Crytek revises claim: Crysis could be ported
by James Ransom-Wiley 
{ Oct 6th 2006 at 7:00PM }
During Leipzig, Crytek senior game designer Bernd Diemer claimed Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 were too weak to handle Crysis. Now, slightly down the totem pole, Crytek lead artist Michael Khaimzon is saying he's confident that Crysis could be ported. "I don't think there would be any problem to convert anything we work on to the next-gen consoles," Khaimzon told GamesIndustry.biz, adding, "[but] I don't know of any official plans to do so" (besides these).Forget Khaimzon's wishy-washy "don't know of any official plans" garble; EA, the publisher, doesn't want this to be a PC-only franchise. Crysis will wind up on 360 and PS3 (and probably Wii too), in one form or another, within a year. Just look at what's happened to Far Cry. Ubisoft has pimped the franchise like a mo'fo. Think EA's gonna miss out on an equally ripe opportunity -- and fall to second place? Nah, ain't gonna happen.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
elmer @ Oct 6th 2006 7:09PM
Just like id, I think PC devs heavily into graphics tech are too into their own world to really consider the Wii
footlong! @ Oct 6th 2006 7:12PM
personally, im not that excited about crysis. It could be that im not a pc gamer, or that i dont even have a pc that can run halo pc. the game is extremely ambitious and its physics and graphics are stunning. but ive seen the gameplay videos and it seems like its somewhere around the status quo. again, im not a pc gamer so my opinion shouldn't matter too much. its just that i dont think id get the game even if it were ported because as everyone (should) know/s, its all about gameplay.
vaylen @ Oct 6th 2006 7:13PM
Seeing Crysis on a PC in 1920x1200 sounds plausible. We'll see if they could ever get it to run in 1080p on the mighty cell processor. Either way, it will probably be a great yardstick to measure graphical performance in these next gen consoles.
Banned By Vlad @ Oct 6th 2006 7:22PM
Sounds good
uh_oh @ Oct 6th 2006 7:33PM
Oh yeah far cry got ported to consoles and look how crappy they have been. If crytek does it it could be nice, if jo blo dev does it itll stink.
Imadogg @ Oct 6th 2006 8:00PM
If this indeed gets ported to the 360... HOORAY!!!
Fox News Reader @ Oct 6th 2006 8:22PM
I'm pretty sure on the X06 montage for upcoming 360 games (available on Live Marketplace), Crysis is shown as part of the download...
Might be wrong though :)
Sploog @ Oct 6th 2006 8:35PM
During Leipzig, Crytek senior game designer Bernd Diemer claimed Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 were too weak to handle Crysis.
WTF
Vince @ Oct 6th 2006 8:36PM
'Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 were too weak to handle Crysis."
Tell me this was taken out of context.
otakucode @ Oct 6th 2006 8:44PM
Yeah, an artist might say it can be ported. Does that artist know enough about the internal graphics engine to know that effects can be scaled back/substituted for a console port without a major rewrite?
Vince: Neither the Xbox 360, nor the PS3, have the shader architecture or raw power required for the Crysis engine which is made for DX10 graphics cards that aren't even out for PC yet.
yay @ Oct 6th 2006 8:53PM
Crysis on the Wii = lollerskates
What a joke.
AzN-ten8Tpee @ Oct 6th 2006 9:14PM
Joystiq why yu so bias? PS3 can run Crysis at a higher frame rate and higher resolution than any computer for the next 10 years! That's a fact! Look it uup!
No computer can have a higher resolution than 1080p! Only the PS3 is capabable of trueHD resolution!
you are all bias@!
Pete @ Oct 6th 2006 9:39PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
Foetoid @ Oct 6th 2006 9:43PM
I dont see why you are all so surprised about the comments on the Ps3/360 being too weak to handle crysis. The recommended specs on that game include DX10 and Windows Vista (which arent even out yet) and a dual core processor. This is the most visually stunning game in years and easily outdoes anything i have seen on the ps3/360 so far. I knew this was coming, and i would like to see Crysis in all its glory come to the two expensive consoles, but it will more than likely have to be dumbed down a bit. I mean, without a keyboard/mouse or wii-mote, porting to a console is already dumbing it down. Whoever thought dual-analog could be considered good for FPS games needs thier head read. The only good controller i know of for FPS is the N64 contoller, using the c-buttons as forward/strafing and the analog stick for looking. Dual analog is a step backwards.
ro @ Oct 6th 2006 10:38PM
"Joystiq why yu so bias? PS3 can run Crysis at a higher frame rate and higher resolution than any computer for the next 10 years! That's a fact! Look it uup!
No computer can have a higher resolution than 1080p! Only the PS3 is capabable of trueHD resolution!"
Good one, AzN-ten8Tpee. Did you see F.E.A.R. on PS3 yet?
Oh, and my resolution is set to 1280x1024 at the moment - is that HD or what?
Chapree Da Grande @ Oct 6th 2006 10:48PM
Crysis = Wii? Man, that's an interesting thing.
Screw the graphic thing, let's see how's Crysis gameplay on Wii.
It should be tiring like hell.
Wargazm @ Oct 6th 2006 11:19PM
14. "...Whoever thought dual-analog could be considered good for FPS games needs thier head read. The only good controller i know of for FPS is the N64 contoller, using the c-buttons as forward/strafing and the analog stick for looking. Dual analog is a step backwards..."
That has got to be among the stupidest things I've ever read. Dual analog is THE ONLY way top go for FPS for traditional controllers (ie excluding the Wiimote, and not Keyboard/mouse). Not to mention that the N64's analog stick blew chunks.
Do you fall down a lot, Foetoid?
joe @ Oct 6th 2006 11:47PM
"Neither the Xbox 360, nor the PS3, have the shader architecture or raw power required for the Crysis engine which is made for DX10 graphics cards that aren't even out for PC yet."
dude dont talk out of your ass you really think the Xenon/GPU can't handle crysis... you pc gamers are a bunch of elitists...lol
Xbox 360 uses both SM 2.0 and modified SM 3.0 to render is graphics
http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=651253&SiteID=1
all They have to do is rewrite a small amount of shader code to work with SM 2.0 or rework their DX10 SM3.0 code to the SM3.0 360 verison which are basicly the same.
to say that the 360 can't handle anything for the next 3-5 years is retard. the Xenon/ATi GPU is a multi-threading beast, if anything once re-writen for the 360 Shaders is done the game will probly run better on the 360 then the min sys for PC.
and i doubt a PS3 verison would show up as that would require a complete rewrite of the shaders (PS3!=SM3.0) and probly the engine becasue of the cell architure.
if anything you have crysis released, 3 months later 360 edition and then a year later the PS3 verison which will take much longer to port becasue the PS3 hardware is basicly shit in terms of interoptbilty with 360/Vista and requires its own development cycle($$$).
Me again @ Oct 7th 2006 1:14AM
I have a gaming PC so i don't care if Crysis hits consoles or not !!! This game should be a blast. Btw...PS3 could easily run this game and probably be better than the PC version, if it was made for the PS3.
Burnt Meatloaf @ Oct 7th 2006 2:12AM
Anything can be ported. It just may look different. Duh.
More appropriately, people should be asking how much effort and reworking is required when making a "port." In the end, it's all just technical nit-picking.
Foetoid @ Oct 7th 2006 2:21AM
@Wargasm
Dual analog is revolting. Yes the N64 anaglog stick blew chucks, which is why i had a third party controller where they used a playstation style analog stick. You see, using keyboard/mouse is a lot more similar to using the n64 controller cause the movement buttons are digital (WADS and C-Buttons), and as long as you have a good analog stick (not the standard N64 one), then it will pawn the shit out of Dual Analog. I bet your also one of those fanboys who actually thinks Halo is good cause they don't own a PC good enough for decent FPS. I own halo 2, and honestly, the other day when we were deciding what we should play for multiplayer, we put in Hexen 64....cause its better. Oh and i am the one here with 1 star, not you...now who's falling down.
n8dogg @ Oct 7th 2006 3:11AM
Ooooo, you gots ONE STAR LAWL.
I don't even know what you're arguing about, but that last sentence really irked me. Shut up, prease-u!
epobirs @ Oct 7th 2006 5:02AM
You can have stars out the wazoo but that has no bearing on personal aesthetics and what one person finds more usable in controllers compared to another. This is a thing of opinion and cannot be quantified.
One of the reasons I don't go in for PC gaming much is the expense and that I generally don't care for the control schemes. I've never been able to get comfortable with a mouse/keyboard arrangement for action games. For those who prefer the mouse/keyboard arrangement, swell, enjoy. But there is a reason why the console business dwarfs the PC action game sector.
#18
If you're going to accuse someone of orating from their nether orifice, perhaps you should consider where your own speech is being emitted.
The Xenon GPU in the Xbox 360 has some unusual features but is at heart a DX9 device. The console presented ATI an opportunity to try out some ideas that would be too great of a support hassle to unleash all at once in the PC market where so many other variable are involved. Yes, the Xenon is a nice bit of kit but it isn't even the top of the heap for DX9 devices. If implemented as a PCIe board for a PC it would produce scores only around the 80% mark for single GPU setups currently available for purchase. We're talking about a device that went into production just over a year ago. (There was an attempt to sell the Dreamcast's video processor as a PC part but by the time it reached market it was viewed as pathetic compared to where standards had reached in the PC realm.)
Xenon isn't the end-all, be-all of GPUs. It isn't even that for DX9 devices. Meanwhile, DX10 adds many new elements to the developer's toolkit. This includes enabling operations that are very difficult to perform under DX9, which is a major contributing factor to the existing GPUs being thoroughly exploited by just a handful of titles to date. Many of those things that are difficult under DX9 are far more easily achieved under DX10, and much of that can under be had with fully compliant hardware. (ExtremeTech had a good series of interviews with developers discussing some of this a while back.)
A high-end DX10 system is going to have some pretty hefty hardware aside from the GPU. A quad-core CPU using Intel and AMD's latest architectures, for starters. These will easily match or outperform the 360's CPU cluster. These systems will also have typically 2GB or greater RAM in addition to at least 256MB dedicated to the GPU.
A game intended to push such machines are going to offer visual splendor the latest consoles cannot match. Nor should they. The PC in question is bleeding edge hardware and has a cost substantially higher than the production cost of those consoles and far higher still than their heavily discounted retail prices. PC gamers assembling top of the line systems are already accustommed to paying as much for a single video board as a console shopper would pay for an Xbox 360 Premium System. If they're going really high-end they need two of those video boards. The CPUs alone can exceed $1,000.
If the software exists to really push that high-end PC it damn well better exceed the range of the 360. People spend a big premium to get premium results. Console buyers seek less spectacular but far more affordable and consistent results. They can count on seeing the same graphics at home as shown on the box, not an approximation affected by myriad system variables and finding the balance between graphics quality and playability.
When the original Xbox launched, DX8 was still pretty new and there was little out for PCs beyond the GeForce 3 and derivatives. Nobody else was yet shipping GPUs with hardware shaders. So the support in the PC market was limited while developers of Xbox games didn't have the same issues. Every machine would have an identical XGPU and there was no reason to do whatever shader tricks they could devise.
By the time the Xbox was a couple years old the PC market had caught up and pulled ahead. So long as a developer was willing to target the limited number high-end systems for their showcase they could easily do far more than an Xbox. They had big advantage in CPU, memory, and GPU performance. With the Xbox 360, DX9 was already established in PC gaming. The 360's primary advantage is in ease of use and low cost of entry but it cannot make any great claims against today's PC capabilites. Trying to suggest it will be comparable to a gaming PC of 2007 is just silly and misses the intent of game console design.
The PS2 is ancient in terms of capabilities but it can still managed to be visually pleasing while offering publishers an astonishingly large number of machines that will all run the same game identically. Consoles lose the cutting edge almost immediately but those big numbers are a joy to any publisher's hopes of making big sales.
There will likely be an Xbox 360 version of Crysis. It will be very much like the PC version in gameplay and have a great deal of visual appeal, but nobody sane will for a moment expect it to be a spot-on replica of the game on the targeted high-end PC setup.
Just the same, chances are far better that I'll play the Xbox 360 version of the game than on that high-end PC. I like consoles because I stick in the disc and it just works. With all the time I spend fixing people's computers, I need that.
DingieM @ Oct 7th 2006 6:44AM
So Crysis on a D3D10-PC will give it the upper edge against the consoles.
Its strikes me that the GPU's in the consoles are compared to the GPU's in the PC's. You can't do that because the role a GPU plays in a console is much different than a PC. Both PS3 and 360 has loads of calculation power as a whole system, far more than even a high-end PC: at least double the bandwidth to general memory. Next to that the 360 has gotten specific functions added to remove bottlenecks. Increasing performance is most feasible by reducing bottlenecks.
And just look at what PS3/360 can do with "only" 512 mb of internal memory. Take the game N3 for the 360, it renders hundreds of enemies on the screen, with the same stunning graphics and no slow-downs! If find it a boring game (I played the demo), but imagine that on a PC with that amount of memory. No can do!
Game developers have to program with a different mind-set if they want to optimize their games for PS3/360/Wii. If they do that i'm convinced it will look almost identical to the D3D10-PC version if you take 720p as display (which i find enough for todays gaming).
Upcoming games like Gears of War, PGR4 and many more for the 360 is going to show the real power of this console. PS3 will have plenty of games too that will show its prowress.
And besides its just so much more pleasure to play in front of your LCD TV with full surround sound!
SquirrelPhister @ Oct 7th 2006 7:49AM
23.
"Xenon isn't the end-all, be-all of GPUs."
actually the Xenon is the CPU. the GPU is Xenos
"Yes, the Xenon is a nice bit of kit but it isn't even the top of the heap for DX9 devices. If implemented as a PCIe board for a PC it would produce scores only around the 80% mark for single GPU setups currently available for purchase."
No kidding. That's because it wasn't designed for the single- and double-cored processors of today. It was designed for a custom 3.2GHz triple-core PowerPC chip, a CPU more advanced than anything most PC gamers will have at their disposal for the next 5 years. And the unified shader pipeline in the Xenos is the archetype for where PC GPUs are going. I'm sure new GPUs coming along next year will be able to do some fancy shit that the Xenos isn't capable of, includinig DirectX 10. But the Xbox 360 so far can easily duplicate the graphics capabilities of today's high-end PCs, and there is tons of potential still to be unlocked.
"The 360's primary advantage is in ease of use and low cost of entry but it cannot make any great claims against today's PC capabilites. Trying to suggest it will be comparable to a gaming PC of 2007 is just silly and misses the intent of game console design."
If you think Microsoft didn't build some future-proofing into that box, you misunderestimate them greatly. (did ya like the Bushism?) Crysis looks amazing, especially when you're actually playing, but to say that the Xbox 360 couldn't pull off comparable visuals is plain silly.
GeoFlame @ Oct 7th 2006 10:12AM
Not only am I gamer of all (except xbox) but i build PCs gameing computers for people who want them at the best price which in some cases is cheaper than a 360. anyway no matter what the power of the PS3 or 360 I can bet you millions of dollers that I could build a PC thats better than those consoles 6 months ago. Cause certain power hardware has already come out, no matter what it is possible to get a PC that runs better than a console. Although Id say your stupid to buy such a PC cause you dont need that much power and cause of that, ited be more expensive. I admit I spent a bit more on a PC then a console at first but that was 5 years ago and now I spent less then Wii to upgrade my PC to game with todays and tomorrows games. Just gotta know your hardware and drivers. I had a piece of crap video card a month ago, GeForce FX5200 real crap, couldnt even run Doom3 but I updated my drivers and it could Run Doom3 almost at max, thats the power of updateing, so all you need is to know your hardware, learn a bit its not hard at all and you will be PCgaming cheaply.
uh_oh @ Oct 7th 2006 1:16PM
A 5200 running doom 3 at max? I dunno about that.
LaughingTarget @ Oct 7th 2006 2:47PM
SquirrelPhister -
I don't think that saying Crysis won't be as visually appealing on the 360 or PS3 when compared to the PC is that far of a stretch. There are a lot of tricks the PC version does that needs more video RAM than the entire 360 or PS3 have in the entire unit. While it is understandable that system RAM does need to utilize a lot of its space for other, background stuff, the RAM stuck on a video board is used exclusively for pumping out graphics. My 6800GT, which is two years older than the 360, has as much RAM on the board as the 360 has in the entire white casing. This is why the PC version of games like Condemned and Call of Duty 2 look far better than the 360 counterparts, and this is from a PC that is two years the senior of the 360 in just about ever avenue from CPU, GPU, and even the sound card. Hell, it is still using AGP.
When the DX10 cards start hitting the market, the high end ones will be sporting a full gig of RAM, the 360 and PS3 will be yesterday's news in graphics, the PS3 being outdone a mere 2-3 months after its release. Contemporary units already run roughshod over the console counterparts, let alone something that is coming out next March. Europe is going to be in for a real shock at just how incompetent the PS3 feels when the DX10 stuff starts gaining steam, and this is before the unit will ever launch over there.
The whole console graphics war is very comical indeed. Consoles are never the cutting edge of visuals, even when they first hit the market. My three year old PC is a testament to this, still holding its own against the year old 360. The Xenon is hardly an incredible CPU when stacked up against the CoreDuo, and the Xenos won't hold a candle to the DX10 offerings from ATI and Nvidia. Simple facts of the computing world. Consoles are just not cutting edge.
CRP Addict @ Oct 8th 2006 12:19AM
Crysis will never be ported to the 360 and the PS3. Here's why:
1- It takes 4 years to Crytek to do a game. They works only on one game at a time and they does not have the experience of a major studio. Crytek is like DICE or Polyphony Digital: they had one brilliant idea... but only one. They don't know how to program on other consoles and since they are expert in their field of knowledge, it will be too difficult for them to bring their flagship product to a console that is basically a downgrade of a pc will all the limitation it requires.
2- Ubisoft bought Far Cry and ported it to the xbox. My insider sources told me that they tought, at the beginning, that it would be easy (pc to xbox). It finally took them 2 years for Ubisoft Montreal (creators of Prince of Persia, Splinter Cell) to port the game. They made a marvelous game (9.2 on Gamespot) but they paid the price (in development cost). Do we really think that Crytek, a company that is not able to do a game for the mainstream hardware, can port their high-end game to another entirely architecture?
3- Crytek is aiming for a minimum requirement of 1024 megs of RAM, several gigs of space and the latest videocard on the market with, maybe, some temporary files on the hard drive for the PC version of Crysis. To make a game runnable on a console, the engine, the sound and the texture must be loaded IN RAM because the DVD drive can't stream the data fast enough. The memory gap between a 360 and the PC is simply to big.
4- DirectX 10 is only available for PC and to my knowledge, not included on the 360. Crytek will offer a DirectX 9 version of their game but I can assure you that no DirectX version will run on the PS3.
5- My excuses to the lead artist, but in a game running on a console, what takes the most part of the RAM is not the textures, but the engine.
6- Crytek, as DICE, just don't know how to optimize a game. Heck, DICE released the BF2142 demo for a whooping 1.1 GIG. Dude, a demo. Okay, it's a weak argument, but Crytek never proved the contrary on that one.
GamerZero @ Oct 8th 2006 4:15PM
Crysis doesn't do it for me and I won't miss it on the console when so many other FPS titles can look impressive on the format without the need for twin GPU cards and quad core cpu's with 2 gigs of ram.
It makes crap business sense to create a game where only a small percentage of people will actualy be able
to play it as it was meant to be played,ie,with all detail to the max.
Lets face it,this was a business decision to downgrade it to make more money but the fact is,it will be probably competeting with better games on the market.I've no doubt John Carmack of ID could create 3D visuals to surpass Crysis with less hardware demand.
Gavin Greenwalt @ Oct 8th 2006 10:06PM
1280x1024 (besides being a completely unused res I think you mean 1024x1280) is a High Definition image however it's not 1080p which is 1920x1080. A widescreen 1920x1200 monitor is the closest resolution that's usually sold for PCs (it's even higher res than 1080p).
Also everyone with a PS3 or 360 hooked up to an LCD TV or else a plasma should be in for a bit of a shock if they ever looked at the actual native resolution of the display. Yes... it might be a 1080p monitor but it only has about 750 vertical pixels sometimes even lower. Always double check the "native resolutoin" of any HDTV you purchase. Just because it accepts 1080p or even 1080i doesn't mean it can actually display it natively.
Nick P @ Oct 15th 2006 3:20PM
Gavin, in the first place, resolutions for PC displays are usually given as horizontal x vertical, as in 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x1024, 1152x864, 1600x1200 and so on, so in fact the res as stated was perfectly correct for a standard PC display of approximately 4:3 aspect ratio. In fact the closest ratio PC screens usually sold to 720p are widescreens in 1280x768, but they're increasingly uncommon, though widescreen 19" displays at 1440x900 are readily available. However, PC screens ARE commonly available in 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 (as well as 2560x1600). The first of these obviously will NOT display a 1080p image natively, and you'll note that Dell's 2007FPW doesn't support HDCP. The 2407 (1920x1200) does support HDCP over DVI. That said, the one I'd sell close family members into slavery for is the 3007FPW, which also supports HDCP over DVI - 2560x1600, but needs a dual link DVI card to diplay at that res. Unfortunately, I can't afford the quad SLI rig to go with it either... :)
The common run of HD-Ready TVs (plasma OR LCD) are NOT marketed as 1080p screens; they are sold as HD-Ready for 720p with the ability to downscale 1080p or 1080i.