Crysis' console future reliant on PC version's success

by Jason Dobson { Oct 5th 2007 at 1:20PM }

Frankfurt-based developer Crytek has a history of flopping back and forth as to whether or not its eye-melting FPS Crysis could or could not ever make its way to the console market, first stating that the Xbox 360 and PS3 were unqualified to handle Crysis, before switching gears and saying "we could do it if we wanted to." Now, however, Crytek boss Cevat Yerli has set the record straight, stating that while "you cannot get Crysis as it is on PC on any console," the company could consider doing a console port depending on how well the game's PC release is received this November.

Yerli comments that the company believes the spec-heavy first-person shooter will be "at least as strong as Far Cry" at retail, though he personally edges his hopes a bit higher, noting that this would give the studio reason to believe Crysis could be successful on consoles as well. Given that console gamers have at least a passing fancy with first-person shooters, we think the game would do just fine.

Even so, the developer openly admits that like Far Cry before it, corners would have to be cut in terms of level design and UI in order to create "a derivative Crysis and optimize it for the Xbox 360 and PS3," echoing a similar report from January this year. However, he adds that the team would work to keep the game's sophistication intact. Honestly, we had no idea Crysis was so highbrow.

Tags: crysis, crytek, fps, port

Related From Joystiq

Happy Halloween! You're banned from Xbox Live.
10 days ago
Xbox division a bright spot on Microsoft's quarterly report
18 days ago
CryEngine 3 released; box of tissues not included
27 days ago

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

David @ Oct 5th 2007 1:29PM

Oh, it'll be sucessful... But I won't get a console version of a PC game.

To me, the AI usually feels dumbed down. I don't know if they have to make room for processing by taking away some other places, but that's gonna be how I roll.

StrangeBum @ Oct 5th 2007 3:25PM

You're statement seems to be accurate, as this is a high-profile game and should sell quiet well. However, I don't think many gamer's yet want to make that Vista switch. Let alone if they actually have a pc capable of handling it. I know that I, sir, do not.

Give it to me on the 360 and I will be a happy camper.

caramelzappa @ Oct 6th 2007 2:13AM

@strangebum.

Crysis isn't vista dependant. You can run it on XP and only lose a couple of features. A 360 version however, would be quite dumbed down.

Word of the street(IDF-Digital Ruler). @ Oct 5th 2007 1:32PM

I would like to play it on the XB360,hell a full operational PS3 version with Keyboard and mouse would kick ass.

blooh (CDF - Ass Ring) @ Oct 5th 2007 1:32PM

well my comp probably can't handle crysis, so i'll get it for 360 or won't get it at all. oh well

Sieged Eagle @ Oct 5th 2007 1:33PM

The game looks excellent. Sadly, I don't own Vista nor the specs to play it, so no Crysis for me, at least for now.

Time to save and spend some cash on my PC, I guess...

shamgar @ Oct 5th 2007 1:53PM

This doesn't require vista, just XP, though it does have DX10 support.

Sean @ Oct 5th 2007 1:35PM

So much italics.

Vidikron (FU) @ Oct 5th 2007 1:36PM

I'm planning on upgrading my PC for UT3 anyway, so I'll likely get this game on PC provided it isn't just all eye candy.

FOXHOUND @ Oct 5th 2007 1:38PM

I'll play it if and when it goes to the consoles. I'm not in any rush; especially with all the other games coming out this holiday season... and if I need a FPS fix that bad, I'll play TEAM FORTRESS2.

Jeff @ Oct 5th 2007 1:42PM

I hope the multiplayer for this ends up being good. I can definitely see it sucking.

It might not even be worth the purchase for single player. With Gears of War, Team Fortress, Unreal III, etc coming out, being beautiful doesn't count for much if you're an FPS. Plus, the idea of a game already taxing my 8800 GTS, and shunning my Windows XP while Vista is still crap...

Will @ Oct 5th 2007 3:44PM

I agree with you, games definitely need to focus more on multiplayer, or at least have a kick ass storyline to make up for it. Think Halo.. I personally find the storyline a little dull, and I think even many Halo fans might as well, but anyone will tell you that the game is meant to be played multiplayer.

Bioshock, on the other hand, has no multiplayer at all, but people love the story so much it doesn't even matter.

Either way, I'm looking forward to Crysis a LOT, and I have a feeling they're going to do a good job with it.

By the way, Team Fortress = beautiful graphics? Way too cartoony for me to ever qualify it as beautiful. I respect and enjoy the unique style, but refuse to refer to Loony Toons as beautiful ;p

LaughingTarget @ Oct 5th 2007 8:44PM

FilePlanet has the BETA, and boy howdy is it ever derivitive. Just like Halo, Crysis is nothing more than CryTek saying, "Hey, come play deathmatch in our graphics engine instead."

We don't need more multiplayer until someone can figure out how to do it differently, not just give us the same modes that have been around since Doom 2. We need better single-player experiences to justify the price tag, not half-assed 5 hour romps. Hard to do that if all we get is the same 5 hour game and the standard online modes every other shooter on the PC got for the last 10 years.

maylon @ Oct 5th 2007 1:44PM

This game will show a huge gap graphically between console and pc games, while jacking my electric bill sky high due to my 1000 watt power supply to run the r600 card in my pc. I think the next gen video cards will require being submerged in liquid nitrogen, I plan on using a refrigerator as a sweet case mod for it.

Tukulito-Zakayama @ Oct 5th 2007 2:35PM

Ha,ha,ha good idea.....

Chazz06 @ Oct 5th 2007 2:56PM

NERD ALERT!!!

rockintom @ Oct 5th 2007 5:28PM

Nerd alert because he's talking about computer components?

...You *do* realize you're reading a videogame blog, right?

Shawn @ Oct 5th 2007 1:46PM

Why would anyone NOT want to play this the way it's supposed to be played. A console version would defeat the whole purpose of Crysis, as the game is meant to push PC rigs to the edge, not only now, but years down the road as they build upon the game. In a recent interview podcast with GFW, with the Owner of Crytek, he specifically stated this.

I could never ever be a console only gamer, as the pc offers too many great titles that simply aren't enjoyable on anything but a PC. Between Crysis, Hellgate London, UT3, and World In Conflict,the PC platform is alive and well. All others versions of these games are just watered down, if at all.

I'll stick to Mario Galaxy, Mass Effect, and LittleBigPlanet when it comes to my console gaming fix. I have no desire to play my PC games on console. I miss back when there was a fine line between the PS2 and PC, it was nice. Now, games are delayed for multiplatform dev, or not even made sometimes.

blooh (CDF - Ass Ring) @ Oct 5th 2007 1:54PM

i guess i'll get crysis in like 7 years then

Vidikron (FU) @ Oct 5th 2007 4:59PM

If the whole purpose of the game is to push some random hardware to the edge then fuck it.

phattie @ Oct 5th 2007 1:50PM

I dont suppose this will run on my vaio tz... meh, i'll wait for the Wii port.

rockintom @ Oct 5th 2007 2:50PM

I think the odds of a Crysis Wii port are just as good as the Crysis Colecovision port.

maylon @ Oct 5th 2007 1:53PM

I agree, I cringe every time an rts comes to console. They don't even sell that well, yet they keep churning them out. I am mainly a console gamer and Halo fanboy, but even I would rather see Halo Wars on PC only.

FPSfan @ Oct 5th 2007 1:58PM

"but console shooters are at the level of PC shooters 5-6 years ago." ROFL wow I love this guy, so true.

ScreamingSkull @ Oct 5th 2007 1:59PM

Do we really need another fps? I thought I played this game back when it was called Far Cry.

Word of the street(IDF-Digital Ruler). @ Oct 5th 2007 2:11PM

You know thinking about it most of the games we are getting this year are FPS seriously what the hell happened to platformers? I’m starting to miss side-scrollers well I guess that’s what the Wii is for BTW is Banjo 3 going to be released this year?

FPSfan: yeah we I’m aware of the hypocrisy.

ScreamingSkull @ Oct 5th 2007 2:23PM

I'm still waiting patiently for my side-scrolling 3d character based Pitfall remake ala Ultimate Ghosts and Goblins. ;)

Michael C. Sherrin @ Oct 5th 2007 2:10PM

I think the real question is if anyone owns a computer that can play Crysis. While PC controls are a lot better, consoles are just more reliable. You know what you can handle. I hate buying games for my PC and then needed to lower all the settings to play it and play it with it freezing or frame rates dropping. Though I will never give up my Civilization.

*******

Michael C. Sherrin
http://www.prodigeek.com/

Shawn @ Oct 5th 2007 2:18PM

That's purely opinion. I'm a gamer of both console and PC but I prefer the customization that the PC offers, and the fact that I can build my own rig. One man's annoyance is another man's pleasure.

Spitkicker @ Oct 5th 2007 2:03PM

@shown

Maybe because we don't want to buy a $1000 plus pc rig just to play one game that may very well end up sucking.

Shawn @ Oct 5th 2007 2:20PM

you butcherer of names!! No excuses buddy! Anyway, that's just my point. Crysis will just be a Farcry situation if it came to console. If you want the added explosive graphics + controls, you need to build/buy a rig that can handle it. If consoles are your flavor of choice, then be happy with what's offered, I know I am.

Spitkicker @ Oct 5th 2007 2:04PM

LOL..
shawn..not shown. I have no excuse for that.

Warlord @ Oct 5th 2007 2:12PM

At least it's being designed for the PC first, with the console coming second. Too many great FPSers for the PC were average ON the PC, because it was dumbed down for consoles at the same time. RS:V, COD2, Oblivion, Bioshock. Sure, they may be "great" games for the console, but they were "average" for the PC. Imagine how great the games could've been if they were made for PC's, first and always.

ScreamingSkull @ Oct 5th 2007 2:16PM

Oblivion and Bioshock were "average" for the pc? What above average games are you playing? Quake wars? (which I had been looking forward to, til it ended up looking like a battlefield rehash)

Warlord @ Oct 5th 2007 2:22PM

Certainly they were "average". Well, they certainly weren't known for having perfect, reliable controls. Bioshock has mouse acceleration on by default, mouse sensitivity is way too high, and the game on a whole doesn't take advantage of a keyboard's usefullness (evidenced that you can play it with no changes with a console controller out of the box).

Oblivion, I'd be playing for many more hours still, if I didn't get a shudder when thinking of having to fight with the controls and mouse if I were to play it again.

All these games I named certainly tell great stories, but don't really "wow" me with revolutionary controls, nor do the controls "feel right".

Half Life 2? Felt right. Bioshock? Fighting the mouse more than the splicers.

ScreamingSkull @ Oct 5th 2007 2:30PM

Like I asked before, what above average games are you playing on the pc then? Control issues, seriously? I was a pc gamer long before I turned into console gamer and as far as I know, the interface used has remained the same. Yes, there are more buttons and better accuracy, but if you are complaining about two games that have without a doubt made huge waves for various reasons (that no bearing on this discussion) because you don't like clicking on bigger idiot proof buttons, I suggest Starcraft or maybe WoW.

Jake @ Oct 5th 2007 3:05PM

Dude, you PC guys need to move on from Half Life 2 already. Granted, it was awesome...3 years ago. I loved it...3 years ago. But you have to quit ragging on every first person viewed game that comes out because it isn't as good.

I mean, you called Oblivion and Bioshock average. Those were the two very best games on PC for two years. According to your definition, Half Life 2 was the only above average game released in the last three years.

Warlord @ Oct 5th 2007 3:21PM

Honestly? Not really anything right now. The Battlefield series feel great, but I can't say they are "recent" games. ETQW, I'm staying away, as yes, it DOES seem like a battlefield wannabe, and I've yet to see a non-BF game do the same thing successfully. Frontlines? Too early to tell. TFC2? Based on HL2, so it cannot be considered an example of a good "new" game.

I actually HAVE no games that came out recently to point to. I cannot point to Bioshock, as it was a console game primarily. It's actually in the next few months that I may be proved wrong or right, that FPS's based on PC's first and foremost are superior OR inferior to games designed primarily for a console.

Let's hope that Crysis and Far Cry 2 have the story to make them stand out, not just as "See? We can make a good graphics game!" theme that's been abounding lately, starting with Doom 3, going to Quake 4, Far Cry, RAGE, and more.

iiijeremy @ Oct 5th 2007 2:21PM

I truly love the business of video games. You listen to some snotty developer talk about the way his game will never work on this or that application, and on the other hand you watch the publisher chomp at the bit with thoughts of how much money could be made once the game is ported to multiple applications. Publishers always win, lads, which is why this game will be making its way to both the 360 and PS3.

But yeah .... if you're going to play this game, PC is obviously the way to go, assuming you have a rig that can handle it.

Tukulito-Zakayama @ Oct 5th 2007 2:23PM

And people stil think Crysis will be on consoles..?
please listen once again, !!Crysis will not be on consolessssss......

BTW is not Cevat Yurli...it`s Cevat "Yerli"

Tukulito-Zakayama @ Oct 5th 2007 2:27PM

Ha,ha,ha good idea....

Spooner @ Oct 5th 2007 2:37PM

Blah blah blah blah... what a bunch of attention grabbing marketing BS. After milking the PC platform, I'm pretty sure they'll release it on the XB360 and PS3. These consoles' GPUs may not be as powerful as a current top of the line PC video card but they're no slouches either. The only thing they may have to do is reduce the eye candy just a bit since the game only has to run at 1280x720 resolution.

Tukulito-Zakayama @ Oct 5th 2007 2:49PM

You dont listen Crysis will never be ported on consoles,
if it does it will destroy the Crysis franchice..why..? (dont have time to explain) Cevat Yerli already said that Crysis will not be on consoles, yes its possible to do it, but they will have to reduce to many aspects of physics and effects of the game but it wont happen...

BTW i bet you this is the first game of a trilogy...bye

Spooner @ Oct 5th 2007 5:27PM

"Cevat Yerli already said that Crysis will not be on consoles, yes its possible to do it, but they will have to reduce to many aspects of physics and effects of the game"

Money talks. Yerli will have the game ported period. The more systems it's playable on... the more money they'll make.

As far as physics and special effects: I'm sure the XB360 and PS3 will handle them considering the GPUs in those consoles are about equivalent to x1800xt and 7800gtx video cards (These GPUs are the recommended specs for PCs)in addition to each system having multiple processors to handle the physics.

If the Source engine and UT3 engine (those Epic guys know how to code) can be used to make graphically impressive games on the XB360 and soon the PS3... I'm sure Crysis can and will be ported to consoles. These are systems designed to play games.

zero @ Oct 5th 2007 2:42PM

"Well we can't all be reading the classics Professor HighBrow"

CaptainAmericaX @ Oct 5th 2007 2:43PM

I'll consider this once its announced for the 360. I'll never understand what makes PC Gamers think that PC is like the HOLY GRAIL or all gaming. Sorry but its just a mouse and keyboard. Theres nothing about them that makes it better than a console. In fact playing on Consoles is a million times more fun to me.

Tukulito-Zakayama @ Oct 5th 2007 3:11PM

Actually there are a lot of aspects that make PC Gaming better than consoles, as there are many aspects that make consoles better than PCs, it`s just deppends what you like most, i play consoles games on my 360, but i prefer hundred times my PC than consoles games, but im not saying PC are better for that reason, is just that i feel better playing PC games than consoles games...

BTW !!consoles games Rocks......

FPSfan @ Oct 5th 2007 3:19PM

It's not the "HOLY GRAIL" for all gaming, just the holy grail for FPS gaming. Consoles are alot better IMO for sports/fighting games. RPGs kinda go both ways though, no RPG, NONE will ever beat the MUDs back in the day. :-P

But you have to remember, theres more to PC gaming then just the mouse and keyboard. There is usually alot more freedom in PC FPS games that you usually do not get with console games (for whatever reason developers have a habit of dumbing down games for consoles), setting up your own server (I always hated halos matchmaking GIVE ME A SERVER LIST DAMNIT!!), modding server side, modding client side, having inventory screens (Bioshock is in real need for one of those), and just overall depth. Of course I'm only talking about FPSs.

Warlord @ Oct 5th 2007 3:38PM

That's exactly my point. I will certainly never want to use a PC for a sports game, or a fighter (both of which I have no taste for), or even a 3rd person game. GoW and Splinter Cell I just can't see doing on a PC, but I can't imagine a FPS game experience is IMPROVED by being on a console.