind this, is because i have not seen anything that would suggest otherwise, this game is what i percieve it to be, until i see something that alters that perception.
Whats yours?

Well in my virew this game is what the developers INTEND it to be regardless of what I may perceive from what limited information I have available..

The idea that you can directly declare "this game is x because i watched a 2 minute clip and got that impression and therefore it cannot possibly be anything other than what I declare it to be!" seems like pretty broken logic to me..

 

[dobwal]

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.

I installed Fear on my brother in law's son's computer with a AMD IGP for kicks. I was pleasantly surprised when it worked when I turned every off or down to its lowest setting. My first thought was "Wow this looks like Half Life!!!!".

 

[Albuquerque]

Holy God(s). What the hell is going on in here?

Here's the obvious facts, in cliff-notes-condensed form, as stated by more than one person in this very thread:

Consoles do not have nearly the same resources as a PC.
Crysis could very legitimately (and quite likely) show up on a Console.
Crysis ON a console will not have the same level of detail as a PC. This is not a function of not wanting to, this is a function of simply not enough resources and there is no technological way to escape it.
Crysis ON a console will still be a visual masterpiece if/when it's released. Crytek will quite likely not let it be otherwise...

We can sit here and argue about what KillZone and Haze have to offer, but it doesn't matter -- because neither of them are out yet. Neither is there any indication of performance, game play style, level size/expansiveness, object complexity/level of detail, simultaneous objects on-screen, etc, environment interactivity, etc.

And when comparing what Crysis has shown us versus what we have seen from every other console game (released or still in-development) nothing else hits the same list of featureset. And until another current or in-development game shows us otherwise, it's absolutely stupid to argue that it might.

So let's recap:

• Crysis is not on a console
• Crysis is not scheduled to be a console
• "Common sense" would suggest it likely will come to a console
• Logic dictates that, if it does come to a console, it will not look the same as the PC by a noticable margin
• Logic dictates that, given the above, the changes will not be merely AA, AF and screen resolution.

Those are the facts. The end.

 

[NovemberMike]

Well maybe i'm just arguing semantics but if you believe this to be the case then don't directly infer that it is because the truth is you don't know full stop..

So far you've seen one clip of KZ2 and a handful from one part of one level of Haze.. I don't think that's enough to make any kind of such inferences on ANY game regardless..

Didn't everyone think Heavenly Sword was an Arena brawler?

I rest my case..

IIRC, the footage of Killzone shown has a cut-scene at the beginning and then transitions into gameplay. This seems to be consistent with Killzone 1's style, which was cut-scene A, get to point A, cut-scene B, get to point B etc. and was a very linear game. For Haze we have a video where they basically ran through a level and it was a few open areas connected by trails.

With these games, even being level based will make it linear compared to Crysis. The point is that Crysis lets you go to any point on the island at any time, which is really straining on a system, while most of the console shooters look like you are constrained to a relatively small area inside of each level.

 

[Fu3lFr3nzy]

The point is that Crysis lets you go to any point on the island at any time, which is really straining on a system, while most of the console shooters look like you are constrained to a relatively small area inside of each level.

And with every problem comes a solution

There are ways to get around that, any smart dev would tell you that (and this forum has some of them )

Oh, and have you heard of a certain game called "Just Cause"? that also had you roaming around a large island at any time(not to mention flying!), but that didnt seem to be a "problem" :smile:

 

[Neb]

And with every problem comes a solution

There are ways to get around that, any smart dev would tell you that (and this forum has some of them )

Oh, and have you heard of a certain game called "Just Cause"? that also had you roaming around a large island at any time(not to mention flying!), but that didnt seem to be a "problem" :smile:

Of course not, but comparing the graphics, gameplay features (technology) with Crysis would be almost an insult to Crysis!

It is not only about the scope but also what is contained inside it. GTA3 and sequels where free roaming games but visually and technically far inferior to for example Far Cry.

 

[Fu3lFr3nzy]

Well, Crytek touts about their optimization whenever asked, so I say put the money where their mouth is

Crytek employees have stated many times that [it] couldnt be done on consoles, so Cevat(of all people) just coming out and saying something like the recent statement shows that they seem pretty confident if a port of this game ever comes out(assuming they handle the porting duties)

Anywho, the PC version wont come out until November 16th, so if ever this game sees the console light of day, its not anytime soon. Im starting to derail my post, so continue with the convos guys

 

[NovemberMike]

Oh, and have you heard of a certain game called "Just Cause"? that also had you roaming around a large island at any time(not to mention flying!), but that didnt seem to be a "problem" :smile:

Just Cause: http://img.hexus.net/v2/gaming/screenshots_xbox360/justcause/just10_large.jpg

Crysis: http://static.computergames.ro/cg/assassin/images2/crysis/crysis068.jpg

What was your point again?

 

[archangelmorph]

With these games, even being level based will make it linear compared to Crysis. The point is that Crysis lets you go to any point on the island at any time, which is really straining on a system, while most of the console shooters look like you are constrained to a relatively small area inside of each level.

True but the real question is constrained why? nine times out of ten the answer is due to design constraints over any specific hardware limitation and thus its not as easy as looking at "the majority of console shooters" and trying to make inferences on what is and isn't possible with regards to the platform..

Heck even "the majority" of PC shooters are corridor shooters in pretty much the same vein (and there are a heck of alot more FPS on PC..)..

 

[Neb]

Just Cause: http://img.hexus.net/v2/gaming/screenshots_xbox360/justcause/just10_large.jpg

Crysis: http://img.hexus.net/v2/gaming/screenshots_xbox360/justcause/just10_large.jpg

What was your point again?

You have the same Just Cause screenshot link for both! (lol, nice edit cheers!)

But gentlemen lets relax, it still very early and it isn't even carved in stone if it is comming to consoles. But if it comes then obviously there will be sacrifices but to what extent remains to see and perhaps excellent artwork can be used for compensation?
Neverthless the next virtual beer round is on me!

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=169174

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".

 

[NovemberMike]

You have the same Just Cause screenshot link for both! (lol, nice edit cheers!)

Nobody saw that...

 

[Albuquerque]

True but the real question is constrained why? nine times out of ten the answer is due to design constraints over any specific hardware limitation and thus its not as easy as looking at "the majority of console shooters" and trying to make inferences on what is and isn't possible with regards to the platform..

Heck even "the majority" of PC shooters are corridor shooters in pretty much the same vein (and there are a heck of alot more FPS on PC..)..

Very very true, but then you get back to one of the previous points -- the REAL graphical differences between a corridor shooter on the PC versus Console are quite small... Why? Because of limited visible area, limited number of objects on-screen at a time, limited lighting requirements, and of course limited AI pathing needs. Really, in most cases, the only thing a PC can offer above a console in such a setting is more AA, more AF, higher resolutions and the occasional bump in poly count and some higher-res textures in places. What else can you really change?

Those same issues, when applied to a vast open landscape, change dramatically. When you can potentially see 8km into the distance, you have a potential visible area (at a 90* FOV) of ~50sq kilometers. Now cull that against however many thousands of hills, trees, bushes, buildings, vehichles, characters and other objects. Now texture all of those objects. Now also make ALL of those movable and potentially destrutable. Now make the AI smart enough to path around all that object data, even if it's been moved / destroyed.

You're exactly right in that it's a design decision; something of this scale requires a massive amount of development planning. But when you're talking about this kind of scale, you must consider resource limitations. Even a fully-equipped mega-loaded top-end $10,000 PC could be utterly swamped by this amount of data if you don't make some really good decisions about how to handle that kind of data.

I'm sure you can overload an UBER-PC with a corridor shooter, but the technology-point where diminishing returns kicks in will be MUCH lower on such a title.

That's really what we're running into during this discussion. A large quantity of PC games really can be ported to a console with little to no degredation (assuming proper care is taken by the developer) simply because they really aren't THAT demanding. This is one of those titles that really will never have that kind of luck; it's just too big.

Someone above me brought up Oblivion, and that's likely a good comparison to start with. While not nearly so "busy" as Crysis, it still features wide open landscapes, impressive view distance, high object density, et al. But it was obvious on the console version that many things had to be pared down for performance reasons. Did that mean that Oblivion was ugly and sucked on the console? Nope. If you never saw the PC version, you'd never know the difference.

 

[Fu3lFr3nzy]

Just Cause: http://img.hexus.net/v2/gaming/screenshots_xbox360/justcause/just10_large.jpg

Crysis: http://static.computergames.ro/cg/assassin/images2/crysis/crysis068.jpg

What was your point again?

The point I was making is that a large open ended island is possible, albeit some sacrifices has to be made(as many have already stated)

The problem I see with a Crysis game being made for consoles is that people will debate it to death versus its PC counterpart, rather than comparing it towards other console shooters.

Yes, the PC version will and always be better, by how much? we dont know. Personally for me, im more interested just how good this game would look on a PS3/X360 when compared side by side to a Halo or Haze (not KZ2 due to different art direction)

 

[groper]

If they (Crytek) ever come with a console version of crysis, on the one hand they will check more graphical features than the DX9 version of the game (HDR with sunrays instead of bloom, 3D waves, per pixel motion blur).
But on the other, because of the limited memory and bandwidth resourses they will cut/reduce some standard graphical stuff. For example they will have to throw in sprites for all the distant trees - reduce the foliage/grass - use 512x512 shadowmaps etc.
Another thing is that if they start development somewhere in spring 2008, the final game will come in the best case at the end of 2009 or even later.
So does it worth the trouble? IMO it depends of each console's lifecycle...

 

[Albuquerque]

Yes, the PC version will and always be better, by how much? we dont know. Personally for me, im more interested just how good this game would look on a PS3/X360 when compared side by side to a Halo or Haze (not KZ2 due to different art direction)

And you sir win the prize; that's EXACTLY the way it should be compared. Comparing game versions between console and PC is utterly worthless; any developer that's worth a damn will obviously make changes for both platforms simply because each has different relative strengths and weaknesses.

The real comparison of a game should be made against other games on the same platform. And in that respect, I believe that if/when Crysis ever comes to console, it will more than certainly hold it's own.

 

[pjbliverpool]

If they (Crytek) ever come with a console version of crysis, on the one hand they will check more graphical features than the DX9 version of the game (HDR with sunrays instead of bloom, 3D waves, per pixel motion blur).

What makes you think any of those features (aside from the light rays) will not already be present in DX9?

Unless its a geniune feature limitation of DX9 then I see no reason why DX9 version of the PC game wouldn't be right up there (or beyond) a console version. Certainly there are DX9 GPU's with the power to pull it off and there are DX9 versions of console games which look better on a DX9 GPU than they do on the consoles. In fact that applies to a good majority of all cross platform games.

 

[psorcerer]

Those same issues, when applied to a vast open landscape, change dramatically. When you can potentially see 8km into the distance, you have a potential visible area (at a 90* FOV) of ~50sq kilometers. Now cull that against however many thousands of hills, trees, bushes, buildings, vehichles, characters and other objects. Now texture all of those objects. Now also make ALL of those movable and potentially destrutable. Now make the AI smart enough to path around all that object data, even if it's been moved / destroyed.

No PC can handle this.
You reduce LOD till it gets to playable fps.
Furthermore, the extra system memory on PC is not helping you at all.
All the rendering on PC should be done from VRAM only (256mb is the common case). You can use sysmem only as some kind of cache, instead of loading from disk directly. But cache performs good if you have predictable access pattern (our lovely corridors), if the pattern is chaotic: free-roaming world - no help from cache...
So the speculations about PC superiority in free-roaming games (because of it's memory) are - just speculations. The real cause is much simpler: free-roaming games are very hard to do right from the design point of view, and PC development costs less money...